Comments markbahner has made

Ho, ho, ho!

Another great freemarketeerian analysis!  God's own freedom, freeing corporate citizens from any and all regulation will save us all. Abolish government, if you want representation become a shareholder.  That's the new freedom.

I guess I should be charitable right before Christmas, but it's always kinda funny to me how religious people go ballistic, and say completely loony things, when their religious beliefs are confronted with conflicting scientific evidence.

Mark Bahner

Oh brother

In a steady state economy, the average amount of money in real dollars earned by workers from the current generation to the next remains constant.

At last, a worthy goal for the environmental movement!

(</sarcasm>)

Mark Bahner

Authority is irrelevant

Sorry to be pugnacious. I looked at your Random Thoughts blog and can't discern your credentials or profession.

I have a Bachelor's degree in Mechanical Engineering, a Master's degree in Environmental Engineering (Air Pollution Option), and over 20 years of experience in environmental and energy research (and the design and analysis of advanced coal-fired, nuclear, and waste-to-energy plants).

From the web:

engineer:  a person who uses scientific knowledge to solve practical problems

It's just that when someone makes claims like you have, I'd sort of like to know what authority backs those up.

In science, what "authority" a person has is irrelevant.

Here is my Long Bets prediction #194:

Long Bet #194, economic growth in the 21st century

In it, I note that Dr. Robert E. Lucas Jr. (who just happens to have a frickin' Nobel Prize in Economics...related to growth theory, to boot) predicts that world per capita GDP will decelerate from approximately 3.1 percent per year at the beginning of the century to 2.3 percent per year at the end of the century, ending with a per-capita GDP of $94,000 (year 2000$).  I claim that he is not merely wrong, he is spectacularly wrong (low by a factor of 100).  Further, I claim that economic growth will accelerate, not decelerate.

Now, either Dr. Lucas is wrong, or I am.  (Or perhaps, as some of you seem to be thinking/dreaming, environmental problems will cause a complete collapse of the world economy.)  But if he is wrong (and I don't think it will take more than 10-20 years to see that he is), then his Nobel Prize will not have helped him.  Science is about who is right and who is wrong.  Authority is a matter for religion, not science.

P.S.  The reason Dr. Lucas will be wrong is that, at least as of the year 2000, he had apparently never read Ray Kurzweil.  Or else he hadn't thought about the implications of Ray Kurzweil's predictions (for the progress of computers relative to the human brain) on economic growth.  So it's a similar situation to that New Yorker review mentioned earlier, in that an expert in one field does not necessarily keep up with developments in other fields that may be critically important to his own field.

P.P.S.  Of course, even if Dr. Lucas is wrong on this one issue (and I think he will be), he's still got the Nobel Prize.  ;-)

Mark Bahner

Cold fusion certainly is falsifiable

Just today I got into a discussion with a usually very smart guy who wanted me to buy into his belief in cold fusion (expressed as "there's something there" and "the effect has been replicated numerous times" and similar statements and appeals to authority, such as the claim that the Navy is investing in cold fusion research).    
Problem is, there's no falsifiable theory on offer, just wild claims about governments suppressing positive results, etc. etc. etc.

Your friend may not have a falsifiable theory.  But there certainly IS one:  The heat and reaction products (e.g. helium) observed in experiments can ONLY be explained by nuclear fusion (e.g. not be chemical reactions or contamination or instrument error).

See here for an interesting report abstract:

Excess power was measured in 28 out of 94 electrochemical experiments conducted using palladium or palladium-alloy cathodes in heavy water. Reproducibility continues to be the major problem in this controversial research area. Based on our experiments, this lack of reproducibility stems from unknown variables in the palladium metal. The best reproducibility for excess power was obtained using palladium-boron materials supplied by the Naval Research Laboratory. Our basic isoperibolic calorimeters were capable of measuring excess power with a sensitivity of ±1% of the input power or ±20 mW, whichever was larger. Calorimeters that are capable of detecting excess power levels of 1 watt per cubic centimeter of palladium are essential for research in this field. Results from our laboratory indicate that helium-4 is the missing nuclear product accompanying the excess heat. Thirty out of 33 experiments showed a correlation between either excess power and helium production or no excess power and no excess helium. The collection of the electrolysis gases in both glass and metal flasks place the helium productionrate at 10^11 to 10^12 atoms per second per watt of excess power. This is the correct magnitude for typical deuteron fusion reactions that yield helium-4 as a product. Anomalous radiation was defected in some experiments by the use of X-ray films, Geiger-Mueller counters, and by the use of sodium iodide detectors. There was never any significant production of tritium in any of our experiments.

