Comments on: Copenhagen collapse

By: jet

jet — Mon, 14 Feb 2005 13:27:57 +0000

Well, we went to archive land and are still having a convo, so here’s to that. I recently read an article on Ergosphere, along with a few linked papers, that lead me to believe that even if the CO2 theory pans out to only be causing 1% of global warming, Kyoto would still be a great idea. We could cut electricity COSTS and energy USEAGE by roughly ~60% simply by deregulating the energy market. That would easily meet Kyoto standards and spur the economy quite nicely. How synergetic to both sides of the debate is that? The only downside, which isn’t really a downside, is the current players in the energy industry would take a bath, but screw them for 40 years of bad decisions.

By: Lyndon

Lyndon — Mon, 14 Feb 2005 01:53:46 +0000

Sorry chaps for the inaction on my front, despite promises to look into uncertainties previously mentioned. Appreciate that you two have kept the debate alive and well, and have followed with interest. I simply didn’t have the time to research further information about the points of contention. A good resource for climate change science is realclimate.org. I am sure you both have seen this, but I will just plug it any case. It gives rather good explanations of some of the disputed points (and a rather nice demolition of the “authoritative science” in Crichton’s latest book—a book which is sure to do immense harm to the general public’s understanding of climate change issues and the aims of conservationists). The former website is run by climate scientists who are not skeptics, but one could compare the information on this website with others run by those who are skeptical, and compare the two to see which is more believable. Just as a closing thought, regarding the point about whether we should or should not take action against climate change, I think it is useful to frame the question as if it related to a business decision. So, suppose you are in charge of a large corporation that is facing down a threat from a major competitor. There are some hard to ignore signs that your competitor has been retooling their factory for new production, whilst putting major effort into market research for a class of product which had only previously been produced by you. Now, it is unclear when or if they will actually make this product, how successful it will be, and what sort of market share they can wrest away from you. Your top executives offer dissenting views on the impact that this push by your rival could have, but most seem to be concerned. So what would the average CEO do when faced with a potential, yet not completely knowable, threat by a rival? Would they wait until their knowledge was perfect before taking steps to counter the challenge by the rival? I am no businessman, but I think not. I think a good CEO would do what they could to head off the challenge before they were bitten by it. Business must act in an environment that is not completely knowable. So, my own view is that we are facing a problem that could have vast consequences. The threat may never be entirely clear, but it certainly makes long term business sense to try and address this challenge to our worldwide business enterprise (the global ecosystem). Besides, it will force us to innovate, and open up whole new avenues (remember, many of the companies who were complaining about Montreal found that they benefitted by cutting out ozone killing CFCs). Anyway, let me end my longer than expected rant here. Been a pleasure, and hope to hear more in the near future. Cheers.

By: jet

jet — Sun, 13 Feb 2005 04:06:52 +0000

Did you really just end this by calling Lomborg an anti-environmentalist and comparing a widely respected hypothesis with pink pixies from Venus? Ease up Cap, Lomborg isn’t the enemy. Your nemeses are those Martians salting the plains of Australia.

By: frankis

frankis — Sun, 13 Feb 2005 03:05:20 +0000

You may be right that we could let this thread now fade to black Jet, so my thanks to you too, it’s been real :) I’d hoped that engineer-poet or Lyndon or somebody might have interrupted our gentle musings once more though with some thoughtful comments. Ah well, if the archiving genie doesn’t intrude to foil me you know I’m going to take the opportunity of one last flogging, right? The only issue I referred to as being “comprehensively undecided” is the issue on which you have apparently bet your entire future, The Cosmic Ray Hypothesis™. However it may well be the case that some people are also transfixed at the moment by the difficult, undecided questions that still surround those late breaking results suggesting that little pink pixies from hothouse Venus have been behind the global warming of Earth to date, preparing our environment for their own comfort post invasion (when they will worship the clown Gods Milloy, Freddie S and the Idsos as their saviours and eat the rest of us, sorry). You know the IPCC has relied upon theory that does in fact include the possibility that solar irradiance may have increased quite significantly through the 20th century, yet you insist that you will not be satisfied until things become more cosmic. Surely though you must believe, as I do, that a scientific conclusion to the cosmic ray question and a defeat of the hothouse pixies would not bring peace to our good Earth, Jet? There are more surprises yet to come from vestedinterest.com (to name but one certain source of fanciful new anti-science)! Meanwhile, greenhouse warming of Earth is about as well understood a theory as is evolution. Even a panel of economists, put together by an anti-environmentalist, “… recognised that global warming must be addressed … expressed an interest in an alternative … carbon tax much lower in the first years of implementation” Inaction is rash when action is required. Why do you hate environmental conservatism, renewables and nuclear, Jet? (Ignore that if you like :) Well, bless you Jet and all who place their faith in you, it has indeed been good and thanks for your time.

