As some visitors know, due to frequent server errors I turned off many non-spam related plugins several weeks ago. This meant visitors could no longer edit comments, have responses to their comments emailed to them, archives on the sidebar vanished, the official “contact lucia” form went away and various other nice functions were lost. I’m still getting some server errors, but the number has decreased. So, I’m turning plugins back on.
During the process of reactivating plugins, I’ve hunted down more recent plugins that might do things a bit more efficiently (or not) and which do things people might find handy. Yesterday, I activated some plugins whose functionality you might notice including:
- “After the deadline for comments” which, should you choose to use it, will proof-read your comment for you. To use it, after typing your comment, look for the “ABC” icon with a green check icon below a comment near the “submit” button. Click, read the suggestions. Make whatever changes you wish to make.
- Auto-Close Comments, Pingbacks and Trackbacks. This automatically closes comment threads after a predetermined time. I like this because I notice thread open too long nearly always degenerate into food fights. I’ll be setting this to 7 days. (I can re-open.)
- Editable Comments which permits you to edit or delete your comments. It took a bit of hunting and fiddling to get this to work out of the box. The major issue is that line 144 in the main plugin file pulls time out of the WordPress database using $comment->comment_date. This date was later compared to time determined using a PHP call to time(). All comments always looked at least 7 hours old. Not good.
Wordpress conveniently stores both GMT and local time, so I edited to pull out $comment->comment_date_gmt. That seems to fix the issue. (I left a comment at the developer’s blog.)
I’ve now given you 5 minutes to edit and 1 minute to delete. If you leave a comment, you should see both buttons when your comment appears. If, using the same IP address, you reload in after 1 minute, you should see the edit button only. If, using the same IP address, you return after 6 minutes, you should see nothing. Both buttons seem to work for me. Feel free to test and tell me how it works.
I also tweaked the plugin authors recommendation’s for loading the plugin. While I would like people to have time to edit, I also don’t like the oddity of people changing comments after someone else has responded to them. This occasionally happens (though not often). To minimize this weirdness, my comment.php file counts the total number of comments to display, and then will only display the “edit” and “delete” buttons if your fewer than 2 comments have been added after you added your comment. I did this by wrapping the commands that insert the “edit” and “delete” buttons in an “if” statement like this:
if($totalNumComments-2 <= $comment_number ){
if ( class_exists( 'WPEditableComments' ) ) { WPEditableComments::edit('Edit'); echo " ";}
if ( class_exists( 'WPEditableComments' ) ) { WPEditableComments::delete('Delete'); }
}
I’m tempted to extend the conditional to only show “edit” and “delete” buttons to people whose comments were approved. This won’t affect people who aren’t moderated.
I think that’s the full number of “visitor” side plugins I’ve activated.
Meanwhile, I’m sure many of you have noticed I’m posting less frequently. This is due to … dieting. I have reached the phase where I am trying all sorts of new recipes which, in principle, is not that time-consuming, but in practice means I keep going to the library, getting cookbooks, flipping through them and trying out new ones. I’ve been posting the ones that taste good (to me) at my former knitting (now mostly recipe) blog. I mostly don’t post the failures, but I’m thinking of doing posting those because almost no one reads that blog anymore and it helps me keep track of what works. (For those on diets, I also estimate the calorie count, glycemic index and other nutritional information using an online nutrition estimator.)
Now, let me close with this: Like other non-climate threads, this is an open thread. Do tell me whether the edit/delete buttons are working for you, and whether it seems to display for the correct amount of time. Do tell me if you notice more than the usual number of server errors (I’ve got caching off right now. I’ll be reactivating this afternoon.) Do tell me if you like the suggestions from the proof-reader. Feel free to discuss Ice (I need to get some bet results up.) GISS and Hadley should be posting temperatures soon… So, there should be a few more blog posts coming up soon.
This is a test…
Hi Lucia,
Is what is below the desired format of your edit and delete functions? Looks like a bunch of information is being displayed that is not supposed to be there.
********************************************
time=1283954911 dif/60 =0.21666666666667 min; cut off = 5
Edit date=1283954898 time=1283954911 dif/60 =0.21666666666667 min; cut off = 1
Delete
This is a test…
The Edit and Delete URL’s do go away at the correct times, but this stuff remains:
“time=1283955203 dif/60 =5.0833333333333 min; cut off = 5
date=1283954898 time=1283955203 dif/60 =5.0833333333333 min; cut off = 1”
.
In case it matters, I am using FireFox, most recent version.
Thanks Steve– I’d stuffed that in to reverse engineer the script and figure out what the heck was going on. It didn’t show the anyone logged in, so I couldn’t see it.
I took it out… I think.
Another test…
Yup, that fixed it… perfect now. Very nice addition.
I do still see some sever errors when a comment is submitted. About 75% of the time the comment survives and reappears as normally posted when I return to the thread; about 25% of the time the comment is gone. So I have started placing a copy of the text on the Windows clipboard before submitting if the comment is at all long.
Oh whoopty do. Your nephew goes to culinary school well excuse me. So he is the head chef at an upscale restaurant? But your right you do not have to make a very worthwhile post to expose Sod for the clown that he is. But I am not going to offer you recipes ever again after your fancy pants answer. You should really change the name of this page because climate talk is not getting hot here. Instead, it is getting wimpy and wimpier with people like Sod posting every day an insignifcant number of artic ice. Nevermind that the people Sod believes in made a fake graph. Nevermind that his people sit there and refuse to let other people replicate their findings. In truth, you should be thanking Rush Limbaugh and Marc Morano because if it weren’t for them you would not have this page. Rush especially was the only one with the guts at the time to challenge this bogus theory.
Dr. Shooshmon…
What? Where that that comment come from? Are you on the right thread?
Shooshmon– Head chef? No. He’s worked at upscale restaurants. He is professionally trained and is willing to share recipes. I’m not a great chef, so his skills and recipes already greatly exceed what I’m going to do. Access to recipes from an even more stellar chef wouldn’t do me any good!
I don’t blog about tipping points. For one thing: Define “tipping point”? Is it some point where suddenly, the sensitivity to increasing CO2 increases? Is it a point where all mammals become extinct? Is it the point where some particular person thinks “below this, the damage is ok; above this not so much”? Some magical number that if we reach it, the world would never, ever, ever cool again even if all GHG’s were sucked out of the atmosphere afterwards? The point where it is too late to act (given some particular assumption about what is possible technically?)
Irrespective of definition, sure no-one knows precisely where this point is or even if there is one. I’m not going to write a post on it.
Ask someone who thinks they know what precisely what a “tipping point” and the circumstances when it will occur is to write a post explaining precisely what they mean and both when and why they think it would occur. After that, maybe it will be worth responding.
Is sod saying something about this? If sod thinks he knows, he could set up a blog and explain what he means. Otherwise, as much as you seem to be disturbed by his notion of “tipping point”, I’m not really going to engage it because I have no idea what, precisely, one might engage.
SteveF–
Shooshmoon is carrying over a conversation from the previous pepper thread. He offered to trade me recipes if I would write something about tipping points. I explained I didn’t particularly need recipes– I can get some from my nephew.
I think the request on the hot pepper threat is carrying over some argument with sod, possibly begun on some even earlier thread. Shooshmoon really, really, wants me to engage this “tipping point” thing. As I mentioned, I have no idea what I’m supposed to engage.
Yes, I’ve read people say “tipping point”. Some may sometimes even define what they mean. Others not so much. How can one debate the general idea of “tipping point” at any particular level of C02 if they don’t know what “whoever” means by “tipping point”? If Shooshmoon wants this debated, he’s going to have to find someone who has advanced a specific argument, point me to it and give me something to engage. Even then, I’m only going to consider discussing it if the argument is sufficiently fleshed out to figure out what they might be claiming (and it’s not advanced by “anonymous” or “nearly anonymous”.)
“the hot pepper threat”
Amusing typo, Lucia! lol 🙂
Andrew
Lucia,
Thanks for the explanation. Trading recipes in exchange for a certain post? That’s something I had never heard of. Maybe Shooshmoon could up the incentive to a cash donation and really make it worth you while! 😉
‘Tipping points’ are much like boogeymen, scary and impossible to quantify, yet always invoked as a justification for rapid and costly reduction in fossil fuel use. There’s the run-away Greenland melting tipping point, the permafrost-methane release tipping point, the Ross ice shelf flooding-the-world tipping point, the continental-shelf methane clathrate tipping point, and for sure many others.
I think you are wise to not post on boogeymen arguments.
But ocean heat content changes? Now that’s a subject worthy of a series of posts! 😉
Hi Lucia,
Looks like I have been added to the list of moderated commenters.
Tell me what I did wrong!
Oh! Now I’m not moderated. Funny things happening.
SteveF–
This is one of Shoosh’s comments on another post. I’ll interlace with my response:
First– Just before the economic bubble burst, he switched from cooking in restaurants to heading a store that sells freshly prepared pre-made dinners for people to take home. Turns out his timing was great because restaurant visits declined, but the market for tasty take home meals improved when many former restaurant eaters decided to go for the other option.
I am aware there are plenty of excellent cooks who have not trained at the Culinary Institute of America. My only point is this: My nephew has, knows many recipes, and is often willing to share.
I suspect you are wrong. That said, I don’t want to make Baked Alaska or Carrot Souffle. Both are full of sugar, and I just managed to lose 23 lbs. Those are not the sort of recipes I’m looking for.
Also, I usually look for relatively simple fare to cook at home.
The CIA covers many very old recipes. But, I don’t necessarily want old recipes.
I’m not “scared”. I just don’t think it’s possible to write anything coherent on “tipping point” until someone describes precisely what they think it is and explains why it will happen. I don’t have any idea what you want me to engage.
What’s this got to do with my writing about tipping points, you sharing recipes and/or the relative merits of my nephew’s recipes relative to your friends?
I make plenty of decisions myself. One of them is: I’m not going to trade a post on tipping points (whatever that means) for recipes. I’m certainly not going to trade for a recipe for Baked Alaska or worse, carrot souffle.
(I’m sure carrot souffle is tasty. But the last think I need to do is turn vegetable dishes into something as fattening and bad for you as a typical dessert.)
I don’t think my nephew needs to read my blog to find recipes!
Uhmm…. no. The CIA. He’s a very good chef. I don’t know why you are slamming a person you have not even met.
Lucia,
“Shooshmoon is carrying over a conversation from the previous pepper thread. He offered to trade me recipes if I would write something about tipping points.”
.
You had me scared there for a second… I think it was (at least mostly) on the Josh-funny-tomato thread (which I did not follow), not the pepper thread (which I did).
I have a fond memory of driving with my grandmother to the Culinary Institute of America, and having lunch at their student-run restaurant. Then we visited FDR’s family estate in Hyde Park, which had that musty museum feel to it. But that was all, an number of, decedes ago.
I wonder if the plugin will catch errors in that ‘graph?
[Edit: I saw the “ABC” icon below the text box and clicked it, but no joy. Well, the icon changed colors, but didn’t find any mistakes. Post-submission editing obviously worked. I’m using Firefox/Windows 7, with the “CA Assistant” enabled.]
AMac
When it finds no mistakes, it creates a dialog box telling me I have no mistakes. It often thinks people’s names are mistakes though.
It thinks “AMAc” might be a mistake and underlines it in red. I do need to pause to give it time to work.
On the admin side, the plugin underlines in different colors for different types of mistakes: spelling errors, verb mis-matching, stylistic issues etc.
Test. (I took out the part that always shows links to the admin…)
Edit: That worked. Now I see the same display as someone who is not logged in.
SteveF–
Oh… maybe it was the tomato thread. I just know he’s carrying a conversation on another thread over. The offer was recent in time. I read it, so I know what he’s talking about.
