[…] più approfondita e dettagliata, viene da un guest post sul blog di Judith Curry. Sono due parti, qui e […]
Comment on Climate data and financial data: Part I by Prosperità e temperature, strane correlazioni, logiche conclusioni | Climatemonitor
↧
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing – Climate Change: The Need to Act Now by rmdobservations
I am also suspicious about human “economic forcing”. But it is just a feeling. My point is that you seem as confident in your models as the GCM scientists are in theirs. Why should I trust your models? Economic models use economic data which is based on what exactly? Can the experiments be repeated with different initial conditions? For example, there have been too few economic crises to do a statistical analysis of why they occur. I asked someone once about an economic model that had the word “peace” in it and he just laughed. I guess that would be bad for the economy as well.
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing – Climate Change: The Need to Act Now by rmdobservations
Jim Cripwell There IS data. It just started in 1970′s when satellites began. See “http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.ncep.reanalysis.derived.html”.
The satellite data (and I believe any other measurements) is put into a grid using a weather model and anyone can study it.
There are geostationary satellies covering every hemisphere (2 in US, EUROPE, INDIA and Japan) . They measure every 15 to 30 minutes. Then the NOAA sun synchronous satellites measure globally twice a day (always the same local time).
It gets a little compilcated if you want surface measurements because clouds get in the way. Measuring stations that look “up” are few and far between. The best that can be done are the radiosondes that go up twice a day, but this is not global.
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing – Climate Change: The Need to Act Now by rmdobservations
I am very much a supporter of using solar energy for anything (not just solar cells but passive heating, etc.) There are many critics of alternate energy research. What I am missing from this thread is who funded the research behind these solar panels that are becoming so successful? Governments or private enterprises? Was it considered a waste of money at the time the funding began? Did any economic model predict the success? If yes, did policy makers use this economic prediction to increase funding for solar research?
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing – Climate Change: The Need to Act Now by rmdobservations
philjourdan Every politician echoes what their aides say, whether it be on scientific or economic issues. Critique of what Boxer says is fine with me. I agree with her on many other issues, just not this one.
↧
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing – Climate Change: The Need to Act Now by Peter Lang
John,
solar will become cheap enough to compete with fossil fuels within 10 to 20 years, in my view.
No it won’t not even close. Here’s why: You have to include the cost of energy storage or back up, and the grid system enhancements to make the cost comparison comparable.
When you include those properly you find the cost of solar is around 5x the cost of fossil fuels an nuclear.
Before you do the comparisons it is important to properly understand the requirements of the electricity supply system:
The most important requirements for energy supply are:
1. Energy security (refers to the long term and especially important for periods of economic or military disruptions that could threaten energy supply, e.g. 1970’s oil crises [1], world wars).
2. Reliability of supply (over periods of minutes, hours, days, weeks – e.g. NE USA and Canada 1965 and 2003[2])
3. Low cost energy – energy is a fundamental input to everything we have; if we increase the cost of energy we reduce the rate of improvement of human well-being.
Policies must deliver the above three essential requirements.
Second order requirements are:
4. Health and safety
5. Environmentally benign
[1] Oil crisis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_crisis
[2] ‘List of major power outages’: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major_power_outages
:
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing – Climate Change: The Need to Act Now by gbaikie
“I am very much a supporter of using solar energy for anything (not just solar cells but passive heating, etc.) There are many critics of alternate energy research. What I am missing from this thread is who funded the research behind these solar panels that are becoming so successful? Governments or private enterprises? Was it considered a waste of money at the time the funding began? Did any economic model predict the success? If yes, did policy makers use this economic prediction to increase funding for solar research?”
Solar panel were developed for use in space:
“1958, Solar Energy In Space
Solar power was used to power space exploration equipment such as satellites and space stations. This was the first commercial use of solar energy.
1959-1970, Efficiency of Solar Cells and Cost
During the period between 1959 and 1970 there was major discussion about the efficiency of solar cells and reduction of costs. Up to that time the efficiency of the solar cells was only 14% and was not comparable to the high cost of producing cells. However in the 1970′s, Exxon Corporation designed an efficient solar panel which was less costly to manufacture. This was a major milestone in the history of solar energy.
1977 Governments Embrace Solar Energy
In 1977 the US government embraced the use of solar energy by launching the Solar Energy Research Institute. Other governments across the world soon followed.”
Solar panels are still used in Earth orbit and primary power source for the 200 billion dollar global satellite industry. This not subsidized, it’s simply the cheapest way to make electrical power in space.
↧
Comment on Climate data and financial data: Part 2 by Prosperità e temperature, strane correlazioni, logiche conclusioni | Climatemonitor
[…] PS: questa analisi, molto più approfondita e dettagliata, viene da un guest post sul blog di Judith Curry. Sono due parti, qui e qui. […]
↧
Comment on Can we trust climate models? by mwgrant
Hi Howard,
“More appropriate questions should be framed in terms of problem solving.”
