The news that 2005 was the warmest year ever recorded in Australia comes at the end of a year in which, to the extent that facts can settle anything, the debate over human-caused global warming has been settled. Worldwide, 2005 was equal (to within the margin of error of the stats) with 1998 as the warmest year in at least the past millennium.
More significantly, perhaps, 2005 saw the final nail hammered into the arguments climate change contrarians have been pushing for years. The few remaining legitimate sceptics, along with some of the smarter ideological contrarians, have looked at the evidence and conceded the reality of human-caused global warming.
Ten years or so ago, the divergence between satellite and ground-based measurements of temperature was a big problem – the ground based measurements showed warming in line with climate models but the satellites showed a cooling trend. The combination of new data and improved calibration has gradually resolved the discrepancy, in favour of the ground-based measurements and the climate models.
Another set of arguments concerned short-term climate cycles like El Nino. The late John Daly attributed the high temperatures of the late 1990s to the combination of El Nino and solar cycles, and predicted a big drop, bottoming out in 2005 and 2006. Obviously the reverse has happened. Despite the absence of the El Nino or solar effects that contributed to the 1998 record, the long-term warming trend has dominated.
Finally, there’s water vapour. The most credible of the contrarians, Richard Lindzen, has relied primarily on arguments that the feedback from water vapour, which plays a central role in climate models, might actually be zero or even negative. Recent evidence has run strongly against this claim. Lindzen’s related idea of an adaptive iris has been similarly unsuccessful.
Finally, the evidence has mounted up that, with a handful of exceptions, “sceptics” are not, as they claim, fearless seekers after scientific truth, but ideological partisans and paid advocates, presenting dishonest arguments for a predetermined party-line conclusion. Even three years ago, sites like Tech Central Station, and writers like Ross McKitrick were taken seriously by many. Now, anyone with access to Google can discover that they have no credibility. Chris Mooney’s Republican War on Science which I plan to review soon, gives chapter and verse and the whole network of thinktanks, politicians and tame scientists who have popularised GW contrarianism, Intelligent Design and so on.
A couple of thoughts on all this.
First, in the course of the debate, a lot of nasty things were said about the IPCC, including some by people who should have known better. Now that it’s clear that the IPCC has been pretty much spot-on in its assessment (and conservative in terms of its caution about reaching definite conclusions), it would be nice to see some apologies.
Second, now that the scientific phase of the debate is over, attention will move to the question of the costs and benefits of mitigation options. There are legitimate issues to be debated here. But having seen the disregard for truth exhibited by anti-environmental think tanks in the first phase of the debate, we shouldn’t give them a free pass in the second. Any analysis on this issue coming out of a think tank that has engaged in global warming contrarianism must be regarded as valueless unless its results have been reproduced independently, after taking account of possible data mining and cherry picking. That disqualifies virtually all the major right-wing think tanks, both here and in the US. Their performance on this and other scientific issues has been a disgrace.
John Quiggin 
Willis said “If we use the TAR figures (there is, as always, disagreement about the numbers, with values from about 1.3 to 3.7 watts/m2), we still only get a 0.7° response from a doubling of CO2 without feedback”
I then later argued “…….Applying this 0.39% increase to a temperature of 288.16 degrees K gives an increase of 1.13 degrees K.”
Now Willis says “I stated that the thermodynamic calculation shows that a forcing of 3.7 watts from doubling of CO2 gives a warming of 0.68 degrees, per Stefan-Bolzmann. No one has argued with that.”
Willis is a liar. I won’t be wasting any more time trying to educate a liar.
Chris, you are correct that you argued:
I pointed out (above) that you were calculating the result of the change in forcing incorrectly. As I stated above, a change in forcing is the net change in forcing, in watts per square metre.
By adding the forcing to the sun, as you calculate it, you are taking the change in forcing (3.7 watts/m2) and then increasing it by the amount of the greenhouse effect. This, of course, will give an incorrectly large answer. The forcing does not get increased by the greenhouse effect — it is a net forcing.
I quoted (above) the IPCC definition of forcing to show that the IPCC clearly says that a forcing is not increased by the greenhouse effect, as you have incorrectly calculated it.
The calculation is quite simple. The average temperature of the earth’s surface is on the order of about 14.8°C. Using the Stefan-Bolzmann equation, that works out to about 390 watts/m2.
Adding in the additional forcing of 3.7 watts/m2 gives us a surface temperature of 393.7 watts/m2. Converting back to temperature using Stefan Bolzmann, we get a surface temperature of 15.5°. This is the 0.7° increase I mentioned above.
Finally, calling me a liar without having the simple decency to say what you think I lied about, as you have done, merely highlights the weakness of your position.
I am encouraged, however, by your claim that will no longer be trying to “educate” me, and I’m sure that everyone will be watching to see if you keep your word about that …
w.
Willis the Frogs I thought you thought it was a beatup that your googling exposed, so follow it up and expose this bad science.
Don’t Blame the Plants
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/004009.html
-From the guys who did the plant/methan study
Cloudy With a Chance of Chaos
http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/17/news/economy/climate_fortune/
-Nice one the insurance industry sees the wrinting on the wall, stick it to them where it hurts guys!
simonjm, thanks for your response to my question, and as always thanks for posting.
I am preparing a document for submission to Nature magazine about the very questionable claims and methods in the frog paper.
Thank you also for your links, the first of which led to a press release by the authors of the methane study. They say the following (emphasis mine):
While this all makes sense in terms of reforestation, the world’s forests are not reforesting, but are basically in a steady state condition, with only a relatively small amount being “new forest”. In a steady state, mature forest there is generally no net uptake of carbon.
However, in a steady state forest, the production of methane by the forest continues unabated. And even in a new forest, every year the amount of net carbon uptake drops, until it reaches zero. After that, there’s no further carbon uptake, but the methane production continues. This point was not discussed by the researchers, for obvious reasons …
They are correct (as far as we can tell today) that reforestation still reduces total greenhouse gases. What they somehow forgot to mention, however, is that mature forests (which is most of the world’s forests) actively increase the amount of greenhouse gases. Plants are warming the world, what an amazing discovery.
Your other link was to a far poorer piece, which argues (among other things) that we can tell that climate change is happening by watching insurance premiums. This ignores three salient facts:
1. Worldwide, despite the claims of insurance agents, a number of studies have shown that neither storms nor extremes in precipitation are increasing.
