24 thoughts on “The Climate Debate”

1. “Steve: well, it seems obvious to me that there is a “consensus” among climate scientists that climate sensitivity is in IPCC range. I am baffled as to why people bother trying to challenge this. Nor do I believe that it is unreasonable for someone who is not especially interested in the topic to accept IPCC views on the matter.” “Brandon appreciates that this doesn’t mean that more scientists oppose the stated view than endorse it – only that the methodology of the study is inadequate. This is a distinction that is too often ignored – on both sides of the aisle. In substantive terms, it is evident to me that there is a “consensus” of climate scientists on many points, not all of which have equal evidentiary support. Although science is “self-correcting”, at any given point in time, the “self-correction” may not have taken place. IMO people interested in the connection of scientific articles to policy are very much entitled to inquire into the evidentiary support for each proposition and should be praised, rather than ridiculed, for such interest.”
   Some of Steve McIntyre’s comments on consensus. http://climateaudit.org/2014/05/17/threats-from-the-university-of-queensland/
   It seems to me that he is obviously right. A considerable majority of climate scientists probably do support the full IPCC consensus. Not 97%, of course; just looking at those studies that get that number shows anyone how silly they are and how they’re aiming for that number. Because “97%” means: everyone except for crackpots. 80%, probably more accurate, means: this is an open question in the field. Very very different.
   And of course, as Judith Curry points out, there are a number of issues chained together in the “consensus”. No one scientist understands all of them; they start with physics and end up with zoology, economics and politics. Most scientists are taking someone’s word for it for most parts of the puzzle, even within climate science itself. Certainly a “consensus” among climate scientists as to what should be done politically or economically makes zero sense – who cares what they think? And among economists and politicians there is no consensus at all. Bjorn Lomborg’s economists, several of whom have Nobel Prizes, think the IPCC solutions return pennies on the dollar at best.

2. Note to grifters and scam artists: if you are going to throw around the 97% figure, better make it 97.3%. Numbers, no matter how bogus, are much more believable when they have a decimal point and that helps to sell the con.

3. “Most scientists (including me) believe that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Period. Once you get beyond that, to whether or not we are causing a significant change in the climate with emissions, let alone whether or not the results will be catastrophic, and need to be addressed with immediate public policy, the “consensus” falls completely apart.”

   So, you do believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That’s an interesting admission from you.
   Do you think there is some level of CO2 and Methane where the earth’s temperature will rise to an inhospitable level for human civilization?

   1. Lomborg’s group has already estimated that by mid-century, the price of solar will most likely drop below fossil fuels without any tricky bookkeeping. That means that everyone will switch without expensive subsidies, we won’t keep adding carbon to the atmosphere indefinitely, and your question becomes moot. We do need to estimate how much warming there will be for the CO2 we expect. If we’re lucky, it won’t be too much to handle. Fracking, of course, helps a lot, which is why good people support it.

      1. It’s never going to happen unless there are monumental gains in efficiency. With current efficiencies, the amount of material needed just for support structures outstrips decades of our total current production. I’m not even sure the efficiencies needed are even possible, and add on top of that, more efficiency probably would mean more susceptibility to failure, and spiraling maintenance requirements.

         Then, you run full bore into Jevon’s paradox, and it’s game over.

         1. With current efficiencies, the amount of material needed just for support structures outstrips decades of our total current production.

            Current production of what? I gather you’re not referring to support structure materials like steel, aluminum, concrete, glass, or wood.

            Then, you run full bore into Jevon’s paradox, and it’s game over.

            Except that in that scenario, solar energy is still cheaper to some degree than the alternatives and hence would be preferentially used. You’ll just end up with an increase in demand, mostly supplied by solar power.

   2. So, you do believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That’s an interesting admission from you.

      It’s interesting only to morons, who don’t understand math or physics, and imagine that I don’t either.

      1. so Do you think there is some level of CO2 and Methane where the earth’s temperature will rise to an inhospitable level for human civilization?

         if you accept the physics of greenhouse gases, then do you accept the logical conclusion that at some level of CO2 or Methane, that the Earth’s mean temperature will rise by 10C?