By: jet

jet — Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:00:07 +0000

Alas, we are 4 posts from being sent to archive land where all discussions end. Frankis, it was a great pleasure exchanging ideas with you. Thank you for your time.

By: jet

jet — Sat, 12 Feb 2005 16:53:47 +0000

“At this time, that is where the matter rests – comprehensively undecided. You know, science is a difficult pursuit whereas religious faith and heckling can be undertaken by almost anyone.” Yet it is me arguing that taking action is rash, while you are arguing that we should go ahead with a decision. Please try to comprehend this point of view. Because I have a tough time sanctioning action when the margin of error remains so large. Would doctors go ahead with surgery when they only had a ~25% idea of what the problem was, or do more testing? “If you don’t like the IPCC “droning on””, the IPCC’s chapter on cosmic rays had a different voice than the rest of the paper. Almost every sentence contained a denunciation. They were denouncing what they could not know about probably because it conflicted with their conclusion. “What, precisely, is your response to this,”, well this is hard since I can’t read the full paper. But it appears they added on ~20 more years of suspect data, limited their data set to and area the size of the US (maybe they could have picked a smaller data set like Chicago), probably harped on the ~1993 anomaly (explained by high vs low clouds), and came to the conclusion that they wanted to come to. But how should I know, I can’t read the paper? As for the 2% carbon tax, I’d be its biggest proponent if the tax was going into R&D grants. But we don’t have that, we have ~half the US backing Kyoto, which will send (in its best incarnation) tons of money to world dictators and corrupt governments, making a whole class of corrupt bureaucrats rich, while doing very little to help the third world. History is on my side for that one. ““Physical mechanisms have been proposed to explain how cosmic rays could affect clouds, but they need to be investigated further if the observation is to become more than just another correlation among geophysical variables.””, You mean we need more research before we have an answer? How many times and in how many different ways do I have to say this before you understand that is my thesis! “The people with the deepest understanding and greatest capabilities are not the ones we hear amid the squealing. Surprise.” Perhaps because they realize how little understood the problem is. But I understand that taking the viewpoint that we should not act too rashly is grounds for a horsewhipping to some. So maybe I should change my mind out of fear for my horse :)

By: frankis

frankis — Sat, 12 Feb 2005 05:14:33 +0000

As it’s been drawn to my attention that Springer is apparently restricting access to that link to subscribers only … here is the entire abstract: “Cosmic ray flux impact on clouds? An analysis of radiosonde, cloud cover, and surface temperature records from the United States” R. C. Balling Jr.1 and R. S. Cerveny1 (1) Office of Climatology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A., US Summary ¶Many scientists have suggested that variations in cosmic ray flux may impact cloudiness at regional, hemispheric, or global scales. However, considerable debate surrounds (a) whether high or low clouds are most strongly impacted by cosmic rays, (b) the degree of seasonality in cloud responses to cosmic rays, and© the determination of physical processes involved in cosmic ray/cloud interactions. Some scientists find strong correlation coefficients between cloud measurements and cosmic ray flux, while others find no relationship whatsoever; virtually all scientists working on this issue are hampered by the relatively short time period with accurate cloud and cosmic ray flux records. In an attempt to extend the period of record, we assembled surface and radiosonde data for the United States over the period 1957–1996 along with sunspot records which are known to be strongly, but inversely, related to cosmic ray flux. We also assembled cloud cover data and cosmic ray measurements over a reduced time period. We found that periods with low sunspot number (times with high cosmic ray flux) are associated with significantly higher dew point depressions, a higher diurnal temperature range, and less cloud cover. Our results do not support suggestions of increased cloud cover during periods of high cosmic ray flux. Received May 14, 2002; accepted February 17, 2003 Published online May 26, 2003