2. More people are living in risky (flood-prone, fire-prone, earthquake-prone, etc.) areas, so although the storms are not increasing, the costs of the damage done by any catastrophe are increasing.
3. Insurance companies rightly see the AGW scare as a god-given chance to increase their premiums — “Sorry, folks, we really hate to raise our rates, but the climate made us do it.” Right … anyone credulous enough to actually believe this line of insurance agent patter does not understand either business or businesspeople.
All the best,
w.
Willis, you again seize on the methane and plants study just published in Nature and wilfully misconstrue it. The press release from the authors of the study is specifically designed to deal with the misinformation people such as yourself are now spreading. To quote from the text:
“We first stress that our findings are preliminary with regard to the methane emission strength. Emissions most certainly depend on plant type and environmental conditions and more experiments are certainly necessary to quantify the process under natural conditions.” (1)
Accordingly it is far too early to make bold claims about the net affects of plants on climate. Your claim that “Plants are warming the world, what an amazing discovery” is therefore presumptuous and disingenuous.
I also note your snide insinuations pertaining to the authors of this study: “This point was not discussed by the researchers, for obvious reasons … ” and “What they somehow forgot to mention, however, is that mature forests … ”
With comments like this and your other comments about “Mann and his mates” and the “misinformation” in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, which involved 300 scientists, you seem to be hinting at some vast conspiracy. Such conspiracy theories might make ripping yarns but rarely contain any substance. You will need to produce far better arguments if you genuinely want to convert the impartial observer to your point of view.
In respect of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) you cite one study, from “Fisheries and Oceans Canada”, in an attempt to discredit it. The ACIA study says harp seals have begun to decline in number and that decline will continue as arctic ice continues to reduce. The study you cite merely says the North West Atlantic harp seal population is stable. These two claims are not mutually exclusive.
In respect of polar bears the ACIA report says:
“Polar bears are dependent on sea ice, where they hunt ice living seals and use ice corridors to move from one area to another….. The earliest impacts of warming would be expected to occur at the southern limits of the bear’s distribution, such as James and Hudsons Bays in Canada, and such impacts have already been documented in recent years. The condition of adult polar bears has declined during the last two deacdes in the Hudson Bay area, as have the number of live births… ” (2)
If this assessment is incorrect then please provide evidence.
I’m struck by your inability to fathom the significance of warmer conditions resulting in a plague of beetles that has killed 40 million South Alaska trees. This is a good example of warming not necessarily being as benign as you have argued.
(1) http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/m-gw-011806.php
(2) http://www.acia.uaf.edu/pages/overview.html
Willis that doesn’t seem to be the case with a quick googling your statement on precipitation doesn’t hold up, I’m sure you have links for me.
U.S. Global Change Research Information Office
http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/08.html
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ClimateTrendsPrecipitation.html?OpenDocument
For the US
“During the 20th century, precipitation increased by about 0.5-1 percent per decade over most middle and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere’s continents. Rainfall over the sub-tropical Northern declined about 0.3 percent per decade, while no significant change occurred over the tropics.
Is the hydrological cycle (evaporation and precipitation) changing?
Overall, land precipitation for the globe has increased by ~2% since 1900, however, precipitation changes have been spatially variable over the last century. Instrumental records show that there has been a general increase in precipitation of about 0.5-1.0%/decade over land in northern mid-high latitudes, except in parts of eastern Russia. However, a decrease of about -0.3%/decade in precipitation has occurred during the 20th century over land in sub-tropical latitudes, though this trend has weakened in recent decades. Due to the difficulty in measuring precipitation, it has been important to constrain these observations by analyzing other related variables. The measured changes in precipitation are consistent with observed changes in streamflow, lake levels, and soil moisture (where data are available and have been analyzed).
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q5
Throw in factors in lag from the oceans ands global dimming at it could reasonably be higher.
Regarding storms I thought it was well know yes in cases like the US hurricane system there hasn’t been in increase in storm but there has been an increase in higher intensity storms.
It’s also about extreme whether events you may get the same annual rainfall but if you get in fewer but larger major precipitation events, that causes problems not the amounts
Regarding methane using a lay overview if once the total land area has reached its maximum for forest at a steady state –which would have happened in the past- and that this constantly increases the level of methane in the atmosphere one would think that someone would of picked up a historical trend seeing an ever increasing amount of methane in the air. Since I’m assuming this didn’t happen there must be a natural cycling system that takes care of this.
In regard to insurance yes increase in population, degradation of natural buffers are a factor but storm related insurance payout have increases dramatically if it was all about population and area wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect an a gradual increase in line with this population and development.
A couple of other points getting average public Joe’s to increase his payments is one thing I would think getting the big end of town to agree to arbitrary increases would be another.
BTW does this mean you think the gov should not have allowed any local increases because they are just insurance agent patter?
Lastly I would think that looking at the record increasing amounts paid out to weather related incidents- in the context of AGW & the backing its gets from the worlds leading scientific institutions – is enough for any non biased person to think it is indeed a credible justification for increase, not the head in the sand denial by the dirty industries and their supporters.
Cheers
Regarding global dimming, why not fill an Airbus with liquid sulfur dioxide and spray it at 20 km up to see what happens?
Space buffs love solar sails, very light films that can propel small payloads to very high velocities with light pressure (the pressure of sunlight in space is apparently approximate to the pressure of the air inside a light bulb). If we were to open areas of solar film in the expanse between us and the sun, could we alleviate the Greenhouse?
It’s drastic and difficult to model, I know, but it’s conceivable.
Many solar barriers would create pockets of shade between us and the sun.
JQ
Yes you are not generally “fiercely” against nuclear energy – but it does seem you cannot bring yourself to allow it is an option, eg Quiggin with Hamilton, 1997, and even more remarkably, Hamilton’s 2002 follow-up which acknowledges you but does not mention nuclear as a potential source of cheap power free of CO2 in 2050. Neither appears to have been peer reviewed. Nor would I expect to find academic peer reviewed papers with accurate costings on engineering options – there are enough nuclear physicists on record in the public domain (try Kemeny here), not to mention the French (ignored by you) who seem to do just fine with nuclear providing 80% of their electricity. Remember that your coal mines generate 7 million tons of CO2 per 1000 MW year, and 750,000 tons of solid waste (neither socially costed) while western nuclear plants (no CO2 and just 50 tons of solid waste) have had to internalise such costs.
Best
Tim
Perhaps the reason that John ignores nuclear as a source of “cheap” power is that it isn’t particularly cheap.