Sharpening that a little…More appropriate questions should be framed in terms of the specific ‘problem’ being addressed. Doing science and making policy impose different roles, constraints and requirements on models that may be employed.
and hi Matthew R Marler.
“Can they be trusted for that purpose?” is not an empty question.”
Maybe the practical question is determining how much the models can be trusted in working thru policy options. In particular we can not dismiss time as a significant factor in all of this and that at some point leads to potentially having to act on policy with incomplete understanding and information. As I’ve said before, that, in theory at least, is why the supposed big kahunas get the big bucks.
↧
↧
Comment on Can we trust climate models? by Jim D
There is a lot of non-model evidence for 2-4 C too. You only have to look as far as Lovejoy or Muller or Bengtsson and Schwartz to find observation-derived estimates that support that range. It is wrong to attribute this value to models and ignore the observational evidence. The simple change from 1950 to now of temperature and CO2 gives 2 C per doubling as a transient value, which would be a lower bound on the equilibrium value. 2 C per doubling predicts a 0.7 C rise since 1950, and the rise since 1950 is actually 0.7 C (pause and all).
↧
Comment on Can we trust climate models? by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
That dunce cap was meant for Marler but your response was funny in any case.
↧
Comment on Can we trust climate models? by Peter Lang
Mosher,
Far too simplistic.
Climate changes abruptly, not smoothly as depicted by the climate models. Sudden cooling is due. Will human’s GHG emissions reduce the probability or magnitude of the next abrupt cooling event, OR delay it, OR prevent it all together?
If you believe i\ our GHG emissions will prevent it, will man’s emissions cause an abrupt warming event? Will the impacts be net good or net bad for humanity?
What are the probabilities of the time to, direction of and magnitude of the next abrupt climate change. What are the probabilities of the impacts of such a change?
↧
Comment on Can we trust climate models? by Tuppence
We will only be able to properly assess the models and their underlying “CO2 Control-knob” hypothesis, once we can reliably measure the balance of radiation in and out of the earth system in absolute energy terms.
As things stand, we are still nowhere near achieving that.
The next-best thing would be robust data on total ocean heat. And again, that is still a long way off.
The only robust data we do have is surface temperature, which is but a small part of the picture, and right now flies in the face of the models.
↧
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing – Climate Change: The Need to Act Now by Récord de consenso climático: 100% de acuerdo en que Obama miente | PlazaMoyua.com
[…] Senate Hearing – Climate Change: The Need to Act Now […]
↧
Comment on Can we trust climate models? by dalyplanet
Because the models are inaccurate at a multi decadal scale we should trust them to be accurate at a century scale, Gates?
Heh!
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing – Climate Change: The Need to Act Now by schitzree
Well heck, that’s easy.
1) zip
2) nadda
↧
Comment on Can we trust climate models? by Tuppence
Gates > Suggesting models that forecast most accurately at multidecadal to century level scales have no value in policies that will affect those future generations in absurd.
So where are these models and the data that validates them then?
↧
↧
Comment on Climate data and financial data: Part 2 by Don Monfort
That is some very vague BS you are peddling there, dudbro. MACD 12 year, no wait…it’s 9 year MACD, no that’s not it…let’s go with 26 year MACD. What made you settle on those particular permutations? Where did you get the squiggle that allegedly represents inflation adjusted housing prices? Shouldn’t you be using U.S. temperatures instead of world temps, which are mostly ocean related? Is this primarily about houseboats? Surely you have a detailed explanation for how this crap works.
↧
Comment on Can we trust climate models? by Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
<blockquote>We create realistic models and simulations that themselves create climate knowledge.</blockquote>
That such an inanity is attributable to a PBS narrator is disappointing, but ... sadly, far from surprising.
It would be quite amusing, I suspect, to have this PBS narrator explain to us all how on Gaia's green earth s/he (or anyone for that matter) can <em>know</em> that <em>any</em> model is "realistic" - not to mention the simulations.
But, more importantly, I'd like to hear from this PBS narrator how s/he arrived at the rather astounding conclusion that "models and simulations themselves create ... knowledge" of <em>any</em> kind!
Then again, perhaps - not unlike "trick" and other assorted words which, evidently, <a href="http://hro001.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/carefully-chosen-fudge-gold-standard-science-explained/" title="Carefully chosen fudge – “gold standard” science explained" rel="nofollow">take on a whole new meaning</a> in the context of "climate science" - "knowledge" is just one of those unfortunate words which has fallen into similar disrepute.
As even Keith Briffa had acknowledged, as early as 2005:
<blockquote>The use of “likely”, “very likely” and my additional fudge word “unusual” are all carefully chosen where used.</blockquote>
↧
Comment on Can we trust climate models? by Tanglewood
Yes the basic problem is that models are paid for by a single institution – the state – that has an enormous vested interest in having them predict dangerous warming. So barring some unlikely conspiracy in their ranks to try and get to the truth of the matter, the modellers and their friends will thus always just ignore and hide ideas and data that don’t support an alarmist narrative.
We’ve known all this from as long ago as Climategate.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
