Conservatives and climate change

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

You understand incorrectly.

The models calculate the feedback, not "depend on it".

Climate models calculate output variables from input variables and parameters. Assumptions about the strength of feedback mechanisms are parameters. In a sense, models certainly assess parameters. That is, models test themselves by making predictions (perhaps about the past) and can then be measured against their predictions.

So, basically, your understanding was almost completely misguided.
Or, we can be civil, okay?

 

[BenBurch]

...

Australia would simply ship more coal to China.

And they'd laugh all the way to the bank.

I recall that while Oz exports metallurgical coal, the quality is not as good as American coal, and they have nearly zero "Cannel" or feedstock coal.

 

[BenBurch]

And.....I wonder how volcanoes can stop a runaway ice age?

Could it be greenhouse gases?



We should start making a list of the other basic things you will need to not believe in if you don't accept the existence of greenhouse gases.

1) Obviously Earth never escaped the Marinoan Glaciation.

2) Venus is clearly some sort of lie.

3) Ditto Mars.

GHGs and black volcanic ash.

 

[lomiller]

Climate models calculate output variables from input variables and parameters. Assumptions about the strength of feedback mechanisms are parameters.

Nope, the strength of the feedback is an output of the model, not an input parameter. Evaporation from the ocean surface is parameterized to make the code run more efficiently, but the value itself isn’t poorly understood it’s just computationally intensive.

NASA’s chief climate modeller explains parameterization and how it’s used here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/faq-on-climate-models-part-ii/

A simple example is the radiation code – instead of using a line-by-line code which would resolve the absorption at over 10,000 individual wavelengths, a GCM generally uses a broad-band approximation (with 30 to 50 bands) which gives very close to the same results as a full calculation. Another example is the formula for the evaporation from the ocean as a function of the large-scale humidity, temperature and wind-speed. This is really a highly turbulent phenomena, but there are good approximations that give the net evaporation as a function of the large scale (‘bulk’) conditions.

 

[Trakar]

Respectively, you never understood the issues on Venus. Almost as if you didn't want to.

liquid CO2 under high pressures, and sulfer clouds. Etc.

Basically you were repeating a scientifically false mantra - "Look at Venus, it's got gobs of CO2, and it's a furnace! That's what we'll wind up like!".

A mantra of ignorant loons of the left.

The high pressure present on the surface alone explains most of the "temperature". There is almost no water vapor, which causes most of the "greenhouse effect" on Earth. Almost no sunlight gets to the surface, hence the surface cannot be warmed by sunlight.

To establish a POSSIBLE UPPER FRACTION of the temperature of Venus due to a greenhouse effect, one would look at the equivalent temperature for 92 atmospheres pressure and then consider any excess temperature existing on Venus as being the result of heat buildup under the atmospheric components. Then you'd estimate a fraction due to the 20 mile thick sulfer layer. Etc.

more confused "scientifical buzzwords" and very little real science,...I thought we agreed to discuss policy?

(BTW, CO2 is responsible for greenhouse gas effects on Mars as well, its just important to understand that it is the overall mass of greenhouse gas that is important for calculating the mean free path of IR light, not the percentage of total atmosphere that the greenhouse gas makes up of the atmosphere.)

 

[BenBurch]

more confused "scientificial buzzwords" and very little real science,...I thought we agreed to discuss policy?

(BTW, CO2 is responsible for greenhouse gas effects on Mars as well, its just important to understand that it is the overall mass of greenhouse gas that is important for calculating the mean free path of IR light, not the percentage of total atmosphere that the greenhouse gas makes up of the atmosphere.)

Just wait, you'll get the "tiny percentage" argument again even so.

 

[Trakar]

Ah! This is not a carbon tax.

It is a tax on coal extraction and oil importation.

I am a proponent of a tax on the sale of coal, oil and gas (and their fuel byproducts) within the US, regardless of its national or international origins. It is intended to be onerous and steadily increasing over time. Again the purpose is to as quickly as possible eliminate the use of coal, oil and gas as fuels.

Taxing oil importation makes more domestic sources recoverable by giving them a greater margin.

I have no desire to make domestic oil sources more recoverable. In my consideration this is facillitating behavior that is responsible for problems we are currently facing.