"Anomolous effects in deuterated systems," U.S. Naval Air Warfare Center, China Lake, CA

U.S. Navy cold fusion research

P.S.  I don't "believe" in cold fusion...because I don't "believe" in anything.  If cold fusion exists, it's certainly at the very top of human discoveries in all of history.  However, I'm skeptical; but I'm open-minded.  I await more evidence.

Mark Bahner

Science is all about predicting the future

"Mark, are you saying they "can" predict the future in the sense that we can't stop them? ;-)"

I'm saying that any "science" that does NOT make falsifiable predictions of the future is not real science.  (No better examples of pseudoscience can be found than the "projections" in the Limits to Growth series, or the IPCC's assessments.)

So of course economists can predict the future.  That's what true science is all about.  Now, Arnold Kling may be wrong in his prediction, but he's made a prediction, based on scientific principles.  (Specifically, his prediction is based on the growth of computing power in the 21st century.)

Where has any anyone from the "environmental economics" community made any falsifiable predictions about future world economic growth?

"I hope not in the sense that they 'can' be consistently accurate."

Concerning future economic growth, the record of economists is much better than that of environmentalists over the past 50 years.  The world economy has never collapsed.  In fact, per Angus Maddison ("The World Economy: A Millenial Perspective") there have never even been even two straight years of negative per-capita world economic growth since 1950.  In fact, only 3 of those 57 years have had negative per-capita growth at all...and all have been less than 0.5 percent.  That actual experience can be contrasted with the pathetic record of warnings of economic doom from environmentalists in the past half-century.

Mark Bahner

I'm still waiting for your predictions

Can any of you bystanders find any environmental concern at all in any of Bahner's texts?  Any at all?

Funny, when I was spending 12-16 hour days on top of an electrostatic precipitator on a black liquor boiler at a pulp and paper mill (temperature 90-115, with sound so loud all communication had to be shouting...not to mention the smell)...I don't recall seeing you there.  

In fact, I doubt you've ever done any stack testing in your life.  When you've spent a couple 60-80 hour weeks doing stack testing (including when you've got the flu), come back and we'll talk.

If $100,000 bought you a bare existence in a world that had been ruined by ecological devastation,...

Do you really think it's even remotely possible that, if the world per-capita income in 2060 is $100,000, that it can be a world "ruined by ecological devastation"?  (Short of after global thermonuclear war...in which case the per-capita income will never be $100,000.)

P.S.  You've called my predictions "bald-faced silliness."  I'm still waiting for YOUR predictions, so we can see who knows what he's talking about.

Mark Bahner

World economic growth in the 21st century

"The free human mind is the ultimate resource, therefore we need not worry about the environment."

Who wrote that?  Certainly not I.  The claim here is that no one knows what creates economic growth (or even more radically, that ecologists know what creates economic growth).

I was simply pointing out that the late Julian Simon stated quite clearly what was the source of economic growth...(free) human minds.  If he is right (and available evidence indicates strongly that he is), then the more (free) human minds available, the faster will be world economic growth.

Therefore, one could simply look at the total human population, and objective measures of human freedom (e.g., Freedom House's ratings of political and civil liberties freedoms, or even more importantly the Frasier/Heritage/Cato Index of Economic Freedom) and predict whether the economic growth rate would remain the same, increase, or decrease.

This is entirely neglecting Ray Kurzweil's analysis, which is particularly important for the 21st century, since this will be the century in which computers equal and then vastly exceed the capabilities of the human mind.  To determine the population of "human" brains, it will be necessary to add in the contribution of computer brains.

"This sort of bald-faced silliness..."

"Bald-faced silliness?"  OK, here are my predictions for world per-capita GDP (year 2000$, purchasing power parity...the value in the year 2000 was $7200):

2020.  $ 13,000
      
2040.  $ 31,000
      
2060.  $130,000
      
2080.  $ 1,000,000
      
2100.  $10,000,000

"...and it is no measure of whether any of this supposed "per-capita GDP" will represent any real "wealth" we will actually want,..."

Like I wrote, world per-capita GDP in the year 2000 was about $7,200.  Income is typically approximately 75 percent of GDP.  So world per-capita income was about $5,400.  I'm predicting that in 2060 world per-capita income will be about $100,000.  My guess is that most people would prefer an income of $100,000 to an income of $5,400.

Don't you think?

Mark Bahner

I agree. You are equivalent to Tim Ball

"When I wrote: 'We've finally found someone willing to debate me', I was mistaken.  I should have written: 'We've finally found someone competent willing to debate me'."

So you choose Tim Ball as a person equal to your level of competence.  Well, for once you and I agree.  Your level of competence in climate debate is equivalent to Tim Ball.

