The Oxburgh report on the science done at the CRU has now been published and….. as in the first inquiry, they find no scientific misconduct, no impropriety and no tailoring of the results to a preconceived agenda, though they do suggest more statisticians should have been involved. They have also some choice words to describe the critics.
Carry on…
On Solar Power, grid
Re 1133 Barton Paul Levenson, 1139 David B. Benson – Thanks.
Also to add that, in addition to the multiple other renewable/clean energy resources and perhaps storage options (CAES, thermal storage as part of the CPV or solar pond devices, PV hydrogen/other, hydroelectric storage and desalination and increased aluminum production and carbon sequestration during sunny dry weather and increased hydroelectric output in cloudy rainy weather) that when combined in category and space can help better match output to load, there are also different types and variations of solar power:
Solar ponds, variations on the idea (direct + diffuse solar energy (available during cloudy weather, though with less power available) with what amounts to a greenhouse effect, storing energy at higher temperature to drive a heat engine, mechanical or otherwise)
CSP (geometric concentration of direct solar energy to store energy at high temperature to drive a heat engine, mechanical or otherwise (maybe a thermophotovoltaic cell facing a photonic crystal attached to a hot body)) – could also use a greenhouse effect to boost operating temperature
PV flat panel – direct + diffuse solar energy, has chemical potential determined by brightness temperature (wavelength dependent for actual spectrum), raises energy of electron-hole pairs, which cool to quasi-thermodynamic equilibrium with the material via phonons with conversion of energy to chemical potential of the electrons relative to the holes Δμ (as I understand it, if the temperature of the electrons and holes in each band comes to a quasi-thermodynamic equilibrium with the material with the temeprature Ta, then the distribution of electrons over energy within each band is that for the temperature Ta and a quasi-fermi level determined by charge carrier populations, and the difference between those quasi-fermi levels between bands in the Δμ of the two sets of charge carriers; Δμ increases as Ta is reduced for the same population of excited charge carriers), which, for any given wavelength, will radiatively recombine at a rate determined by absorptivity and by the equilibrium effective brightness temperature that depends on Δμ, so that maximum efficiency occurs when the chemical potential difference(proportional to voltage of cell in the absence of resistance) is low enough that the net production (production – recombination) of electron-holes is high enough to produce a sizable current while still having the chemical potential difference high enough to have that current flow with a good amount of voltage – for a pair of energy levels seperated by energy E between bands, the effective equilbrium brightness temperature Teff = Ta * E / (E – Δμ) (it can be shown that the population density of electrons and holes at a pair of energy levels seperatued by E with Δμ and T=Ta is the same as that for T=Teff and Δμ=0); the net production rate of electron-hole pairs is zero if this effective temperature is equal to the brightness temperature of the radiation within the cell; the effective brightness temperature is higher for lower-energy electron-hole pairings so the net conversion rate of radiation to Δμ of electron-hole pairs varies with photon E even for a fixed material with fixed electronic structure and will tend to be negative for smaller E that are still larger than the bandgap energy; efficiency could be maximized by reducing absorption and thus emission of photons below some threshold energy E that itself will be larger than the band-gap energy; whole spectrum conversion can be maximized by directing different wavelengths to different cells with different electronic properties; the brightess temperature in this context depends on intensity and is increased by concentration of direct radiation incident on the cell, or alternatively by restricting the directions along which emitted radiation can escape the cell to those directions from which solar radiation of sizable intensity is incident on the cell; total internal reflection limits the corresponding range of directions within the cell material… for the same brightness temperature, intensity increases with the square of the real component n of the index of refraction; the efficiency can also be increased by using a thinner layer (increases collection efficiency or allows use of poorer-quality material) and using total internal reflection with scattering to give the same solar photons multiple passes through the cell while filling a larger solid angle within the material… (see Jenny Nelson’s “The physics of solar cells”; I’ve only read the part available on google books)
PV using photosensitizing layers or particles? to use thinner layers of absorbing material (increases collection efficiency or allows use of poorer-quality material) … something with surface plasmons; I don’t really understand it well.
PV with hot carrier technology (the electrons and holes are collected before cooling to the cell temperature; what is the Δμ in this case? 0? What determines the voltage in this case?)
Luminescent concentrators – can use diffuse and direct radiation, a layer absorbs radiation and fluoresces (if fluorescence is nearly monochromatic radiation, than emission of significant radiant intensity could produce very high brightness temperatures, so the emitted radiation could have low entropy; the entropy of the incident radiation would have to go into the energy that is not fluoresced but rather heats the material) with total internal reflection concentrating the radiation on PV cells on the edges of the layer; multiple layers using different parts the spectrum can be stacked.
greenhouse TPV ? – like luminescent concentrators except a flat panel traps heat to produce higher intensity lower photon energy radiation that is directed toward TPV cells (I don’t know if this option is as feasable as others)
CPV – concentrated direct radiation onto PV devices
hybrid systems or cogeneration – conversion to electricity plus use of waste heat; for solar cells, which generally are more efficient at lower temperatures, low-temperature heat can be obtained while cooling the cells; the heated fluid could then be boosted to higher temperatures by a collector devoted to that purpose, and/or with fuel, heat pump, other waste heat, etc.