By: frankis

frankis — Sat, 12 Feb 2005 03:39:41 +0000

Jet, your own “major revelation” words sound more religious than anything the demonized IPCC has said, and others such as “whine” are impolite at best. If you don’t like the IPCC “droning on” it may be that you’re not really as interested in the science of climate as you’ve hitherto assumed; perhaps it’s more the politics and economics of climate change that interest you? Now, firstly, you are using the term “cosmic theory” more as an incantation than as a rational argument. The influence of cosmic rays on weather or climate is a field of current research and the results are quite unclear. One study is not enough. The appropriate reaction of scientists, and you may rest assured that this is happening right now, is that other researchers who have found that first study to be of interest and potential import will be looking in to the matter. At this time, that is where the matter rests – comprehensively undecided. You know, science is a difficult pursuit whereas religious faith and heckling can be undertaken by almost anyone. Carslaw, whose page you’ve cited, has this more recent article out. You might like to study it all, but it’s abstract includes this: “Physical mechanisms have been proposed to explain how cosmic rays could affect clouds, but they need to be investigated further if the observation is to become more than just another correlation among geophysical variables.” OK. Now, here is the abstract of a 2003 study, by extremely well qualified people, that finds the opposite correlation to Svensmark et al, 1997 (the cosmic ray connection on which you’ve been betting your farm). What, precisely, is your response to this, bearing in mind the insults you’ve flung at those who haven’t leapt to factor the Svensmark effect – now well and truly challenged by later studies – in to their climate models? Btw one point I was attempting to make in my last PR release was that the more scanty the understanding and vested the interest of the protagonist in the global warming gabfest, the louder the noise being made. The people with the deepest understanding and greatest capabilities are not the ones we hear amid the squealing. Surprise. Anyway, my estimate is that the implementation of a 2% carbon tax from day 1, tomorrow, indexed to increase at 2%pa for a decade, would have an overall effect on consolidated world GDP that would be lost in the noise, except for the following opportunity. People being as people are, responding as well as humanity has over our history to stresses and shocks to our systems – my faith is that the stimulus provided us by the small-start carbon tax, and the distribution of its proceeds to fossil fuel replacement ends, might well be of far greater moment than its simple dollar rate would suggest. A small carbon tax, redistributed to R&D and intelligent market interventions, isn’t a cost to world GDP but a transfer from one sector to another at worst. Also, its market distortion should be contained by ensuring the reinvestment of the tax revenue within the energy sector itself. So I agree with those misrepresented “Copenhagen” economists that a low start, indexed carbon tax is the thing to have on the policy table for discussion right now, today. If it will take until tomorrow to see implementation of the tax then let’s sign Kyoto today anyway, because it’d focus our minds a little better for a while, by which time new research and new diplomacy will have arrived anyway to save the day for Vested Interests. As for the “2% of GDP!” campaign designed to instil fear and loathing of human progress into the consuming masses, there must be several questions but the best response is simply, I think, that it’s a meaningless number. Kyoto will be overtaken by events whatever happens, so fanciful extrapolations of it into the far future are of a whole lot less interest to me than would be serious consideration of the costs and benefits of a carbon tax.