Ignore the industry hype and check average consumer prices for electricity, France’s is quite high by developed world standards. As is Japan’s, another major user of nuclear power.
One of Willis’s earlier claims is that: “I stated that the thermodynamic calculation shows that a forcing of 3.7 watts from doubling of CO2 gives a warming of 0.68 degrees, per Stefan-Bolzmann (sic). No one has argued with that.�
I could find no reference to this on the internet. Is this something you calculated yourself Willis? I did however find this interesting 2005 Abstract for an in “Science Magazine� entitled “Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications�:
“Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols, among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85 ± 0.15 watts per square meter more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years. Implications include (i) the expectation of additional global warming of about 0.6°C without further change of atmospheric composition; (ii) the confirmation of the climate system’s lag in responding to forcings, implying the need for anticipatory actions to avoid any specified level of climate change; and (iii) the likelihood of acceleration of ice sheet disintegration and sea level rise. “
(see http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1110252?)
The “Science Magazine� Abstract clearly debunks Willis’s assertion.
Another of Willis’s assertions is that there was a global Roman Warm Period. When I typed “Roman Warm Periodâ€? into Google I got a grand total of 429 hits. None of the top 20 hits provides a link to a scholarly peer reviewed journal. The first 5 hits link to right-wing global warming denialist sites including “Frontiers for Freedom” and Prof Fred Singer’s SEPP. It would seem that the Roman Warm Period is not generally accepted as real outside of skeptic circles.
May I ask Willis if all of the journal articles you cite actually mention this so-called Roman Warm Period? Or have they been simply been co-opted by denialists such as yourself?
I said:
simonjm said:
Simon, first, thanks for your investigation.
You have sent a reference which clearly shows that precipitation is stable to within less than 1% per decade, and 2% per century. It says nothing about extremes in precipitation.
I’m not clear what your point is.
w.
simonjm, you raise an interesting point when you say
You are right that methane would buid up, and correct in suspecting a natural process to bring it down. Atmospheric methane is biodegradable, slowly breaking down to water and CO2. This prevents an “ever increasing amount of methane” from accumulating in the atmosphere.
Someone said elsewhere that I was premature to say that the plants’ breath warms the world, because the study was so new.
One of the things the study explained, however, was earlier observations of massive, unexplained plumes of methane rich air above the tropical forests. This is the plants breath, and it was observed well before this study.
It’s true. The plants’ breath warms the plants, and in the process warms the world.
One thing everyone should be clear about. I don’t think this methane finding says anything either way about the size of CO2-driven AGW. It does not prove or disprove anything about that question. I just find it fascinating, that evolution would have developed a way that plants could warm the air around them … what a wondrous world.
It is also worth noting that plants in the tropical forests, among the warmest places on earth, are producing tons of methane in an effort to make it even warmer yet.
A mysterious planet indeed …
w.
Um Willis you claimed “There has been no change in the peak precipitation, despite three centuries of documented warming.”
PLS excuse my ignorance and correct me in that I cannot compare-from those studies- a global increase in preciptation with your no increase in peak precipitation statement. I was addressing mainly that point.
Interesting how you could look at the ref I gave and pulled stable while see increasing preciptation which is the main point of the ref. Others here is he correct?
You also say”neither storms nor extremes in precipitation are increasing”.
& my point was that even if there was no increase in the amounts of precipation the extra relevant factor is extreme events. Given recent events and coverage I didn’t think I’d have to provide links with even a quick google brings up,
Extreme weather on the rise
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WEATHER/07/03/wmo.extremes/
Meteorological Service of Canada (MSC)
Is Extreme Weather Becoming More Common?
http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/education/scienceofclimatechange/understanding/ccd/ccd_9801/sections/2_e.html
Willis to me -and I could be wrong- you seem to talk-the-talk like the creationists but when claims by you and other AGW sceptics are chased down -again like the creationists- they are either dated, incorrect, cherry picked or misrepresentations. The no increase in storms and extreme weather events is enough for me bow out.
If you cherry pick -the number of storms but has in intensity and deny the studies on extreme whether events and precipitation increase that’s up to you.
That doesn’t mean you are incorrect on everything but I’ll side with the scientific mainstream and those best qualified on this matter and leave it to others to chase your points.
Let us know how you go with nature.
Will De Vere one guy on that Dangerous ideas forum talked about the solar sails and dumping timber in the deap ocean.
Not sure how the deap sea eco systems would fare but its the thought that counts.
Simon, thanks once again for your interest. You ask for studies showing no increase in extreme weather.
First, you are curious how I find stability in your reported data. Your figures showed that rainfall varied by less than 1% per decade, and increased only 2% in 100 years. That, to me, says stable. Do you think that a 2% increase in rainfall in 100 years shows instability?
You also ask how increasing rainfall doesn’t mean greater extreme weather. See, for example, Lins, H.F. and Slack, J.R. 1999. Streamflow trends in the United States. Geophysical Research Letters 26: 227-230.
Their results, in their own words, “indicate that the conterminous U.S. is getting wetter, but less extreme.”
Zhang et. al. also found no increase in storm activity in the last 100 years.
Zhang, K., Douglas, B. C. & Leatherman, S. P. (2000) Twentieth-century storm activity along the US east coast. Journal of Climate 13, 1748-1761.
Cluis and Laberge analysed river data from a wide range of rivers in the Asia-Pacific region in their study, Cluis, D. and Laberge, C. 2001. Climate change and trend detection in selected rivers within the Asia-Pacific region. Water International 26: 411-424. They found that mean river discharges showed no change in 67% of the cases investigated. Where there were trends, in 69% of the cases downward.
Maximum river discharges were also unchanged in the majority of cases investigated (77%); and where there were trends, most of them (72%) were downward as well.
Finally, minimum river discharges were unchanged in 53% of the cases investigated. Where there were trends, 62% of them were upward.
So maximum discharges have gone down, and minimum discharges have gone up, which of course must mean less extremes of rainfall.
Khandekar studied extreme weather events in Canada in Khandekar, M.L. 2002: Trends and changes in extreme weather events: An assessment with focus on Alberta and Canadian Prairies. Rept. Prepared for Alberta Environment, Edmonton, AB, 56p. ( available on: http://www.gov.ab.ca/env/info/infocentre/publist.cfm)
He reports that ” I have carefully examined 20th century data (Khandekar, 2002) and have concluded that extreme weather events like thunderstorms/tornadoes, heat waves, winter blizzards etc. are NOT increasing anywhere in Canada at present and the probability of these events increasing in future remains very small.”