Thanks for letting me know about the edits. I think this plugin is working just fine now. I edited further so the display works similarly for me and non-logged in users. I can always edit everyone’s comments anyway. So… no problem for me!
tipping point = when I hit the deit button and my computer explodes
… edit button…
Now the “ABC” proofreading button is working for me. I click on it and it changes from blue to red. Spellling misteaks garner a clickable red underline. Punctuation; errors?, and also of awkwardness problems grammar; not noticed:/
Although it suggests “…changes from blue to read” better captures the sense of what I am trying to say.
Amac–
The companion plugin for the admin side catches a larger range of errors. It also permits me to select which sort of errors it will catch.
I told it not to warn me about passive voice. I disagree with the superstition about passive voice along with the superstitions about not splitting infinitives or not ending sentences with prepositions.
So, did you just ignore the red underline under misteaks?
it’s not your steaks, it’s my steaks!
> did you just ignore the red underline under misteaks?
Yep.
(And for this comment, clicking on the icon got me “No writing errors were found.” I guess alternative spellings for “misteaks” are no longer misteaken.)
Lucia,
“I disagree with the superstition about passive voice”
The passive voice is used a lot (too much I think) in technical writing, and weights it down, I think. Some use of the active voice in technical documents helps readability.
Hi Lucia, hello all,
I wonder if anyone can help me out with an apparent illogicality that I cannot explain? Several references quote the figure 9-26% as the contribution of CO2 to the Greenhouse Effect (GE). Currently, the GE is generally accepted as appx 33 deg C. Taking the higher figure of 26%, this means that CO2 is responsible for appx 8 deg C. So let’s go back to 1850, when the global temperature was 0.8 deg C lower. Assuming that the whole of the 0.8 deg C rise has been due to CO2 (a significant assumption), the contribution of CO2 would then have been appx 7 deg C. So here is my question: How can such a large percentage increase in CO2 (appx 40%) since 1850 lead to such a small relative increase in global temperature if the premise of 26% is correct? Ps, Even at 9%, the figures still don’t make enough sense…
Many thanks for your time.
Arfur
“Define ‘tipping point’?”
I think of it as pretty much exactly what a literal reading of the analogy would suggest.
Start with an (at least semi-stable) equilibrium. Push it a little in one direction or another, and it will settle back to the initial equilibrium, just like a heavy vase after a light tap from your finger. However, at a certain point in system X, the push brings other forces into play (or changes the action of the existing forces) which cause the initial change to persist or accelerate even if the initial push ceases — just as, if you push the vase far enough, rather than settle back to the initial equilibrium, it will crash to the floor (a new equilibrium).
You may of course get back to the original equilibrium state eventually via slow feedbacks — that’s the point at which the analogy breaks down, unless you want to imagine someone coming by after a _long_ time and slowly gluing the pieces back together.
That’s my definition. If I wanted to talk about a tipping point in a rigorous way I’d take a variable we’re interested in that, on human timescales, has a recognizable equilibrium state. I’d look at anthropogenic influence on the system. Then I’d try to identify the point at which, if that influence were removed, the system would not likely shift back to it prior state but rather continue to shift away from it for a significant period of time.
Robert–
It’s true that’s a literal tipping point. Everyone already knows your general definition.
In the context of any discussion of climate change, and more specifically, Shooshmoon’s request I write a blog post about a tipping point, your definition is fairly useless.
Yep.
So, getting back to my issue with the term– which the heck system is Shooshmoon talking about? I think he thinks he wants me to engage sod–but still, is the system? The animal kingdom? Temperature? Sea level? See all the possible systems SteveF referred too?
The problem isn’t that I don’t “get” what a tipping point is in some general sense. (I mean… duh.) It’s that it’s a tipping point in… what?
SteveF
Sure. Technical writing suffers from an even worse superstition, which is that one should not use first person singular and often first person plural. Often, passive tense is used to avoid saying “I” or “we”. But sometimes, passive voice results in clearer writing so I don’t intentionally try to avoid it. But yes, use of active voice often makes writing clearer, perkier, more direct and easier to understand.
Note: Your sentence “passive voice is used…” uses passive voice. I think that’s a good use and would consider it silly to feel compelled to write “technical writers often use passive voice”. In your sentence, use of passive voice put the focus on the topic– which was discussing the passive voice. The rewrite puts the focus on the writers. Given what you intended to communicate, they happen to be less important.
“What the heck . . . is Shooshmoon talking about?”
Can’t help you there.
“The problem isn’t that I don’t “get†what a tipping point is in some general sense. (I mean… duh.) It’s that it’s a tipping point in… what?”
OK, now I get where you’re coming from. When you said, “define ‘tipping point'” I took you literally. I didn’t, of course, think you had no idea what it meant, but I took you to mean that you thought the idea was necessarily vague. Hence I tried to provide a clear and simple definition. Now I see you meant Shooshmoon, in particular, was vague as to what was meant by it, as opposed to the concept itself being vague.
I’m flattered you think that everyone already knows the definition I gave. That suggests the definition was clear, simple, and not value-laden or subjective, which is what I was going for.
PS: I agree completely with your take on the passive voice. It’s all about where you want the reader’s attention. If your writing follows an American patrol in Vietnam which came under fire, it would be silly to write “A Viet Cong sniper shot Johnny” rather than “Johnny was shot.”
Arfur, go back to the dictionary and refresh yourself on the difference between K and C… it’ll come to ya
Robert–
Yes. Your description of a general tipping point is clear. Engineers in all fields do stability analyses frequently examining both dynamic and static instability. When introducing the notion to students who are going to apply it more difficult problems, one usually discusses the simpler problems– so you discuss ball on top of a hill rather than a valley, the 2 x 4 which simple application of a force balance might suggest would float with the long direction pointing “up” etc. Obviously, the 2×4 will tip and float with the long axis parallel to the water.
Showing how to do the analysis on an obvious problem helps with the less obvious ones.
So, the issue vis-a-vis what shooshmoon wants me to discuss is– tipping point in what? I don’t know. I think Shoosh wants to respond to someone who is telling him a tipping point is imminent (or something.) But Shoosh needs to wait until who ever they are says something again. Then, he can come back and tell me what the claim is. ‘Cuz I dunno!
The only tipping point worth paying any attention to is when the check arrives, and you figure out how much to tip.
I do think Robert gave the most apropos form of “tipping point,” which is when you’ve perturbed a system that is in a metastable equilibrium enough that it shifts to a new “set point” to oscillate about. It’s not unusual for complex coupled systems like climate to have multiple local minima, but the evidence as I interpret it suggests that the minima are fairly closely spaced. See e.g., this:
RSS stratospheric temperature.
in this case, volcanic eruptions in 1982 (El Chichón) and 1991 (Mt. Pinatubo) appear to have pushed the stratospheric temperature to a new equilibrium temperature. This sort of thing can happen when the coupling between states is weak (e.g., perhaps the stratosphere is only weakly forced by GHG changes)…eventually the system would “hop” to the new minimum just due to forcing from short-term climate variability (e.g. ENSOs). Volcanos are just a stronger perturbation, so you get a more immediate and dramatic swing to a new equilibrium point. It could be that the 2009/10 El Niño event was large enough to push climate to a new higher temperature “set point”, that’s certainly consistent with the odd way that temperature has responded to the end of the last El Niño…
The other meaning of “tipping point” refers I think to a runaway climate scenario. That’s highly implausible on a number of grounds, with the biggest hurdle being the quartic dependence of radiative loss into space on temperature (Stephan-Boltzman law).
Anyway, my two cents. (The other two cents: Baked Alaska isn’t all that complicated to make,I’ve done it quite successfully…I’m not sure what Shoosh is on about there.)
A quick search found a recipe for a lighter version of carrot souffle, only 2/3 cup sugar and fat free sour cream for most of the butter in the usual recipe. A 1/2 cup serving is 187 calories (25% from fat). It’s not, strictly speaking, a souffle because it doesn’t have beaten egg whites. It’s a vegetable side dish, not a desert. It’s similar to sweet potato casserole as typically served with ham or turkey but has a somewhat lower calorie count.
Arfur,
If the total greenhouse effect is 33 C, and 9% of greenhouse effect is due to CO2, then that is 2.97 C for all the CO2 in the atmosphere (say in 1850). If it is 26%, then that is 8.58 degrees.
.
If the concentration of CO2 was 285 PPM in 1850 and is ~390 PPM today, and assuming a simple linear relationship (may not be correct!) then the expected rise is:
((390/285) -1) * 2.97 = 1.094 C if ~9% of total GH is due to CO2
((390/285) – 1) * 8.58 = 3.16 C if ~26% of total GH is due to CO2
.
Using a (more correct) log relationship of CO2 to temperature, the expected rise is:
Ln(390/285) * 2.97 = 0.932 C if ~9% of total GH is due to CO2
Ln(390/285) * 8.58 = 2.69 C if ~26% of total GH is due to CO2
.
The measured rise (about 0.85C) is of course close to the lower limit, but some people will say that the Earth is very far way from equilibrium, that is, they will say that much of the difference between 0.85C and 2.69C is “in the pipeline” (due to heat being accumulated in the ocean). Or they will say that much of the forcing from CO2 has been “canceled” by the cooling effect of aerosols in the atmosphere. Or they will say both things are happening, and the “real sensitivity” is near 2.69C, or even higher.
.
So there are lots of ways to defend most any sensitivity value you like. And that is one of the factors that makes the subject contentious… nobody really knows for sure.
Carrick’
“The other meaning of “tipping point†refers I think to a runaway climate scenario.”
I am certain this is the most common meaning when related to GHG’s and climate change. The dreaded “point of no return”.
DeWitt, looking at various carrot soufflé recipes, I think I’ll stick to cheese soufflés when I’m in the mood to clog up my arteries. Certainly this carrot “soufflé” is a much simpler recipe than the chocolate cream pie I like to make for holidays.
Dewitt
I may need to try the carrot soufflé recipe, but substituting erythritol. Come to think of it, I may need to substitute erytrhitol in my mothers sweet potato soufflé recipe. I do want extra vegetable side dish recipes — veggies are healthy. I just don’t want them to have just as much sugar or fat as a typical dessert! With the low-fat sour cream and erythritol, the carrot recipe may come close to mostly eating carrots!
Well I’ve lost my temper. I shouldn’t be attacking your nephew. I am furious at the stupidity of people. If I made a graph like Michael Mann’s in school, I would be expelled for cheating or get a failing grade. There is some clown in the South who is going to burn Qurans…nobody would even know but the idiot news covers it. The guy has 50 members in his cult, who cares. But now since the idiot media reported it, the Muslims, particularly in Afghanistan are furious. And I know people think this is a joke or something but if there is such alarm about the ice caps losing all their ice, why doesn’t somebody build snowmakers on them? The new formula for success in this country is to be an idiot. If you want to get on tv and make some money, say or do something really stupid. Furthermore, try to get yourself arrested because some magazine will come along and offer you a ton of money for an interview.
The reason I want to see a “tipping point” post is because Sod is a phony. I’m sick of seeing him post everyday some doomsday scenario. Sod, I see a lot of talk but not a lot of action. Quit telling me to care when you yourself don’t care. I absolutely demand Sod build a snowmaker on the North Pole and then I will start to take him seriously.
Oh and I am sure your nephew is a great cook but not Sod.
Kentucky Weather Report:
Colder Than Normal.
Seacrest Out.
Andrew
Andrew_KY– Do you mean today? Yes. It’s cool here today also and has been for about, oh… 4 days? Weather is expected to warm.