Direct use of solar light (which can be used again as heat upon absorption within a building)
Use of solar heat – high temperature (such as via CSP)
Use of solar heat – low temperature (such as solar water-heating)
And different materials and different designs and categories might work more efficiently and economically in some conditions verses others – for example, skylights could be used where trees give partial shading while PV panels would preferably be placed outside the regular reach of shadows. The spectrum of incident solar radiation is different for direct and diffuse radiation and will vary with solar angle and atmospheric conditions (water vapor).
If installation and removal costs are low enough relative to the life cycle costs, it might be justified to take older (when PV panels get old; be prepared to wait a few decades) less efficient PV panels from electricity-only generation sites and reinstall as parts of hybrid systems in colder locations (??).
Note that CSP and solar heating in general lend themselves to storage of energy on the time scale of hours to a day.
“the net production rate of electron-hole pairs is zero if this effective temperature is equal to the brightness temperature of the radiation within the cell”
absent non-radiative recombination
Re Ike Solem – A cap-and-trade or cap/fee and dividend or cap with 100 % auction or simple tax (with appropriate adjustments for trade among countries with differing policies) will tend to push demand and investment (includes R&D) toward alternatives. If there are problems with how the market responds (stuck in a rut) or other policies that should be changed (fossil fuel subsidies), then so be it. But the price signal imposed by such a cap/fee/tax approach can still act as a motivator for change, with other policies (building codes, portfolios, R&D funding, public infrastructure and planning and investing in necessary evaluations of environmental impacts of solar power plants, for example) guiding that motivation and helping with market imperfections (or helping make up for lost time) where necessary. An increase in energy costs in general encourages efficiency; however the revenue is used, so long as it is not wasted, at least some of it can help deal with increased costs without removing the motivation from the price signals. (Some could be used to sequester CO2, for the same price as the tax on CO2eq – whether or not the methods (biochar, carbonate mineral production) work, in principle this makes sense if an effective and environmentally sound sequestration option were to be found/developed; if it is too expensive or emits more CO2eq than it takes up, than it won’t be done for what is offered (payment rate equal to the tax/fee rate).)
1118 MarkB: The link works for me. Maybe the server was temporarily down.
http://www.marklynas.org/2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-summary-of-six-degrees-as-published-in-the-guardian
1137 Walter Manny: Yup. Read: “Climate Cover-Up” by James Hoggan. The fossil fuel industry, notably the Western Fuels Association, Exxon-Mobil and Koch Oil Co have spent many millions of dollars to confuse you. I recommend you get a degree in a hard science so that they will not be able to fool you so easily in the future. You need laboratory courses to get in touch with reality. That goes for everybody who is not already a scientist. ALL college majors should require at least the “Engineering and Science Core Curriculum.” All high schools should require 4 years of physics, 4 years of chemistry, 4 years of biology and 8 years of math of all students.
In a technological society, everybody has to be a scientist.
@ Ric and CFU:
My point on solar and wind, as it has been from the start, is that “free” is a misnomer. There is a substantial outlay that comes with renewables; to ask “Why wouldn’t you want to use FREE energy?” is a lie by omission.
It’s much like the “free” gizmo advertized on TV; the product is “free,” but the shipping and handling for your Margarittaville Mixer is six hundred USD.
That’s not to say I don’t want coal taken out of our energy mix. As noted, it has huge second and third order effects beyond GHG’s that aren’t good.
It’s a huge investment of capital, on par with the Interstate system (which was justified initally as a defense project), and that’s a reality that shouldn’t be sugar coated. And there are downsides to having both as a primary source of electricity.
Looking about at where the energy consumption demands are highest, I can envision a National Energy Reserve that takes large tracks of desert in the SW USA and converts them into wind and solar farms, feeding the grid in California, Nevada, and Texas. For the NE and parts of the SE, where solar and wind are more problematic, nuclear.
Environmentalists will scream bloody murder over the covering of 500 or 1000 square miles of desert with panels and wind turbines and nuclear reactors any place, but we can’t have it both ways.
And even with a huge inter-connecting grid (which would eliminate some of the swings in output), we’ll still need steady boiling of water, which means nuclear.
