Althouse: "Climate scientists agree the Earth will be hotter by the end of the century, but their simulations don’t agree on how much."

November 8, 2012

"Climate scientists agree the Earth will be hotter by the end of the century, but their simulations don’t agree on how much."

"Now a study suggests the gloomier predictions may be closer to the mark."

68 comments:

Once written, twice... said...: Ann, that's just science. It don't count for anything.; 11/8/12, 8:54 PM
chickelit said...: One source of uncertainty involves the impact of cloud cover, especially clouds that form in the tropical and subtropical regions between about 30 degrees north and south of the equator.

This should hardly be news to anyone. Such clouds always been around and discussed, even as a mitigating factor: link; 11/8/12, 8:57 PM
YoungHegelian said...: No, it's not just science. It's a computer model, which may or may not be accurate.

"That means the world could be in for a devastating increase of about eight degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, resulting in drastically higher seas, disappearing coastlines and more severe droughts, floods and other destructive weather."

8F from CO2 only? I'm sorry, I don't believe that. Show me a geological epoch that had 8F higher temperatures than today based on CO2 levels alone.; 11/8/12, 8:59 PM
edutcher said...: Too bad the "science" has been found to be faked just last year.; 11/8/12, 9:01 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: If it makes anybody feel any better Nate Silver is very skeptical about climate prediction models in his book.; 11/8/12, 9:03 PM
Curious George said...: "Climate scientists agree that they need to say the Earth will be hotter by the end of the century, to keep the grant money coming in. And to also keep having conventions in tropical places in January.; 11/8/12, 9:06 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: leslyn said...
I read today that the NYT says the Republicans are considering welcoming math and science people into the party, even if they don't believe them.

It's true! I'll even find the link if anyone wants it.

It might help poor old Karl Rove.; 11/8/12, 9:07 PM
buck smith said...: Global warming alarm-ism is based on a couple of things are clearly true followed by a series of propositions that are speculative, fantastic or wrong.

The clearly true:

1. CO2 levels have risen over the past 80 years to due combustion of fossil fuels and organic matter by humans.
2. The higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause some warming.

The speculative, fantastic or wrong.
1. Warming due to CO2 will be amplified by additional water vapor in the atmosphere.
2. The effects of warming are awful and represent the greatest threat to mankind.

Note that the last statement is not something that can be decide by science. What is worse - global warming or war by a major military power over access to energy resource.; 11/8/12, 9:15 PM
madAsHell said...: Climate warning. It's the new religion.

What?? You don't know the difference between climate and weather??; 11/8/12, 9:17 PM
madAsHell said...: Republicans are considering welcoming math and science people into the party, even if they don't believe them.

Really?? How many engineers and scientists do you know?

None?? Who'da thunk!

I'm an engineer. Trust me, 80% of engineers vote Republican.

It might be interesting for our Hostess to create a poll.; 11/8/12, 9:23 PM
Paul said...: "Climate scientists agree the Earth will be hotter by the end of the century, but their simulations don’t agree on how much."

"climate scientist"? Those same ones that faked the data? Those same ones that hid the emails? Those same ones that lied?

Their 'simulations' don't agree? Hell, their simulations were made with fake data, so what?

Bunch of more bull from people who want MONEY.; 11/8/12, 9:26 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/8/12, 9:32 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: All our previous alarmist computer models were completely wrong, but this one is accurate for sure.

Believe me, I'm a climate scientist.; 11/8/12, 9:33 PM
MadisonMan said...: globa tag?

And to also keep having conventions in tropical places in January.

I would not call Austin tropical.; 11/8/12, 9:42 PM
edutcher said...: leslyn said...

I read today that the NYT says the Republicans are considering welcoming math and science people into the party, even if they don't believe them.

Given the Demos' inability to spend more than they take in, any mathematician is obviously unwelcome in leslyn's party.; 11/8/12, 9:47 PM
Eric said...: Now a study suggests the gloomier predictions may be closer to the mark.

That's because you can't get grant money these days unless you crank the hysteria up to 11.; 11/8/12, 9:50 PM
Eric said...: I read today that the NYT says...

It's safe to assume the rest is bullshit.; 11/8/12, 9:52 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: 8F from CO2 only? I'm sorry, I don't believe that. Show me a geological epoch that had 8F higher temperatures than today based on CO2 levels alone.

