|
Post by duwayne on Mar 30, 2013 17:49:54 GMT
You seem to have a picture of a planet where the *only* driver is ocean cycles (even though there is no plausible physical theory for such a driver), and where the things we *do* know affect the amount of radiation absorbed by the earth (aerosols and greenhouse gases, for example), have no effect at all. It's nonsense. This representation of my views is a total fabrication. If you have a reference which backs up your representation, provide the quote. Otherwise, I’d ask that you stop such fabrications and retract the statement above. This is the ultimate “strawman”. You attribute something to me when I said just the opposite and then say my views are “nonsense”. What could be worse? Look at my post of March 7, 2012 at 6:45am. on page 43 of this thread. I know you read this post since you posted a comment on it on March 24, 2012 at 9:20am. Read it all the way through. Here’s one quote “There is a long-term upward trend in global temperatures which accelerated when CO2 concentrations started to grow rapidly in the first half of the 20th Century. " Then compare it to your fabrication. The March 7 post is a summary of my previous posts. I hope I don’t have to further waste my time to point out all the contradictions with your strawman. Don’t give me a defense of your above fabrication such as when you said “only” you really didn’t mean “only” or when you said “have no effect at all” you really didn’t mean “have no effect at all”. I had my fill of that when you said “the models don’t assume anything” didn’t really mean that “the models don’t assume anything”. Your fabrications waste my time and misinform other participants on this board. If you don’t understand what I am saying, ask for clarification. If you disagree with any of my comments or views, say so and give your reasons and I'll respond. If you forget what you read in my posts, don’t make up something and attribute it to me.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 30, 2013 20:59:41 GMT
Is there more water vapor in troposphere nowadays, or could be say that´s a constant long term? Perhaps that could be the reason for the global mean temp rising stall? Or more albedo and less heat reaching surface from more cloudiness like highest cirrus-stratus? They must find out. The metrics I have seen show the opposite, a drop in humidity of the troposphere. There is even a possibility that the associated drop in atmospheric enthalpy could account for some of the rise in atmospheric temperatures at the end of the 20th Century.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 30, 2013 21:23:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 30, 2013 23:53:31 GMT
Icefisher, this discussion grew out from your statement in response to my claim that one should acknowledge the *risk* of rising CO2 emissions. You said: I claimed that this is a diversion because I wouldn't advocate turning off emissions tomorrow. I'm arguing that it is unhealthy to be so dependent on fossil fuel extraction, and that we should use some of the fossil fuel welfare to build a more sustainable energy infrastructure. I don't think it would have damaged the world economy too much if we'd had to wait a few more months for the iPhone5, the A380, the 3D telly, because a bit more of the fossil fuel welfare had been spent on energy efficiency and renewables. Its not a diversion. You have to acknowledge the risk of whatever action you propose, not just the risk of no action. You can quibble with my characterization of your position if you want but since you failed to state your position you left the door open to speculation. That of course is easily correctable by you and you only. I am aware of a bill to eliminate so-called fossil fuel welfare pushed by Sen Bernie Sanders. But I am not seeing any "welfare" being eliminated. Mostly the bill eliminates the ability of oil companies to expense expenditures related to oil production. This effectively makes the oil companies pay a higher tax rate than other businesses. There is one provision in the bill (about 10% of the savings) that prohibits providing royalty relief to oil companies, a tactic currently employed discretionarily by a federal agency ostensibly to keep unprofitable oil wells in operation when their costs, with the royalties, exceed the income from the oil production. In other words from a tax point of view its pretty tax neutral as the royalties would not be received if the oil well did not continue in operation and the nation's oil production would be less. In terms of ending corporate welfare for oil companies its about what you can expect from the anti-CO2 sector. When they can't sell in on facts they try to sell it on lies. None of the above suggests that the tax codes and practices for stuff like royalty relief could not be improved. At any rate, even if your proposal is modest it needs to be carefully and transparently vetted. And I am not so sure what you mean about delaying products to the public. We went through the issue of the economy being a proxy for the human condition. A stagnant economy is a stagnant human condition so I am not sure why you are getting your jollies off over that. I was a lifelong democrat and the first President I campaigned for was JFK. JFK was a great leader because he had the ability to motivate people to think positively about their country and our future. Conservation and charity are important but they are elements best sold to the public via selling their benefits to society in general as opposed to legislating it.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Mar 31, 2013 4:32:26 GMT