By: jet

jet — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:08:13 +0000

Engineer-poet, First, thanks for those links. I’ll being calling my senator, collecting signatures, and ebaying for hybrids within the next 3 years apparently. As for clouds, yes, there are many studies showing a strong correlation between the Sun’s effect on cosmic radiation and cloud cover. The Sun’s high peaks and low peaks of solar output correlate to a 5% change in lower level cloud cover across the globe, apparently. This would account for up to ~75% of 20th century warming. The only provable causal relationship, as the IPCC droned on and on about, was in the lab. I’m not sure if anyone is trying to prove this in the field. These should get you started: http://www.env.leeds.ac.uk/envi2150/oldnotes/lecture9/lecture9.html http://star.arm.ac.uk/%7Eepb/paper1.html http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/IASTP/43/ I’m all for reducing CO2 since it is an obvious contributor to global warming. But I’m against rash decisions, which Kyoto is now listed under in the dictionary. Also removing petroleum from the world’s economy would probably lead the way to the most peaceful century ever.

By: Engineer-Poet

Engineer-Poet — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:10:19 +0000

jet, clouds are a phenomenon which changes on a time-scale of hours to days. If cosmic rays are such an important influence on the heat balance, we ought to be able to derive a pretty good correlation from the data we have. Do any of the studies you found show such a correlation?

By: Engineer-Poet

Engineer-Poet — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:57:04 +0000

Very well-said, frankis. Jet wrote:

I’d still rather devote 1-2% of the GDP to alternative energy research rather than artificial price increases.

There's a time for each. For instance, artificial photosynthesis and algal biodiesel are at the stage where R&D is needed. Wind power and photovoltaics are much further along, running down the manufacturing experience curve rather than the research curve; what they need is incentives for people to buy them instead of fossil generation so that they can get their costs down faster. Last, carbon taxes have a place too. If a ton of carbon in the atmosphere creates (estimate) $30 in damage, subsidizing non-carbon energy sources does not give any incentive to use efficiency measures to get rid of the need for energy in the first place. If efficiency improvements are cheaper than the properly accounted costs of fossil energy, it costs less to tax the fuel (thus driving people to adopt the least-cost efficiency measures) than to subsidize alternative sources. Alternative supplies may already be approaching competitive levels with expensive fuels, like motor gasoline. Last year I did a brief analysis of the comparison between a conventional vehicle and a plug-in hybrid charged from today's solar panels; I updated it later. If it's true that the one-micron-thick solar cells could be delivered in industrial quantities at 1 Euro/watt four years from the start of plant construction, one way we could make certain that it happened is to guarantee money for the first X megawatts to roll off the line that meets spec. Just guaranteeing the market for grid-tied inverters would run their production way up, and the price way down. What would it cost? Fifty cents a watt for the first gigawatt, 25 cents for the next gigawatt, 15 for the third and 10 for the fourth would cost all of one billion dollars - pocket change in either our energy or national budgets, but if it bootstrapped a production plant which could beat the price of grid electricity there would be no going back to the old ways. When that ball gets over the top of the hill it's going to be a whole new world.

By: jet

jet — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 13:41:55 +0000

Frankis, Thanks for the kind response. “picture the poor scientists trying to do careful, useful work, and explain to politicians and the public” Yeah, and they leave out the part where there is a promising new, albeit little understood, theory that could explain away 50%-100% of the 20th century warming and the fact they have ignored it in their computer models. “the scientist from whose site you’ve pinched the support for your incantation is, well … apostate himself!” I’m not relying on that nice prof’s lecture. Google “cosmic rays cloud theory” and read the first 20 or so articles to see what I read. But anyways, you didn’t speak to my point. If Cosmic Theory is correct, it could account for ALL of the 20th century warming. I find that hard to believe and would think that some of it has to be do to CO2. But the point is that there is a ~75% margin of error in the current Global Warming theory. CO2 could cause all of the warming or none of it. Just looking at graphs of past solar output’s effects on the Earth’s temp and current temperature, you would be led to believe that the sun accounts for a little more than half of the rise in temperature in the 20th century. But the IPCC gives the sun a mere fourth of the blame. So it would be purely a matter of faith to go forward with extremely costly action (Kyoto) when the theory remains so, admittedly, poorly understood. This is what I was hoping you’d speak to in a refutation. Instead I got some great rhetoric that sounds kind of like a PR firm defending a pro or anti Kyoto stance, but I sure didn’t hear you speak to the problem with the Global Warming theory. Just excuse making. I think that means you don’t have an answer and must now whine about those stupid politicians and people that have to be lied to because they wouldn’t understand the truth. “Modern times are tough for those with faith in the value of science” “picture the poor scientists” Scientist not too poor and with enough faith to withhold a major revelation in Global Warming theory and who it looks to me tried to downplay it in the first few years it was around.