P.S.  Given your area of research interest, you really ought to help Eli Rabett out on the relationship between enthalpy and temperature in the atmosphere.  He and Tim Lambert are under the impression that they can be easily and accurately be related by the equation delta H = m x Cp x delta T.  Or do you agree with them?  Do you agree that these assertions are false?

"Surface air temperature alone is inadequate to monitor trends of surface heating and cooling. The SI units for temperature are degrees Kelvin (or Celsius), and the SI units for heat are Joules. The surface air temperature can go up while the enthalpy goes down or remains the same. The surface air temperature can go down while the enthalpy goes up or remains the same. The surface air temperature can remain the same while the enthalpy goes down or up."

Mark Bahner

True or false?

"The SI units for temperature are degrees Kelvin (or Celsius), and the SI units for heat are Joules. The gas constant R has units of Joules/mol-Kelvin.  Cp=Cv+R.  H = Cp T for molar enthalpy of an ideal gases, and the gas phase atmosphere is a pretty good approximation to an ideal gas."

So were my assertions true or false?

Or do you have absolutely no idea?

Or (more probably) don't you have the honesty to answer with a simple "true," or "false?"

Mark Bahner

A one-question true/false quiz

I wrote: " This from a man who comments anonymously, and thinks that the relationship between enthalpy change and temperature in the atmosphere can be accurately described by the equation:  delta h = m x Cp x deltaT."

Eli Rabett responds:  "PS.  That's a pretty good approximation for any parcel of the atmosphere..."

OK, then you should have no trouble labeling these assertions as "true," or "false":

"Surface air temperature alone is inadequate to monitor trends of surface heating and cooling. The SI units for temperature are degrees Kelvin (or Celsius), and the SI units for heat are Joules. The surface air temperature can go up while the enthalpy goes down or remains the same. The surface air temperature can go down while the enthalpy goes up or remains the same. The surface air temperature can remain the same while the enthalpy goes down or up."

Are these assertions true or false?

Mark Bahner

I thought you were demanding debate?

"Mayeau and Bahner are not climate scientists by any accounting.  The bench is really thin over there."

This from a man who comments anonymously, and thinks that the relationship between enthalpy change and temperature in the atmosphere can be accurately described by the equation:  delta h = m x Cp x deltaT.

I notice Andrew Dessler isn't interested in debating me.  Obviously, he doesn't want his students to be exposed to any inconvenient truths.

Mark Bahner

Different laws in different states

"The Federal government does not hold (or should not hold) a monopoly on setting laws nor standards."

This is inherently contradictory. In order to have a standard, there must be a single body who sets the standard, and that body must have the authority and legitimacy to enforce it. If the market is full of a zillion competing "standards", then it's not a standard - it's a mish-mash of individuals doing what they want, which is the opposite of a standard. No monopoly, no standard.

No, it's not contradictory at all.  For example, every state and locality has speed limits on roads.  There are different limits for different roads, but that does NOT mean that "it's a mish-mash of individuals doing what they want."  There are "laws" and "standards" for how fast people can go on various roads.  

Or to take another example, I sat on a jury in a medical malpractice case several years ago, in which the criterion for judgement was what was standard practice in North Carolina.  

The great thing about states or localities making laws and setting standards is that there is an opportunity to compete.  There is also an opportunity for laws and standards to be appropriate for state and local conditions.  

The fact that there isn't a federal law or standard on some issue doesn't mean that there are no laws or standards on that issue.  On An interview with Ron Paul about his presidential platform on energy and the environment posted 2 years, 1 month ago 55 Responses

Clang, clang, clang! Irreparable damage alert!

"...even pretend to target the 80% emissions reductions by 2050 scientists say will be needed to avoid irreparable damage."

And you wonder where the alarmists are?

Mark Bahner

Why would humans allow complete melting?

Anyone care to estimate what it would cost to cover all of Greenland and all of Antartica with radiative insulation in the warm season, and remove the insulation in the cold season.

http://www.radiantbarrier.com/what_is_reflective_insulati...

Mark Bahner

3 times present concentration???!

Steve Bloom:  "The primary concern is with regard to future warming, which at this point is likely to be not less than about 2C, but possibly considerably more."

Me:  "And you know this how?"

"Because unfortunately we're going to pass 2x CO2 and not look back."

Two times the present ~380 ppm...so >760 ppm??  When do you think that's going to happen?

"I suspect something more like 3x will become inevitable by the time there are enough obvious impacts to motivate the sharp reductions needed."

3 x 380 ppm = 1140 ppm????!

Mark Bahner

Actually, coal has been significant <150 years

"Both Mark and David are wrong, although David is certainly closer.  Fossil fuels--coal, for the longest time, and obviously others only more recently--have been in use by humanity for at least 4,000 years."