Sunstein, Cass R. “Throwing Precaution to the Wind: Why the ‘Safe’ Choice Can Be Dangerous.” Opinion. Boston.com - The Boston Globe, July 13, 2008. www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/07/13/throwing_precaution_to_the_wind. Main point: "Yet the precautionary principle, for all its rhetorical appeal, is deeply incoherent. It is of course true that we should take precautions against some speculative dangers. But there are always risks on both sides of a decision; inaction can bring danger, but so can action. Precautions, in other words, themselves create risks - and hence the principle bans what it simultaneously requires." ... "In the context of climate change, precautions are certainly a good idea. But what kinds of precautions? A high tax on carbon emissions would impose real risks - including increased hardship for people who can least afford it and very possibly increases in unemployment and hence poverty. A sensible climate change policy balances the costs and benefits of emissions reductions. If the policy includes costly (and hence risk-creating) precautions, it is because those precautions are justified by their benefits.
"The nations of the world should take precautions, certainly. But they should not adopt the precautionary principle."
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 1, 2013 4:25:48 GMT
Sunstein, Cass R. “Throwing Precaution to the Wind: Why the ‘Safe’ Choice Can Be Dangerous.” Opinion. Boston.com - The Boston Globe, July 13, 2008. www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/07/13/throwing_precaution_to_the_wind. Main point: "Yet the precautionary principle, for all its rhetorical appeal, is deeply incoherent. It is of course true that we should take precautions against some speculative dangers. But there are always risks on both sides of a decision; inaction can bring danger, but so can action. Precautions, in other words, themselves create risks - and hence the principle bans what it simultaneously requires." ... "In the context of climate change, precautions are certainly a good idea. But what kinds of precautions? A high tax on carbon emissions would impose real risks - including increased hardship for people who can least afford it and very possibly increases in unemployment and hence poverty. A sensible climate change policy balances the costs and benefits of emissions reductions. If the policy includes costly (and hence risk-creating) precautions, it is because those precautions are justified by their benefits.
"The nations of the world should take precautions, certainly. But they should not adopt the precautionary principle." Excellent! Its the difference between rational precaution and irrational precaution. Al Gore's sandpile theory is irrational. Yes you build piles taller and taller and eventually there is a landslide. But there is also a risk of not building enough piles. Disaster can come from any direction. OTOH, Teddy Roosevelt conservation is wholly rational. He set aside lands from exploitation to ensure access for the common man to a natural unspoilt world for the common man. He saw that as essential for a robust spirit and often cited America's vast natural lands as underlying the strength of America via ensuring a healthy and robust population. That of course does not mean that rationalized conservation always hits the mark. Climate science basically blew it. The late 20th century warming only lasted about 17 years. Now that there has been no significant warming in the past 17 years there is no remaining rational evidence of a CO2 disaster. That of course does not mean zero chance; but in the world of rationalized cost/benefit analysis its probably the case we already over spent on the issue and perhaps its time to cut back on those costs and give the economy some free rein, perhaps even stimulus to make up for the damage that has been done. p.s. I would not be surprised at all if the next 17 years brings a reversal of the late 20th century warming. The next 17 years may very well be the 3rd phase of a 4 phase oscillation (sinewave). Warming may not resume for more than 3 decades. Astromet would probably put these phases at 18 years with the 4 phases adding up to astrometeorology's 72 year natural cycle. His cooling I think starts in 2015. Seems to make sense as by 2015 the warming solar influence should be well on to its waning phase. Primary ocean surface warming influence from about 2003 to 2013 should be running out of steam. 2003 may have signalled the end of the solar grand maximum influence and the ocean surface requiring about 10 years give or take to catch up may be cashing in its last warming chips.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 1, 2013 11:59:39 GMT
