Not this "subjective probability" BS again, please.
<i><b>"What probabilities represent, are not features of the external world, but rather features of your personal subjective mental states."</b></i>
With that you are proposing climate science does not belong to natural sciences, but is a behavioral science. For the only way you can assign numbers to mental states is by observing behavior.
Now, Mosher, would you kindly tell us <i>whose</i> behavior is to be observed and in what specific experimental setup to verify the IPCC's 90%?
Comment on Uncertainty: lost in translation by Berényi Péter
↧
↧
Comment on Uncertainty: lost in translation by kim
Heh, it’s an autopsy on a patient not yet dead.
===========
↧
Comment on World’s Energy Appetite Growing by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
The Chef references a 2010 paper when No Regrets policy was defined back in1991
“U.S. policy toward climate change-and perhaps other environmental problems involving inherent uncertainty-is characterized by what has come to be known as the “no regrets” policy. According to Secretary of State James Baker, the “no regrets” policy means that the United States is “prepared to take actions that are fully justified in their own right [that is, make economic sense] and which have the added advantage of coping with greenhouse gases. They’re precisely the policies we will never have cause to regret.”
If you Aussies have your own definition, then follow it on your own terms, but don’t be making stuff up for the rest if us.
↧
Comment on The 97% ‘consensus’: Part II by timg56
Mosher
Few HS seniors read journals. Elementary school kids even less so.
↧
Comment on World’s Energy Appetite Growing by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
“I suggest that liquid fuels from high temperature hydrolysis and carbon dioxide reduction catalysis might be more viable than fleets of electric cars.”
Yeah, everyone should listen to a civil engineer about vehicle design. Every step involving transformation of energy involves dissipative losses. Nothing beats having nature do the necessary steps for us, which is why conventional crude oil served us so well for so many years. Until efficiencies of the various energy sources are compared against one another, using crude as a benchmark, the Chef is just blowing smoke to make him look like he can play with the big boys.
To quote from a recent movie, Chef would rather “let’s run everything on rainbows and happy thoughts”
The liquid fuels crisis is real and ongoing.
↧
↧
Comment on World’s Energy Appetite Growing by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
”
manacker | July 29, 2013 at 8:20 pm |Webby
Huh?
Max
”
Manacker acts clueless.
Here is Bart R’s takedown of everything Max:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/26/the-97-consensus/#comment-353510
The 3% are just so dang 3%.
↧
Comment on World’s Energy Appetite Growing by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
I wouldn’t call these models, as more often they are cast as projections based on needs.
So depending on the trending requirements of the worldwide economy for liquid, gas, and solid fuels, the projections are put in place like a carrot before the horse.
And so when time passes, the actuals from liquid fossil fuels are supplemented with other liquids from the growing gap caused by massive amounts of natural crude oil depletion. Common substitutes include biofuels, compressed natural gases, unconventional (low EROEI) crude, and other book-keeping techniques applied to keep the gap from growing too wide.
For solids such as coal, any gap is easily kept under control as huge reserves of low-quality brown (lignite) coal will be available for the long term. At some point, even peat moss may be redefined as coal.
Across the board, fracking techniques are being shown to have very low lifetimes, as I have shown through some novel statistical models: http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2012/07/bakken-dispersive-diffusion-oil.html
BTW, this is a REAL model.
The fact that Bakken-style oil wells have lifetimes of a couple of years is not well known among the public.
↧
Comment on World’s Energy Appetite Growing by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
” coal train loaded with anthracite coal that extends to 3,789 miles in length. “
Not much anthracite coal left in the USA, and most of that is in eastern Pennsylvania:
http://www.shulersnet.com/coalcracker/coalfeld.htm
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/pa-anthracite.png
They are also going into West Virginia to get anthracite, but of course that is the home of mountain-top removal
http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/c1147/fig4.gif
When we start to move to lignite, the high-EROEI coal party is over
http://www.wvcoal.com/mining-101.html
↧
Comment on World’s Energy Appetite Growing by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
This is what you have to know about China:
http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4c3b02eb7f8b9acc1ace0400/china-coal.gif
See that up-turn right after 2000? That is a significant upturn of aerosols and particulates going into the atmosphere — a doubling in under 10 years. And how much of that is brown (lignite) coal is unknown, but is sure to increase over time.
Are the skies in China brown?
↧
↧
Comment on World’s Energy Appetite Growing by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
Ringo, You described something with your usual empty rhetoric. Try again using some substance.
↧
Comment on World’s Energy Appetite Growing by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
“I think this will be done, there is no stopping it. Gas is the fuel for the next 30 years or so”
But of course, there is no stopping it, because it stops on its own accord.
The 3% don’t understand the low lifetimes of fracked wells.