I could give you lots more studies, but I’ve cited a number of studies already showing no increase in the frequency of extreme weather events. Now how about you citing some studies that show an increase in the frequency extreme weather events?
Thanks,
w.
Someone claimed above that they researched the subject, and that there were no scientific papers about the “Roman Warm Period.” They went on to claim that this showed that “the Roman Warm Period is not generally accepted as real outside of skeptic circles.”
A search of Google Scholar shows that their “research” is pathetically inadequate, as it reveals some 39 papers in peer-reviewed journals. The first two on the list, for example, Centennial-Scale Holocene Climate Variability Revealed by a High-Resolution Speleothem, and Mercury in a Spanish peat bog: archive of climate change and atmospheric metal deposition, were published in Science magazine, hardly a skeptical publication …
I also note that the person claiming the RWP was a skeptical invention isn’t even following this blog, as I have alread cited the paper on mercury in Spain in a posting above about the RWP, and indicated that it was published in Science.
Bad researcher … no cookies …
w.
Someone above claims that an article in Science magazine “clearly debunks Willis’s assertion.”
The article in question, however, is a report of a GCM result. I have clearly shown (above) that computer models can never “debunk” anything, because they are not evidence. Please re-read my posting on why this is the case.
w.
Someone asked about polar bears, indicating that the ACIA claimed there is a danger that they might go extinct. Here’s the short version of why they are not going extinct, and will not go extinct.
1. Currently, the average temperature of the Hudson Bay region is about two degrees colder than it has been for most of this interglacial period. This is shown by the Greenland ice core temperature record, available at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt
The ice core record also shows large climate variability, such that unless polar bears evolved in the last 2,000 years, they have lived through periods as much as 5° warmer than today. This clearly shows that they will not go extinct even if temperatures rise.
2. Polar bear populations worldwide are generally stable, with some areas increasing, and a few areas decreasing. The decreases are mostly from overhunting in Greenland, which allows much more hunting than Canada and other signatories to the 1974 Polar Bear Convention. This affects some Canadian bear populations which spend part of the year in Greenland.
3. Despite generally stable bear populations, the UN IUCN Polar Bear Specialty Group is lobbying to have polar bears declared as endangered. Is this because numbers are decreasing? Well, no, numbers aren’t decreasing. Even the PBSG doesn’t make that claim. They want them declared as endangered because nasty old climate change might threaten them. Sounds like lobbying for lifetime employment for the PBSG, but perhaps I’m just cynical.
4. In Canada polar bears are sacred to the Inuit, the people of the north, who now have their own territory just like any other Canadian territory, called Nunavut. The management of the polar bear is in their hands. Nunavut has just raised by 28% the number of permits to kill polar bears in 2005, because the bear population is increasing. They say that in addition to science, they are basing this on the Inuit traditional knowledge, called “IQ”.
w.
PS – Here’s an article on the subject …
OK. The Inuit locals say the polar bear population is increasing, so does Mr. Taylor and other wildlife experts. Like I said, you can’t depend on the information in the ACIA. Someone said that I thought this indicated a “conspiracy”, and then went off about conspiracy theorists as if I were one. I am not.
What we are seeing is not a conspiracy. It is just bad science. The poster child of the ACIA, for example, is their graph showing how much the Arctic has warmed since 1960. Whoa, it’s scary, radical warming … but this is just hype, as they well know.
If they had started their graph in 1930, it would have shown that the Arctic was warmer in 1930, and has cooled since then. This is not a conspiracy, it is just advocacy poorly disguised as science.
w.
Someone asked about harp seals, saying the ACIA claimed they were in danger from warming. I find the following:
In addition, harp seals are listed as a species of “Least Concern” by the Red List. This is the absolutely lowest risk category in the Red List, indicating that the IUCN is not concerned about them at all.
Like I said, the ACIA is not a conspiracy. It is advocacy pretending to be science.
w.
Willis: So maximum discharges have gone down, and minimum discharges have gone up, which of course must mean less extremes of rainfall.
Only if rainfall were the only factor affectign streamflow.
Given large-scale changes in land cover and land use over the course of the 20th century that seems unlikely.
I’m not arguing with you on your larger point (I want to read and reflect more on the issue), simply pointing out that streamflow is not solely determined by rainfall.
Ian, many thanks. You say:
Your issue is good, that more than rainfall affects streamflow, but it points the opposite direction. Most of the land use changes involve clearing of forests, which increases the swing of the river flows. This would suggest that we would see more extremes in river flow, not less as we have actually seen.
w.
Willis stated:
You must include emissivity, which for clear sky is 0.6293
the response to co2 doubling is 0.8 degrees.
http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/sb.htm
If we use modtran 3 to do the sums the value is 0.95K/2xCO2
http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/howmuch.htm
Willis Eschenbach,
Q1. What do you think are the major environmental problems of our time?
Based on my understanding I would have thought it was things like:-
1. Introduced pests (eg cane toad in Australia).
2. Habitat clearing (eg government subsidised land clearing in the Amazon).
3. Over fishing.
4. Industrial pollution (eg recent toxic spills in China).
Global Warming (ie CO2 polution) is one that I have been sceptical about, however the weight of opinion had recently caused me to be more moderate in my scepticism. Your account here however has shown me that the weight of GW opinion on this site at least is not exactly heavy weight opinion. So now I am back to being more sceptical.
One other questions if I may:-
Q2. Why do you think that the theory of Man made Global Warming has so many proponents if the Science is still patchy? Is it just a case of group think?
Regards,
Terje.
Terje – “Your account here however has shown me that the weight of GW opinion on this site at least is not exactly heavy weight opinion. So now I am back to being more sceptical.”
So here is the dilemma we face. Willis by ignoring contrary evidence and ploughing on regardless has demonstrated the effectiveness of the anti GW skeptic wedge tactics. Actions like this have made the case appear weak especially when the correct answers have been posted, ignored and then the posters giving up so as not to give the anti-GW movement extra ammunition.
It really does not matter what we think and what happens on this blog may appear to be a victory for Willis. However there are many climate scientists that are very worried who do not post on blogs and have totally given up trying to counter the very effective anti-GW campaign. Browbeating your ‘opponents’ to a standstill will not change whether GW is happening or not and does not indicate whether the scientific case is sound or not. Some of the climate scientists that have not given up are on RealClimate – I trust the information there. Ask Rasmus or Gavin a question as I have always found them willing to reply to an email.