No, the models don't get 8F from CO2 forcing alone, that's not even possible because CO2's effect on temperature is logarithmic rather than linear. Seehere.

The way they get their models to show all that warming is to assume strong positive feedback loops to amplify the relatively weak direct effect of the CO2 and cause a global catastrophe.

Never mind that Mann's famous hockey stick model - the grandaddy of all climate models - has been absolutely, spectacularly wrong over the past 15 yers or so. They've got the whole climate modeling thing figured out now, but they've moved their doom and gloom predictions back to 2100, so we'll just have to take their word for it.; 11/8/12, 10:02 PM
coketown said...: Anyone making predictions, whether witch doctors in Africa, shamans in New Mexico, or climatologists in Pennsylvania, should be forced to wear those pointy hats with stars and moons sewn on. And matching capes.

Hopefully that will make people realize how fucking absurd it is to believe anyone MAKING PREDICTIONS ABOUT THE FUTURE, and insisting we act on said predictions.

I wonder what Sylvia Browne thinks the climate will look like in a century. Maybe she and Miss Cleo could draw a map.; 11/8/12, 10:02 PM
YoungHegelian said...: @Maguro,

I can see 8F from a scenario that postulates that at e.g. 4F more, the oceans warm up enough that the methane clathrates are catastrophically released into the atmosphere and between the CO2, methane, and water vapor a nasty feedback loop is set up. But, it doesn't seem the article is saying that.

But, in the article's defense, so much science reporting is so awful it's hard to know what's really being said.; 11/8/12, 10:11 PM
Michael K said...: "eslyn said...

I read today that the NYT says the Republicans are considering welcoming math and science people into the party, even if they don't believe them.

It's true! I'll even find the link if anyone wants it."

Not surprised that you read and believe the NYT.

I'm a math and science person and I registered as Republican in 1960. I have a large number of friends in academia who don't mention their affiliation because it harms careers.

Those tolerant lefties, you know.; 11/8/12, 10:14 PM
chuck said...: Oh Geez, they know they are right how? Temperature has been more or less flat since 1997, which was not unpredicted. The Medieval warm period back in the tree ring temperature reconstructions. We are still cooler than the Roman optimum and most of the last interglacial.

The whole Global Warming thing has gotten ridiculous. A decent scientist would say we don't know, and add that from the geologic record catastrophe is unlikely, and from the historical record, probably a good thing. Instead, I have folks tell me that the models are converging. Folks, that ain't science, it ain't science until the fudge factors don't need to be fudged and the models are validated against data. In particular, they have failed validation at this point. I'm disgusted with the whole enterprise, it's gone insane.; 11/8/12, 10:17 PM
Sorun said...: I'm in favor of climate change. It's good to stir the pot now and then. New challenges keep humanity robust!; 11/8/12, 10:46 PM
jimspice said...: Notice the people poo-pooing climate scientists are the same ones that were CERTAIN that Romney would win in a landslide. After Tuesday, a reasonable person would say "you know, maybe I need to reexamine my assumptions about this math thing."; 11/8/12, 11:06 PM
Sorun said...: Jim, you always find a way to say the stupidest thing.; 11/8/12, 11:08 PM
Jim Gust said...: I'm deeply skeptical of any model that fails to include the Sun. Sunspots are in serious decline. The solar max was predicted for 2013, now it looks it already happened in 2012, and at an alarmingly low level. Sunspot disappearance is associated with the "little ice age," our actual danger is cooling, not warming.

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/index.html; 11/8/12, 11:10 PM
bagoh20 said...: It's funny about sources and what they leave out of a story. Here is the graph that is included at other sources which plots the various models compared to actual satellite temperature data. You'll notice that the actual data which is the circles and squares doesn't match most of the models and none of the higher temperature ones are even close. This news is what we experts call in technical terms "bullshit."

http://media.reason.com/mc/_external/2012_11/climate-models-vs-actual-tempe.jpg?h=367&w=475; 11/8/12, 11:14 PM
jr565 said...: Their climate models are all over the map. Why isn't this study more trustworthy than the climate models that say something different.; 11/8/12, 11:21 PM
bagoh20 said...: You don't really even need models or data to predict what these "climate scientists" will agree on. Base on their past positions I can tell you what they will agree on in the future. I have a computer model that predicts this to near 100% certainty. Patent pending.; 11/8/12, 11:23 PM
jr565 said...: I like this part:

No supercomputer is powerful enough to predict cloud cover decades into the future
, so Fasullo and colleague Kevin Trenberth struck on another method to test which of the many climate simulations most accurately predicted clouds: They looked at relative humidity. When humidity rises, clouds form; drier air produces fewer clouds. That makes humidity a good proxy for cloud cover.