On Seattle, it wasn’t that bad. Think less efficient rather than not working at all. Plus one could always cover Yakima with solar panels; it might actually make the place look better. ;)
Moving over to carbon taxes and “fee and dividend,” the problem is tied to fiat money. Raise the price of everything and paychecks will follow along with it, lagging somewhat; the supply of money will be outstripped by the demand. The Fed will respond with more money. It’s call inflation, and won’t do anything but devalue the dollar until purchasing power returns to equilibrium. No politician would ever support continuously raising the price of everything to keep ahead of people’s paychecks.
Carbon neutrality is a shell game, IMHO. “For every car you buy we’ll purchase and ‘save’ ten acres of rainforest.” Um, that’s not reducing the footprint – it’s maintaining what is already there. Similarly, planting a sapling doesn’t really reduce the CO2 emissions of lawn mower.
Conserving and even re-growing the rainforest and planting saplings are worthy actions on their own; too often I think, they’re feel good cover for wasteful practices.
Leonard #1114,
I know I wasn’t very clear when I brought this up, but I see the analogy of Climate sensitivity to the cosmological constant in that both represent the stability of a system. Of course their initial uses were opposite. The cosmological constant was meant to make the universe look more static and CS was used to make climate look less stable. Is this THAT crazy an analogy? Also, I get the feeling that both are little more then clumsy fudge factors that may not represent a real value of nature and were used to prop up an incomplete theory. (referring to einstein’s initial use of CC when I say clumsy)
Like I’ve said before, the easiest and I think best argument against a high value of Climate sensitivity is the fact that our planet is still around. If our atmosphere were that unstable I doubt that we would have the biological diversity we see on earth today because evolution takes oodles of time to help animals adapt. And even if things were to change rapidly, why would mankind with all our technology not be able to adapt as most animals must have been able to? I think you guys give mankind — and our will to survive waaay too little credit. Here is a link to a video that by analogy show man’s inability to “run” from climate change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLlUgilKqms
Gavin, at least you picked the American cockroach to survive! I had a feeling you were a patriot, now we have solid proof.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/chances-are/
Walter Manny #1137:
A) Yep.
B) Oh, but there was a preconceived agenda: A passion for doing world-class science, overriding anything else, including principles of simple human politeness, and perhaps (we don’t know yet) cutting legal corners, towards those trying to sabotage the science. If that counts as impropriety, the plea must be guilty. Otherwise, yes, just go home.
C) Yep, but for the labeling which is unhelpful… except for those actively seeding doubt based on an intentional misreading of the illegally obtained and decontextualized e-mails. An appropriate label for that wouldn’t pass moderation. And add to Oxburgh the Penn State report, the upcoming Muir Russell report and second Penn State report, The Parliamentary Inquiry report; the older NAS report; and the science itself. Unless you see black helicopters everywhere.
D) Yep, but the joke at the end (“hounded … for data transparency”) is not funny. There is a third benefit: finally scientists are fighting back. About time.
flxible (#),
Obviously it’s not a scheme whereby “those that pay the most get the most back”. What would be the point anyway?
Unlike BC’s scheme, Fee&Dividend simply rewards those who emit less than the average. This makes sense if the goal is to reduce emissions.
You seem to believe that business interests control your political process. It may be the case but that only works as long as nothing much is going on. But big changes that affect people’s lives require voter buy-in. And every adult citizen has a vote. Businesses have none. Which is probably why nothing much is happening on the mitigation front by the way: the small minority which controls the media and the political process in most countries doesn’t want to upset the apple cart.
PS I assume you live in the extreme north, north of 60N?
No?
Ah, concern trolling.
“I know I wasn’t very clear when I brought this up, but I see the analogy of Climate sensitivity to the cosmological constant in that both represent the stability of a system. ”
Sam, they also share several of the same letters!
PROOF!
Take THAT, scientists!
Zing!
“My point on solar and wind, as it has been from the start, is that “free” is a misnomer. ”
It isn’t. We don’t pay for the sun to shine. We don’t pay to have it shine down on an area. We don’t pay for the wind to blow, the tides to move, the waves to lap the shores.
Therefore the energy is free.
Now, when you get coal to dig itself out of the ground and walk to your power station, *and* you can get it to collect its CO2 output out of the atmosphere, THEN you can call coal power free.
“Lynn, any such phrasing – “permanent runaway warming and death to all life on earth” – will be roundly condemned as hysterical overexaggeration and will actually do more harm than good in any public debate ”
Funny how the hysteria about the CRU emails, the hysteria about how we’re all going to be under One World Government, the hysteria about how it’s a scam to increase taxes, the hysteria about any damn thing used by the media or the dittos denying science doesn’t have the same effect.
For every single environmentalist who has said “we will have catastrophe and billions dead”, which is the worst case scenario, but still possible theoretically, we have 1000 dittos screaming how this is a communist plot to take over the world and ruin the third world/first world [ delete as appropriate for your audience for concern trolling ].