I don’t think it is accurate to characterise the approach taken by Willis as “browbeating”. Firstly because he seems to rate at the top end of politeness on this site and secondly because physical intimidation is pretty much impossible in an online blog when most of your opponents choose to be anonymous.
You are essentially posing an argument from authority. Gavin and Rasmus are deemed more wise than Willis. Which is possibly a reasonable opinion to hold but not a very convincing line of argument. You also seem to infer that Willis has something to gain from wedging. Perhaps he takes a personal delight in winning arguments (many people do). However his primary concern seems to me to be like that of most other people who discuss matters here. Namely he wants to ensure that policy is based on a sound understanding of reality.
If as you suggest a large body of climate scientists have simply given up on the debate because the discussion has become too grueling then it casts doubt on their conviction as well as their original motive. However I suspect that most climate scientists are as engaged in the debate as they ever were and that you were just messing with words. If you have some evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) that climate scientists have tuned out of the public debate then I would love to see it.
You good Willis but I’m starting to see your pattern .
Storm in a tea cup?
http://www.nature.com/nsu_new/000608/000608-10.html
-“Nonetheless Douglas’ team cautions that their findings might not be a secure guide to what the future holds. “Climate can change abruptly”, they say. “Relatively large global warming is predicted in the next century, which may cause a major change in coastal storm activity.”
You are using a study of the last 100 years expecting some exact correlation with CO2 levels when even on a lay level I know about the time lag with the ocean taking in the extra heat. Also notice the sea level rise affecting things? Bet I can guess what his stance on future AGW is?
BTW so you always rely on academic studies and not news articles or summaries of studies and just dismiss because my last two links included ref’s to the studies within the pieces? That’s rich! Should I then dismiss out of hand you news links?
Nunavut rethinks polar bear quotas as numbers drop
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/09/polar050609.html
So a we need a closer look. I’ve seen numerous reports how the pack ice season is shortening causing many bears to encroach on settlements due to starvation so I’m not surprised that they want an increase in the quota, also helps that they make a lot of money from it. I’ll do some more digging.
But since there has be a sharp recent
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=16689
decline even if the population increased in the past decade a shard drop now will significantly affect their population due to the pivotal role it plays in their ability to hunt and fatten during the winter months.
My point on the stable vs increase in precipitation takes on that study is that you look back and think because there are no increase extreme weather events but an increase in precipitation supports your skeptical line while due to lag and other factors the increase in precipitation combined with the recent increase in recent extreme weather events (the Meteorological Service of Canada ref hand enough details on that that even back up my query about insurance payments when discounting the pop and development in the US) back up mine.
A my study your study won’t get us anywhere and I’ve broken my rule to do so, as for lay people outside a discipline searches on the net will not give the authority and overall context of the work involved. This is exactly the problem in the evolution vs creationist debate. If we could what would be the point of a university qualification just use the net and google and you are an expert.
Rules of thumb don’t always work but when you look at where the mainstream is those best qualified, what the worlds leading scientific institutions are saying and the conflict of interest from most of the skeptics; given I’ve the mainstream on my side I’ll go the majority view and not the cherry pickers.
I’ve wasted too much time on this I’m bailing from this thread.
I suspect this thread has passed the point of positive marginal returns, even though nobody has answered the first respondent’s query on the costs of implementing Kyoto.
Perhaps JQ would care to start a new thread by explaining why he does not consider that the only rational response if one believes in AGW and the allegedly disastrous consequences thereof is adoption of nuclear energy. So far it seems he supports the claim by Friends of the Earth that nuclear is too high cost – but they like so many forget that the undoubtedly higher capital costs of nuclear power are offset by its very low fuel cost. When discounting is used to bring capital and running costs to present all-in values then the OECD’s Nuclear Energy Authority (NEA) shows that new nuclear energy plant is competitive with gas and coal at discount rates of 5%, and that even at 10% it is still cheaper than coal or gas in France, while a carbon tax at the relatively low rate of US$50 per ton of carbon would make nuclear cheaper than power from coal in USA, Canada, Korea, and Spain. The OECD’s study estimates that the nuclear option has the capacity to sustain growth in world energy demand to 2100 at a CO2 emission rate 25% below that in 2002, whilst if the FoE line is adopted and nuclear is phased out then CO2 will be 13% higher than now.
Tim
One of Willis’s favourite claims is that models do not produce evidence. For instance he says: “I have clearly shown (above) that computer models can never “debunkâ€? anything, because they are not evidence.”
This argument is of course absurd and I seriously doubt Willis actually believes it. A model is nothing more than a set of rules and data. Provided the rules and data are correct, the model will produce an accurate result. It is possible to dispute the quality of a model and thus the accuracy of the evidence, but it is a fiction to claim that models can not produce good evidence.
Why do I doubt Willis’s honesty? Its because Willis is trained as an engineer and engineers use modelling. I know this perfectly well because, although I am not an engineer myself, I worked for an engineering about 12 years ago. As it so happened, my personal computer was the only one that contained some of the modelling software, so I had to occasionally stop work while the engineers ran their calculations.
Let me again remind readers that Willis has practised a similar deceit with respect to laboratory experiments. When Ken Miles mentioned laboratory experiments on coral Willis said: “Ken, thanks for the postings on coral growth. One is of coral growing in an aquarium … don’t think that applies here, we’re talking about the real world.” Yet when Willis stumbled across the 12 January 2006 article in Nature entitled “Methane emissions from terrestrial plants under aerobic conditions” he seized on it and waxed eloquently about its great importance, even though it was a preliminary, laboratory based study. What a contradiction!
Willis, you have clearly demonstrated intellectual dishonesty and destroyed your own credibility. You sir, are a charlatan.
simonjm, you say:
Errr … umm … well, OK. I’m not sure why you think that expressing your opinions and supporting your ideas is ever a waste of time, but you’re a better judge than me regarding your opinions and ideas.
For me, it has been very interesting, although not all that pleasant. I don’t think I’ve ever been abused so badly, nor in such a cavalier fashion, as on this blog. Some of you guys represent the worst of fanatics in that regard, as you seem to think that no rational human being could possibly be so stupid as to oppose your claims.
The logical conclusion from this belief, of course, is that if those who do oppose you are not stupid, they must be shills for industry, or liars, or prompted by some evil motive. In pursuit of that belief, you think it’s perfectly fine to accuse someone you’ve never met of all kinds of things, from willful ignorance to lying to never having been to France to believing in a conspiracy of warmers.
simonjm, you say, for example, “You good Willis but I’m starting to see your pattern.”