Perhaps you should read more closely.  I wrote:

"...but fossil fuels have only been a significant source of humanity's energy since about 1700-1750."

Actually, I was overestimating the length of time coal has been a significant source of humankind's energy.

Even as late as 1850, coal was only 1 percent of humankind's energy:

See Figure 3 of Jesse Ausubel's "Where is Energy Going"

Mark Bahner

Human population is not growing exponentially

"To all the population skeptics:"

I'm not a "population skeptic."  I'm not a "climate skeptic."  I'm a skeptic, period.  

"First of all, you got the definition of "exponential growth" wrong.  It's a growth rate where n = n^x, and x is greater than one."

My definition (that growth increases by a fixed PERCENTAGE per fixed unit of time) returns the same result, as long as one includes something you left out...

"x is greater than one...and NONCHANGING."  See Wikipedia (source of all truth, except where it is ridiculously biased):

"All formulas of the form k^n, where k is an UNCHANGING number greater than 1 (e.g., 2), and n is the amount of time elapsed, grow exponentially." (emphasis added)

"Earth's population is still growing exponentially."

No, it is not.  See Wikipedia definition above (with emphasis added).

"The exponent is decreasing over time,..."

Then it is not exponential growth.  See definitions above.  The exponent must be unchanging for the growth to be exponential.

"...but it's still exponential (i.e. nonlinear) growth."

No, it's not.  Anything where the exponent decreases with time eventually gets to where the exponent equals one, and the growth is linear.

And in fact, the overall trend has been SUB-linear since approximately 1989, when the number added peaked at 87.8 million.  (Although it's returned to about linear since 2000).

World population growing linearly since 2000

And the U.S. Census Bureau projects world population to be growing firmly SUB-linearly circa 2012.  See above table.

Once again, I apologize for introducing a fact into the discussion...but the human population has not been growing exponentially (same percentage added each year) since about 1970.

"GreenEngineer--
Thanks for the note on math.  I started to write that post myself, but I was having trouble for some reason explaining it as simply and clearly as you did, so I gave up. :)"

It was simple and clear, all right.  But it was also wrong.  Human population has not been growing exponentially since about 1970.  Anyone who thinks it has is simply wrong.

Mark Bahner

Yes, things are different...as usual

"Odo, you ask for historical models, but show me any historical model where there are 6.5 billion people on earth."

Since the world population has been increasing steadily for essentially the last 600 years, for the last 600 years, one could always have asked the question, "When has the human population been as large as today?"

In fact, Thomas Malthus predicted approximately 200 years ago that human population would collapse within 50 years.  

Not only was he spectacularly wrong, but human beings are becoming farther and farther removed from the famine and/or pestilence he thought were just around the corner.  

"The amount of energy we use has no historical precedent."

That could also be said essentially every year for the last 600 years.

"The disparities of wealth and health,..."

It's interesting that you should focus on "disparities," rather than progress.

Yes, there were few disparities in health when the average life expectancy was under 40 years, and when doctors were not even aware that germs caused disease.

"...the global flow of goods and information and people,..."

You say that like it's a bad thing.

"...the ability of small groups of people to wreak global havoc,..."

Now, there (finally) is something definitely worth worrying about.

Of course, the flip side of that is that never before has there been the ability of small groups of people to do so much global good.  

Mark Bahner

Utterly implausible

"Right? But one thing Children of Men shows to visceral effect is just how shallow civilization is."

As has been pointed out by others, it's fiction, not reality.

I agree that the seens of fighting were emotionally powerful, but I thought the whole movie was ridiculously implausible.

Here we have a situation where not a single child has been born anywhere in the world for 18 #@$% years.  Obviously, in such a situation, getting some children born would be the ONLY issue for essentially everyone in the world.

Why in the world are the British worried about **illegal immigrants**?  In literally less than a century, there would be not one person in Britain!  And why were all the people sitting at their monitors at work?  What was the point?

A far, far, far more plausible scenario was in a book I read probably close to 40 years ago:

The Year When Stardust Fell

In that book, the Earth passes through the tail of a comet, and the comet dust fuses together every single piece of sliding metal on the entire planet.  All internal combustion engines freeze solid.  All turbines.  All air conditioning compressors.

In such a situation, it is very plausible that civilization would indeed break down very quickly.  No city on earth would be liveable without IC engines to deliver food.  And without engines to get people out of cities (and densely populated areas) people would get very, very hungry.  Finally, people living on farms would be swamped with people needing food.