↧
Comment on Uncertainty: lost in translation by srp
It’s all about the incentive structure of the field. If you count “success” as a) making discoveries and b) getting credit for them among other investigators or at least c) making arguments that others have to deal with, then you have pretty good alignment between individual incentives and the progress of science. Which empirical work should I believe? The stuff that I sincerely believe will help me make discoveries. How much data and method detail should I disclose? The amount that I believe optimally balances my credibility (to get others citimg me and building on my work) with my ability to use my asymmetric information to beat others to further discoveries. In pure-science situations where the audience and funding sources are both peer-discoverer communities, these incentives work very well to create an “invisible hand” guiding ambitious individuals to act in a way that maximizes scientific progress. Scientific consensus on a topic achieved under these circumstances is likely to be the best guess available, because any sincere deviant who thought he could better make discoveries by departing from the consensus would have motivation to do so. (This doesn’t mean that there won’t be politicking and the like in the game for peer influence, but it does mean that in the long run users of research results have strong incentives to build on things that they believe are most correct.)
The problems come in when other incentives dominate, such as the impact that a particular finding might have on public policy. Once particular findings are rewarded or punished for extrinsic reasons, incentives may no longer point toward sincerely acting to maximize the rate of discovery but rather toward maximizing those extrinsic rewards. In these situations, observers of the field will find it much harder to extract useful findings to believe in. Perversely, policy makers who insist on consensus from a science may destroy the usefulness of that science for getting at the best possible understanding of the world, even if they weren’t biased in seeking a particular answer to justify their favored policy. Merely forcing “consensus” will cause whatever view happens to be popular at the moment with the most influential scientists to be overconfidently promoted to dogma. I think this process is what has Prof. Curry worried.
↧
Comment on World’s Energy Appetite Growing by Chief Hydrologist
webnutcolonoscope fails even to recognize tat I quoted the IPCC on no regrets.
Gray and Baker – both conservatives of course – suggest that no regrets policy involves a net positive of benefits over costs. Neither embraced either cap and trade or carbon taxes as far as I can see. The IPCC explicitly excludes avoided climate damage from the calculation. On principle no regrets actions are by the common definition actions that would not be regretted even should climate change fizzle out.
Webby is seriously warped.
↧
↧
Comment on World’s Energy Appetite Growing by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
Rainfall is also intermittent and farmers have learned to deal with that “problem”.
The 3% don’t understand the concepts of energy storage and motivating people to come up with innovations. That’s what I try to look at, but then again, I am part of the 97% of the reality-based world.
↧
Comment on World’s Energy Appetite Growing by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
“Since your 700 ppmv is on the high side and latest observation-based studies show that sensitivity is around 1.6C (rather than 3.2C, as previously estimated), we are probably talking about warming of around 1C by 2100 (not 3 to 4C, as you’ve stated).”
Climate sensitivities that will actually impact the human condition are about 3C per doubling of atmospheric CO2. Numbers of 2C or less are obtained if one averages in the ocean surface numbers. However, since very few people live in the middle of the oceans, this does not have as big impact as land-based warming does.
So once again, Manacker treats observational reality as a silly matter.
↧
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by omnologos
Can anybody find <a href="http://www.wordbyletter.com/suffixes/words_finishing_with_fication.php" rel="nofollow">any English word that ends with "fication"</a> and does not imply the object acquiring each respective property?
Apart from "ocean acidification" that is.
For example "desertification" can and does end up turning areas into deserts. Ossification produces bone tissue. Etherification transforms petroleum into ethers. And so on and so forth.
Keep in mind, no matter how much CO2 we will ever emit, ocean water will never become acidic.
↧
Comment on World’s Energy Appetite Growing by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
The Chef says in one comment that CB Gray is a “liberal” and then in another comment says that Gray is a “conservative”.
No one should pay attention to anything that The Chef says because he will cook up any kind of argument for no other reason than to promote FUD.
As defined in 1991, a No Regrets policy is general enough to apply to “perhaps other environmental problems involving inherent uncertainty”. In more informal terms, it is also known as a policy that encourages solving problems via the technique of ‘killing two birds with one stone’.
Of course, most of the 97% of the scientific community understand and accept this reality. The reality is that we won’t regret moving off of fossil fuels to mitigate climate change since we always knew that fossil fuels were a finite and nonrenewable energy source from the start. So to apply the analogy, one bird is climate change and the other bird is finite oil. We transition off of oil and we can kill two birds with one one stone.
And that’s why we replace crude oil with alternative energy sources, while ignoring all the FUD spewing from people like The Chef.
↧
↧
Comment on ‘Denier’ blogs by Beth Cooper
You don’t get deleted here Michael, nor do I expressing
contrary views to you. Judith Curry is an upholder of open
society values integral ter ‘doing science-investigation’ and
ter critical review.
BC
↧
Comment on ‘Denier’ blogs by manacker
Speak for yourself, Michael.
↧
Comment on ‘Denier’ blogs by manacker
Jim D
I’d consider our hostess here as a “centrist” and, yes, I pretty much agree with essentially everything she has written here and elsewhere or testified recently before congressional committees. How about you?
Max
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