See my pattern? Dude, I’m just a guy trying to keep my head above water and answer people’s questions. I don’t have a “pattern”, other than swimming in circles trying to stay afloat in a sea of opposition, or if I do have said “pattern”, I’m certainly not aware of it.
I am merely a man who has been deceived too many times, both by scientists and non-scientists, to automatically believe what anybody says. So I make every effort to go to the original sources, to see what is happening, rather than rely on second-hand information.
I did this with the story of the 77 species of frogs going extinct from climate change, for example, and found out that the so-called “science” was nothing but rumour. They are counting species as extinct which have not even shown any population decline at all.
I bring that back and report it. You are free to disagree, and of course some people do. But some of you on this blog want to take it an extra step. You want to believe that I’m the bogeyman, the guy who doesn’t believe there are any environmental problems, the guy in the pay of Mobil, or some such ridiculous nonsense as that.
I am not any of those things. I am a committed environmentalist who is basically agnostic on the climate issue. I do not believe we understand the climate well enough to make 100 year forecasts. I am quite clear that climate models are encapsulations, in model form, of the beliefs of their programmers. I have studied the output of the models, and find that not only are the forecasts and hindcasts not believable (often hindcasting month-to-month changes which have never been seen on earth), in most cases they are not even lifelike. I am quite clear that even if they were lifelike, the results of computer models are neither data nor evidence, and they can never prove or disprove anything. At best, all they can do is assist us in understanding the system. At worst, they deceive us into believing that the model is the reality.
I believe that humans likely have some effect on the climate. I also believe that it is probable that the human effect is much smaller than we can measure. I say that the effects of humans on climate are extremely small, in part because, despite hundreds of people searching for years for evidence, there is still no smoking gun, no clear evidence of human effects.
I also believe that even if it occurs, a 1°-2° warming will not bring the chaos, heartbreak, tragedy, disease, and widespread death that you guys forecast. We’ve seen that much warming in the last 300 years, without any of those negative outcomes, so why should we see them now?
It is quite clear, for example, that the Arctic was warmer 75 years ago than it is today, and that the warming to 1930 was not the result of human intervention. And on a longer and larger scale, ice core records also show that the Arctic, and the world in general, is currently at about the coldest point of the Holocene (the current inter-glacial era). Because of this, I am quite certain that the Arctic creatures are not about to go extinct from a small temperature rise such as is predicted by AGW adherents. Why? Because it has been warmer than that in very recent times, and the polar bears and harp seals didn’t go extinct.
I believe that the peer review system for scientific papers is failing us very badly. The Hwang case has made the limitations of peer review all too clear.
Finally, I believe that if the claimed consensus existed, that the anthropogenic global warming debate would be over. The debate rages on, not because of mean heartless oil companies, but because there are a large number of both scientists and lay people out here who, like myself, are by no means convinced of the claims that AGW is a greater threat than terrorism. In other words, the global warming debate continues, and will continue, until we finally do reach some consensus.
w.
PS — Some of you guys have a habit of abusing and impugning the motives and honesty of those who have the temerity to disagree with you. In addition to being ungentlemanly, impolite, and often downright nasty, this is also very poor tactics.
It does not make people want to believe you or be on your side when they see such churlish behaviour as calling a man a liar, then refusing to say what you think he lied about, and in the end cravenly refusing to either back up the claim or apologize for the unwarranted slur.
I mean, would you want to be on the side of a man who acted in such a repugnant fashion?
Steve,
Let us say that somebody has a theory that a bridge of a certain design can withstand a wind of 100km per hour.
We model the bridge in a computer with all our known physical forces and dynamics incorporated in the computer model. If the model says that the bridge will stand then either the bridge design is sound or the model is wrong. Likewise if the model says the bridge will topple then either the bridge design is flawed or the model is wrong.
In practice we may use alternate models to confirm our suspisions (eg a scaled down version of the bridge in a wind tunnel).
Now lets say that proponents of the bridge say that it will stand and the proponents of the models say that it will fall. How do we “debunk” the claims of the bridge advocates. Can we just point to the model and say that it is authorative? We could say that the model has proven consistent with reality 6000 times previously but that would not “debunk” the claim even though it may cast severe doubt on it.
The only way to debunk the claim is to build the bridge and wait for a strong wind.
The real question is not whether a model can prove anything (it can’t) but rather how reliable the model has demonstrated itself to be. This is pretty much the story of science. No model is 100% reliable just as Newtons model of physics was proven unreliable when large speeds are involved and Einsteins relativity ran into trouble explaining things at the quantum level.
A useful saying is that “the map is not the territory”. All our models have flaws. A map that tells us that a mountain exists does not prove that the mountain exists.
Also a model that has been fitted with all existing data is not necessarily predictive. If we find a map that has a high degree of accord with the territory that we know (eg climate history) it does not mean that it will accord with territory that we don’t yet know (eg the climatic future).
For me to be satisfied with a model as a “debunking” tool I would want to see it make predictions with a high degree of success. Not retrospectively for the data it was fitted to but for cases that are unfamiliar or original.
(If you are happy with a model that can merely handle the retrospective data then I would like to sell you some blackbox share trading software.)
Given that this is going to be harder to do for a climate model as opposed to a bridge model then we are going to be left with an open debate. The existing climate models are not proven enough to do anything like “debunk” alternate climate guesses.
The shortcomings of such models has been shown in the result published by the IPCC. The warming scenerios for the century ahead vary substantially depending on which model is used. These are models created by different expert groups. If computer models of bridge designs varied so widely then engineers would not rely on them.
One computer model that I previously played with was “Spice”. It models the behaviour of electronic circuits. It accords highly with the results shown by many alternate computer models available on the market. As such I regard it as reliable for certain types of circuits.
Another computer model that I have used was called “Simcity”. It showed that if city tax rates were high citizens would flee the city. However I don’t regard it as reliable because it has no specific predictive power in the real world. It was however illustrative of a concept and fun to play.
Regards,
Terje.
>I suspect this thread has passed the point of positive marginal returns, even though nobody has answered the first respondent’s query on the costs of implementing Kyoto.
Actually I believe I made a really fist of doign exactly that – see my posts around January 5.