And the final ridiculous part about "Children of Men" was the behavior of EVERYONE regarding this woman and her child.  Here would be literally the most important two people on the entire planet, and she and her baby basically ended up dodging bullets for most of the movie.  People stop fighting briefly and say, like, "Oh, wow, look at that!"  And then they go back to shooting at each other, when she hasn't even left the scene. Completely unbelievable.

Mark Bahner

Re: "beyond the state of the science"

Dr. Wigley apparently writes, "markbahner said that the probability of warming less than 1.4C was 50% and the probability of warming greater than 5C was zero."

That's close, but my exact words were, "The simple fact is that there is approximately a 50/50 chance that the warming will be less than 1.4 deg C...and there is virtually no chance (far less than 1 percent) that the warming will be over 5 deg C."

Dr. Wigley continues, regarding the "projections" in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), "IPCC did not assign a probability to the 1.4-5.8C range. It was recognized that to so may have been useful, but it was beyond the state of the science (insofar as IPCC can only review the science, not do new science)."

That extraordinary comment provides compelling evidence of the deep scientific pathology of the current state of climate "science."  I've personally developed two sets of my own probabilistic predictions for methane atmospheric concentrations, CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations, and resultant lower tropospheric temperature increases. The second set is here:

My predictions

My own probabilistic predictions were developed in my spare time, almost certainly with less than 100 hours of research, thought, and calculations, and only a pocket calculator. By 2001, when the IPCC published the TAR, there had obviously been two previous assessment reports, with more than a full decade having passed since the first assessment report was published in 1990. In that time, hundreds, if not thousands, of people were working full time on climate research.  Dr. Wigley is stating that the entire climate change community was unable to come up with probabilistic predictions in over a decade of research, including countless conferences (in some very nice locales) and a great many powerful computers running climate simulations.  I'm sorry, but if a simple set of probabilistic predictions for methane atmspheric concentrations, CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations, and resultant lower tropospheric temperature increases was beyond the IPCC and the climate change community after more than a full decade of research by hundreds or thousands of people, it's simply because the IPCC and climate change community aren't very interested in doing science.

Mark Bahner

I have read the SRES. Perhaps you should too.

"The IPCC SRES provides references to the falsifiable peer-reviewed publications that are used to construct the scenarios."

Bwahahaha!  Hilariously typical Andrew Dessler!  First you say that the SRES contains the (falsifiable) peer-reviewed literature that supports the IPCC TAR.  When I ask you how the SRES is falsifiable--because you and I both know it's not--you say it's some OTHER literature that's falsifiable.

I've asked you since NOVEMBER 2005 to point me to the FALSIFIABLE peer-reviewed publications that support the IPCC TAR scenarios and projections, particularly the A1F1 and A2 scenarios. You haven't, because no such publications exist.  

Then you say, "You really should read the SRES.  Of course, if you do, you'd find out you were wrong."

Bwahahahaha!  Again, that's hilariously typical Andrew Dessler.  I HAVE read the SRES.  I've quoted from it several times even in this very discussion.  That's because, unlike you, I provide evidence to support my assertions (i.e., that the SRES and the IPCC TAR scenarios and resulting projections are unfalsifiable):

"Scenarios are images of the future or alternative futures. They are neither predictions nor forecasts."

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/025.htm

...

So much for your claim that the underlying publications that the SRES references are falsifiable.

Andrew, the fact that you would write, "You really should read the SRES" even after I've repeatedly QUOTED from it merely gives evidence of the depths of your ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Mark Bahner

North Pole sea ice

Hmmm...I don't know what happened on the sea ice comments.  

This is what I wrote:

But regarding the ice at the North Pole:  it's quite likely that most or all of the sea ice at the North Pole will be gone in the summer by the end of this century.

But that would probably be true if the world reduced CO2 emissions by 50 percent or more in the next 2-3 decades.  Since there is no way in the world that developing nations like China and India would ever be part of a plan that would reduce emissions that severely that fast, sea ice is likely to be gone in the summer by the end of the century, even if the U.S. cut emissions by even 80 percent over the next couple of decades.

Given that every person on earth will probably be a millionaire by 2100 (not to mention having a healthy life expectancy of far more than 100 years), I doubt they'll be terribly upset:

Why every person will be a millionaire by 2100

If they want sea ice in the summer, they'll make enough during the winter so the ice won't all melt in the summer.  They'll certainly have enough money to do such silly things.

Mark Bahner

Yes, the sea ice will be gone in the summer

"When the last pieces of the North Pole break up and float away, Mr. Bahner will be arguing the forecasts are rubbish."

You need to read the IPCC TAR.  It very clearly says, ""Scenarios are images of the future or alternative futures. They are neither predictions nor forecasts."

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/025.htm

...