Then you have the false balance concern trolls saying that we need to “find the middle ground”.
Since we have 1x extreme but plausible one one extreme side and 1000x extreme and completely nutcase implausible on the other, then the “middle point” is 1000x closer to nutcase city limits than plausible if unlikely plaza.
I guess I should respond to all the comments. First, I apologise if “rammed down our throats” was a bit strong. (“How can you expect to be taken seriously when you use such inflammatory and, quite frankly, offensive language?” Jerry Steffens #987)
But I was partly responding to Jim’s response to #467: “As for Montford’s book–the fact that someone is writing books on the hockey stick 12 years later speaks volumes about where they are at on the science of climate change. It’s an absolute and utter joke.” The Hockey Stick *is* iconic, and was strongly played up in the presentation of the 3rd IPCC report etc. The BBC, hardly skeptical, said that it is difficult to overestimate the importance of the hockey stick. So I think it is a reasonable thing to write about (actually the content of the book does concern mainly events taking place from 2003 onwards; but of course, if you haven’t read it, you wouldn’t know that).
Other comments I read included “Should physicists refute every crank who claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine that doesn’t violate the second law?” (dhogaza, #380). So I thought my language was not overly strong given what had gone before in relation to his book (and had not been censored I note). Nor what came after my comment (e.g, “dhogaza #963 Has it dawned on you that perhaps Montford is LYING TO YOU?”; Ray refers to “verging on scientific misconduct”, I think in relation to this book.) And thanks for your point Walter #993 which is very apposite.
On more substantive issues I do agree however with the general argument that peer reviewed science is the gold standard, and I am not disputing the general proposition that scientists don’t have the time to refute any old popular science book. In this particular case, though, Judith Curry obviously thought that there are issues in the Montford book worth looking at. Secondly, I read a very positive review by Matt Ridley in Prospect Magazine (“one of the best science books in years”); he is a former science editor of the Economist and I think very well respected in admittedly popular science. So equating this with cranks and perpetual motion machines is a bit strong. Perhaps more importantly, what is different here, in relation to the arguments made that peer reviewed literature is what we should take notice of, is that much of the book is *about* the peer review process—it documents in great detail the editorial process surrounding a number of critical papers and the IPCC reports. It argues that in these cases the process may not have worked very well. Seeing as it reproduces much of the correspondence, one cannot argue that it is making things up; whether it is being selective is a different matter.
I think many of the responses miss the point. The book is not about denying AGW, it is rather about a particular set of papers on climate reconstructions. Ray Ladbury (#954) asks, “Why not air them [Montford’s criticisms] in front of a knowledgeable audience of experts in the peer-reviewed literature?” Again, much of the book is about the peer review process itself, so it is not the sort of thing that could be published in a journal. Ray also refers to “prestiegeous independent scientific bodies like the Royal Society or the National Academies?”. But independent reports have been consistent with major points made in the book (especially the errors in the statistical methods employed in the original paper). Finally, he goes on to say, “That [using many independent lines of evidence], Sir, is precisely how you do reliable science–not by publishing screeds on line or in obscure books.” Again, I repeat, the book is about a body of papers in a particular area. It is not an attack on AGW per se.
A couple of other responses: “…when you then ram down our throats the lie that this will cost us a great deal (which by inference means more than is justified)?” (Completely Fed Up #969). Your argument is circular – you seem to be saying that what I said is a lie because I am claiming it is more than is justified, and presumably you are saying it is not. But that is the point; to justify large abatement costs, one needs to establish that the costs of not doing anything would be greater. I was merely pointing out that the hockey stick was presented as a dramatic evidence that the costs of AGW would be huge enough to justify dramatic action– this is why it is important.
And to Adam R (#946): actually I have never watched Fox News. Sorry to disappoint.
Finally, apologies to Steven Sullivan if I misunderstood your drift.
I read a very positive review by Matt Ridley in Prospect Magazine (“one of the best science books in years”); he is a former science editor of the Economist and I think very well respected in admittedly popular science. – Roger
Matt Ridley is a “libertarian” nutter, who defends unregulated capitalism. He is not in the least well-respected in the UK, where he was non-executive chairman of Northern Rock, a ba nk which had to be saved from ba nkruptcy in 2007 (and subsequently had to be nationalised) because of its ludicrous policy of borr owing on the short-term mo ney mar kets to fu nd its own long-term mort gage lend ing. In 2006, in the on-line magazine Edge, Ridley wrote a response to the question “What’s your dangerous idea?” which was entitled “Government is the problem not the solution”. However, like so many swashbuckling capitalists, he ran bawling to Nanny State as soon as play in the fi nancial world got a bit rough.
“The Hockey Stick *is* iconic, and was strongly played up in the presentation of the 3rd IPCC report etc”
Why was the hockey stick so visible (note: NOT played up)?