I need to mow the lawn before it heats up again. 🙂
“I need to mow the lawn before it heats up again.”
lucia,
Me 2. I love firing up my “ride-on” mower. It’s as loud as a NASCAR race. A friend of the family’s saved it from someone’s garbage and got it running. My neighbor on the left comes out and laughs at me. I nod and smirk and give him the thumbs up as I cruise by at 10mph, grass flying everywhere. 😉
Andrew
I have an electric mower. I hope you wear ear protection when you ride that thing. Otherwise, I’m going to smirk when you go deaf.
Arfur (Comment#52102),
“How can such a large percentage increase in CO2 (appx 40%) since 1850 lead to such a small relative increase in global temperature if the premise of 26% is correct? Ps, Even at 9%, the figures still don’t make enough sense…”
Since nobody else really answered, I give it a try.
.
The simplest assumption you might make is that any increase in temperature due to increasing CO2 would be linearly proportional to the total CO2 concentration. So if in 1850 the total greenhouse was 33C, and 9% is assumed due to CO2, then that is 2.97C. If the fraction due to CO2 is assumed to be 26%, then that is 8.58C.
.
So how much increase might we expect at 390 PPM of CO2? Assuming a linear cause/effect relationship, the expected temperature increase would be:
.
((390/285) -1) * 2.97 = 1.09C (if 9% of GH is due to CO2)
or
((390/285)-1) * 8.58 = 3.16C (if 26% of GH is due to CO2)
.
Now it is pretty well known that the forcing from increasing CO2 is not really linear, but rather depends of the natural log of the CO2 increase ratio, so the expected temperature increase would be:
.
Ln(390/295) * 2.97 = 0.932C (if 9% of GH warming is due to CO2)
or
Ln(390/285) * 8.58 = 2.69C (if 26% of GH warming is due to CO2)
.
Since the actual temperature increase since 1850 is in the range of 0.85C, it would appear that the effect of CO2 warming lies near the 9% figure.
.
But some people will argue that this simple analysis is terribly incorrect because a) much of the expected warming has been off-set (or canceled) by the cooling effect of increases in atmospheric aerosols, mainly from the sulfur in fossil fuels, and b) much of the expected warming is delayed (multiple decades or more) because of slow heat accumulation in the ocean, which is sometimes called “in the pipeline” warming. These folks will say that the correct future warming for increases in CO2 is much higher (up to 3 or more times higher) than the measured warming to date indicates.
.
Others will argue that the total man-made warming includes other gases (not just CO2), so the expected GH warming since 1850 should actually be ~50% higher than that due to increasing CO2, and that the aerosol cooling effect and the “in the pipeline” heating are modest. So these folks will say that future warming will be comparable to what the measured warming to date indicates, that is, relatively modest.
.
Which is why this subject is so very contentious.
To MikeC (#52110):
Following your advice, I went to the dictionary and the difference between K and C is J, I, H, G, F, E, and D.
So now it is all clear – thanks for your help!
Arfur
To SteveF (#52139):
Thank you for taking the time to help, SteveF. I agree the subject is contentious. To me, there has to be some logic behind the dogma. Whatever the subtle nuances from either side, the arguments have to make some sort of sense.
I can understand the logarithmic argument. The fact is the logical extension of that argument is that there can be no ‘rapid and accelerating’ temperature rise with a continuing increase in CO2. Therefore the CAGW theory is wrong. Even if we discard the 26% and concentrate on the 9% figure (although it is the 26% figure that will make the headlines), by your calculations, the current measured rise in global temperature is less (slightly, I grant) than the predicted logarithmic increase. And I repeat this assumes that the entire temperature rise is due to increasing CO2. I’m not sure that even the IPCC believes this, and therefore the rise due to CO2 is less than 0.8 deg C – maybe significantly so. Hence the 9% figure is also incorrect. Given that both figures (9 and 26) are incorrect, the CAGW theory has to be dubious with respect to radiative forcing. The facts simply do not support it.
So now we come down to the reasons why some people would argue against the analysis you so eloquently described.
a. (The cooling effects.) These cooling effects of aerosols which are supposed to mitigate the warming. It is interesting that supporters of the CAGW theory are so quick to find more theoretical reasons why the theory is not supported by empirical data. If this is the case, then by definition there can be no ‘rapid and accelerating’ global warming, as the cooling effects of mankind’s emission will at least partially offset the warming. In the case of the past 12 years, these cooling effects have done a grand job in holding the warming to, er… zero.
b. (The pipeline factor.) This argument is also not supported by either logic or data. If there is a delay in the warming effect of CO2, it has had 160 years to reveal itself. Every year that has gone by is a year where the delay has had a chance to make an effect. If that were true, the warming effect should undoubtedly be getting more and more obvious – ie, even more ‘rapid and accelerating’. Unfortunately the facts are that the overall rate of warming over 160 years is less than it was over 30 years (see the HadCrut graph since 1850), which means it is not accelerating. The fact that temperature has not risen for the last twelve years also indicates a lack of acceleration. To use the ‘natural variations’ argument is specious as it would obviously mean that natural variations have the power to overcome anthropogenic effects, which means that we don’t know it was anthropogenic effects that caused the warming in the first place.
Which leaves a third possibility why the analysis is ‘terribly incorrect’:
c. The CAGW theory is invalid. In this case, the radiative forcing argument is a theoretical one not supported by real-world data, and a total radiative greenhouse gas concentration (ie without water vapour) of 0.04% is simply not enough to cause anything more than a marginal increase in temperature. If it was, the temperature would be much higher than it is now.
As you say, contentious indeed! Thanks again for taking the time to discuss.
Regards,
Arfur
Arfur,
.
Well, it does sound like you have pretty well made up your mind. I had understood that you were actually looking for technical information/clarification about some basic concepts; clearly I was mistaken. I do not want to debate the specific issues you talk about, because I do not think you really would be receptive to hearing anything except what you already think is true, no matter the quality of the data or analysis I offered you. So I believe any discussion would end up being a waste of time for both of us.
.
I can say, from a purely technical point of view, that each of the issues you discount are, at a minimum, credible factors that need to be carefully evaluated in order to reach a reasoned conclusion; none can be rationally discounted with careful consideration and analysis. Whatever else is true about global warming, one thing is certain: it is not a simple issue that anyone (on either side of the debate) can rationally analyze without a fair amount of critical analysis, and without learning a fair amount about the basic scientific concepts involved. From what you write, my suspicion is that you probably have not really looked enough at the problem to appreciate its technical complexity.
.
For example, when you write “In this case, the radiative forcing argument is a theoretical one not supported by real-world data, and a total radiative greenhouse gas concentration (ie without water vapour) of 0.04% is simply not enough to cause anything more than a marginal increase in temperature.” it tells me that you lack a basic understanding of the radiative physics involved (and perhaps several other basic concepts as well), which leads you to draw a simplistic, and not terribly useful conclusion about a complex process.
.
That being said, I personally believe that global warming from CO2 (and from other infrared absorbing gases) will turn out to be substantially lower than the relatively high projections of the IPCC (climate sensitivity of ~2.85C per doubling of CO2). I reach this conclusion based on consideration of all of the factors that are involved, most of which you have apparently discounted, for reasons that I can’t understand. I think that you will find many practicing scientists and engineers who have looked closely at the subject more-or-less agree with me, but you will also find technically trained people who draw very different (and more alarming conclusions). As I said, this is not a simple subject, and a robust understanding of climate is (I believe) still many years away.
.
I think you will find that very few people who comment at this blog will engage the kinds of arguments you raise. You would do well to learn a good deal more than it appears you know today. I wish you well.
Arfur, I’d take it a step further than Steve and say that anyone in a discussion involving temperaure would certainly understand K and C. Perhaps a refresher in ….hmmmm… about 6th grade science would be in order first.
MikeC– Be less mean….
I was… my first thought was waaaaaaaaaaaaay back in nineteen sumptin-sumptin when I was in the 4th grade… when we were first taught Kelvin and Celsius… but I didn’t wanna sound that mean.
I’ve started a project called GoGCM. It is an open source project to create a GCM in the Go Programming Language and I wanted to know if anyone here would care to comment on it. Thanks for any feedback.
SteveF
Thanks for wishing me well and of course I understand that you do not wish to continue conversing. I wish you well in return.
However you have got me wrong. You are interpreting my counter-discussion as me ‘having already mage up my mind’ when all I was doing was searching for an answer that makes sense to me. I totally agree global warming is not a simple issue and I really am trying to ‘learn a fair amount about the basic scientific concepts involved’. But that is exactly the rub here. Lots of people claim to know much more than I about global warming but they cannot explain why the empirical data has failed to support the theory without further invoking additional theories which have no data to support them. Hence your statement after I had stated that the concentration of 0.04% greenhouse gasses were not enough to cause significant global warming:
“…it tells me that you lack a basic understanding of the radiative physics involved (and perhaps several other basic concepts as well), which leads you to draw a simplistic, and not terribly useful conclusion about a complex process.â€
Is then followed by:
“That being said, I personally believe that global warming from CO2 (and from other infrared absorbing gases) will turn out to be substantially lower than the relatively high projections of the IPCC (climate sensitivity of ~2.85C per doubling of CO2).”
Which means you reach the same conclusion as me but somehow yours is reached through greater understanding of the scientific concepts.
I put forward that statement about the 0.04% as an alternative to your other two alternatives. I was simply taking a counter argument.
Those that claim greater scientific understanding in this debate have dramatically failed to explain how the view of the IPCC etc has any veracity in the real world.
I prefer to approach the subject with logic and facts.
1. There has been a small amount of non-linear warming (0.8 deg C) since 1850.
2. There is no obvious correlation between that and the linear 40% increase in CO2 since 1850.
3. The rate of increase has plateaued since the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph of MBH98 – that shining example of ‘settled science’.
But apparently I am supposed to be impressed with the radiative forcing argument because ‘science is complicated’.
Anyway, I’m sorry you have gained an unfavourable impression of me. You really couldn’t be more wrong.
Regards,
Arfur
MikeC: (or is that MikeK?)
I realise you’re having fun here, Mike. In order that I can join in the fun, how about you explain just exactly what your point is? Feel free to be as sanctimonious as you wish…
Arfur
Arfur:
Several problems here… it is total forcings over time that matters, not CO2 alone (you must include natural forcings as well as anthropogenic sulfate emissions, see e.g. this).
Secondly, there is short-period climate variability (typically 10-year periods or shorter), which mask secular forcings like CO2 over shorter periods, so you can’t expect perfect correlation over short time intervals (20 years is a minimum length).
Thirdly, the direct comparison of CO2 to temperature is pretty decent:
Figure.
When you are getting basic facts wrong, don’t expect it to leave favorable impressions.
Arfur,
.
OK, I will take you at your word, and assume my initial impression was mistaken.
.
You said: “There is no obvious correlation between that and the linear 40% increase in CO2 since 1850.” Please see the following graphic http://comp.uark.edu/~jgeabana/gwfig1ab2.png
from a comment in the hot pepper thread, by Julio. There is most certainly a clear correlation between warming and CO2 concentration; or more accurately, between temperature and the log of the CO2 concentration. That does not mean definite causation, but most certainly there is clear correlation. So your suggestion that there is no correlation is simply incorrect.
.
You also say “There has been a small amount of non-linear warming (0.8 deg C) since 1850.” It would be a surprise if the warming trend was linear. The temperature trend appears to be linear not with CO2 concentration, but with the log of the CO2 concentration, which is consistent with how radiative forcing from CO2 (or almost any other infrared absorbing gas in the atmosphere) should increase based on how they are expected to absorb in the infrared. Julio (who I believe is a professor of physics) and I exchanged a long series of comments where we discussed this in some detail, including the notion that a better correlation to draw is the total forcing (from all GHG’s) versus temperatures, since CO2 is by no means the only important GHG. I suggest you read over that thread for more detail if you are interested; if you do, please note how many legitimate technical considerations go into evaluating that single (obvious) correlation of temperature with CO2.