         1. Do you think there is some level of CO2 and Methane where the earth’s temperature will rise to an inhospitable level for human civilization?

            That seems very unlikely. No one has put forth a plausible case for it.

            if you accept the physics of greenhouse gases, then do you accept the logical conclusion that at some level of CO2 or Methane, that the Earth’s mean temperature will rise by 10C?

            That is not a logical conclusion. It stupidly assumes that the only factor in global temperature is the amount of CO2 or methane and that there are no mechanisms to bound the amounts of those gases. But stupid is as stupid does.

            1. “That is not a logical conclusion. It stupidly assumes that the only factor in global temperature is the amount of CO2 or methane and that there are no mechanisms to bound the amounts of those gases”

               So you believe in some model for climate stability? Interesting.
               Got any pointers to that?

            2. Why is the onus on me? You provide a pointer to any time in the history of the planet when the climate actually went out of control. There has always been some form of negative feedback. The burden of proof is on those who claim that somehow, for the first time in history, it will become positive.

            3. “that there are no mechanisms to bound the amounts of those gases””

               that sounds like you believe in a model of stability in climate.

               Interesting. You recognize that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but you can’t
               exactly explain why the climate would be stable when you add greenhouse gases.

               Interesting.

            4. You are stupidly assuming that there are no natural mechanisms to remove CO2. They’re called plants, among other things.

            5. Note that we had a happy, stable climate wth CO2 levels running 4,000 ppm, ten times higher than current levels, and that Earth’s sea-level pressure over in Venus’s nearly pure CO2 atmosphere, the temperature is about the same as Florida’s, and with twice as much solar intensity beating down on the planet.

               CO2 doesn’t have magic powers, and it only blocks a small bit of the IR window. It’s like adding more and more insulation to your left bedroom window when many others in the house are still wide open. It can warm up the house a tiny bit, but even if you entirely block that one window the radiation is still going to go out the other windows. An infinite amount of CO2 only produces a small amount of warming. It’s physics.

         2. Rand So you think as CO2 levels will rise, plant growth will increase balancing CO2 levels?

            http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/07/18/whats-up/

            we have lots of data from Mauna Loa and ice core data before that. Where is the
            evidence for increased plant productivity?

            1. Where is the evidence for increased plant productivity?

               There’s the thermodynamical evidence. Sorting a component (at a fixed degree of purity) out of a mixture takes less work when the concentration of the component in the mixture is higher.

4. Even the warmist admit the CO2 itself isn’t the issue, its the assumed negative feedback effects, effects that if really in existence, would have revealed themselves in a 4 Billion years.

   Feedback Effects

   The IPCC predictions of future warming are based on model assumptions of positive feedback effects which are supposed to result from the initial warming caused by CO2 emissions. The main feedback effect is that of increased evaporation of the oceans leading to an increased greenhouse effect of water vapour (already 80 – 90% of greenhouse effect). However it is known that cloud cover in general leads to a net cooling effect on the Earth by blocking incident solar radiation. An increase in cloud cover of 10% would be enough to cancel out global warming effcets of increased CO2 ( Barry & Chorley).

   http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169

   Adding CO2 after a point has little effect, there is a diminishing returns phenomenon where even doubling the amount adds little to the temp and we are close to there now. The is a saturation effect where CO2(and the water vapor overlap) has essentially trapped all the solar energy at the wavelengths it effects. beyond that, you are sucking a live hole. Like adding oxidizer to a fire where all the fuel has been exhausted.

   1. so you believe in a model of increased cloud cover and you disagree with the model
      of stable cloud cover?

      Interesting. What qualifies you to determine which predictive model is most likely to
      be correct?

      1. Nothing does. No one is qualified to do so. To quote Joni Mitchell, they don’t understand clouds at all, you moron.

         1. So do you understand cloud formation physics?

            1. No, you moron. No one does.

            2. Rand says : “No one understands cloud formation physics”

               So all those PhDs with study areas in atmospheric physics, Meteorology,
               Planetary science, they don’t understand cloud formation physics?

               Interesting.

            3. Not well enough to accurately model it, apparently. Why are you being so stupid?

5. Should read: “Sucking a dry hole.” an exercise in futility.

Comments are closed.