There has been a lot of noise recently about the 'Marcott' thesis and graph. It would appear that procedures similar to ' Mike's Nature Trick' were used to generate a 'hockey stick' shape at the end of the graph. There are all sorts of issues raised by McIntyre and others. So the original thesis has been returned to and the questionable use of recent metrics and cut-off proxies etc removed. This has resulted in the following graphic: People are starting to point out that this would appear to predict something a little less comfortable than warming.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 1, 2013 12:57:54 GMT
You seem to have a picture of a planet where the *only* driver is ocean cycles (even though there is no plausible physical theory for such a driver), and where the things we *do* know affect the amount of radiation absorbed by the earth (aerosols and greenhouse gases, for example), have no effect at all. It's nonsense. This representation of my views is a total fabrication. If you have a reference which backs up your representation, provide the quote. Otherwise, I’d ask that you stop such fabrications and retract the statement above. This is the ultimate “strawman”. You attribute something to me when I said just the opposite and then say my views are “nonsense”. What could be worse? Look at my post of March 7, 2012 at 6:45am. on page 43 of this thread. I know you read this post since you posted a comment on it on March 24, 2012 at 9:20am. Read it all the way through. Here’s one quote “There is a long-term upward trend in global temperatures which accelerated when CO2 concentrations started to grow rapidly in the first half of the 20th Century. " Then compare it to your fabrication. The March 7 post is a summary of my previous posts. I hope I don’t have to further waste my time to point out all the contradictions with your strawman. Don’t give me a defense of your above fabrication such as when you said “only” you really didn’t mean “only” or when you said “have no effect at all” you really didn’t mean “have no effect at all”. I had my fill of that when you said “the models don’t assume anything” didn’t really mean that “the models don’t assume anything”. Your fabrications waste my time and misinform other participants on this board. If you don’t understand what I am saying, ask for clarification. If you disagree with any of my comments or views, say so and give your reasons and I'll respond. If you forget what you read in my posts, don’t make up something and attribute it to me. Duwayne, you have me bang to rights on this. I was in a hurry, and being badgered by my other half. I shouldn't have posted. So I apologise and withdraw. I've argued in the past that the 1940s warming seems to be an anomaly that if removed (a la certain climategate email thought experiments) then the apparent rapid warming prior to 1940 and the apparent cooling/no warming after 1940s doesn't look very interesting at all. In other words, the 1940 warming peak needs an explanation. But the period following the peak up to the 1970s doesn't need much of an explanation (other than possibly being related to unremarkable variations in solar, aerosols and greenhouse gases). The period *after* the 1970s is clearly explainable as being mostly CO2. But could part of the warming be due to an event similar to the 1940s event. That's possible. But compared with current warming, the 1940 event is really quite small. The warming up to 1940 seems to be led by the ocean whereas recently the warming is led by the land. The long and the short of it that there is not in my view much evidence of big and long-term divergences between temperatures and known or likely forcings. So there is no need for advocating a big role for ocean cycles in the current warming, and not much case for very long term ocean cycles.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 1, 2013 13:13:53 GMT
Icefisher, this discussion grew out from your statement in response to my claim that one should acknowledge the *risk* of rising CO2 emissions. You said: I claimed that this is a diversion because I wouldn't advocate turning off emissions tomorrow. I'm arguing that it is unhealthy to be so dependent on fossil fuel extraction, and that we should use some of the fossil fuel welfare to build a more sustainable energy infrastructure. I don't think it would have damaged the world economy too much if we'd had to wait a few more months for the iPhone5, the A380, the 3D telly, because a bit more of the fossil fuel welfare had been spent on energy efficiency and renewables. Its not a diversion. You have to acknowledge the risk of whatever action you propose, not just the risk of no action. You can quibble with my characterization of your position if you want but since you failed to state your position you left the door open to speculation. That of course is easily correctable by you and you only. Supporting subsidies for renewables, regulation for energy efficiency and insulation would spur innovation and economic activity in a more productive way than simply burning more and more fossil fuels in a wasteful way. That results in more comfortable housing, and lower cost energy (in the very long run). It's not a recipe for stagnation.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 1, 2013 13:15:27 GMT
Steve: In other words, we really don't know much.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 1, 2013 13:28:26 GMT
magellan,
You are misunderstanding the use of the term "fossil fuel welfare".