Looking back at 10 years of atmospheric humidity data from NASA satellites, the pair examined two dozen of the world’s most sophisticated climate simulations. They found the simulations that most closely matched humidity measurements were also the ones that predicted the most extreme global warming.

wow they looked back over 10 whole years!!!!! They also acknowledge that no supercomputer can actually predict cloud cover in the future. Which shows the limitation of supercomputers. Considering the complexity of weather and climate, and knowing our super computers cannot actually track many such variables, what makes us think that our models are somehow accurate.
And recognizing this limitation they then go to relative humidity. How do we know that that is somehow a valid indicator we can use to track and predict global warming 100 years from now and not simply a study of relative humidity?; 11/8/12, 11:34 PM
Captain Curt said...: My jaw dropped as I read the article. First, even the "cooler" models have greatly predicted far more warming than has occurred over the last 15 years. And now they claim that the models that have been further off from reality must be more accurate.

Second, the main mechanism for the large warming in the models has been increased water vapor, which is the main greenhouse gas. The idea is that increased CO2 will warm the planet a little, which will cause more water to evaporate, which will cause the planet to warm more, which will evaporate more water, and so on. Most of the models predict that the relative humidity will stay roughly the same as the planet warms, which means the absolute humidity will increase, and this effect will about triple the amount of warming.

Skeptics have been pointing out for years that the water vapor levels have not been increasing nearly as much as the models have predicted, and that the follow-on effects (such as changes to the moist adiabatic lapse rate creating a high tropical troposheric "hot spot") have not occurred, with the conclusion that this is one reason the models have overpredicted warming.

Now the establishment climate scientists finally acknowledge that most models have significantly overpredicted humidity increases, but manage to use that as an argument that the models are underpredicting warming!

On the clouds, it has long been observed that when it is warmer, there is less cloud cover. But what is cause, and what is effect. The models on which the IPCC depends all assume that warming causes reduced cloud cover, but there has never been any significant work to confirm that this is the direction of causality. Only Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama has been looking at this at all, and he has a hell of a time getting his work published.

So the mainstream models have predicted for a long time that a slight warming from increased CO2 will significantly increase water vapor and decrease cloud cover, both of which will magnify the warming.

Now we get a report from these mainstream scientists saying that, obviously, increased water vapor should lead to increased clouds, but the water vapor doesn't seem to be increasing as much as most predicted, so we should see reduced cloud cover, which means even more warming.

I have to wait for my head to stop spinning before I write any more...; 11/8/12, 11:47 PM
bagoh20 said...: "They found the simulations that most closely matched humidity measurements were also the ones that predicted the most extreme global warming."

I have to wonder if maybe that sentence is written backward of the actual process of investigation. That would be more consistent with what my model of climate scientist consensus building predicts.; 11/8/12, 11:57 PM
bagoh20 said...: These assholes and their soldiers in the media have so polluted the debate that we can't trust anyone or anything we read. That pisses me off, and if they are right it's on them if they can't convince us now.; 11/8/12, 11:59 PM
YoungHegelian said...: @Leslyn,

Do you look in the mirror & see yourself as Oscar Wilde in drag or somethin'?

You seem to often mistake a bon mot for actually being equivalent to a rational argument.; 11/9/12, 12:12 AM
n.n said...: Just one of many studies without a consensus. There was a similar study and "consensus" around the 70s of an impending global cooling. Both the earlier "consensus" and the "consensus" marketed today are exaggerating their claims to knowledge and skill. They claim a level of sophistication which is not commensurate with an incompletely characterized and unwieldy system. At best, the authentic model is chaotic. That is to say with a bounded input, it will have a bounded output, but its intermediate behavior is unpredictable except within a narrow frame of reference.

