Tuesday, May 19, 2015

How far the Science has fallen.

Republished with permission from http://judithcurry.com/2015/05/19/what-can-we-do-about-climate-change/

Willis Eschenbach | May 19, 2015 at 12:59 pm | Reply
Both Gutting and Jamieson accept the IPCC conclusions, and even seem to think that ‘dangerous’ climate change is already happening. So starting from that particular premise (with which I know many people here will disagree), Gutting and Jamieson bring some refreshing realism to debate on how we should think about climate change and what we should do about it.
So this is how far science has fallen? Here’s the new scientific paradigm.
Someone “thinks” that something dangerous is happening. He doesn’t know how it’s happening. He can’t say why it’s happening. He doesn’t have any data to show that anything dangerous is going on. But by gosh, he’s convinced it’s happening … or to be more accurate, that it will happen in a decade or two. Of course he’s been saying this for three decades now, but pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..
So what scientists should do, according to this paradigm, is to assume that Chicken Little is right and the sky actually is falling, and start looking for solutions to a problem when:
• we don’t know if the “problem” is actually happening, and
• all predictions of calamities which this “problem” is claimed to cause have proven wrong to date, and not just wrong but calamitously wrong … and
• if the “problem” is happening, we don’t know why, and
• the models of the “problem” have all diverged from reality,
• we don’t know if we can establish climate causality or predict the future evolution of the climate even in theory, so in response,
• alarmists all sit in a circle and jerk about how to deal with this as-yet-unverified “problem” and talk about poor scientific communication and how “deniers” are psychologically damaged, and meanwhile
• we piss huge unspecified amounts of money into various rose-colored holes in the ground and
• we plan to reorganize the entire energy system of the planet, using untried, unreliable, and uneconomic renewable sources, and
• we give billions to line the Swiss bank accounts of corrupt third world dictators and apparatchiks, which under the new scientific paradigm is described by words like “compensation, not inaction” and “helping the poor” and “carbon-capture” and “making things revenue-neutral”.
Pathetic. Farkin’ pathetic.
Judith, you tried this “new paradigm” hogwash before, most notably with Captain Ravetz and his Post-Normal Science Avengers explaining why this problem needs new science …
Climate, while it is a wickedly tough problem, does not require some new kind of scientific paradigm. It just requires equally tough, honest science, science of the plain old-fashioned variety that doesn’t start with the assumption that there is a problem and go haring off after an imaginary solution. You know … real science with things like the “null hypothesis” and transparency, the good old-fashioned science which far too many modern climate scientists do their best to ignore.
Regards,
w.

Thanks, Willis, Appreciate the permission to repost!
Posted by at 3 comments:

Sunday, May 17, 2015

Thor Hammers on the Poor

(Guest post by @SlagOffTwits from Storify)



Actually RE + storage is THE most expensive electricity option. It is strictly a boutique or prestige item, like a Tesla or a Rolex. There are better, much less expensive options. It would take massive subsidies to move them into the residential market in any scale.




This is the basis of the whole argument... that somehow more expensive power is better. Yet we KNOW that one of the primary reasons for the developed world's rapid advances is cheap energy, and one of the primary reasons the developing world hasn't caught up is the lack of cheap energy.








Well, we certainly agree on this one point. FIT has been a nightmare Ontario can't wake from...



One OR the other, not of... stupid fingers... We get to the logical fallacy part of the ideological argument, false dichotomy in this case. Why does it have to be FIT or carbon tax? It could be something else, or neither. The logical response to a challenge is to examine whether or not a solution is needed, and if so which is the best. If action IS warranted, a cost/benefit analysis helps determine the best course of action.









Non sequitur





No, I am wary of solutions that are worse than problems. That's why analysts exist. That's why we have insurance. That's why risk assessment and abatement is a growing field.