.
You then say, “The rate of increase has plateaued since the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph of MBH98 – that shining example of ‘settled science’.” We sure, but if you look at the temperature history since 1900, you will see other periods where the temperature has similarly plateaued. There is obviously a lot of variability (‘weather noise’ if you like) in the temperature history, as well as the appearance of oscillatory behavior, which is superimposed on an overall longer term trend. (This is another subject discussed in the hot pepper thread.) Look at the temperature trend form the late 1940’s to the late 1970’s… the temperature was flat to slightly downward. So it is easy to show that a relatively short period of flat (or even slightly falling) temperatures does not prove anything; the long term temperature trend has been upward, which is in fact consistent with radiative forcing.
.
Finally, note the use of sarcasm, like “that shining example of ‘settled science’”, adds nothing to the technical merit of whatever you are arguing, and in fact detracts from it; this kind of comment makes people think yours is a political statement rather than a technical analysis, and so most will discount or even ignore whatever else you say. I suggest that you leave that kind of comment to the political extremists on both sides, of which there are many, and who rarely contribute anything of substance to a technical discussion. If there are specific weaknesses with MBH98 that you want to comment on, then explicitly say what those weaknesses are, and more importantly, how you believe those weaknesses impact a reasoned analysis of radiative forcing and temperature changes.
Artur,
You proposed back in #52160, as your favored alternative,
We all view “0.04%” as “a really, really small proportion” — in a colloquial sense. I think this is one of the points you are driving at.
But in a technical sense, 0.04% of “something” isn’t necessarily “really small” or “really big.” That would depend on what the substance under discussion is, and what the effect of interest is.
As far as radiative forcing, most scientifically-literate people who have examined the issue have concluded that the rise in CO2’s concentration in the trophosphere is meaningful. E.g. ScienceOfDoom and Jeff Id.
Is there mathematics or physics based support for the implied claim that 0.04% is too little to matter? How much CO2 would be enough to be of concern? 0.06%? 0.2%? 3%? On what basis would the threshold be set?
Arfur,
“Feel free to be as sanctimonious as you wish…”
Would you like that in the context of being hypocritically pious or holy?
Before you consider that, you’re talking to a retired US Marine who spent 22 years teaching Nuclear, Biological and Chemical warfare (both offensive and defensive). I don’t say that because I’m some Billy Bad A$$, but because it has been my experience that folks in a learning process do better when they start with the fundamentals and work things through by themselves… continuously working with the fundamentals strengthens your ability to achieve a desirable end. (folks on this blog have heard me nag time after time about reading the literature). SO when I suggest you go back and explore K and C, it was actually serious. And when you did not seem to understand that K and C meant Kelvin and Celsius, I was a bit frosted and suggested you go way back and start from the beginning… and that was serious.
As for me having fun with this whole AGW subject… yep, I have lots of fun… I think it’s an utter joke… a big bag of politics containing more obvious deceit than the halls of Congress.
And as for Julio’s graph that SteveF linked again… I keep wondering… what about water vapor, enhanced GHE, oceans, that big orange ball of fire in the sky, meandering weather patterns… and how much are the numbers going into the graph tuned? But most of all I think about a very important point SteveF made in one of those exchanges with Julio… that the Earth cooled by about the same amount going into the LIA as it warmed coming out of the LIA. And as for that point you discussed abut aerosol cooling countering AGW warming, that hypothesis is not supported by the observational data.
So, I guess my meandering rant really comes down to those fundamentals… even the most talented in the AGW debate seem to lack many fundamentals… and that’s not sanctimonious.
Carrick,
[Several problems here… it is total forcings over time that matters, not CO2 alone (you must include natural forcings as well as anthropogenic sulfate emissions, see e.g. this).]
Total forcings, not CO2 alone, are exactly what are included in the 0.8 deg C rise since 1850. Your graph is a comparison between GISS model outputs. This may give a true reflection, but then it may not. Either way the real-world data (fact) is that with ALL feedbacks and forcings, the total global temperature rise (which I do not doubt, by the way) is 0.8 deg C. This assumes that ALL the warming is due to CO2. Is that your contention? If not, the increase in CO2 has had a small effect – and that effect is not increasing currently.
As to your second point, I certainly do not expect a direct correlation as of course there will be variations. However, the ‘consensus science’ holds that the increase in temperature will be both ‘rapid and accelerating’. Nw, it could be argued that the rise in the late 20th Century was rapid in geological terms but the effect is certainly not accelerating. To me, this means that the CAGW theory is not supported by credible empirical data. That is, unless you are so convinced of the veracity of the theory that you are happy to lose sight of the real woods for the predicted trees.
Oh, by the way, where did you get your second graph from? Because it seems to indicate that the global temperature in 2003 (ish) is much higher than in 1998. This is totally incorrect!
Please state any FACTS which I have got wrong. My opinion may be wrong, but the only facts I have stated refer to the temperature ruse and the CO2 rise.
Arfur
SteveF,
You make some excellent points. Thank you. I will try to address them in the same vein.
First, your graph of temp v log of CO2 certainly looks like a better correlation. However, it negates your initial problem with my first post where you contended that the ‘effect’ of CO2 was the reason for the small increase in global temperature for a relatively large increase in CO2. Are you now using the ‘julio’ graph to ‘prove’ that the relationship is linear? If the log of CO2 is correct, then the global temperature rise will decrease with even further increases in CO2 – hence the CAGW theory will be invalid! It won’t matter how much more CO2 is in the atmosphere – the temperature rise will reduce to almost zero.
As to the presence of other GHGs, I totally agree, there are other GHGs which, according to the radiative forcing theory, should play an important part in the CAGW theory. The trouble is, the 0.8 deg C rise includes ALL forcings from ALL GHGs. Therefore, the effect of CO2 is lessened even further than I originally implied. You can argue that scientists know more than I about radiative forcing of individual chemical compounds, but the facts do not support the consensus. I may not be as highly qualified as you or Julio, but I contend that if a scientist expounds a theory which, years later, fails to be supported by real-world data, then that scientist should re-visit the theory or prove that the data collected is invalid.
Re my comment about MBH98 – I apologise. You are correct, that was more of a political swipe. However, in my defence, that piece of science was used almost single-handedly to bring the predicted catastrophe of global warming into the political arena. Even today, we are shown that graph as an example of what was predicted at the time, without the further twelve years data added to it. I find it ironic that scientists who advise politicians still allow this to happen, and to use that prediction to further political agendas. I will refrain from mentioning it again.
Regards,
Arfur
Arfur,
My objection was to your comment that “There is no obvious correlation between that and the linear 40% increase in CO2 since 1850.” First a correlation does exist, it gets better (as SteveF pointed out) if you use log(CO2) rather than CO2, but one needs to correlate to total forcings not just log(CO2).
So the statement is wrong on multiple levels: You shouldn’t look for a direct correlation with CO2, but rather total forcings (but if you do, then you find a correlation).
Of course total forcings have to be estimated… even now we aren’t directly tracking sulfate emissions, for example, so they have to be reconstructed from other data sources.
As to “the only facts I have stated refer to the temperature ruse and the CO2 rise”, as both SteveF and I have pointed out, your original assertion is wrong based on the facts. We have both also pointed out the grounds on which it is an erroneous comparison to start with. This is a more substantial error, because you are comparing the wrong quantities in addition to merely misstating the result of that comparison.
Regarding this statement:
If you include weather noise, the anomalized monthly-averaged time series shows 1998 to be warmer than 2003.
However, the time series are typically smoothed (as in this case) with e.g., a 10-year running average to remove this short-period noise, as a 10-year running average is a more appropriate time series to compare total forcings to than is monthly-averaged data.
When you do perform a 10-year running average, 1998 is no longer warmer than 2003 (of course the trade off is you are forced to drop the last five years from your figure, as was done with that analysis).
The figure is from zfacts.com (Article is here.) Don’t feel too bad, it contains some of the same basic errors you have made yourself, though at least it does get the underlying facts right (the raw information on that figure is correct, the validity of the comparison is not).
AMac,
Firstly, you are incorrect in assuming the third alternative was my ‘favoured alternative’. I believe if you read the post again I did not mention favouring any of them.
As to the ‘really really small’ comment. I agree that 0.04% of a very large number is, in itself, still a large number. Proportionally, however, it is very small – maybe very very small(!).
So lets consider the ‘effect of that substance’. In the atmosphere, ALL the GHGs put together make up less than 0.04% – just. This means that every radiative GHG molecule has roughly 2500 non-radiative molecules surrounding it, on average. You may argue the figure, but I suspect it will be fairly close. Radiation cannot cause those molecules to warm; they have to be warmed by conduction from neighbouring molecules. Relatively, the effect is limited. The two blogs you mentioned may consider the concentration to be ‘meaningful’ but is it likely to be catastrophic? In fact, is it even likely to be meaningful? If you take 100% of atmosphere, then 0.04% is radiatively active. Therefore, 99.96% is not. So, the question is how important is the radiative property? Well, if it is meaningful, then quite a lot. If it is negligible, then not very much. I repeat – from my other posts – that the facts would indicate ‘not very much’. I accept that there is a theoretical probability (please note, not possibility) that the increase in GHGs will have some effect – that makes sense. What doesn’t make sense is the prediction that an increase in GHGs is likely to cause runaway global warming. Because, if it was – the temperature would be increasing at an accelerative rate! It is not. If you check the HadCru3 data since 1850, the rate of increase in global temperature per decade is:
1850-1880 = 0.17 deg/dec
1850-1998 = 0.07 deg/dec
1850-2010 = 0.06 deg/dec
This is not an acceleration. Therefore I contend that the effect of CO2 – and other radiative GHGs is proven to be not catastrophic and not even meaningful in a real-world context.
Your point about setting a threshold is irrelevant as, according to SteveF (and I agree with him to an extent), the logarithmic nature of the effect will render much of any future increase negligible.
Arfur
MikeC (Comment#52245),
Firstly, I’m not sure that military service gives you any form of authority, much as I respect your achievements in that arena. As someone who has served over 30 years in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces, I feel that I am able to respond to you on an equal footing.
[And when you did not seem to understand that K and C meant Kelvin and Celsius, I was a bit frosted and suggested you go way back and start from the beginning… and that was serious.]
I was always aware that K and C could refer to Kelvin and Celsius (except that I would not have put the letters ‘deg’ before a K…). What I am still unaware of is how that is relevant to my first post.
[As for me having fun with this whole AGW subject… yep, I have lots of fun… I think it’s an utter joke… a big bag of politics containing more obvious deceit than the halls of Congress.]
I couldn’t agree with you more, buddy. Except to say that the conceit is not limited to Congress…
[And as for that point you discussed abut aerosol cooling countering AGW warming, that hypothesis is not supported by the observational data.]
I disagree. The observational data is this: the total rise in global temperature from ALL forcings and feedbacks is 0.8 deg C. If, as SteveF contended, the relatively small (compared to the CO2 rise) increase could be as a result of cooling from aerosols, then the data does support that hypothesis. I don’t necessarily agree but it is possible. By that I mean that I agree the cooling effect may not be specifically due to aerosols, it is just that that was the reason given in my discussion with SetevF.
Anyway, that’s enough ranting from me…
Kudos on your Green Beret, MikeC. You have my respect. I know how tough it was getting mine…
Arfur
“What doesn’t make sense is the prediction that an increase in GHGs is likely to cause runaway global warming.”
Does the phrase “runaway global warming” appear anywhere in the thousands of pages of the IPCC report? I’m guessing not.
“Runaway” global warming and “catastrophic” global warming are ill-defined terms which psuedoskeptics use as straw men, owing to the great difficulty in making any kind of case against the reality of anthropogenic global warming. Throw in some vague and value-laden words like “catastrophic,” and you have a handy-dandy set of mobile goalposts that can be made to fit (or, rather, made to fail) any set of real-world observations one is confronted with.