Answer: because the graph was different because now it showed the global (as opposed to showing the NW europe) record and the MWP (which data shows to be a regional, not global event) was much cooler.
This change was then promoted by denialists as proof that AGW was a scam: “where was the HS graph???”.
And denialists also continued to parrot “the MWP was warmer” ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm ) and “The hockey still is wrong” ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm ), so when you want to show they are wrong, you have to show the Hockey Stick.
Is it somehow wrong to show that graph in response to a question about the period the graph displays now???
Here’s a pack of lies from Ridley’s site, which shows him to be a typical glibertarian denialist:
Of course, there is other evidence for global warming, but none of it proves that the recent warming is unprecedented. Indeed, quite the reverse: surface temperatures, sea levels, tree lines, glacier retreats, summer sea ice extent in the Arctic, early spring flowers, bird migration, droughts, floods, storms—they all show change that is no different in speed or magnitude from other periods, like 1910-1940, at least as far as can be measured. There may be something unprecedented going on in temperature, but the only piece of empirical evidence that actually says so—yes, the only one—is the hockey stick.
And the hockey stick is wrong. The emails that were leaked from the University of East Anglia late last year are not proof of this; they are merely the icing on the lake, proof that some of the scientists closest to the hockey stick knew all along that it was problematic.
“Your argument is circular ”
Oddly enough, your argument is circular
“to justify large abatement costs, one needs to establish that the costs of not doing anything would be greater.”
But you haven’t shown there is a large abatement cost.
How can anyone show that not doing anything would be more expensive?
PS http://www.occ.gov.uk/activities/stern.htm
answers your point, but denialists who complain of the massive cost don’t accept the Stern Review.
“. . .the hockey stick was presented as a dramatic evidence that the costs of AGW would be huge enough to justify dramatic action. . .”
And here I thought it was presented as dramatic evidence that the present day temperatures are the warmest for many centuries–evidence which has been amply confirmed since.
Sam
If this is the best argument
then we must be in trouble. But
since you do not specify ‘high value’ the remark is meaningless. Of course such hand waving becomes slightly more legitimate if CS is only a ‘clumsy fudge factor’.
Perhaps you could add the numbers and turn this thought experiment into a novel?
I have just read Montford’s book in order to try to get a balanced view of what the fuss is all about. It’s a good read , thats true, and coming from an academic background in environmental ecology I was totally taken back back the accusations presented. Coming here for a refutation of Montford I find such churlish responses that I don’t know where to begin. It cost me all of 8 quid, and a couple of days to read. If YOU dont respond then it predisposes me to think that you are closed minded and the accusations of religiosity on your part are confirmed. Please respond to Montford with a reasoned argument. Stop using the excuse that you might be lining his pocket, or you might be giving him ‘status’.. He don’t matter people, its the response from you guys that I want.
[Response: The fact is, most of us don’t even have time to read what it is we supposed to be reading, even before we get to books by bloggers (not that there is anything wrong with that). Why don’t you tell us what you found most disturbing and we’ll respond to that? – gavin]
“But you haven’t shown there is a large abatement cost.
How can anyone show that not doing anything would be more expensive?”
My point was that you have to compare benefits and costs. It may well cost us a lot if policy makers don’t do something sensible like cap and trade.
“Matt Ridley is a “libertarian” nutter, who defends unregulated capitalism.”
Ah, I see; so does this all come down to politics?
Walter@1137
What the emails tell us is that scientists are frustrated by the public’s stubborn insistence on embracing the anti-science message. I’ve seen nothing that rises to the level of “misconduct”–at least beyond Phil Jones’s ill-advised suggestion of deleting emails, and even that is not a clear breach, since it was a once-off suggestion and never acted upon.
What we see is a picture of fallible humans doing science–exhibiting all of the foibles our species is prone to and still in the end producing reliable human understanding of the phenomena they were investigating. THAT, ultimately, is the good news: Science works, and it works when humans practice it. No major conclusion of climate science is called into question by the emails. That is the truly remarkable story–and you and the news media have missed it entirely.
“Ah, I see; so does this all come down to politics?”
It is when someone has nothing other than political dogma for the formulation of their case.
“My point was that you have to compare benefits and costs.”
Nope, you said I (or others) have to prove that cost of nothing is bigger than the cost of doing something.
Yet you merely state that doing something is a huge cost, ramming that meme down our throats.
Go ahead and calculate the cost of mitigation.
Or read the Stern Review who did that for you and found it “cost” about three years delay in getting the same level of commercial activity.
three years vs civilisation?
Easy choice.
Unless you have something to lose in mitigation.
“at least beyond Phil Jones’s ill-advised suggestion of deleting emails, and even that is not a clear breach, since it was a once-off suggestion and never acted upon.”