In any case, the global metric is meaningless unless there is an overwhelming system response. The behavior of the system limits legitimate analysis to local and regional behaviors. That is where adaptation and mitigation efforts should occur. Any attempt to justify an involuntary global redistribution scheme for the purposes of countering AGW/AGCC/etc. is corrupt.; 11/9/12, 12:29 AM
Eric said...: Notice the people poo-pooing climate scientists are the same ones that were CERTAIN that Romney would win in a landslide

When we were saying it, it was true. Obama should thank his lucky stars the storm saved his job.; 11/9/12, 12:45 AM
bagoh20 said...: "Notice the people poo-pooing climate scientists are the same ones that were CERTAIN that Romney would win in a landslide"

Did you or Leslyn even look at the data? Or is the story which lies about it enough?; 11/9/12, 1:13 AM
bagoh20 said...: "Notice the people poo-pooing climate scientists are the same ones that were CERTAIN that Romney would win in a landslide"

And you no doubt think it's science if we just vote on global warming questions. It is just politics and ideology for you.; 11/9/12, 1:18 AM
bagoh20 said...: ""If they are right it's on them if they can't convince us now." LOL"

And if they are knowingly creating misleading reports, it should involve criminal charges. Yelling fire in a crowded theater on a global scale.; 11/9/12, 1:23 AM
stengle said...: Cynics say theadline should read: "Climate scientists agree that vested interest and lots of taxpayers money will help them avoid real work, but don't agree how much free cash they should be given"; 11/9/12, 3:58 AM
rhhardin said...: Here's some math and science that's actual math and science

Math:

1. You can't tell a cycle from a trend with data short compared to the cycle you want to distinguish.
(The eigenvalues of the distinguishing matrix explode, making no observation good enough). Hence there is no, zero, supporting data for AGW. A cycle is not man-caused.

2. You can't solve the Navier Stokes equations, which govern atmospheric behavior (In three dimensions flows go to shorter and shorter scales, making any resolution not good enough. But you need short scale behavior because it acts as a kind of viscosity on larger flows). Instead, computer modellers pull an equation out of their ass and solve that. That's not science but grant pulling.

Hence there is no data and no theory supporting AGW, as far as science and math go.

There's lots of sociology behind it though.; 11/9/12, 4:17 AM
Dante said...: The way they get their models to show all that warming is to assume strong positive feedback loops to amplify the relatively weak direct effect of the CO2 and cause a global catastrophe.

And the significant feedback is (gasp) higher water vapor concentrations. C02 is a weak greenhouse gas, but water is a much stronger greenhouse gas, so models double or triple the warming effect from more water vapor.

How convenient that some non-science is coming out right at the time Obama is going to hurt the economy more by putting the pinch on coal fired plants. Note, US C02 contributions are down anyway, to 1990s levels thanks to Fracking. China C02 production is going up, and up.

Frankly, the best thing the US can do is put the pinch on China, who are bringing more poor people into the 20th century. They are doing this by producing many coal fired plants. Instead, the US ought to do a lot more quantitative easing, to help ruin the Chinese economy, and to keep the peasants in China and India peasants.

For those who think it's cold hearted, consider that Global Warming is really bad, and the US can't do much regarding global C02 levels. It's all about the emerging economies now, including that China is pumping out more C02 than the US (that happened in 2006, or so). And those numbers are expected to continue to the point China is producing some 4 or 5X the amount of C02 as the US.; 11/9/12, 4:37 AM
TWM said...: I think it's a fantastic idea to throw more money and regulations at global warming. It's going to do wonders for our economy. You know, the one that is headed into a second dip recession and is 16 trillion dollars in debt with almost 8% unemployment.

Hells yeah, lets do this thing.; 11/9/12, 6:34 AM
sakredkow said...: You can't read the writing on the wall.; 11/9/12, 7:01 AM
jimspice said...: n.n. Could you please provide a link to back up your claim that there was a "consensus" RE: cooling in the '70s.

And, if this is something you "knew" because someone you trusted told you, should you not then begin to question that source's advice should that, in fact, prove to be untrue?; 11/9/12, 7:10 AM
Peter V. Bella said...: Define climate scientist?; 11/9/12, 7:15 AM
Bryan C said...: Watch out, guys. If you disagree too convincingly, these special sorts of scientists will be forced to sue you until you shut up. Now, pay attention as they can translate the seer stone from inside their magic hat. It's how science us done.; 11/9/12, 7:22 AM
Mike Chuck said...: Soon-to-be President Obama will take care of this once he is inaugurated and gets a chance to implement his policies.