Arfur, … Green Berets are Army, that’s an insult to Marines 😉
anyways… my point had nothinng to do with military experience, but teaching experience.
So, let’s look at one of those FUNDAMENTALS where your estimates have a real problem… you continue to refer to total GHG’s as .04%. Water vapor is also a GHG and it is (approximately) 3-4%.. so, essentially (and do the math here) in terms of volume, you are off by about 100%. That’s pretty bad. So, please go back to the fundamentals and recompute, pretty please, with a cherry on top.
Carrick, (#52259)
[You shouldn’t look for a direct correlation with CO2, but rather total forcings (but if you do, then you find a correlation).]
I have to laugh when anyone tells me how to come up with reasons why the so-called ‘causation’ of global temp rise from CO2 is not actually happening! If you keep moving the goalposts, you may eventually get the result you wish for…
[Of course total forcings have to be estimated… even now we aren’t directly tracking sulfate emissions, for example, so they have to be reconstructed from other data sources.]
Only if you wish to strive to prove the theory correct at any cost. Why estimate forcings? Why not just accept that the temperature has risen a little bit and stop trying to scare people? Scientists started all this and now the same scientists are running around trying to find more ways to rationalise a theory instead of questioning the theory! If you think I’m not being scientific – please come up with some evidential data that supports the CAGW theory in anything other than the most vague, circumstantial ways.
[If you include weather noise, the anomalized monthly-averaged time series shows 1998 to be warmer than 2003.
However, the time series are typically smoothed (as in this case) with e.g., a 10-year running average to remove this short-period noise, as a 10-year running average is a more appropriate time series to compare total forcings to than is monthly-averaged data.
When you do perform a 10-year running average, 1998 is no longer warmer than 2003 (of course the trade off is you are forced to drop the last five years from your figure, as was done with that analysis).]
Ah, another great example of more goalpost-moving. Where were these moving averages when the ‘Hockey-stick graph’ was sold to the public? How scientific was that?
Carrick, I don’t feel bad. The errors you speak of are only errors if you wish to stick to the belief you have that the theory is correct at the most basic level. ‘Science’ started this mess, and it has only got itself to blame when ordinary Joe Public questions it.
‘Science is proof without belief; Religion is belief without proof.’ (C E Montague)
Regards,
Arfur
‘“The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for witâ€. (W Somerset Maugham)… LOL.
Arfur:
.
This “analysis” is wrong on so many levels, it’s difficult to fully enumerate them all. Nor do I think there is any point in doing so, since so far you have been unwilling to admit your prior errors, but just for giggles I’ll give it a stab: Acceleration is change per unit time per unit time. None of those quantities are acceleration, nor can you use this comparison to make any meaningful conclusions as to whether acceleration has occurred.
You should use equal length periods to compare rate of change, not variable length periods. This is a very sophomoric error. You really need an explanation for why that is the case?
When you compare quantities in science, you have to include the uncertainty in the quantities being compared. You are treating the numbers as if they are exact, though in fact 1850-1880 has the largest uncertainty of any of the periods you have considered (it is large enough that the period 1850-1880 gets ignored in GISTEMP for example).
Finally, what you really need to do to in order to make any conclusions about the effect of CO2 forcings is subtract off temperature change from natural climate forcings, and look at whether the residual supports the contention that the remaining warming is associated with anthorpogenic forcings. Looking at “accelerations” is a meaningless game, even if you had done it right, which you have very much not done so.
(Lucia this comment isn’t showing up, so I’m reposting it)
Arfur:
.
This “analysis” is wrong on so many levels, it’s difficult to fully enumerate them all. Nor do I think there is any point in doing so, since so far you have been unwilling to admit your prior errors, but just for giggles I’ll give it a stab: Acceleration is change per unit time per unit time. None of those quantities are acceleration, nor can you use this comparison to make any meaningful conclusions as to whether acceleration has occurred.
You should use equal length periods to compare rate of change, not variable length periods. This is a very sophomoric error. You really need an explanation for why that is the case?
When you compare quantities in science, you have to include the uncertainty in the quantities being compared. You are treating the numbers as if they are exact, though in fact 1850-1880 has the largest uncertainty of any of the periods you have considered (it is large enough that the period 1850-1880 gets ignored in GISTEMP for example).
Finally, what you really need to do to in order to make any conclusions about the effect of CO2 forcings is subtract off temperature change from natural climate forcings, and look at whether the residual supports the contention that the remaining warming is associated with anthorpogenic forcings. Looking at “accelerations” is a meaningless game, even if you had done it right, which you have very much not done so.
Arfur,
“Are you now using the ‘julio’ graph to ‘prove’ that the relationship is linear? ”
Clearly yo do not understand Julio’s graph. The x-axis (CO2) is a log scale, so that means the temperature is linear with respect to the log of CO2, exactly as I suggested in my first response to you. I do not suggest it should linear; and based on the expected behavior of GHG’s, it should not be.
.
After reading your several replies to me and others, I can only suggest the following:
1) There is radiative forcing from CO2 as well as other GHG’s.
2) The magnitude of that forcing is pretty well known.
3) Offsetting forcing from aerosols (mostly sulfate) are poorly defined.
4) Ocean heat accumulation/ocean lag are poorly defined.
5) The true climate sensitivity is poorly defined.
.
My personal evaluation is that aerosol off-sets and ocean heat accumulation seem substantially overstated by the IPCC, so I conclude that the true climate sensitivity will end up being near or below the lower end of the IPCC projected range.
.
You can (and should!) consider all pertinent data and try to draw a reasoned conclusion. But I suggest that you do have a fair amount to learn before you are in a position to do that. I wish you well, but I think there is not a lot more for us to discuss.
.
Steve
Arfur:
Insisting that you use sound physical arguments and get basic facts is certainly not “moving the goal posts.” It’s where the discussions should be from the start. Assuming my motivations is yet one more of your many errors.
Simply because I’m pointing out obvious flaws in your arguments says nothing for where I stand on any point in the AGW debate.
errrr… off by 100X
Arfur,
“Are you now using the ‘julio’ graph to ‘prove’ that the relationship is linear? ”
It appears you do not understand Julio’s graph. The x-axis (CO2) is a log scale, so that means the temperature is linear with respect to the log of CO2, exactly as I suggested in my first response to you. I did not suggest it should be linear; and based on the expected behavior of GHG’s, it should not be.
.
After reading your several replies to me and to others, I can only suggest the following:
1) There is radiative forcing from CO2 as well as other GHG’s.
2) The magnitude of that forcing is reasonably well known (this is the simplest part of the AGW issue).
3) Offsetting forcing from aerosols (mostly sulfate, but also changes in clouds and amount of clouds) are poorly defined.
4) Ocean heat accumulation/ocean lag are relatively poorly defined, but with current data (ARGO) suggesting the rate of heat accumulation may be significantly lower than assumed by climate models.
5) The true climate sensitivity, which is certainly the most important piece of information in terms of public policy, is poorly defined; anyone who suggests otherwise does not really understand the technical issues.
.
My personal evaluation is that aerosol off-sets and ocean heat accumulation seem substantially overstated by the IPCC, so I conclude that the true climate sensitivity will end up being near or below the lower end of the IPCC projected range.
.
You can (and should!) consider all pertinent data and try to draw a reasoned conclusion. But I suggest that you do have a fair amount to learn before you are in a position to do that. What you should not do is make sweeping statements like (AGW is false). I wish you well, but I think there is not a lot more for us to discuss.
.
Steve
Well spoken, SteveF at #52276. Good luck Artur.
Ot well the NH ice did not stay up to 2005 levels as i expecetd but it really has not gone down further. I think to that the temps are about to fall asunder this time for a long haul. If this is the case its probably the last year for AGW to stand a small chance of credibility
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
check the 600mb
Okay, nobody listen to Robert. Nobody is asking the right questions. Once again, is Robert showing us anything that has not happened before? No. The temperature has been higher and there have been more GHGs in the atmosphere, far more. There is no need to go back and forth with this clown with citation after citation. Saying 2003 or 1998 was the “hottest year on record” is a complete joke and embarassing, given that they are talking about records that only date back to 1979. Hey Robert, I would like to start at the MWP and therefore I think we are in danger of severe global cooling. Quit being such a tool and think of something on your own. I don’t care that you can go on the internet and pull some fancy quotes, anybody can do that.
Everyone needs to stop and think about how much and how many times this climate industry has made predictions, cheated and been wrong. Also, keep in mind that Robert is just a parrot. What is he doing to help the environment? A big fat zero, he is just like the losers that cry about Darfur but do nothing. Furthermore Robert, if we aren’t talking about runaway global warming, then what the hell are you even arguing about?
Lucia, why was my post deleted. Robert is a tool and so is Carrick.
“Arfur, this is very misleading and cannot be used to show acceleration, this is a very sophomoric error.”
No, he is simply doing the same thing you and Robert do, which is you start at 1979 and try to claim the temperature is rising dramatically.
Arfur, there is no point arguing with Robert and Carrick. While I’m at it Steve in point 2 says “the radiative forcing of co2 is well-known.” NO. WRONG. The IPCC changed the forcing value 3 times, adjusting it downward everytime. Stop making things up.
Additionally, I contend that we need the globe to heat up. Yeah thats right, I think the optimum temperature of the globe is 2 degrees higher than what is now. Also, I cannot prove this but nobody can prove anything otherwise.
Lucia, can you find out how much money has been allocated to renewable energy by the U.S. government. I am very interested to see how much money we’ve wasted based on a stupid hoax. We’ve spent billions of dollars and have zero to show for it.
Is sod saying something about this? If sod thinks he knows, he could set up a blog and explain what he means. Otherwise, as much as you seem to be disturbed by his notion of “tipping pointâ€, I’m not really going to engage it because I have no idea what, precisely, one might engage.
.
sorry, i missed this topic and i was seriously surprised to find a discussion about me.
.
i did not bring up the topic of tipping points, nor am i interested in that topic.
.
i think i remember Shoosh talking about “tipping points” in a context (sea ice or temperature graphs from the recent past) that doesn t make any sense. i might have made a comment along the line “you do not know what you are talking about”, which i would still stick to.
.
The reason I want to see a “tipping point†post is because Sod is a phony. I’m sick of seeing him post everyday some doomsday scenario. Sod, I see a lot of talk but not a lot of action. Quit telling me to care when you yourself don’t care. I absolutely demand Sod build a snowmaker on the North Pole and then I will start to take him seriously.
.
this doesn t make any sort of sense.
.
Oh and I am sure your nephew is a great cook but not Sod.
.
i don t really know, how Shoosh can evaluate cooking skills via the internet, be it your nephew’s (however he got into this) or mine.
Is sod saying something about this? If sod thinks he knows, he could set up a blog and explain what he means. Otherwise, as much as you seem to be disturbed by his notion of “tipping pointâ€, I’m not really going to engage it because I have no idea what, precisely, one might engage.
.
sorry, i missed this topic and i was seriously surprised to find a discussion about me.
.
i did not bring up the topic of tipping points, nor am i interested in that topic.
.
i think i remember Shoosh talking about “tipping points” in a context (sea ice or temperature graphs from the recent past) that doesn t make any sense. i might have made a comment along the line “you do not know what you are talking about”, which i would still stick to.
.
The reason I want to see a “tipping point†post is because Sod is a phony. I’m sick of seeing him post everyday some doomsday scenario. Sod, I see a lot of talk but not a lot of action. Quit telling me to care when you yourself don’t care. I absolutely demand Sod build a snowmaker on the North Pole and then I will start to take him seriously.