Has nobody ever said “I’d rather throw the damn thing out than let that no good son of min inherit that!”? Or similar?
No.
How about “I’ll kill that damn dog if it barks all night again!”?
No.
But I guess that this means we’re all guilty of damage of property and animal cruelty.
Here’s a challenge to people who have a bee in their bonnet about Mann’s hockey stick. Take it off the board. Imagine it doesn’t exist. It never existed. Its findings aren’t part of the science. OK? Fair enough? No problems, right? That’s what you want. Now, here’s the challenge: what has changed? What prediction of AGW is inaccurate? What future result will be different?
“I have just read Montford’s book in order to try to get a balanced view of what the fuss is all about.”
That was your first mistake.
EG (1154),
And while we’re burdening the kids, four years of formal logic and four years of statistical analysis.
The science courses can perhaps be condensed into one four-year course with three parts, chem, phys, and bio. The logic and stats can be one four-year course in “deductive thinking.” The math should probably remain separate, one-year courses in algebra I and II, geometry, and trig, with maybe an AP calculus class for the overachievers.
FG (1155): Moving over to carbon taxes and “fee and dividend,” the problem is tied to fiat money. Raise the price of everything and paychecks will follow along with it, lagging somewhat; the supply of money will be outstripped by the demand. The Fed will respond with more money. It’s call inflation, and won’t do anything but devalue the dollar until purchasing power returns to equilibrium. No politician would ever support continuously raising the price of everything to keep ahead of people’s paychecks.
BPL: Fallacy of composition. If you raise the price of ONE commodity, it does not raise the price of OTHER commodities (unless they’re “complimentary goods”). The price of everything else goes down since demand is reduced by curtailing the available money for it. And if you rebate the tax money back to the public, even that doesn’t hurt.
BTW, if “fiat money” is the problem, how could we have had inflation in periods when the government wasn’t printing money (e.g. between the Civil and First World Wars, except for the 1880s depression, for instance). No Lincoln greenbacks, no Federal Reserve Board, gold standard. Amazingly, prices can change greatly even with so-called “hard” money. Want to take a guess why that is?
1178 ‘That was your first mistake.’ Robert Murphy
One doesn’t win a debate by not listening to what the opposition are saying. Please be constructive and don’t bray.
You do the debate no favours with this attitude.
jon @ 1171
That is a very generous offer from Gavin. Keep to specifics and fire away. It’s about time ‘Montfords’work gets a little scrutiny.
Roger and Jon,
Montford’s book represents a very deep misunderstanding of the scientific process. In fact, he takes a page right from the creationists on how to do anti-science.
1)He focuses only on a few papers, ignoring the bulk of work confirming the basic results of those papers.
2)He focuses on a few anomalies that he contends distort the peer review process.
3)He utterly ignores the overwhelming body of evidence that demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that a)the globe is warming, and b)that we are doing it.
4)He not only ignores the scientific consensus (the next line of defense beyond peer review and independent replication/verification), he questions the very validity of scientific consensus.
5)He does not offer his own work up for peer review, but instead presents it to an uninformed and nonexpert public
6)He makes very serious allegations that to be true would require a massive fraud not just by climate scientists, but by all of the independent scientists who have reviewed and concurred with the findings of climate science.
7)He offers no constructive alternative explanation yielding verifiable predictions.
Now, I ask you: Shouldn’t it bother you that his methods are utterly indistinguishable from those of creationists, antivaxxers, moon hoaxers and all other anti-science nutjobs? After all, scientific methodology is even more important than the knowledge science yields, because it represents a reliable way of developing knowledge.
I’m sorry, but there is no “balanced view” between science and anti-science.
Sam (1156): If our atmosphere were that unstable I doubt that we would have the biological diversity we see on earth today because evolution takes oodles of time to help animals adapt.
BPL: High climate sensitivity doesn’t mean the climate is unstable on the short-term, especially if none of the inputs change significantly. Climate change is usually quite slow.
1171: If YOU dont respond then it predisposes me to think that you are closed minded
BPL: Do you know how many pseudoscience books are published every year? Books about the lost continents of Atlantis, Lemuria, and Mu? Books about how a “Legacy Civilization” built the sphinx 11,000 years ago, or how aliens built the pyramids and the Face on Mars, or constructed giant machines on the Moon which NASA is retouching photos of, or influenced the Sumerians? Books about planes and ships disappearing in the Bermuda Triangle and Judge Crater being taken into another dimension? Books about how the Moon landing never happened? About how Immanuel Velikovsky proved that orbit-jumping Venus and Mars caused all the miracles in the Bible? That there is “scientific proof” of ghosts, reincarnation, psychic powers, and gigantic animals which no one ever sees but “cryptozoologists?” That aliens are kidnapping and experimenting on millions of people?
