Right over their heads Matthew.
Comment on Open thread by Chief Hydrologist
↧
↧
Comment on Taylor and Ravetz on the value of uncertainty by Peter Lang
Jim D
paleoclimate indicates that the Antarctic ice sheet would become unsupported by its local climate somewhere less than 700 ppm, and that would be the last permanent ice on earth, so I would say it is not good, at least for future sea levels, to reach that level.
You seem to be ignoring the time dimension. It’s not possible t have a rational discussion if you try to imply that scenarios that would take thousands of years to happen, are likely to happen during the next 100 years. So, please try to be sensible and give up on the scaremongering. I asked you serious questions and you haven’t even attempted to answer them sensibly.
If you can’t or don’t attempt to answer the questions sensibly I am left with an even stronger impression that the CAGWers arguments are little more than unfounded beliefs and scaremongering. I accept you are concerned and believe your concerns are well founded, but dodging the questions reinforces the impression your concerns do not have a sound basis.
↧
Comment on Taylor and Ravetz on the value of uncertainty by ordvic
AK
From your article “Privatizing The Regulatory Environment” It sounds like that person had a pretty good idea! As it is powerful bank lobbies seem to prevent or pervert any regulation public of private. I don’t know what will become of it and it does do away with normal economic inflation by sucking up every drop of monetary enhancement but it is definitely not your grandfather’s economy anymore.
Thanks for the read.
↧
Comment on Taylor and Ravetz on the value of uncertainty by kim
Well, I certainly hope to get warmer again before the next glaciation.
============
↧
Comment on Open thread by jim2
↧
↧
Comment on Taylor and Ravetz on the value of uncertainty by Joseph
“science of the behavior”
It’s a matter of physical processes that can be quantified and measured In the Social Sciences you are dealing with individuals or groups whose behavior is determined by multiple factors many of which we can’t quantify and have difficulty measuring.
↧
Comment on Taylor and Ravetz on the value of uncertainty by Jim D
It is a number that leaves little room for skepticism. For an amount burned everyone can have quite good agreement on the ppm number mainly because both the burn rate and ppm have been so measurable for half a century.
↧
Comment on Taylor and Ravetz on the value of uncertainty by AK
@Jim D... <blockquote>I don’t understand those people. Do you? [...] Senseless denialism.</blockquote>They're just like you, only on the other side of the question. Both they and you (and those like you) demand <b>certainty</b> rather than the more tentative theories <b>real</b> science <b>always</b> deals with.
The rate of increasing pCO2, as measured by recent direct measurements and proxies that <b>may</b> be correct, can be correlated <b>very roughly</b> with the exponential advance of the Industrial Revolution, as measured by <b>estimated</b> emissions. Thus, we can fairly say that there's a good probability of cause and effect.
But those same <b>estimated</b> emissions would probably be a good proxy for the general advance of the Industrial Revolution, and widespread mechanization of processes that were manual before, to the extent that they even existed.
A careful look at the details of the Earth's carbon budget will show that the anthropogenic component is a tiny fraction (~3%?) of the total amount emitted and absorbed on an annual basis. Changes to the ecology of (some of) the major sinks and sources could easily swamp the effect of human emissions from fossil sources.
Any such change that was driven by mechanization could plausibly play (have played) a part, even perhaps a major part, in the supposed increase in atmospheric pCO2. A <b>very incomplete</b> list would include whaling, deforestation, bog drainage (especially peat bogs), mechanized farming including phosphate pollution (I'd expect the latter to work in the opposite direction, but there's no certainty), and aerosol pollution from internal combustion engines. Others could easily be conceived.
In the face of these <b>possible</b> and plausible alternative "causes", especially given the possibility that the <b>proxies</b> used to estimate pCO2 prior to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve" rel="nofollow">1958</a> (which wasn't that long ago) <b>are incorrect,</b> continued insistence on the "certainty" of <i>"future CO2 level for given fossil fuel use scenarios"</i> would seem to be just as much <i>"Senseless denialism"</i> as insisting that <i>"it is completely unrelated."</i>
↧
Comment on Week in review by bentabou
Link on the ‘does it matter’ story does not work for me – maybe try http://discovermagazine.com/2014/jan-feb/03-co2-hits-400-ppm#.UqvD0GRDtTQ
↧
↧
Comment on Taylor and Ravetz on the value of uncertainty by Jim D
I sense that the “skeptics” don’t believe the size of the solar variations that led to the Maunder Minimum. Is this just motivated rejection of facts, or is it based on any scientific publication? Have they also not noticed that even the sunspot cycles are seen statistically in the temperature record? It doesn’t take much forcing to be noticed. The forcing change of the sunspot cycle is about 20 times less than doubling CO2. By the way, forcings are also “crisp numbers” that can be compared with each other. An example is that doubling CO2 is 3.7 W/m2. Increasing the sun’s strength by 1% is 3.4 W/m2. Crisp numbers for you.