.
this doesn t make any sort of sense. the idea that Shoosh could really hold a PhD is scary.
.
Oh and I am sure your nephew is a great cook but not Sod.
.
i don t really know, how Shoosh can evaluate cooking skills via the internet, be it your nephew’s (however he got into this) or mine. …
“Lucia, can you find out how much money has been allocated to renewable energy by the U.S. government.”
Dr. Shoosh,
I suspect the Lucia and the Warmer followers of this blog, just do not care how much money is wasted. Warmerism is a closely held belief system where numbers don’t represent anything tangible. I hear you, but it’s likely they don’t.
Andrew
Is sod saying something about this? If sod thinks he knows, he could set up a blog and explain what he means. Otherwise, as much as you seem to be disturbed by his notion of “tipping pointâ€, I’m not really going to engage it because I have no idea what, precisely, one might engage.
.
sorry, i missed this topic and i was seriously surprised to find a discussion about me.
.
i did not bring up the topic of tipping points, nor am i interested in that topic.
.
i think i remember Shoosh talking about “tipping points” in a context (sea ice or temperature graphs from the recent past) that doesn t make any sense. i might have made a comment along the line “you do not know what you are talking about”, which i would still stick to.
.
The reason I want to see a “tipping point†post is because Sod is a phony. I’m sick of seeing him post everyday some doomsday scenario. Sod, I see a lot of talk but not a lot of action. Quit telling me to care when you yourself don’t care. I absolutely demand Sod build a snowmaker on the North Pole and then I will start to take him seriously.
.
this doesn t make any sort of sense. the idea that Shoosh could really hold a PhD is scary.
.
Oh and I am sure your nephew is a great cook but not Sod.
.
i don t really know, how Shoosh can evaluate cooking skills via the internet, be it your nephew’s (however he got into this) or mine.
.
ps: having serious problems with this comment… internal server errors..
test
Is sod saying something about this? If sod thinks he knows, he could set up a blog and explain what he means. Otherwise, as much as you seem to be disturbed by his notion of “tipping pointâ€, I’m not really going to engage it because I have no idea what, precisely, one might engage.
.
sorry, i missed this topic and i was seriously surprised to find a discussion about me.
.
i did not bring up the topic of tipping points, nor am i interested in that topic.
.
i think i remember Shoosh talking about “tipping points” in a context (sea ice or temperature graphs from the recent past) that doesn t make any sense. i might have made a comment along the line “you do not know what you are talking about”, which i would still stick to.
.
The reason I want to see a “tipping point†post is because Sod is a phony. I’m sick of seeing him post everyday some doomsday scenario. Sod, I see a lot of talk but not a lot of action. Quit telling me to care when you yourself don’t care. I absolutely demand Sod build a snowmaker on the North Pole and then I will start to take him seriously.
.
this doesn t make any sort of sense. the idea that Shoosh could really hold a PhD is scary.
.
Oh and I am sure your nephew is a great cook but not Sod.
.
i don t really know, how Shoosh can evaluate cooking skills via the internet, be it your nephew’s (however he got into this) or mine.
.
ps: having serious problems with this comment… internal server errors..
Lucia, can you find out how much money has been allocated to renewable energy by the U.S. government. I am very interested to see how much money we’ve wasted based on a stupid hoax. We’ve spent billions of dollars and have zero to show for it.
.
it takes seconds, to find these numbers on google.
.
http://www.ecofriendlymag.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/78158_1332-fossil-fuels-subsidies-more-than-doubles-those-for-renewables.jpg
.
the simple truth is, that total subsidies for fossil fuels are larger than for alternative energy.
.
several countries are approaching 20% of alternative electricity. this is a good thing.
.
that you do not understand something, does not make it bad.
“the simple truth is, that total subsidies for fossil fuels are larger than for alternative energy.”
And there are other negative externalities which are functionally subsidies that don’t show up on the books. The cost of cleaning up coal ash, for example, or the environmental damage of mountaintop mining, or even just the toxic leechings from regular abandoned mines. Coal companies get off the hook on a lot of these costs, which means the costs to society are not factored into the price.
Air pollution from coal-fired plants will kill an estimated 13,000 Americans in 2010. Allowing that to happen, and not holding the coal companies accountable for those costs, by itself constitutes billions of dollars in subsidies.
An externality is not a subsidy. If you go that route then, for example, anyone who owns anything rather than renting it is being subsidized because he isn’t paying income tax on the rent he is paying to himself. That way lies madness. If there’s no cash transfer, it isn’t a subsidy.
sod, that ecofriendly website is giving badly flawed subsidy information.
I recommend you spend a bit of time on factchecks.org and/or snopes researching this before you make this kind of claim.
Place to start.
Slightly outdated, but still apropos Oil and Gas Tax Subsidies: Current Status and Analysis
“An externality is not a subsidy.”
Yeah, actually, in this case, it is. Sorry.
“If you go that route then, for example, anyone who owns anything rather than renting it is being subsidized because he isn’t paying income tax on the rent he is paying to himself.”
The US subsidizes home ownership via the mortgage income tax credit. That’s not even controversial. See, for example, “Mortgage Interest Deduction: An Unfair Subsidy for the Rich” at Veteran’s Today.
A subsidy can be any sort of benefit; it need not be a transfer payment. To subsidize something is to support part of the cost of the thing by paying it yourself. When we decide as a society not to charge coal companies the cost of cleaning up their waste or treating the people they give cancer to, we are deciding to subsidize their operations.
Let me guess…
In Robert’s universe, it isn’t possible to burn coal cleanly.
Because as soon as you allow that it is possible to burn coal cleanly and safely, any deaths related to coal-fired electric plants belongs firmly in the hands of the electric plants and those who decided it was OK to release all of that SO2. It stops being a subsidy of the coal companies, and gasp! becomes the responsible of the people acting irresponsibly. Wow, what a concept.
It took me a bit of work, but here’s Robert’s source, the “Clean Air Task Force”. I’ve no evidence that an advocacy group can act in an objective and unbiased fashion.
Let me guess….
In Robert’s universe, it isn’t possible to burn coal cleanly.
Because as soon as you allow that it is possible to burn coal cleanly and safely, any deaths related to coal-fired electric plants belongs firmly in the hands of the electric plants and those who decided it was OK to release all of that SO2. It stops being a subsidy of the coal companies, and gasp! becomes the responsible of the people acting irresponsibly. Wow, what a concept.
It took me a bit of work, but here’s Robert’s source for 13,000 deaths, the “Clean Air Task Force”. I’ve no evidence that an advocacy group can act in an objective and unbiased fashion.
To SteveF, Carrick, AMac and MikeC and Dr Shooshmon:
Very sorry but I have to concentrate on work stuff for a week or so and may not be able to post.
Thank you all for your points. I am sure we will have further discussions in the future.
Two points for Carrick: I understand acceleration. Please give any evidence you may have for the existence of any sign of ‘rapid and accelerating’ global temperature rise.
MikeC: Roger that, mate.
Dr Shooshmon: Thanks for your comments. The assumption by pro-CAGW advocates that the theory is correct and the ensuing ‘use of a hammer to make the jig-saw pieces fit’ is quite frustrating…
Arfur
… all of those traffic deaths last year, blame it on the car company or the oil company which fuels the car instead of the stoned jack lantern driving stoned while texting.
But big coal is different because if we burn clean coal or find a way to scrub CO2 from the emissions, then it’s bad because it benifits big coal… and big coal is the enemy because in reality, these folks (who are often just plain unproductive) just want to kill off the gains of people who work for a living and build something for themselves and their kids.
Good Sod, they should be heavily subsidizing fossil fuels since they heavily tax them. The government takes 40% of the profits from oil companies.
Carrick, I’ve seen other comments you’ve written and I know you can do better than this:
“Let me guess….
In Robert’s universe, it isn’t possible to burn coal cleanly.”
That’s a straw man several times over. What I actually said was that we chose to subsidize coal-burning plants by failing to hold them accountable for negative externalities like lung disease, toxic coal ash, etc. Let’s look at how badly you are failing in your “guess”:
1. I didn’t say or imply that this was a terrible thing to do. Societies subsidize lots of things. Sometimes it’s a good idea, but mostly it’s not.
2. I didn’t say coal energy was a bad thing. In fact, my remarks imply the contrary: if coal energy is just bad, we should just pass a law against it. If we merely refrain from subsidizing it, then it will continue to exist if the economic benefit justifies (i.e., can pay for) the harms.
3. If you think coal can be a clean energy source, then given how dirty it is today, you ought to support holding the producers accountable for the cost of pollution. That is the most economically efficient and least coercive way to get to clean coal.
“gasp! . . . Wow, what a concept.”
Why are you regressing to eight-year-old speak here?
“It took me a bit of work, but here’s Robert’s source . . .”
You mean like 3 seconds of work on Google? After I gave you the name of the source? Of this report that has been picked up by Reuters and the New York Times? Jesus, man, how crappy are your computer skills if that was an effort for you?
FYI, I avoid links here because the comment filter seems not to like them. The full name of the organization should be sufficient.
“I’ve no evidence that an advocacy group can act in an objective and unbiased fashion.”
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and your ignorance is not evidence of anything.
Deaths from coal pollution have been researched to death and you can find scholarly work on it anywhere. Try “Implications of incorporating air-quality co-benefits into climate change policymaking” for a good discussion (Nemet et al, 2009).
And just let me know if you have trouble finding it. 😉
Artur:
This is a bit of a strawman, since I haven’t been arguing in favor of a “rapid and accelerating” global temperature rise…. All I was doing was criticizing was your bolloxed up effort at assessing whether there was an “acceleration” in “global temperature rise”…
There may or may not be, but your method of using a fixed starting point and changing the lengths of the fit was not a meaningful way of testing this hypothesis. Since you assure everybody you know what acceleration means, perhaps you can rephrase what you are really trying to test more precisely.
Typically people might say the “rate of warming has increased.” That implies some acceleration has occurred at some point, but it states a bit more clearly what we are really looking for, which is in this period the rate of warming is faster than during prior “natural” forcings.
Here is one way of looking at it.
20-year LSF temperature trend versus year. Magenta area is period where anthropogenic activity is expected to have contributed to global mean temperature, blue is “all natural” based on the models.
It’s been warming faster and has been doing so longer than during prior to that, from the surface temperature record. And yes, the positive slope on temperature trend does signify a net rate of acceleration in heating.
I recommend you spend a bit of time on factchecks.org and/or snopes researching this before you make this kind of claim.
.
the fossil fuel industry loves a narrow definition of subsidies.
.
so when Obama would build up a national reserve of solar panels, you would not consider this to be a subsidy to alternative energy? great!
Robert:
That’s not actually what you said Robert.
You said the “Coal companies get off the hook on a lot of these costs, which means the costs to society are not factored into the price” and “When we decide as a society not to charge coal companies the cost of cleaning up their waste or treating the people they give cancer to, we are deciding to subsidize their operations.”
If you had really meant coal-burning electrical plants, that’s a very different thing than a coal company (a company that sells coal). Me responding to the words as you phrased them doesn’t make my comments a “straw argument”.
Also Nehmet et al (“Implications of incorporating air-quality co-benefits into climate change policy making”) doesn’t quote the 13,000 deaths per year number either. Just that one clearly biased source. Whether you read it originally the New York Times or Reuters is irrelevant, the source is still that policy group.
Obviously I don’t argue that coal fired electric plants cause ecological and human damage. I just found the notion that the sellers of coal should be accountable for how the end user (mis-)uses his product to be risible.
Once again, you’ve demonstrated why reading any of your commentary is a waste of time. When you are pressed, we find out you didn’t even agree with what you wrote.
Robert:
That’s not actually what you said Robert.