>Perhaps JQ would care to start a new thread by explaining why he does not consider that the only rational response if one believes in AGW and the allegedly disastrous consequences thereof is adoption of nuclear energy. So far it seems he supports the claim by Friends of the Earth that nuclear is too high cost – but they like so many forget that the undoubtedly higher capital costs of nuclear power are offset by its very low fuel cost. When discounting is used to bring capital and running costs to present all-in values then the OECD’s Nuclear Energy Authority (NEA) shows that new nuclear energy plant is competitive with gas and coal at discount rates of 5%, and that even at 10% it is still cheaper than coal or gas in France, while a carbon tax at the relatively low rate of US$50 per ton of carbon would make nuclear cheaper than power from coal in USA, Canada, Korea, and Spain. The OECD’s study estimates that the nuclear option has the capacity to sustain growth in world energy demand to 2100 at a CO2 emission rate 25% below that in 2002, whilst if the FoE line is adopted and nuclear is phased out then CO2 will be 13% higher than now.
Tim
There’s another thread here entitled Peak Oil in which the nuclear issue is discussed.
So did the OECD provide a similar cost comparison for wind or bio-mass?
You almost mention country-specific cost comaprisons for France and Spain – neither of which have substantial domestic coal or gas reserves.
I’d be interested in seeing similar calculations for Australia, the US, China and India.
A link to the OECD publication in question would be appreciated.
Ah, this is getting good. I must confess, I’m even starting to enjoy the surreal, other worldly quality of Steve’s posts.
Steve, who previously called me a liar, then cravenly refused to either say what I lied about or to retract his scurrilous statement, now calls me a “charlatan”.
Why? Because in two different experiments, I said one would work in the laboratory and one wouldn’t. Plus I said that computer models don’t provide evidence. That, on Steve’s planet, makes me a “charlatan”.
Now please note that I have already answered the question about the difference between the two experiments (above), when it was raised before. At that time, I said exactly why one experiment would work in the laboratory and one wouldn’t.
Steve doesn’t touch on that discussion at all, just says that I’m contradicting myself. Perhaps Steve could explain how the lysocline was modeled in the aquarium, to make it representative of the real ocean …
I also gave a very clear example, from high energy physics, of exactly why the results of computer models are neither evidence nor data. Steve also ignores that discussion entirely, just comes back with his same claim that models can prove things. Perhaps he thinks that simply repeating the claim will make it true.
Steve, if models can prove things, why do high energy physicists still do experiments? Why don’t they just depend on the models, since in your world models can provide evidence? Surely that should be enough … are the high energy physicists “charlatans”, since they have the effrontery to insist on real world data even though they have much better computer models than our current clumsy climate models?
An answer to these questions without personal attacks would be greatly preferred … however, please feel free to pile on any amount of ridiculous, gratuitous, untrue, nasty personal insults if it makes you feel better.
w.
Willis, I already explained how you are deceitful. Mann has published his data and methods but you have repeatedly and dishonestly claimed that he has not.
Tim Curtin, search for nuclear on the site, we’ve discussed the issues at length here, including a serious examination of the costs, which turn out to be very hard to estimate accurately, for the obvious reason that only a few countries have built nuclear plants in recent decades, and many of them provide subsidies.
Terje Says:
Good for you, Terje, that as an engineer you are able to spot the highly confusing difference between a tool widely used in industry, i.e. PSpice, and Simcity, a computer game.
It’s a pity that you are unable to make any logical inference from the distinction you draw.
Your major point appears to be that all models are flawed, but you fail to acknoweledge WRT global warming that some models are more flawed than others, and that some people (e.g. you) aren’t in any way qualified to make any judgement.
Up above I said:-
What I should have said-
No that was a lesser point. My major point is that judging a model for reliability should be based on its predictive track record more so than its ability to merely fit historical data.
I specifically refered to the fact that the climate models used by the IPCC vary widely. I readily acknowledge that they can’t all be right and hence some or all of them must be flawed.
I hope this addresses the perceived “failure”.
If two models give different results then I feel well qualified to judge that one of them must be wrong. However you would be right if you merely infered that in so far as climate models go I am no expert. However I never asserted otherwise.
Let me expose another one of Willis’s deceptions. I wrote the following in a previous post:
“Another of Willis’s assertions is that there was a global Roman Warm Period. When I typed “Roman Warm Periodâ€? into Google I got a grand total of 429 hits. None of the top 20 hits provides a link to a scholarly peer reviewed journal. The first 5 hits link to right-wing global warming denialist sites including “Frontiers for Freedomâ€? and Prof Fred Singer’s SEPP. It would seem that the Roman Warm Period is not generally accepted as real outside of skeptic circles. ”
Willis then dishonestly accused me of saying the Roman Warm Period isn’t mentioned at all in scholarly journals. He wrote:
“[Steve] … claimed above that [he] researched the subject, and that there were no scientific papers about the ‘Roman Warm Period.’ [He] went on to claim that this showed that ‘the Roman Warm Period is not generally accepted as real outside of skeptic circles.’
A search of Google Scholar shows that [Steve’s] ‘research’ is pathetically inadequate, as it reveals some 39 papers in peer-reviewed journals. ”
Now, dear friends, let me introduce you to the facts. Not all of these 39 publications accept that there was a Roman Warm Period and those that lend support to the notion do not necessarily support the idea that it was a global phenomena. Furthermore, some of the articles brought up by Google Scholar are in fact publications of wacky right-wing groups like “The Friends of Science”, “Frontiers for Freedom” and the “Institute of Public Affairs”.
I should also point out that Google Scholar brings up a total of 347,000 articles on climate change. The articles about the so-called Roman Warm Period, even including the ones that dispute it or are from right-wing political outfits, represent a grand total of 0.0001 per cent of all Google Scholar articles on climate change.
I think I can safely conclude that Willis has once again wilfully and wantonly practised deceit.
Willis, I now I think I was being far too kind when I called you a charlatan. You are in fact a crackpot, a nutter and a witch-doctor and you deserve to be slapped about the face with a frozen Tuna.
Terje Says:
No, quite simply, you are not qualified to judge. In my work I regularly use different models of the same thing, and I get different answers from the models. All of the answers are “right”, but some are appropriate in context, and some aren’t.
You’ve got an opinion on just about everything. But you don’t seem to actually know anything, even about fields you claim to have earned degrees in.
Now that I have calmed down I realise my comment about slapping Willis with a tuna was unfair.