↧
Comment on Week in review by bentabou
Although that’s paywalled.
↧
Comment on Taylor and Ravetz on the value of uncertainty by JCH
Lol. You’re an analytical hydrologist. Why would a buffalo be unlikely to venture into adobe country?
↧
Comment on Week in review by RiHo08
“an estimate of around 1.3C is unavoidable.”
I’ve followed Nic Lewis at Climate Audit.
Is Nic Lewis believable?
Icy cold to our nation’s midsection which moves inexorability towards the nation’s East coast sends a different message. Cold is here. Warm is gone. Who is listening? The numbers crunched by Nic Lewis say 1.3C for a doubling of CO2.
The weather says….much lower. TCR of 0.6 to 0.8 C is in the offing. C02 influence has been over estimated. The current numbers from Nic Lewis say lower TCR than IPCC project, and the icy fingers of cold weather say even less.
If I am right, then Washington DC will have more than slick roads and heavy clothing to worry about.
We’ll see how Gavin and company respond; models tweaked with adjusted data.
↧
↧
Comment on Taylor and Ravetz on the value of uncertainty by NW
Willard asked “Would you side for Eugene Fama or Robert Shiller regarding bubbles?”
I’m the wrong person to ask about The Evil Fama, but the old bastard does have a point that his winged monkeys have already typed out everything Shiller ever wrote. Sorry, this is a Chicago thing that is impossible to explain to outsiders. Shiller talks a lot of sense. It would be nice if someone would build an expert system Shiller. Then we could have The Oracle forever. But The Oracle needs to write down somewhere, in plain language, how we can do it too.
Finance is the last redoubt of incredibly stubborn resistance to the Experimental Borg Collective. They will not comply. They do not wish to be assimilated. What else can I say?
↧
Comment on Taylor and Ravetz on the value of uncertainty by Max_OK
Waggy sinks to a new low.
↧
Comment on Taylor and Ravetz on the value of uncertainty by Jim D
manacker, regarding never having got to the Moon by slowing down in the face of uncertainty, you should realize that astronauts and test pilots are paid well for taking risk, but subjecting mankind to uncertain risk without them volunteering or being paid extra is just immoral. It is also the difference between being a race car driver and a bus driver. There is voluntary risk for yourself, or subjecting everyone else to your risk-taking.
↧
Comment on Open thread by barn E. rubble
Re: Peter Lang | December 11, 2013 at 4:00 pm |
“True. But no one wants to give central control, taxing powers and power to enforce rules to the UN, . . .”
Why not? Aren’t these the good people that brought us world peace? Oh wait, never mind . . .
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
I don’t know where they get 1.3 C from. If you take 0.7 C since 1950 and a CO2 rise from 310 to 395 ppm, you get 2.0 C just from that.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Philip Haddad
In discussions on the cause of global warming I see no consideration of the effect that heat emissions may play. Yet it is a simple matter to determine the amount of heat that has been released by the combustion of fossil fuels,(as well as the by-product CO2). The mass of the atmosphere is well known (1166x10E16 pounds and a specific heat of 0.24). The amount of heat from our consumption of energy has the potential to raise the atmospheric temperature by a factor of four times the amount that is actually accounted for by the measured rise. Any reputable scientist studying the causes of rising atmospheric temperature, must factor this into any conclusions regarding the relative impact of CO2 and heat on global warming. Obviously this has not been done by the IPCC or Kyoto or anyone else as far as I can tell. Suppose we had hydrogen instead of methane coming from shale deposits and we burned only that for our energy needs. We would generate the same amount of heat but without CO2. How much less of a problem would we have? The same sort of logic applies to our view of Nuclear power as a solution. (Nuclear power emits more than twice the total heat as its electrical output, but with no CO2). CO2 must be a miniscule contributor to the problem and yet we have serious discussions (even on an international scale) on CCS, carbon capture and storage. To reduce the atmospheric concentration by one part per million requires the removal of 18,000,000,000,000 pounds of CO2, at what cost and for what benefit? It is a shame to continue to waste time and money when the answers are technically feasible to replace fossil and nuclear with renewable energy sources that do not add to the heat imbalance.
↧
Comment on Week in review by ROM
CO2 hits 400 ppm; Does it matter?
a / CO2 hits CD parts per M
b / CO2 hits 620 parts per 3641100
c / CO2 hits 190 parts per F4240
Does it matter?
Nope!
a / Roman
b / Octal base
c / Hex base
Point is, it is just another number from a Decimal base 10 numbering system.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