You said the “Coal companies get off the hook on a lot of these costs, which means the costs to society are not factored into the price” and “When we decide as a society not to charge coal companies the cost of cleaning up their waste or treating the people they give cancer to, we are deciding to subsidize their operations.”
If you had really meant coal-burning electrical plants, that’s a very different thing than a coal company (a company that sells coal). Me responding to the words as you phrased them doesn’t make my comments a “straw argument”.
Also Nehmet et al (“Implications of incorporating air-quality co-benefits into climate change policy making”) doesn’t quote the 13,000 deaths per year number either. Just that one clearly biased source. Whether you read it originally the New York Times or Reuters is irrelevant, the source is still that policy group.
Obviously I don’t argue that coal fired electric plants cause ecological and human damage. I just found the notion that the sellers of coal should be accountable for how the end user (mis-)uses his product to be risible.
Once again, you’ve demonstrated why reading any of your commentary is a waste of time. When you are pressed, we find out even you didn’t agree with what you wrote.
I meant “Obviously I don’t argue that coal fired electric plants don’t cause ecological and human damage.”
“I just found the notion that the sellers of coal should be accountable for how the end user (mis-)uses his product to be risible.”
So I said “coal companies” and you leaped to “coal mining companies”? Rather than coal-burning power plants?
To clarify, I think the polluter should be responsible for the pollution. Sometimes, the difficulty of measuring an externality makes attribution imprecise — as when we use gas taxes as a proxy for responsibility for the repair and upkeep of roads. But you should attribute responsibility as precisely as possible.
Obviously there is a big difference in fine particulate pollution between plants that have installed scrubbers and those that have not. You wouldn’t want to treat both types the same way: that destroys are incentive to pollute less and defeats the purpose.
The problem of CO2 emissions is different, but related; by enabling coal energy producers to avoid having the consequences of the negative externalities on their balance sheets, we advantage fossil fuels relative to other, less polluting sources of energy.
I sound much the same note in talking about corn subsidies and obesity or military aid to Egypt and Israel vs peace in the Middle East: while we’re trying to solve this problem, maybe we should stop paying people with our own tax dollars to make to worse. That’s really my only point.
“Whether you read it originally the New York Times or Reuters is irrelevant, the source is still that policy group.”
It’s relevant to your silly claim that you had to work to find something that is all over the web.
“Just that one clearly biased source.”
You haven’t shown any evidence that the source is biased. Nor that that number is any way controversial. Indeed, it’s lower than previous years (last report was in 2004) by about a third. CATF’s study extensively cited the peer-reviewed research in this area to come up with their numbers. (See, for example, “Fine-Particulate Air Pollution and Life Expectancy in the United States” in the January 2009 New England Journal of Medicine.)
Show me some evidence this group has their thumb on the scale, and I’ll be happy to consider it. You haven’t come up with any so far.
“Me responding to the words as you phrased them doesn’t make my comments a “straw argumentâ€.”
Sorry, no. There’s no reasonable way to read my words in which I said or implied that “it isn’t possible to burn coal cleanly.” (And it was silly of you in any case to jump to the conclusion — contrary to all the context provided — that “coal companies” meant “mining companies” and not coal-burning companies.) That’s a straw man, plain and simple. Something is unclear to you, you ask for clarification. It doesn’t grant you carte blanche to misrepresent what I posted.
“I just found the notion that the sellers of coal should be accountable for how the end user (mis-)uses his product to be risible.”
So I said “coal companies” and you leaped to “coal mining companies”? Rather than coal-burning power plants? And just chose to ignore that both producers and consumers of coal cause environmental and health damages they do not pay for?
To clarify with regards to air pollution, I think the polluter should be responsible for the pollution (and the miners should be responsible for the tailings, etc.) Sometimes, the difficulty of measuring an externality makes attribution imprecise — as when we use gas taxes as a proxy for responsibility for the repair and upkeep of roads. But you should attribute responsibility as precisely as possible.
Obviously there is a big difference in fine particulate pollution between plants that have installed scrubbers and those that have not. You wouldn’t want to treat both types the same way: that destroys are incentive to pollute less and defeats the purpose.
The problem of CO2 emissions is different, but related; by enabling coal energy producers to avoid having the consequences of the negative externalities on their balance sheets, we advantage fossil fuels relative to other, less polluting sources of energy.
I sound much the same note in talking about corn subsidies and obesity or military aid to Egypt and Israel vs peace in the Middle East: while we’re trying to solve this problem, maybe we should stop paying people with our own tax dollars to make to worse. That’s really my only point.
“Whether you read it originally the New York Times or Reuters is irrelevant, the source is still that policy group.”
It’s relevant to your silly claim that you had to work to find something that is all over the web.
“Just that one clearly biased source.”
You haven’t shown any evidence that the source is biased. Nor that that number is any way controversial. Indeed, it’s lower than previous years (last report was in 2004) by about a third. CATF’s study extensively cited the peer-reviewed research in this area to come up with their numbers. (See, for example, “Fine-Particulate Air Pollution and Life Expectancy in the United States” in the January 2009 New England Journal of Medicine.)
Show me some evidence this group has their thumb on the scale, and I’ll be happy to consider it. You haven’t come up with any so far.
“Me responding to the words as you phrased them doesn’t make my comments a “straw argumentâ€.”
“Once again, you’ve demonstrated why reading any of your commentary is a waste of time. When you are pressed, we find out even you didn’t agree with what you wrote.”
Sorry, no. There’s no reasonable way to read my words in which I said or implied that “it isn’t possible to burn coal cleanly.” (And it was silly of you in any case to jump to the conclusion — contrary to all the context provided — that “coal companies” meant “mining companies” and not coal-burning companies.) That’s a straw man, plain and simple. Something is unclear to you, you ask for clarification. It doesn’t grant you carte blanche to misrepresent what I posted.
I’m sorry to see the childish tone you’re taking here. Despite (or because?) you are in a completely blind alley, arguing a figure nobody contests, building straw men and excusing your sloppy reading by blaming me for failing to defend a position I never took, you seem to be trying to make up in vitriol what you lack in integrity.
If this pathetic effort is the best you can do, by all means, don’t read or respond to my posts. 😉
Robert, let’s just leave this at “you’re an idiot” and be done with it.
Given the pile of sick it pleases you to call your argument above, ad hominem is probably an improvement. Although what it tells us about your character when “pressed” (as you put it) is kind of sad.
“Coal company” of course implies “coal producing”. Otherwise, what the hell… By your supposed word usage then, a trucking company would then be an “oil company”, lol.
And I see your ability to parse English is just about as good as your ability to use the delete button when you double-post one of your comments.
So you spend all of this energy attacking me with that brain vomit that you splattered all over Lucia’s blog because I took your words at their plain English meaning, rather than just admit you didn’t write your original comment clearly enough that anybody could possibly follow anything you meant.
Wow, let’s talk about what that implies about your character, shall we?
People haven’t engaged you by returning the nasty vitriolic insults you’ve blessed us all with, mostly out of respect for Lucia. You’re obviously a childish little man, not worth anybody’s time or respect.
You’re in a hole. Time to stop digging, friend. Once you’ve resorted to “Yeah — you’re stupid, how about that?” the argument is officially over. You’ve lost.
Above, you had the admirable idea of not commenting on my posts any more, which I was completely on board with, give the quality of those comments to date. I regret to see you haven’t had the self-control to follow through with that. It’s still a good idea. Your sloppy, abusive, immature posts fail even as polemic. I’m embarrassed for you.
carrick wins
carrick, think about what would happen if we shut down coal in the US. How many people would freeze to death or die of heat stroke when electricity is too expensive and / or unavailable… especially the old and the young. Think about how many millions of people would lose their jobs because the plant closed… and the suffering that would cause… not to mention the suffering that would be caused globaly when the entire economy of the world collapses. Some folks would rather starve billions.
“MikeC (Comment#52413) September 15th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
carrick wins”
Stop it, Mike. It’s funner when Robert kicks over people’s sand structures.
On second thought, completely disregard what I just said…keep going. What was I thinking?
Andrew
I’m putting barbed wire around MY sandbox!
“I’m putting barbed wire around MY sandbox!”
MikeC,
Ha. We can still see you playing with your flower pail and lil’ pink shovel. 😉
Andrew
Yep, exactly… you get to watch MEEEEEEEEEEE play
Carrick,
When somebody can’t admit to even the simplest obvious error, further engagement is just a waste of time.
I’m with you there, Steve…. not only can he not admit simple, obvious errors, he tries to hide his errors in vitriolic rhetoric and petty ad hominem attacks. Not a good combination for constructive dialog.
MikeC, while there’s no accounting for what wackos “think” (using that term advisably), it appears that many/most advocates for reform favor emissions improvements. Certainly getting rid of coal as an energy source would have far more drastic effects on health, for reasons that you pointed out, than simply moderating its emissions.
Carrick,
“Not a good combination for constructive dialog.”
I don’t think constructive dialog is the motivation.
Sure Sod, if they plan on taxing the crap out of them I guess I have no problem.
“I’m with you there, Steve . . .”
Of course you are. Two peas in a pod.
Take a good look at what you wrote above. It’s chock full of insults marinated in whining and nastiness. Compare my responses. I gave you more than one chance to have a rational discussion, but I guess you could tell you were going to lose that fight.
Guess what; you lost anyway. Foaming at the mouth didn’t help your case. Try a reasoned argument next time and maybe you’ll leave with your dignity. 😉
There one other piece of Carrick’s silliness that deserves parsing:
“People haven’t engaged you by returning the nasty vitriolic insults you’ve blessed us all with, mostly out of respect for Lucia.”
This followed hard on the heels of this exchange:
Me: “You haven’t shown any evidence that the source is biased. Nor that that number is any way controversial. Indeed, it’s lower than previous years (last report was in 2004) by about a third. CATF’s study extensively cited the peer-reviewed research in this area to come up with their numbers. (See, for example, “Fine-Particulate Air Pollution and Life Expectancy in the United States†in the January 2009 New England Journal of Medicine.)”
Carrick: “let’s just leave this at “you’re an idiot†and be done with it.”
So which poster is described by the phrase “nasty vitriolic insults”? I leave it as an exercise for the reader.
Also delusional is the idea that posters here “haven’t engaged [me].” The reality is quite the opposite. There are a number of people here, SteveF being a prime example, who have been repeatedly told that I have no interest in their nonsense, and who nevertheless try to engage me at every opportunity, despite (or because of) the fact that I never respond.
Carrick himself, despite insisting that “reading any of your commentary is a waste of time” continues to engage — can’t seem to let things rest.
I’d love it if people like Carrick whose response to a rational argument is “you’re an idiot” would just refrain from “debating” (if that’s the right word) with me. Unfortunately the emotional immaturity which resorts to that behavior is the same immaturity that prevents them from just leaving matters alone.
If coal was so bad, how come the Earth was so cold during the greatest coal burning event in Earth’s history.
The majority of the coal formed during the Carboniferous period, a period when there were very large glaciers at the South Pole, Earth was probably 2.0C colder than today and the Oxygen content of the atmosphere was 35%. Forest fires were unstoppable because of the high Oxygen levels and the newly forming coal burned almost continuously.
Coal fires/burning – cold Earth – Robert’s assertions – hmmm.
Yes, we should put a Carbon Tax on everyone who posts too much on the internet, thus using more coal-generated electricity than the average person – especially when those posts have no content – like this one – and especially like Robert’s posts.
Bill,
Don’t waste your time.
I’ll tell you what would happen if we “shut down coal.” People would switch to natural gas, which is both more abundant than previously thought, and has infrastructure that is only 40% utilized.
stevef:
I’m certainly not going to…the guy is a joke.
cce:
We can thank the EPA for adding new extra hurdles to the use of natural gas, e.g., in conversion kits to run your car off natural gas.