I am referring to the inappropriate use of an unearned bounty of fuel, in that we have an economy that is designed to use it up as fast as possible with little thought to efficiency or the long term.
Of course subsidies of coal and oil are lower per unit of fuel. That should be the case because they are easier and less risky to obtain.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 1, 2013 16:13:40 GMT
Its not a diversion. You have to acknowledge the risk of whatever action you propose, not just the risk of no action. You can quibble with my characterization of your position if you want but since you failed to state your position you left the door open to speculation. That of course is easily correctable by you and you only. Supporting subsidies for renewables, regulation for energy efficiency and insulation would spur innovation and economic activity in a more productive way than simply burning more and more fossil fuels in a wasteful way. That results in more comfortable housing, and lower cost energy (in the very long run). It's not a recipe for stagnation. Uh huh, that's why electrical rates are 2-3x higher since wind/solar have taken center stage, and that's with subsidies. The reports of U.K. consumers unable to afford their heating bills are false? In Germany, wind/solar has accomplished nothing but raise rates making it unaffordable, and that too is with subsidies. 600,000 in Germany have power cut off Now however, even Germany the poster child for wind/solar is seeing the light. Wind and solar has been heavily subsidized for over 30 years in the U.S. We've been hearing the same mantra about how many jobs would be created and economic activity they would cause. It has been a colossal failure at all levels. In California, the "greenest" of states there are areas with electricity rates as high as 93 cents/kwh Again, North Dakota has less than 3% unemployment and the state cannot get enough people to fill the jobs needed in the state. California is $40+ billion in debt, but that's the model you say is viable even though they've been dumping untold billions of dollars into for 35 years and ruining the state. How about putting out some numbers instead of giving emotional lectures. The only way wind/solar can be less expensive than coal/NG is to make those artificially so expensive it creates the illusion "renewables" are cheaper.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 1, 2013 22:32:13 GMT
magellan
The subsidies for solar are tiny fraction of the rising cost of electricity. I don't see you moaning about the causes of the rest of the rise.
Many people struggle with energy bills because they rent their houses, and tight-fisted landlords won't invest in insulation. Mandating insulation standards would help them.
The Enron fiasco suggested that California's energy industry was somewhat dysfunctional - are you sure that isn't the cause of the problem?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 1, 2013 23:29:17 GMT
Supporting subsidies for renewables, regulation for energy efficiency and insulation would spur innovation and economic activity in a more productive way than simply burning more and more fossil fuels in a wasteful way. That results in more comfortable housing, and lower cost energy (in the very long run). It's not a recipe for stagnation. Blah blah blah! We have tons of that kind of stuff already Steve! Lets see your cost/benefit analysis for additions. Keep in mind comfortable housing is always electable by the consumer public now. Waste? Maybe we need a federal bureaucracy and regulations to prevent you from wasting time on the internet.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 2, 2013 4:40:56 GMT
magellan The subsidies for solar are tiny fraction of the rising cost of electricity. I don't see you moaning about the causes of the rest of the rise. Many people struggle with energy bills because they rent their houses, and tight-fisted landlords won't invest in insulation. Mandating insulation standards would help them. The Enron fiasco suggested that California's energy industry was somewhat dysfunctional - are you sure that isn't the cause of the problem? You wouldn't have a problem with the landlords raising their rent after the "mandated" cost of installing insulation then. Or should rental rates be mandated as well so the greedy landlords can't recoup the costs? Enron was very much into the Greenie religion in California. www.masterresource.org/2011/12/enron-kyoto-moment/California is chocked full of mandates, environmental regulations, powerful labor unions, high taxes; a government program for every ailment known to mankind. What happened? blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/03/state-auditor-california-net-worth-at-negative-127-billion.html
|
|