Taxing coal extraction raises the cost of coal relative to its competitors, and applies to both energy and metallurgical/chemical coal. The latter is the big win because China is as addicted to foreign high quality coal as a junkie is to his needle.

the intent is to raise the price and discourage the production, use and sale of these products. I would be open to discussions of excepting production and sales for applications that did not involve the use of these products in a manner that releases large amounts of previously sequestered carbon into the active carbon cycle (e.g. feedstock for plastics and other long half-life carbon compounds). But I am uninterested in solutions that do not resolve the primary problem of too much anthropogenically sourced, formerly sequestered carbon in the Earth's biosphere.

So, I don't care how you burn it, just that when you do, you are funding its replacement.

I want it to stop being burnt, period. The sooner the better. Replacements will find their path as we are forced to reduce and stop burning previously sequestered carbon fuels, and I really care little about with what or how that source of energy is replaced, I know it will be replaced and am willing to let innovation and market forces determine the most viable source of replacement for any given locality.

 

[Corsair 115]

Question to no one in particular: what do you think swung Earth out of the Snowball effect during the end of the Cryogenian geologic period?

Well, the answer to that is easy: God!

Respectively, you never understood the issues on Venus. Almost as if you didn't want to.

You made the declarative statement that carbon dioxide played almost no part in warming Venus. That much I remember. I also recall you were shown a bit of scientific evidence refuting your position but you ignored it (which is on point for what this thread is about).

I invite those interested to search the forum to dig up the actual thread and read it for themselves. You can then weigh in on whether my recollections are accurate. (I'm reasonably confident they are.)

 

[mhaze]

I recall that while Oz exports metallurgical coal, the quality is not as good as American coal, and they have nearly zero "Cannel" or feedstock coal.

Well, that's just plain wrong. But it shows ignorance of economics of fungible commodity, none the less.

I am a proponent of a tax....It is intended to be onerous and steadily increasing over time. ...I have no desire to make domestic oil sources more recoverable... intent is to raise the price and discourage the production...I want it to stop being burnt, period......

WOW! It's certainly nice not hardly anyone shares your extreme and radical views.

Feeling a bit lonely?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysmN7dsheE8

Of course, since there are these entities on this planet called "sovereign nations", and since what that means is that they can burn coal all they want, you have in your embedded in your objectives, immediate and total failure for said objectives.

Cheers!

....those interested to search the forum to dig up the actual thread and read it for themselves. You can then weigh in on whether my recollections are accurate. (I'm reasonably confident they are.)

You'd probably first want to correct your blunder of a statement in THIS THREAD, in which you mentioned "surface temperature" of Venus. As I recall in the thread you mention you corrected that to changed those goalposts to "atmospheric temperature." And you never did recognize the importance of the sulfur layers.

You'd also want to consider what I said that if you stuck about 100ATM of ANY gas on a rock going around a sun, it's going to have massive heat retention. Then I mentioned that the only way to attribute a part of the heat retention to CO2 would be comparatively, by replacing that partial component with another, and looking at the effect on total temperature.

Long story short, you had a claim that wasn't scientific, and which wasn't supportable. As a simple exercise, consider Mars. Trakker notes that a greenhouse effect exists on Mars due to the atmosphere being primarily CO2. But Mars emits light across all wavelengths, including in part that re emission in the long wave and low energy section, IR. Venus does not do this very well, does it?

Why?

 

[BenBurch]

OK, Where in Oz do they mine Cannel coal?

 

[Bill Thompson]

Look, we need to develop technology to survive on foreign, hostile planets. It will help us colonize the moon and Mars. Global warming is aiding us in this end. We should thank and bless and be grateful for every factor poluting the atmosphere with carbon. The greater the carbon footprint, the greater chances of our survival by advancing the science required for our survival on an alien planet. I mean, an environment that would ba alien to us. The ultimate goal should be to make Earth as hellish as possible, like the planet Venis. This would force us to invest in the required technology our children to survive in underground enclosed enviromnents that....Ok, I am just kidding.

 

[mhaze]

OK, Where in Oz do they mine Cannel coal?

I forget. Somewhere. I just have seen billions of rail cars headed to those ports. Cannel coal and Australia would show it up on google. Somewhere south of Brisbane.

 

[Krikkiter]

Climate models calculate output variables from input variables and parameters. Assumptions about the strength of feedback mechanisms are parameters. In a sense, models certainly assess parameters. That is, models test themselves by making predictions (perhaps about the past) and can then be measured against their predictions.

So, basically, your understanding was almost completely misguided.
Or, we can be civil, okay?

Asked and ignored Malcolm?

 

[BenBurch]

I forget. Somewhere. I just have seen billions of rail cars headed to those ports. Cannel coal and Australia would show it up on google. Somewhere south of Brisbane.