A simply bizarre statement that again highlights the partisan blinders in use... Wind and solar are the least effective and most expensive solutions in almost all circumstances. And require backup generation at idle. Just try heating your house with wind and solar on those loooong, still -40F northern nights. And forget about using them to power your car to drive somewhere warm.








Don't answer to my point. Go for the redirection ad hom...















Well this confirms what I just said about "ideological position". You aren't giving reasons. You aren't weighing costs vs benefits. You aren't considering resource allocation. You are just stating something must be, and damn any other considerations. This is the very definition of dogma. And I JUST stated in the previous tweet that this isn't taking into consideration human needs. I guess people can fuck right off when dogma demands.








When you are too lazy or incompetent to back an ideological brain fart with evidence and sound argument, ALWAYS go for the insult.







Corollary to Godwin's Law...





Notice the clever use of hashtag to invite dogpile.


Posted by at No comments:

Monday, April 20, 2015

New Paper Uses the Lindzen, Choi 2011 "Iris-Effect" and gets Stunning Reality

A new paper was published today in Nature Geoscience titled "Missing iris effect as a possible cause of muted hydrological change and high climate sensitivity in models", co-written by Bjorn Stevens who seems to be interested in why the models run so hot.

From the abstract we have:
A controversial hypothesis suggests that the dry and clear regions of the tropical atmosphere expand in a warming climate and thereby allow more infrared radiation to escape to space. This so-called iris effect could constitute a negative feedback that is not included in climate models. We find that inclusion of such an effect in a climate model moves the simulated responses of both temperature and the hydrological cycle to rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations closer to observations.
 (Bold is mine.)

That is a complete understatement.  Many readers will be familiar with the 'tropics troposphere of doom' such as this:



With the Iris Effect applied 100%, models get MUCH closer to reality:


Another line of evidence that the oceans are the real climate regulator.

Posted by at 3 comments:

Thursday, April 2, 2015

Climate Sceptic on Twitter? Learn to PROTECT yourself.

It seems some on twitter have rediscovered how to get those they disagree with suspended and eventually banned on twitter again. This has happened before, it's something YOU can do something about personally.

This page is a discussion of how many people get suspended, a generic yet good guide for those new to twitter.  http://www.skepticalartist.com/2013/05/12/things-that-can-get-you-suspended-from-twitter-for-and-how-to-get-your-account-restored/

This link walks through the steps in appealing a suspension: http://www.lucrazon.com/how-to-restore-suspended-twitter-account

This link explains how some people can try to maliciously get your account suspended/banned, and often succeed: http://blog.tweetsmarter.com/twitter-downtime/how-stop-people-from-getting-your-twitter-account-suspended-by-mass-action/

After losing 3 accounts in a few months, I finally found a list of 'rules' for posting, following them (mostly) has helped me keep my account posting now for over a year.


Since Twitter has recently suspended both @SteveSGoddard and @Tan123 accounts, it may be that another group inimical to free speech and dissident viewpoints re Climate Science is working to kill dissent and dissenter's accounts. Hopefully this little guide will help you keep YOUR account safe and posting truth to the green power establishment.  

Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , ,

Saturday, March 28, 2015

Earth Hour





The hypocrite's vision of the future for all but themselves. 
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Zingggg!

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Friday, March 27, 2015

Temperature reduction from de-carbonization, cross posted with permission.

Ed Hoskins: Temperature reduction outcomes from de-carbonisation

Posted: December 24, 2014 by tallbloke in Accountability, climate, government
Tags: ,
4