Bill Illis (Comment#52493) September 18th, 2010 at 8:06 pm
CO2 is not the only forcing. It is the most active one at the moment.
You also seem to be playing a common ‘skeptics’ game, say that because you don’t understand something, the scientists must be wrong.
“I’m certainly not going to…the guy is a joke.”
Yeah . . . what with my rational arguments and peer-reviewed sources. Your technique of flying off the handle and resorting to name-calling when pressed is so . . . well, it’s different, anyway.
As I said above, please don’t “waste your time” if this is really the best you can do. You promised to ignore me above — I was quite looking forward to it — but you seem incapable of following through.
If you’re staying, please formulate a rational argument, and stop the name-calling and misdirected nitpicking. If you’re going — bye bye.
Carrick,
“the guy is a joke.”
You forgot to include “bad” before “joke”.
“CO2 is not the only forcing. It is the most active one at the moment.”
bugs,
How do you know this?
Andrew
Auto emissions are regulated by the EPA, whether they be from gasoline engines, diesel engines, or CNG engines. The air and water is irrefutably cleaner because of these regulations. If the Federal Government wasn’t interested in increasing the use of natural gas in vehicles, they wouldn’t be paying up to 80% of the vehicle conversion cost and 30% of the equipment cost of setting up a refueling station.
cce:
They aren’t paying for it, not even a dime… US citizens are via their taxes.
That’s the new US government for you. Make everything cost 5x as much, then charge the taxpayers to pay for it.
Just because some regulation is good, doesn’t mean all regulation is good. Hopefully you realize that too.
“They aren’t paying for it, not even a dime… US citizens are via their taxes.”
It’s bad enough to relentlessly nitpick meaningless distinctions, but what is special about you, Carrick, is that you do not even get the things you nitpick right.
The federal government does indeed pay for these programs. They get the money to pay for them in a variety of ways, including levying taxes (on citizens as well as non-citizens who reside in the US, or do business here), charging fees borrowing money, and, if they chose, printing money.
Thus your nitpick in factually inaccurate in at least two ways: not all of the government’s funds come from taxes paid by citizens, and even if they did, that would still be a source of revenue — US citizens are not “paying for it through their taxes” any more than my employer is paying for my mortgage via my wages.
My suggestions to you are, in order a) Try not to nitpick, it makes you look silly and advertises the fact that you don’t have an actual argument to present, and b) If you absolutely must nitpick, get your facts right. The only thing more foolish than obsessing over a pointless detail is obsessing over it and simultaneously getting it wrong.
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/nitpick.htm
Andrew_KY (Comment#52506) September 19th, 2010 at 9:58 am
“CO2 is not the only forcing. It is the most active one at the moment.â€
bugs,
How do you know this?
Andrew
AR4, “Understanding and attributing”. The sun isn’t doing the forcing at the moment, it’s signal is cooling, not warming. Milankovich isn’t doing anything. Same for the rest of them. That leaves CO2, which is a greenhouse gas and is in the process of doubling in concentration, at least.
“The sun isn’t doing the forcing at the moment, it’s signal is cooling, not warming. Milankovich isn’t doing anything. Same for the rest of them.”
bugs,
These are just more assertions. I asked “how do you know”.
Andrew
Robert:
You are wrong. These all get passed to the consumer:
If the federal government charges companies fees or taxation, that gets passed on to the consumer as increased product costs. If the federal government prints money, that devalues the dollar (it is entirely inflationary). Again that gets passed on to the consumer. I recognize that the consumer is not exactly the same thing as the taxpayer but since you’re preaching about nitpicking, you should probably let that slide…
The point of my comment is the federal government doesn’t pay for anything. When they decide to spend the money, that burden gets passed onto the rest of us. And secondly, simply because regulation can be good, that doesn’t mean it’s always good.
Perhaps CCE thought I was some libertarian nut, which I’m not. I understand the importance of regulating emissions, and agree with him it has done much good, but the system is far from sane at the moment, and that was my real point. Effectively they are applying the brakes and the throttle at the same time, on NGP vehicles.
His counter argument that “well they are providing them with big incentives” rings hollow simply because “we” get to pace the price for their incompetence. And it’s not nitpicking to point out who ends up paying the price for an 80% underwriting of a vehicle conversion.
“You are wrong. These all get passed to the consumer”
Let me start with something I agree with:
“simply because regulation can be good, that doesn’t mean it’s always good.”
Absolutely. I was a hard-core libertarian for several years . . . something about a few simple, absolute principles from which you derive all the answers is very attractive, especially to youth. As I get older, I find my answer to a lot of the “deep questions” about politics and society is “Well, it depends.”
“I recognize that the consumer is not exactly the same thing as the taxpayer but since you’re preaching about nitpicking, you should probably let that slide…”
Fair enough. I recognize my own argument as a counter-nitpick. It just seemed to me you could have made the point that the vast majority of government’s wealth ultimately comes from taxing others, if that was a point that needed to be made for your argument, rather than criticizing somebody for saying “the government pays.” The government really does pay, even if their money doesn’t come from making something or investments or something else most of us would consider “productive.” Even if somebody got money by robbing a bank, and paid their rent with it, we’d say they paid their rent with stolen money, not that the bank paid their rent.
“Effectively they are applying the brakes and the throttle at the same time”
That’s so often the case with government policy, isn’t it? Sometime I think it’d accept the polar opposite of my ideological views as a permanent condition in government if we could have integrity, consistency, and common sense in the way the intentions were put into practice. As I wrote above:
It’d like to apologize for the negative, belittling tone in much of my remarks above. I hope we can have better exchanges in the future.
Energy expenditures as a share of GDP have ranged from a low of 5.9% (1999) and a high of 13.7% (1981) since the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970. In 2007, the last year with data, it was 8.8%. The cost of energy is heavily influenced by geopolitics (i.e. oil) and not environmental and safety regulations. If US energy use continued the trajectory it was on pre-1970, the air and water would be toxic and prices would be sky high due to unsustainable demand.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/txt/ptb0105.html
Also, making certain conversion kits are built and installed to a certain standard is not “applying the brakes” to CNG vehicles. Diesel and gas vehicles are subject to regulation. Why should CNG vehicles be exempt?
cce:
You appear to be setting up false alternatives here, cce, as well as posing arguments to refute which I have never made.
The alternative to bad regulation is not “no regulation.” And just because in one case the regulation was appropriate, doesn’t make it so in all cases, anymore than examples of bad regulations demonstrates that regulation is never a good thing.
You’re reading too much into what I’ve said. I’m criticizing the particular regulations as harming or even halting the progress towards adopting propane/NG fuel.
I’m sure in your world view, it is possible for unelected bureaucrats to overreach and make too restrictive regulations.
Isn’t it?
Robert:
Agreed. I’ve had a pretty rough weekend (my daughter is having problems) so I was being a bit snittier than I usually am, and I apologize for my tone as well.
Carrick,
I don’t know what objections you have to EPA’s CNG regulations. All you have said is things like, “Make everything cost 5x as much, then charge the taxpayers to pay for it.” “Everything” implies that you do not consider government regulation and incentives to be worthwhile. History suggests that US energy policy has not made energy (as a share of GDP) more expensive, although it has dramatically improved air and water quality.
cce, perhaps you could do a bit of research on your own instead of defending something blindly?
There’s plenty of data out there on the effects of the recent increase in EPA regulation on the adoption (or lack there of) of CNG vehicles. You are certainly allowed to make up your own mind, but as far as I can tell you see any dissension with EPA policy as a blasphemous activity.
Again I’ve said absolutely nothing about regulations in general being a bad thing, you are projecting your own biases there and reading things that aren’t there…
I would say a well-regulated free market is essential to the health of a democracy:
For people who missed that civics course, “free market” means “freedom to enter and exit” the market (the market decides how much to produce or not produce, not the central government, for example) rather than “free from regulation.” And “well regulation” doesn’t mean “infinitely regulated” nor “unregulated”.. it means regulated well enough that the excesses of a laissez faire economy are avoided but that the burden of the regulations do not exceed their benefit.
I did some research on CNG conversions, and it appears that a considerable amount of trouble and expense are required to get an EPA certificate for a particular after-market conversion. Wikipedia estimates $50,000, but they don’t give a source. NGVAmerica estimates $200,000 including design and manufacturing costs:
http://www.ngvamerica.org/pdfs/FAQs_Converting_to_NGVs.pdf
Taking the figure of $50,000 at face value, it does indeed increase the cost of converting by a factor of but or more, based on this price list (Ibid):
But here’s the thing: a certificate is required not for every vehicle, but only once for each engine family. Once a type of engine has a certified conversion build, you can install it in your vehicle without going through the certification process. A list of certified engine types can be found here:
http://www.epa.gov/OMS/cert/dearmfr/cisd0602.pdf
The EPA regulations do create a barrier to entry for new conversions, but if both of the above sources are right (and I don’t know that they are, but the numbers seem reasonable) it’s only about 25% of the total cost of bringing a new CNG engine conversion to market. That’s a burden, but not an incredibly onerous one. The incremental cost, distributed among hundreds or thousands of conversions, is small.
I have to research it further to see if this cost is really justified, or whether it represents unnecessary red tape. The following passage from the document above interested me:
If the “reasonable basis” exception worked out OK for 5+ years, it seems reasonable to ask why the EPA discontinued it in favor of the more stringent regulations. Those regulations should not greatly affect the price of individual vehicle conversions, but could discourage new engine types from becoming available for CNG conversion.
Another example of government regulations impacting the green innovations politicians say they want (and to my mind a more clear-cut case of poorly thought-out rules): an isolated town in Alaska (Galena) is seriously considering a revolutionary micronuclear plant developed by Toshiba for their power needs. But . . .
42 to 60 months We really don’t have time for this crap. Consumer safety and the rule of law are worthy principles, but there is such a thing as missing the forest for the trees.
Re: Robert (Sep 20 17:07),
Nuclear licensing is the worst case, but it applies to almost any major plant. There’s a reason why no new refineries or chemical plants on completely new sites have been built in the US for quite some time now. Environmental Impact review can seriously multiply the cost.
Another thing to note is the EPA regulations on CNG basically make licenses inaccessible to small businesses. Since most real innovation in the US is driven by small businesses, it’s easy to see how this regulation is extremely regressive, in addition to being anti-competive (IMO, the real intended purpose of it).
Carrick,
Perhaps you can do can do your own research to back up your own assertions rather than providing a dissertation of “infinite regulation vs no regulation”. Specifically, what has the “new US government” done to make CNG conversions, or anything else in the energy industry, 5X more expensive? And who says the regulations are oppressive? The people selling it?
The alternative fuel tax credits were included in the 2005 energy bill. They were modified in the 2009 ARRA (stimulus) bill. The EPA guidance Robert linked above was from 2006. I’m a bit confused as to which US government to blame.
And lest we forget, this entire discussion of CNG vehicles began as an attack on the EPA in response to my statement that natural gas can displace a lot of coal. One might consider such a segue a projection of bias.
cce:
This is incredibly lame, coming from you. To start with, I had already done my own research.. Robert just saved you the time of actually doing any work on your own by posting the basic facts on this blog. That shouldn’t have been necessary.
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the enormous costs and highly technical requirements puts the conversion well outside of the reach of most auto mechanics. What had been a growing business has nearly shut down at this point.
Either this is a political grasping for straws for somebody to point blame or it is an argument about the history of the regulations, which is of no interest to me. They are as they are now, and that is what we have to deal with.
“A projection of bias”?
You are so totally full of yourself. You’ve been doing nothing but projecting your own biases on my comments, inventing things that I never said in order to criticize them.
As to “attack on the EPA”… LMAO. Objecting to a particular set of regulations is now an “attack” on the agency?