He'll correct the mistakes of the last 8 years.; 11/9/12, 7:58 AM
Mike Chuck said...: Soon-to-be President Obama will take care of this once he is inaugurated and gets a chance to implement his policies.

He'll correct the mistakes of the last 8 years.; 11/9/12, 7:58 AM
Robert said...: So previous models have been vindicated by another model. In other words: nothing has happened.; 11/9/12, 8:04 AM
Synova said...: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Climate alarmists blew their wad. "If they are right it's on them if they can't convince us now.""

Yes.

You can't trust what the alarmists say because they couldn't be trusted in the past. So a person can only go by what the alarmists *do* to judge if they should be taken seriously or not.

And frankly, even if they are 100% right about warming and warming's consequences, if they're proposing stupid stuff that won't solve the problem, it doesn't matter if they're right or not.

I'll take them seriously when they start to prove by what they do and what they advocate that they *believe* in the crisis. When solutions that are possible become more important than feeling superior to the supposed denialists, that will be the first clue.

The last time I got into this discussion (which wasn't here it was on google plus) I was informed that solar cells were AWESOME effective and that *batteries* that ran on water and gravity could power cities through the night. (Not a difficult physical concept, but how huge would it have to be to drop enough water from a height to run turbines to power even a single house?) And THEN someone who claimed to agree with my arguments about not favoring ideologies over solutions explained that what was really necessary was for humanity to give up the concept of property altogether.

At that point I gave up.

So enjoy your superiority if that's what you're in it for or start seriously demanding thorium reactors in every home from your co-religionists.

Until then it's all lies.; 11/9/12, 8:08 AM
Anonymous said...: The election must have brought Ann to Jesus. This has got to be the first time she has featured a climate change article that actually believes climate change is occurring.; 11/9/12, 8:10 AM
Dr Weevil said...: Anyone who can read "If they are right it's on them if they can't convince us now" and reply with "LOL" has obviously never even learned the lesson of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, which most of us learned in kindergarten.

Just to spell it out for the slow learners:

When the wolf actually arrived, the boy stopped lying and told the truth by repeating what had been a lie before ("Wolf! Wolf!" - you can tell a lie without even using a verb). Of course, it was his own fault that no one believed him this last time and the wolf ate him, because he'd lied so many times before that no one should have believed him.; 11/9/12, 8:27 AM
Rusty said...: leslyn said...
I read today that the NYT says the Republicans are considering welcoming math and science people into the party, even if they don't believe them.

Oh. I bet there are already plenty that are conservatives. After all, like conservatives, they know the rules of cause and effect.
Inflation going up.
Unemployment going up.
Wages going down.
More businesses leaving.
What do you suppose is going on that would cause those kind of things?; 11/9/12, 8:33 AM
TMink said...: Climate science is 40 years old. When psychology was 40 years old, people were talking about the id and ego. Climate science is a baby and its utterings should be treated as such.

Trey; 11/9/12, 8:50 AM
Peter said...: "these simulations spit out a wide range of warming estimates"

That's because the models are unstable- when you tweak an input or feedback gain factor by just a teeny bit, the outputs vary wildly.

Which implies that if you can't actually determine those inputs and feedback gain factors with far more precision than you're likely to have, then the model is pretty useless at long-range prediction?; 11/9/12, 8:56 AM
Paco Wové said...: More nuclear power, stat!; 11/9/12, 9:15 AM
Synova said...: "I read today that the NYT says the Republicans are considering welcoming math and science people into the party, even if they don't believe them."

I read/heard this thing once that claimed it proved that people don't define themselves by their preferences and choices, they chose their preferences to line up with how they self-identify.

It's true.

It's how people chose cars, hair styles, where to live, what to drink. Beer, wine or liquor are choices made by first asking "what sort of person am I" and never about "what do I like to drink." James Bond would probably prefer a warm pint or some good port, but he has to dink those disgusting martinis, shaken and not stirred.

Plainly...

There is nothing *scientific* about Democrat policies and nothing remotely like "math literacy" in Democratic policies but it's a self-image thing, you see. I am a person of reason and science... I don't understand any of it, but I belong to the right party so I get to self-identify that way anyhow? Oh, it's so much BS. Understanding nothing but being on the "right side" just means you understand nothing.

Why else does the "science" support favored political ideology? Like all the "watermellons" like the guy who thought solar power could pump enough water up into towers during the day to provide gravity fed electricity through the night or the one who figured if only we stopped insisting on owning anything global warming would be solved or even the yahoo who, being on the right side of History, claimed that Freeman-freaking-Dyson wasn't qualified to speak about limitations to computer modeling natural systems.