Third in a trilogy of guest posts from Ed Hoskins. This one looks at how much temperature would be reduced if we committed economic suicide.
Temperature reduction outcomes from de-carbonisation
Ed Hoskins MAarch (Cantab)  BDS (Lond).
To quantify what might be achieved by any political action for de-carbonization by Western economies, the comparative tables below show the remaining effectiveness of each 100ppmv tranche up to 1000ppmv, with the total global warming in each of the five diminution assessments.  These estimates depend on the calculations set out in the following associated essay:
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/2014/09/13/the-diminishing-influence-of-increasing-carbon-dioxide-co2-on-temperature/
The table below shows the likely range of warming arising from these divergent (sceptical and IPCC) views, (without feedbacks, which are questionably either negative or positive: but probably not massively positive as assumed by CAGW alarmists), that would be averted with an increase of CO2 for the full increase from 400 ppmv  up to 1000 ppmv.Screen Shot 2014-08-10 at 11.33.54The results above for countries and country groups show a range for whichever scenario of only a matter of a few thousandths to a few hundredths of a degree Centigrade.

However it is extremely unlikely that the developing world is going to succumb to non-development of their economies on the grounds of reducing CO2 emissions. So it is very likely that the developing world’s CO2 emissions are going to escalate whatever is done by developed nations.
These figures show that whatever the developed world does in terms of decreasing CO2 emissions the outcome is likely to be absolutely immaterial.
Screen Shot 2014-08-07 at 12.40.39The table below assumes that the amount of CO2 released by each of the world’s nations or nation is reduced universally by some 20%: this is a radical reduction level but just about conceivable.
The extreme, economically destructive and immensely costly efforts by participating western nations to reduce temperature by de-carbonization should be seen in context:
  • the changing global temperature patterns, the current standstill and likely impending cooling.
  • the rapidly growing CO2 emissions from the bulk of the world’s most populous nations as they continue their development.
  • the diminishing impact of any extra CO2 emissions on any temperature increase.
  • normal daily temperature variations at any a single location range from 10°C to 20°C.
  • normal annual variations value can be as much as 40°C to 50°C.
  • that participating Europe as a whole only accounts for ~11% of world CO2 emissions.
  • that the UK itself is now only about ~1.5% of world CO2 emissions.
As the margin of error for temperature measurements is about 1.0°C, the minuscule temperature effects shown above arise from the extreme economic efforts of those participating nations attempting to control their CO2 emissions. Thus the outcomes in terms of controlling temperature can only ever be marginal, immeasurable and thus irrelevant.
The committed Nations by their actions alone, whatever the costs they incurred to themselves, might only ever effect virtually undetectable reductions of World temperature. So it is clear that all the minor but extremely expensive attempts by the few convinced Western nations at the limitation of their own CO2 emissions will be inconsequential and futile[i].
Professor Judith Curry’s Congressional testimony 14/1/2014[ii]:
“Motivated by the precautionary principle to avoid dangerous anthropogenic climate change, attempts to modify the climate through reducing CO2 emissions may turn out to be futile. The stagnation in greenhouse warming observed over the past 15+ years demonstrates that CO2 is not a control knob on climate variability on decadal time scales.”
Professor Richard Lindzen UK parliament committee testimony 28/1/2014 on IPCC AR5[iii]:
“Whatever the UK decides to do will have no impact on your climate, but will have a profound impact on your economy. (You are) Trying to solve a problem that may not be a problem by taking actions that you know will hurt your economy.”
and paraphrased “doing nothing for fifty years is a much better option than any active political measures to control climate.”
As global temperatures have already been showing stagnation or cooling[iv] over the last seventeen years or more, the world should now fear the real and detrimental effects of global cooling[v] rather than being hysterical about limited, beneficial or now non-existent warming[vi].
[i] http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.fr/2013/11/lomborg-spain-wastes-hundreds-of.html
[ii] http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=07472bb4-3eeb-42da-a49d-964165860275
[iii] http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/28/uk-parliamentary-hearing-on-the-ipcc/
[iv] http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3436241/the-inescapable-apocalypse-has-been-seriously-underestimated.thtml
[v] http://www.iceagenow.com/Triple_Crown_of_global_cooling.htm
[vi] http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/28/global-cooling-consensus-is-heating-up-cooling-over-the-next-1-to-3-decades/

from Tallbloke's Talk Shop with thanks!


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)