I therefore humbly apologise to both Willis and the tuna. 😉
Tim, you say:
I have repeatedly invited you, Tim, or anyone else who thinks that Mann has published all of his data and methods, to answer the question:
What is the what is the cross-validation R2 statistic for the 15th century MBH98 reconstruction?
If Mann has indeed published all of his data and methods as you claim, this question should be very easy to answer.
I note that no one has answered the question … now, who is being deceitful here?
w.
Steve’s getting a bit over the top. He has now claimed I’m a liar, a charlatan, a crackpot, a nutter, and a witch-doctor. Perhaps a quote from Shakespeare might be appropriate here …
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Steve seems to believe that the really important, totally crucial issue is whether all of the studies of the RWP have appeared in journals like Science magazine, home of the fraudulent Hwang claims, the magazine where at least we know for certain that peer review isn’t working …
However, he never once seems to have read any of the studies, he does not comment on their quality, doesn’t say that they are right or wrong. His one problem with them is that some of them have been published in the wrong place.
Now I gave y’all a list (above) of twelve studies that say the RWP existed. Each and every one of them was published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal (including Science. Does Steve comment on any of them? Well … no.
Perhaps someone ought to mention to him that a study does not become true by being published in Science, any more than it is falsified by being published in Ladies Home Journal. Since he appears not to have one, here’s a clue …
It’s what the paper says that makes it either true or false, Steve, not where it is published …
I’ve cited 12 scientific studies (above), all published in reputable journals, all of which say the RWP existed. You’ve said it doesn’t exist.
And your evidence for this claim is … why, gosh, Steve, you haven’t cited a single scientific study! Not one! Not even one published in Ladies Home Journal. Your evidence is 1) there haven’t been more studies proving the RWP existed, and 2) some of the studies found on Google Scholar weren’t published in peer reviewed journals.
Um … Steve … are you sure you understand how this science thing works? You seem to think it works like this:
I cite scientific studies that say that something exists.
Then you ignore the cited studies, you don’t comment on whether they are true, you just say I counted the studies wrong, some weren’t published in the right place, and I’m a nutter and a witch-doctor …
Right … moving right along …
w.
SJ, I must confess I didn’t understand your post:
SJ, you’ll have to explain this to us. Terje was talking about engineering models of a bridge. If one model says that a particular bridge will fall down, and the other says it will stand up, isn’t one right and one wrong?
And in a larger sense, isn’t this our common experience? If we get two totally different answers to a question, whether or not a computer model is involved, isn’t it usually the case that both answers can’t be right?
What kind of work are you doing, where all of the answers are right? Dang, I want your job …
w.
Willis, you’re doing a sterling job of showing up the ignorance and bias of those on the pro-AGW side of the debate. However, I do want to take issue with your claim that computer models are not “evidence”:
I believe evidence is a little more subtle than that. If I have a computer program for modelling physical structures based on Newton’s laws, and the model shows that a particular bridge design will fall down, then I can take that as pretty good “evidence” that the bridge will, in fact, fall down if built. So the model does provide “evidence about reality”.
You gave a counter-example from high-energy-physics:
That depends. If the new particle was predicted by a model completely unlike any model we currently have, with no corroborating evidence, then you would be correct. But usually, theoretical phyicists make predictions of new particles by incremental extension of existing models that have been independently verified. In that case, the model predictions are reasonably viewed as evidence for the existence of the new particles.
A case in point is the W and Z bosons predicted by the electroweak theory (the unification of electromagnetism and the weak force). The theory itself was regarded as such strong evidence for the existence of W and Z that the Nobel prize for physics was awarded to the theoreticians who predicted their existence before the W and Z had been experimentally confirmed.
In my opinion, the problem with climate models is not that they are models per se. It is that they are highly tunable, complex, poorly understood and have little data against which to validate them. In short, they have large potential to overfit. Coupled with the social issues – a large proportion of the people driving the models are ideologically predisposed towards slower growth and/or larger state-intervention in the economy – and you have a recipe for the evidence coming from the models to be highly questionable.
I downloaded the GISS code the other day and was pretty surprised: it’s Fortran for starters, which I thought people stopped using 20 years ago, it’s very poorly documented, the models crash with reasonable boundary conditions, and there are many parameters that are fixed at values that appear to have been plucked out of the air (eg parameters set at “1” with comments like “a range of 1-2 is reasonable”). If I can stomach the Fortran I’m going to have a play with the models, but that first cursory look does not inspire great confidence.
You are being deceitful, Willis. The value of some particular statistic for part of a reconstruction is neither data nor a method.
JQ
I did; “nuclear energy economics” brings up the OECD’s Nuclear Energy Agency’s “Nuclear Energy and the Kyoto protocol” and others from NEA. What evidence can you cite for nuclear subsidies in France? Those elsewhere often result from absurd restrictions on permissible radiation, eg nil as in USA, even though background radiation is everywhere and some radiation is quite good for you, as cancer patients are aware. If nuclear is so uneconomic why has Toshiba just paid US$5 billion for Westinghouse for its reactor building capacity?
Tim
Tim, you say:
Leaving out the personal attack (you seem to be unable to construct a posting without at least one), you seem to have misread what I said. I did not claim that the answer to my question was either a data or a method.
w.
Tim C, try Googling “France+Nuclear+subsidies”.
On the previous search suggestion, I meant that you should search the blog: just try “nuclear”
“some radiation is quite good for you, as cancer patients are aware.”
Yes and soemtimes being drugged unconscious and carved up is quite good for you as anyone who’s undergoen successful surgery can attest.
As for Toshiba – maybe they anticipate further large hand-outs from governments in the future.
Dogz, you raise interesting points. However, I still hold that computer models cannot provide evidence. You say:
Unfortunately, the number of structure failures that occur each year, from breakwaters to butresses to bridges, shows that the model-provided “evidence” is not really evidence. Yes, models can give us indications, but until the bridge is built and either stands or falls, we have no evidence. All we have is model results, which may be good, bad, or ugly depending on how well the model represents the reality. No matter how well it represents reality, however, it is always good to remember that the model is not the reality.
Your example from high energy physics appears to conflate models with theories. Theories are subject to mathematical proof, while models are (in general) not subject to such proof. I note that the physicists got the Nobel, not for their models, but for their theory.
In general, however, your points are both valid and well expressed. In particular, your description of the climate models (” highly tunable, complex, poorly understood and have little data against which to validate them”) is both accurate and very discouraging. They are not build on physical “first principles”, but instead are a mass of parameters and adjustments.
Many thanks for your contribution,
w.