The books promoting creationism alone must number in the hundreds every year. Then you’ve got the AGW denial books, which are in EXACTLY THE SAME CATEGORY.
And we have to respond to each one or we’re “close-minded?” Are you so open-minded your brain has fallen out?
Roger asked @1173 “so does this all come down to politics?”
For libertarians, yes, it does in fact all come down to politics.
That’s because libertarians reject at the outset the concept of global cooperation and regulation to reduce fossil carbon emissions, and they will use any available argument against doing so, including those that question and reject the science itself, rather than rethink their political philosophy.
@John Reisman (OSS FOUNDATION) – What about the tobacco issue on the fee-and-dividend plan?
Feed-in tariffs are not that complicated, relative to the various derivative schemes, CDOs, etc. that Wall Street is so fond of
Fee and dividend is not so different from the cigarette tax and dividend program, is it?
It’s pretty simple – the government raised taxes on cigarettes, and the cigarette makers simply raised the price of their cigarettes, passing the costs on to the consumer. Why do you think that fee-and-dividend will not have the same result with fossil fuels – prices will go up, but no alternatives will be available?
Cap-and-trade, as noted, did nothing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions:
1) High sulfur coal was put aside, while low-sulfur coal was burned instead – there’s no coal shortage – and now the plan is to convert high-sulfur coal to gasoline – while ignoring the doubled or tripled fossil CO2 emissions. Obama’s DOE has put a lot of money into this.
2) With diesel fuel the sulfur fraction simply ended up in the ship bunker fuel. As also repeatedly noted, the offsets (such as planting trees) are bogus when viewed from the carbon cycle perspective.
Hence, the best method is three fold:
1) Eliminate all fossil fuel subsidies, as well as the various other tax breaks, hidden or not.
2) Implement regional Renewable Portfolio Standards for all utilities – based on the local availability of solar, wind, biofuels, geothermal, tidal, and so on.
3) Institute feed-in tariffs that guarantee renewable energy producers a higher price than fossil fuel producers over ten-year periods.
P.S. @Completely Fed Up – Get a grip on yourself. Science is not about polling people and determining where “the center” is – it’s about collecting data, analyzing data, constructing models, comparing them to the data – and then transmitting that information to others in the clearest manner possible.
Re Barton @1179, gee, sounds remarkably like my high school science & maths curriculum, save for the four-year “deductive thinking” course. And I have to say, I wish it had been included.
Jon, where is your skepticism of Montford?
….crickets chirping while we wait….
1186 Jim Eager
I am skeptical of all. Thats why I came here to find arguments to fight Montford
BPL (1146), FurryCatHerder’s point is, of course, that your panacea type solution to put up a few poles and run a wire or two around the country comes up short.
AC “Obviously it’s not a scheme whereby “those that pay the most get the most back”. What would be the point anyway?
Unlike BC’s scheme, Fee&Dividend simply rewards those who emit less than the average. This makes sense if the goal is to reduce emissions.”
sounds confused to me, how about if the point is that those who have the greatest expenditures are likely to be the ones creating the most CO2e …. but if they’re not, the “dividend” will be gravy [“rewarding those who emit less”]. OTOH, you seem to be saying charge the high income earners most by giving them back less, regardless whether they’re higher or lower emitters, and if they happen to be a business, don’t give them anything. Are you advocating wealth re-distribution? Or does your vision of fee & dividend involve some kind of emissions police?
A fee/tax on carbon has little relation to income level, considering that any business can operate “carbon neutral” [IF they have alternatives], the statement that “those that pay the most get the most back” has to do with income taxes, meaning the dividend is related to income/expenditures, not directly to amount of carbon consumed, as you seem to be requiring. How do we separate the “penalty” from the “reward”? By businesses trying to consume less carbon so their share of the dividend is “profit” rather than expense re-coupment.
And I’d like to find that mythical democracy where business [big money] has no vote. :)
BPL wrote: “Do you know how many pseudoscience books are published every year … Then you’ve got the AGW denial books, which are in EXACTLY THE SAME CATEGORY.”
You sure are lumping a whole lot of things together in “the same category” that don’t seem to have anything at all to do with each other, except for your derision of them.
Have you read Dean Radin’s books The Conscious Universe and Entangled Minds which provide a thorough overview of contemporary parapsychology and present a well-documented case there “is scientific proof of … psychic powers”? Are you prepared to offer an equally well-documented, point-by-point rebuttal to that case (as opposed to sweeping, generalized pronouncements about the field)? Are you prepared to explain why you call parapsychology “pseudoscience” when even its more serious-minded critics (e.g. Ray Hyman, a founding member of CSICOP) acknowledge that modern parapsychology adheres to the highest standards of scientific inquiry?