By: frankis

frankis — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 02:20:14 +0000

Steady on Jet, you’re messin’ with our minds now aren’t you? Is this spinning (from one post to the next) wholly rational and reasoned? I think not! Still, it’s a terrifically well put challenge you have at the end of your last post so let’s consider how well-reasoned, rational and (I presume) anti-religious your own performance has been, shall we? You’ve cited the IPCC’s page of disclaimers wherein the dopey scientists have admitted that they do not know everything. And we all know that the IPCC has concluded, despite its sad lack of omniscience, that the already discernible anthropogenic effect on climate is likely to accelerate in future. But the scientists have made the political faux pas of explaining that our current scientific understanding of the connection between cosmic rays, cloud cover and climate is presently very low, so: Be Gone, Scientists! Your Faith in Your Lack of Certainty and, well, whatever – offends us! But how about the site from which you’ve now delivered The Cosmic Ray? It’s a good site which appears to offer a sound undergraduate course in the science of climate change. You’ve leapt with alacrity on Dr Carslaw’s notes and graphs from the page you’ve read … yet apparently he is just another of the religious drones of the IPCC faith himself, giving as he does these objectives for his course: “On completion of this module, students will understand the scientific reasons why the climate has changed in the past and why it is thought that anthropogenic influences are likely to cause much more rapid climate changes in the future. The likelihood of climate change has generated much interest and controversy in the media and in political circles in recent years. Students completing this module will be able to understand the scientific bases for the often conflicting positions taken by the many groups with special interests in this globally important issue”. Anthropogenic climate change for the future? Wot a loser! So although you’ve now used the incantation “Cosmic Ray Theory!”, not only has the IPCC failed to go pale with embarrassment and slink off, stage left, but even the scientist from whose site you’ve pinched the support for your incantation is, well … apostate himself! The bastards – call vestedinterest.com (thanks Dano) for an exorcism, toot sweet! Or, picture the poor scientists trying to do careful, useful work, and explain to politicians and the public simple and scientifically well understood concepts such as the greenhouse effect and their best understanding of the effect our emissions and other human behaviour may have on it, all to a chorus of disinformation and antiscience from vested interests and people (non scientists themselves) who, by comparison, know everything. Or we might even just sympathize with those high profile and very capable economists who’ve just recently been shafted by Lomborg in his own assault on science and the environment. Modern times are tough for those with faith in the value of science, I think.

By: jet

jet — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:50:27 +0000

Ah, I take that apology back. The IPCC didn’t use the cosmic ray theory in their simulations. They ascribed a href=”http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/252.htm”>VL(very low) to the cosmic ray theory as far as their level of understanding. But yet we see that the cosmic ray theory alone can account for .6C increase in temperature in the 20th century. I think the IPCC’s acknowledgement of their lack of understanding of Global Warming is enough to ingore their warnings until more information is at hand. Unless you can refute this, I’m going to have to consider anyone who supports Kyoto more religious than rational.

By: jet

jet — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:22:07 +0000

Okay dammit. The IPCC is offered my full apologies, the fuckers. I surrender. There’s a real problem and something needs to be done. Here’s why: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/251.htm#6131 Scroll to the very bottom and read the last sentence. The IPCC is using the 0.3Wm2 number too, so they are ascribing the 25% total forcing to the sun which sounds perfectly reasonable to me. The only arguments I have left would be how good or bad ~2C to ~5.8C are, and if it takes until 2075 to double CO2, how much that really matters compared to 2060. I’d still rather devote 1-2% of the GDP to alternative energy research rather than artificial price increases.