If they want sea ice in the summer, they'll make enough during the winter so the ice won't all melt in the summer.  They'll certainly have enough money to do such silly things.

Mark Bahner

Your assertion. You provide the evidence

"I asked you for evidence the IPCC misrepresented the peer-reviewed literature.  Since you can't, you cleverly try to put the burden of proof on me.  Clever, but that's not going to fool anyone."

Heh, heh, heh!  Good one.

YOU asserted that, "assessments are entirely based on falsifiable peer-reviewed publications."

I responded, "Please point me to all of the literature--or at least a handful of papers--that YOU THINK are falsifiable and peer-reviewed, that support the scenarios and temperature projections that are in the IPCC TAR, particularly the A1F1 and A2 scenarios."

You haven't pointed me to any of the literature, because it doesn't exist.  Now you want me to provide evidence the IPCC TAR misrepresents literature that doesn't even exist.

You made the assertion.  You provide the evidence.

Just like I provided the evidence when atreyger demanded to see evidence that predictions must be falsifiable in order to be scientific.

The only problem is you can't provide evidence to back YOUR assertion, because the literature you claim exists doesn't.

Mark Bahner

You're very confused. I'm on the side of science

Amazingdrx, you don't know what you're talking about.

The IPCC TAR explicitly does NOT estimate any probability that the temperature increase from 1990 to 2100 will be in the range of 1.4 to 5.8 deg C.

They don't do that, because anyone who has looked at the matter carefully knows that there is about a 50 percent chance that the warming will be less than 1.4 deg C.

Instead they say, "Scenarios are images of the future or alternative futures. They are neither predictions nor forecasts."

Same old scam...just more money involved

It's the same old scam that the Limits to Growth "scientists" have been running for the last 30+ years.  You invent a bunch of ridiculous scenarios that have no chance of occurring (including maybe  one that is slightly reasonable).  Then, when none of the ridiculous scenarios actually comes to pass, you say, "Well, they we're predictions or forecasts.  They were projections."

"Probability is the best science can do."

Yes, that's absolutely correct.  Tom Wigley and Sarah Raper actually wrote a paper in Science that DOES contain probabilistic estimates of future warming.  Their conclusion was that there was a 5% chance of warming less than 1.7 deg C, a 50% chance of warming less than 3.1 deg C, and a 95% chance of warming less than 4.9 deg C.

Wigley and Raper, Science, July 2001

So they at least they developed probabilistic projections.  

The problem with what they did is that they assumed that ALL the scenarios in the IPCC TAR were equally likely to occur.  That is just a ridiculously unrealistic assumption.   A much more realistic assumption is that scenarios like the B1 scenario are much more likely to occur.

That's what I did when I developed my own probabilistic predictions:

Probabilistic predictions

The theory of anthropogenic GHG caused global climate change could be proven false if evidence countering it were established.  It meets the test.

"Our side has established overwhelming peer reviewed scientific evidence supporting the theory.  You side has established no peer reviewed evidence opposing it.  Period."

Your "our side" and "your side" is nonsense.  I'm on no one's side.  I'm on the side of science.  As you can see from my probabilistic predictions, I think it's almost certain that the year 2100 will be warmer than the year 1990, due to increased concentrations of CO2 and methane.  The only question is how much warmer.  And the answer is that the warming has about a 50 percent chance of being less than the IPCC TAR minimum of 1.4 deg C.

Mark Bahner (environmental engineer)

Mark Bahner

And your supporting evidence is where?

Andrew,

A week ago you wrote, regarding the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR):

"Its last report detailed what the scientific community has concluded about climate change:

3.  Warming over the next 100 years is likely to lie between 1.4 and 5.8 deg C"

When I pointed out your statement was false, you first engaged in childish name-calling.  (Not very impressive for a professor at a major university.  Especially a professor of atmospheric sciences, who one would expect to be very interested in a scientifically accurate and precise characterizations matters of atmospheric science.)

Now you write, "I was using 'likely' in a colloquial sense,..."

But you were supposedly reporting on what the IPCC TAR said.  So why would you use likely in the "colloquial" (i.e., meaningless) sense, when the IPCC TAR has a very explicit and precise definition for likely (i.e., 66 to 90 percent probability of occurrence)?  Were you ignorant of the IPCC TAR's very different and very precise definition for "likely"?  Or were you just careless?  Or were you intentionally trying to confuse or deceive?

Then you state, "Note that Mark completely ignores the substance of my last comment."

It's very tough to address your comments when they contain so many mischaracterizations and flat-out falsehoods.  I spend all my time addressing those mischaracterizations and flat-out falsehoods.  And it definitely doesn't help that you virtually NEVER admit your mischaracterizations and falsehoods (correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't think of a single case). Instead, when I point them out, you simply change to new mischaracterizations and falsehoods. Not to mention engaging in childish name-calling.  