In the case of climate science, your defense of the scientific reality is obviously strongly founded on a deep, detailed and extensive knowledge of the subject. Is your derision of parapsychology equally well-founded on a detailed and up-to-date knowledge of the field — or is it based on what organized “skeptic” groups have to say about the field, by virtue of which you “already know” that it has no merit, and thus there is no need to read the primary literature?
And regardless of what you think of the merits of Radin’s case, what in the world do the results of careful, precise, diligent laboratory research into psi phenomena have to do with Atlantis or Bigfoot or UFO aliens, except that they all fall into “the same category” of “things that BPL thinks are bogus”?
As to the AGW denial books, I would suggest that they most definitely do NOT belong in the “same category” as books on any of the other subjects you mentioned. Why? Because books about Atlantis and Bigfoot are not part of a propaganda campaign to affect public attitudes and thereby public policy regarding global warming and fossil fuel use, funded by corporations like ExxonMobil which rakes in over 100 million dollars per day in profits from fossil fuels. The fate of humanity does not depend on what people think about Atlantis or Bigfoot.
BPL @ 1146:
Well, I benchpress the entire Earth every time I do a pushup ;)
But my point is that you can’t just say “Huge Grid!” and have it work. I mean, the GOAL of implementing things is for them to work, right? Got a plan for that “Huge Grid!” to work that is, uh, workable?
Here’s a clue — the North-South limit in ERCOT (1,327MW) is far less than the power needed to run Dallas =or= Houston. And they are all of 250 miles or so apart. Even the North-Houston limit (3,097MW) isn’t enough.
So … how many more transmission lines do you think it would take to power everything for 1,000 miles north of Houston from Houston?
As I said, there are solutions, including creative and energy conserving solutions, but “Huge Grid!” isn’t one of them.
#1064 Rod, Albedo in addition to being dependent on the ground, or surface characteristics, is also very dependent on the cloud cover.
“P.S. @Completely Fed Up – Get a grip on yourself. Science is not about polling people and determining where “the center”
No, but politics is.
Which, unless we have a scientist led coup of the world governments, we will have to go through to have changes implemented.
Stop gripping yourself, you’re cutting off the blood supply.
Bob (Sphaerica) (1147), your sober response to Walter Manny’s partially satirical post is, in part, telling and a bit over the top.
Skeptics have taken some aspects of global warming and raised questions over various holes in that part of the science. The proponents have looked carefully at the same piece of the science and have concluded that the evidence is sufficient for them to make a judgement. However, that does not make their conclusions 100% true and perfect. (100% being the opposite of “zero.” And please don’t retort with the standard loophole of “we’re not 100 % certain… we don’t know if climate sensitivity is 2.5 or 2.7 degrees.”) Yet that is where you and some others (not all, maybe not even most, to be fair) take the science — from reasonable but not absolute conclusions to religious dogma that requires all heretics be blasted to oblivion. Well, at least excommunicated as you suggest.
I do appreciate your admission that the fix to potential AGW will diminish greatly some standards of living — happily in your view, evidently. Though you somehow assert that all societies will benefit. Presumably because some will now be living according to your definition of good living.
Global temperatures are going to “soar” in the next five to ten years? Really?
Frank Giger wrote: “My point on solar and wind, as it has been from the start, is that ‘free’ is a misnomer.”
Your point is wrong, and you know it. That’s why you pretend that I said that solar panels and wind turbines are free, when in fact I said nothing of the kind. I said that solar energy (sunlight) and wind themselves are free.
Of course there is a cost for the technology to convert the energy from sunlight and wind into electricity. Just as there is a cost for the technology to convert the chemical energy stored in fossil fuels into electricity.
But sunlight and wind themselves are free. Coal, oil and natural gas are not.
You know this is true. You are not really even trying to dispute it any more. Instead you resort to pretending that I said something that I did not.
“But my point is that you can’t just say “Huge Grid!” and have it work. ”
FCH, the engineers have already wondered about that.
Waaay back there was a BBC article about pushing power from North Africa to Europe (and thence, by load displacement, the UK).
1000 miles isn’t a problem, especially with a smart grid that will shunt power rather than skip over the intervening countries. South France takes from Africa and they now have an oversupply which they move to North France, who now has an oversupply, and so on.
Add to that that the UK has far more available wind power in shallow water than the UK conceivably needs, and I don’t see a lot of problem.
And anyone who thinks Scotland doesn’t have enough wind has never visited Orkney…
“Coming here for a refutation of Montford I find such churlish responses that I don’t know where to begin.”
So just because people aren’t willing to spend THEIR time on YOUR problem, they are the ones being churlish?
Isn’t that a little churlish of you?
Why do you care? If you can’t understand his work, then he’s failed to explain. If you can’t see the errors, then educate yourself in the statements.
This is not rocket science. It’s education.
Teach yourself to fish, don’t complain that nobody is giving you a fish.