Self-identify as the "science and math" party all you like. Saves all the hassle of actually understanding any of it.; 11/9/12, 9:16 AM
Synova said...: Because you know... science and math departments are hotbeds of liberalism while mushy humanities have all the math and science-phobic conservatives.

Egad.; 11/9/12, 9:26 AM
Automatic_Wing said...: Apparently Nate Silver just proved the validity of all computer models, everywhere, forever.

It's science, wingnuts, so hand over your wallets and don't ask any stupid questions.; 11/9/12, 9:30 AM
Synova said...: And engineering programs, where math and science meets the real-world asphalt are sooooo liberal that they put "studies" majors to the blush. Progressive fringe wack-jobs, every one of them.; 11/9/12, 9:37 AM
mark said...: @leslyn "I read today that the NYT says the Republicans are considering welcoming math and science people into the party, even if they don't believe them."

I've always felt welcome as a Republican. And I've been teaching mathematics at a university for about 20 years. I've never felt welcome by Democrats. They don't like math.

For all the climate modeling believers ... All the long term predictions are crap. ALL of them.

Climate is a dynamical system. And it has been proved (mathematically proved ... as in a tautology) that predictions beyond a small fixed set of iterations of the model are as accurate as a random guess.

All dynamical systems have this proven feature. It is what makes them, by definition, a dynamic system. Error propagates and grows through the system iterations destroying all predictive features.

So when they say their simulations don't agree .. no sh*t. They can't agree. The math doesn't allow it you morons. Take a numerical methods class.

As a mathematician, watching climate "scientists" run numerical calculations is like watching toddlers chewing on a smart phone.; 11/9/12, 9:43 AM
K in Texas said...: Synova, I no longer try to debate climate religionists, because to them its religion NOT science. Any science that does not fit their religious dogma they just ignore. They also revert to the standard liberal attack mode of calling you names and shutting down the conversation no matter what the subject: flat earther, climate denier, racist, homophobe, vote suppressor, and so on.

I have an advanced degree in engineering, co-inventor on two patents, worked on engineering computer model simulations in grad school, and have worked in environmental as my profession for almost 30 years. I therefor perfectly understand the limitation of computer models, and how one can tweak them any way you want to get the desired results. The climate computer models are designed to predict warming temperatures, and no matter what the actual data shows, their predicted temperatures never match what we end up seeing.

Just a few years ago there were several thousand buoys placed in the oceans to measure sea surface and below surface temperatures, since real data was missing from the climate models – the climate models, of course, predicted rising temperatures and higher temperatures from previous measurements. Guess what, the larger data set did not show rising temperatures overall, and mean temperatures were lower than expected. As expected, that data was just ignored or, or as the climate scientists like to do, use various statistical models to “correct” the data. Google argo and climate and ocean (if you do just argo, you get the movie :) ). Ocean temperatures, like the climate, is never static and is always changing.

Climate alarmist scientists get a lot of grant money and recognition over the “sky is falling” meme. So, when you hear “the science is settled” think about how much “settled” scientific dogma has changed over the last 50 years. I can never get a climate religionist to explain to me how we have had warming and cooling periods over recent history (past several hundred years) when there was little to no human fossil fuel burning creating CO2.

A fun thing to do is to ask them “You agree that France is very progressive in politics and social issues, right?”, after you get the standard yes, then ask “We should be doing whatever France is doing on electrical production, right, since they are such a leading progressive nation.” After you get yes, then tell them France gets nearly 80% of the electrical production from nuclear power, and watch their jaws drop. Have them google Germany and green and power and shortage. Germany has spent billions on subsidizing green solar and turbines and were shutting down their nuclear reactors. Guess what happened last winter? The sun doesn’t shine very much in winter, drastically less power going into the grid, power outages, and massive increases in electrical rates to pay for the very expensive green energy and to buy power from their neighbors. More than one German industrial company has threatened to move their manufacturing out of Germany because of the rise in rates and that brown outs and plant shutdowns last winter.