Finally, you conclude:  "He does not say whether the IPCC is misrepresenting the underlying peer-reviewed literature. Is it, Mark?  Or does the IPCC accurately summarize the published literature?"

Unbelievable.  You seem very confused about how to conduct a scientific debate.  I wrote:

"The IPCC's `projections' are completely without merit, as a very basic matter of science.  They are completely unfalsifiable.  Everyone who knows about science knows that falsifiability is an absolutely fundamental requirement for scientific predictions (or `projections')."

When atreyger questioned whether predictions  needed to be falsifiable to be considered scientific, I provided overwhelming evidence to back up my assertion (I pointed out that even high school students learn this is so).

Now, you are asserting, regarding the IPCC TAR, "assessments are entirely based on falsifiable peer-reviewed publications."  But there's just one tiny little problem.  You have never provided EVIDENCE to support your assertion that the IPCC TAR scenarios and temperature projections are based on "falsifiable and peer-reviewed literature."

In fact, way back in November 2005, I told you to point me to the peer-reviewed and falsifiable paper that supports the A1F1 and A2 scenarios.  You (of course) never responded to my request.

Please point me to all of the literature--or at least a handful of papers--that YOU THINK are falsifiable and peer-reviewed, that support the scenarios and temperature projections that are in the IPCC TAR, particularly the A1F1 and A2 scenarios.  If you can't point me specifically to that literature, I will with proper scientific skepticism assume that it exists only in your imagination.

Mark Bahner

Yeah, Kucinich and Paul...two dirty hippies

"The dirty hippies -- the great masses of the public and the very few public figures (Feingold, Gore, Kucinich)..."

Yeah, dirty hippies!  Like Ron Paul:

(In)famous dirty hippie

Ron Paul, dirty hippie

Mark Bahner

"Limits to Growth" ideas are not sound

...and yet I think the basic ideas are sound - they aren't that much different than those of "Limits of Growth"...

The basic ideas of Limits of Growth are not sound.  Limits of Growth is a 30+ year scientific fraud.

Mark Bahner

Not "lawyerly wordplay": true vs false

jjwfmme writes, "...Mark Bahner wants us to engage in lawyerly wordplay with the scientific language, which would be a tedious way to spend your Saturday morning..."

Perhaps you should spend your Saturday morning(s) learning about science.

Science is all about what is true and what is false.

Andrew Dessler wrote that the IPCC Third Assessment Report wrote that it was "likely" that the warming from 1990 to 2100 would be 1.4 to 5.8 deg C.  That was false.

I made the true statement that the IPCC TAR does NOT say it's likely that the warming will be 1.4 to 5.8 deg C.  (And if anyone, including Andrew Dessler, thinks that his statement was true and mine is false, I will give $40 to the first person to show my statement was false...i.e. to show where the IPCC TAR says that the warming of 1.4 to 5.8 deg C is "likely.")

Then I made a second statement that was also true:

Even if Andrew Dessler's statement WAS true (which it isn't) it wouldn't be relevant from a policy standpoint because it makes a huge difference whether the warming will be close to 1.4 deg C or close to 5.8 deg C.  (The truth is that the warming will be much, much closer to 1.4 deg C.)

Mark Bahner

IPCC projections did not say "likely"

Eli Rabbett writes, "You know full well that they (the IPCC) defined likely as a 66-90% chance."

Yes, I know that the IPCC defined "likely" as a 66-90% chance of occurrence.

What the IPCC did NOT write was, "Warming over the next 100 years is LIKELY (emphasis added) to lie between 1.4 and 5.8 deg C."

Andrew Dessler wrote that the IPCC wrote that.  But  Andrew Dessler writes many, many things that are clearly false.  (And then he makes personal attacks rather than admitting what he wrote was untrue.)

Mark Bahner

There's no debate, the IPCC projections are trash

"Every serious person involved in the climate change discussion accepts the broad conclusions of the IPCC."

No, every serious person involved in climate change research knows that the most important part of the IPCC's Third Assessment Report--the "projections" of what will happen if governments of the world do nothing--are nothing more than pseudoscientific rubbish.

The IPCC's "projections" are completely without merit, as a very basic matter of science.  They are completely unfalsifiable.  Everyone who knows about science knows that falsifiability is an absolutely fundamental requirement for scientific predictions (or "projections").

But do you suppose anyone will ever read that in an Andrew Revkin piece in the New York Times (let alone from any of the Gristmill contributors)?