I don't find where there are any significant deposits of Cannel coal anywhere in Oz.

 

[mhaze]

I don't find where there are any significant deposits of Cannel coal anywhere in Oz.

Recapping:

I mentioned your error in assuming China would play ball with fanatical views on coal of greenies since "we shipped them bunches of coal". I noted the coal would just be sold by Australia.

You moved the goalposts to Cannel coal, then you moved them again to "Significant deposits".

I'm just curious.

Do you have a point?

Cannel coal is of course ANOTHER FUNGIBLE COMMODITY.

 

[Trakar]

WOW! It's certainly nice not hardly anyone shares your extreme and radical views.

Incorrect and irrelevent to the issue at hand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax

http://www.carbontax.org/

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/climatechange/responses/economic/carbontax.htm

Feeling a bit lonely?

Not in the least, though I must admit that despite the crowd that seemed to want to focus on policy issues, none of the conservative representatives advocating such, seem to be able to focus in on actually discussing policy issues.

Of course, since there are these entities on this planet called "sovereign nations", and since what that means is that they can burn coal all they want, you have in your embedded in your objectives, immediate and total failure for said objectives.

That's what trade agreements are for, and if other nations want access to the wealthiest marketplace on the planet they will have to do so by meeting US environmental standards or paying US taxes on carbon with respect to the products they wish to bring to that marketplace. Ultimately if they wish to avoid US market restrictions (and EU, Japanese, Austrailian, etc., restrictions based upon US models), then there is little we can do to force them to change,...but I have little reason to believe that they won't fall in line with such global economic pressure. If you believe otherwise please regale us with your reasonings and supports.

 

[AlBell]

....

none of the conservative representatives advocating such, seem to be able to focus in on actually discussing policy issues.

LOL to your proposal; I consider that discussing it.

That's what trade agreements are for, and if other nations want access to the wealthiest marketplace on the planet they will have to do so by meeting US environmental standards or paying US taxes on carbon with respect to the products they wish to bring to that marketplace.

Other than NWO imposing these things how well do you think it'll work? It'll sure work here for long lines to buy increasingly costly gas, and freezing in the dark when you can't afford heating oil.

That and significant increases in semi transportation costs which add to nearly everything. Hello depression and crank up the money printing presses.

Ultimately if they wish to avoid US market restrictions (and EU, Japanese, Austrailian, etc., restrictions based upon US models), then there is little we can do to force them to change,...but I have little reason to believe that they won't fall in line with such global economic pressure. If you believe otherwise please regale us with your reasonings and supports.

Back to NWO and a despot.

Why exactly do you think these nations will do as you hope? "No reason to believe otherwise" ... ROFL on that one.

 

[citizenzen]

Why exactly do you think these nations will do as you hope?

Chalk it up to the crazy, naive notion that people are both intelligent enough and selfless enough to sublimate their immediate desires for the sake of future generations.

I know ... I know ... ROTFL.

The depression was endured and World war II was won by the "Greatest Generation". I wonder how we'll be described in the future.

The "*********** ******** Generation".

 

[JudeBrando]

I'm in favor of doing nothing and watching billions of people die so that humans can learn a painful lesson in responsibility.

Duh.


Leftist liberal progressive geniuses....

 

[mhaze]

....Back to NWO and a despot. ....

So he wants power, allegedly for his "good purposes".

Hail Caesar!

Some of the cool stuff that goes with that power....looks....pretty interesting....

Chalk it up to the crazy, naive notion that people are both intelligent enough and selfless enough to sublimate their immediate desires for the sake of future generations.

I know ... I know ... ROTFL.

Yes, that is a crazy and naive notion. Especially when for any chosen $1M spend you gobble gobble warming fantasies, I can show how to save thousands of lives. Lives of real people, today. Not fantasy people maybe 20 years off or maybe 100 or maybe 1000.

Real people. Today. That need help.

.... if other nations want access to the wealthiest marketplace on the planet they will have to do so by meeting US environmental standards or paying US taxes on carbon with respect to the products they wish to bring to that marketplace. Ultimately if they wish to avoid US market restrictions (and EU, Japanese, Austrailian, etc., restrictions based upon US models), then there is little we can do to force them to change,...but I have little reason to believe that they won't fall in line with such global economie pressure. If you believe otherwise please regale us with your reasonings and supports.

Sure.

What you have described does not exist.

I'm opposed to it existing, but apparently a lot of other people are also, since it does not exist.