I could go on and on, but there is not enough time or space. People I work with noticed their electrical rates this past summer went up quite a bit, and I have to tell them that’s what we get from the Colorado legislature mandating that we eventually have 20% renewable energy. Very expensive, not reliable, damages the environment (all that pristine land that has be covered with acres and acres of solar panels), birds killed from the turbines and so on. I better get my fire suit on, because the climate religionists will have their flame throwers out (or, I should say, their solar mirrors concentrating the sun).; 11/9/12, 9:51 AM
Synova said...: Thanks, K.

The thing that gets me the most? There are options. Not just nuclear (and I haven't actually read up on Thorium reactors but people say they're a good deal) but more exotic possibilities as well.

The problem is... most people are AFRAID of science. They're afraid of nukes. Saying the words "anti-mater" would probably leave them shivering in a corner with their arms around their knees. Scientific progress isn't the solution, it's the *problem*... civilization is the problem... technology is the problem.

Environmentalism not about being pro-science or pro-progress it's about being a neo-Luddite and living smaller, denying technological and scientific progress because it's dangerous and will destroy the world...

Reduce the issue to warfare over doctrine and who is right and who is wrong...

When there are POWERFUL entirely CO2 free energy sources that science gives us access to... but it's more important to hate "big chemical" and more important to have a hippy anti-nuke acid flash-back even when you were born after 1970.

Gah... so ignorant.; 11/9/12, 10:56 AM
K in Texas said...: Synova, ditto on the neo-Luddite, especially with the current EPA. The PSD (Prevention of Significant Deterioration) and MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology) regulations used to have some sanity in them because they mandated technology that was at least being used and proven to work. Now, the EPA is putting the cart before the horse, and mandating technologies that don’t even exist yet or are still pilot scale and experimental. They think this will make the desired technology magically appear somehow. What happens is a company can find themselves out of compliance with an environmental regulation they cannot meet.

With coal companies, the EPA is thinking about restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions that could only be met by using natural gas instead of coal, since the CO2 capture technology is still only pilot scale, and the cost of actually trying to get it work on a coal plant would be enormous. Nearly 1/3 of the energy output of the power plant would be needed to capture the CO2, compress it into a liquid, then pump it into the ground. Of course, there will also be regulations around pumping it into the ground (this causes fracking, another scary word, ooh) that would prohibit implementation as well.

Insanity at what the cost to our economy and jobs would be. The “green job economy” is a fallacy, just look at Spain.; 11/9/12, 11:19 AM
jr565 said...: Leslyn wrote:
"Notice the people poo-pooing climate scientists are the same ones that were CERTAIN that Romney would win in a landslide"

that's just..... Mind numbing lay stupid. It's not just apples and oranges its apples and hubcaps. What do the two,have to do,with the other.polling is not the same as studying climate. Not even close.
And back when John Kerry was running his advisors were so certain he had won based on exit polling that some started calling him Mr President. Did you ever see the famous headline "Dewey wins!"? Did Dewey actually win? (Not sure if you know what this means, so look it up).
Fact is, Rasmussen got this poll wrong, but last election he got it right. Polling is an art not a science. And if you look at all the polls that people,reference their predictions are all over the map. The idea that only republicans in this election somehow beleived in polling data that didn't quite match their predictions is ludicrous.
Reagan was training carter in most polls yet came out the winner. This phenomen is probably true in fact for every election. Polls notorious for not giving the campaigns accurate data. But you keep on believing that somehow polls believing in faulty polling is a republican only failing. Partisan till the end.; 11/9/12, 5:42 PM
jr565 said...: And here's the flip side of the coin. It's not global warming, it's global cooling! And our use of carbon based fuels has kept that cooling at bay.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-08/human-carbon-emissions-seen-by-researchers-holding-back-ice-age.html

So then the solution is MORE carbon based emissions not less. So all the greens trying to do away with carbon based fuels are actually bringing us ever closer to the next ice age.,question, what sounds better? A ice age or temperature that's a few degrees hotter. I'd prefer the latter of course, both tat either one is ideal.
But look at the word in the title "researchers". Researchers means SCIENCE! isn't it strange how, depending on the research, or the study, we are either going to an ice age or global warming. Complete opposite outcomes. Both suggested by researchers.
Both suggesting completely different courses of action.
How would you feel greenies if your insistence making oil evil ended up causing the destruction of our planet.; 11/9/12, 5:53 PM
DEEBEE said...: Believe Trenbeth on the next 85 years as soon as he can credibly explain the last 15.; 11/10/12, 9:39 AM