Mark Bahner

I have used Google. And I've read the IPCC TAR

I wrote, "But the scientific fact is that the IPCC does NOT say that warming is 'likely' to 'lie between 1.4 and 5.8 deg C.'"

jjwfmme replies, "Use Google."

I have.  Unlike members of the lay public, I've actually read the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) very closely.  

The IPCC TAR does NOT say it is "likely" that the warming will be between 1.4 and 5.8 deg C.  They do NOT include a qualitative or quantitative assessment for the likelihood that the temperature increase will be in the range of their "projection."

Mark Bahner

30 tons of carbon avoided in 6 months...not likely

"Dr. Leininger estimated that his system had reduced his household carbon emissions by nearly 30 tons since it was installed in June,..."

A coal-fired power plant generates about 1 kg of CO2 per kWhr generated.

EIA report on CO2 from electrical generation

That means about 12/44 or 0.27 kg (0.60 lb) of carbon per kWhr.  So it would take 3333 kWh of coal-fired electricity to generate one ton of carbon.

If he has avoided 30 tons of carbon, that means he's avoided getting 30 x 3333 kWh = 100,000 kwh from the grid.

Since there are about 4400 hours in six months, that means a continuous average rate of 100,000 divided by 4400 = 23 kilowatts!

That's the same rate as 10 or more typical houses.

It's not very likely that he's avoided 30 tons of carbon emissions.  And if he has, his house is an electrical pig of staggering proportions.

Mark Bahner

The truth, eh?

"What I'm interested in is the truth: that the truth be aired; that those who have lied own up to it and be held accountable; that those who suffered as a result of the lies be allowed to tell their stories."

You're interested in the truth, eh?

How about answering these questions:

1. Is it necessary for projections of future events (e.g., the IPCC TAR projections for methane atmospheric concentrations, CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations, and resultant temperature increases) to be falsifiable, in order for them to be scientific?

2. Are the projections of methane atmospheric concentrations, CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations, and resultant temperature increases in the IPCC TAR falsifiable?

"Scenarios are images of the future or alternative futures. They are neither predictions nor forecasts."

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/025.htm

Mark Bahner

What's wrong with your analysis? Here's what...

David Roberts writes, "My assumption is that sooner or later all personal vehicles -- and eventually all vehicles, period -- will be powered solely with electricity from renewable sources: wind, solar, hydrokinetic, biothermal."

And, "Here's my basic reasoning: Humanity's energy reserves (fossil fuels) are finite. We need to start living within the earth's solar budget."

Finally, "Someone tell me what's wrong with this reasoning."

One thing that's wrong with that reasoning is that "fossil fuel" energy reserves are NOT finite (in any practical sense of the word).  

Presently, humans worldwide consume approximately 400 quads (400 quadrillion Btus) of energy per year.  The total worldwide deposits of methane hydrates have been estimated at approximately 400 MILLION quads.  In other words, methane hydrates could power all of humanity at its current rate of energy use (for all purposes) for 1 MILLION years.

Another thing wrong with your reasoning is that you totally neglect the possibilities of either fission or fusion.

Recently (December 2005), Scientific American contained an article that outlined a method by which long-lived (half-lives greater than 300 years) nuclear fission wastes could be essentially eliminated.  This would occur through reduction and use of pyroprocessing (high temperature electroplating) of existing "high level" nuclear wastes, combined with use of liquid sodium fast neutron reactors.  This method could essentially eliminate all long-lived nuclear wastes that presently exist, while generating no new long-lived wastes.  Further, it could be done without generating any weapons-grade nuclear materials.

Finally, you totally ignore the possibility of fusion.  It will be necessary to develop fusion if humans ever have any plans to "terraform" (or at least establish permanent colonies) on Mars.  Establishing self-sufficient permanent human habitation on Mars is a good idea as an insurance policy against disaster on Earth. Given the fact that fusion will be necessary for this function, it's logical that fusion will also be a potential major source of energy on earth.  Man-made fusion on earth, rather than relying on fusion occurring 93 million miles away on the sun, has the advantage of providing a very compact power source.  I don't know exactly what the electrical power needs of New York City are, but let's say they're presently 10,000 megawatts.  Now, you want to add transportation to that...so let's call it 20,000 MW.  A much larger area than New York City would be required to provide that power by wind, photovoltaics, hydro, or biothermal.  But it's a miniscule area for fission or fusion plants.

One more thing...if controlled hydrogen-boron fusion can be achieved, all radioactive products are eliminated:

Hydrogen-boron fusion

P.S.  I do agree with your assessment that eventually all personal transportation will rely on electricity.  My estimate for this to happen is not less than 30 years, nor more than 60.  But neglecting the potential of methane hydrates and/or fission and/or fusion is wrong.

Mark Bahner