Comments EliRabett has made

A correction

Andrew is right

-The Easter BunnyOn There is no negative feedback in the climate system posted 10 months ago 51 Responses

Pls

Hi,

I put up the link to the Form 990.  Interesting thing is that the money apparently did not come from the Heartland Institute or the Marshall Institute.

On the other hand, pls blog more oftenOn Climate uncertainty is a reason to take action and Fred Singer makes big bucks posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 3 Responses

A very old tactic

Lomborg did not invent the tactic.  It goes back to the 1980s and was first practiced by Yohe and Nordhaus for Wm. Nierenberg.

OTOH, I do have a question.  One of the latest hoohas is that relative humidity is staying constant in the troposphere (I think this started with Anthony Watt).  You published in this area a while ago (there was a deficit).  What gives.  If you want to stick an oar in one of the hotspots is dotearth.On His argument is still bogus posted 1 year, 5 months ago 10 Responses

Eli Rabett

Five is not that far from one especially as compared with the energy cost of a Saudi barrel, or even a North Sea one.  BTW has this considered the energy cost of refining and transport and putting the sand back.

Also Eli is old enough to realize that the ratio of press releases that will save the world to technology that works is several orders of magnitudeOn Will wonders never cease: not only sane economist, but author of a textbook! posted 1 year, 5 months ago 11 Responses

Please John

Alan Zarembo who wrote the article is coming reallllll close to arguing that only adaptation is gonna happen.  He who will not be named objected to how he was quoted, but if you read the comments over at his place where Ethon is knawing at the liver, came reallllllll close to saying that since mitigation can do nothing for more than 50 years, well adaptation is all there is for those of us, who in that run will be dead, and Hans v. Storch also, somehow, some way thought that he was misquoted with purpose by Zarembo.

that's pretty good action in my book.On L.A. Times mischaracterizes Pielke Jr.'s arguments in such a way as to make them newsworthy posted 1 year, 8 months ago 17 Responses

As I said over at Fleck's

Thanks to Roger and friends who have always showcased adaptation and mumbled about mitigation (at best) we are committed to a large adaptation.  

We are going to pay procrastination penalties

J. Willard Rabett sent Eli a set of laws to guide climate change policy makers whenever they mention Roger Jr.

1. Adaptation responds to current losses.
   
2. Mitigation responds to future losses
   
3. Adaptation plus future costs is more expensive than mitigation,
   
4. Adaptation without mitigation drives procrastination penalties to infinity.

Excellent job

I listened to the program and thought you did an excellent job.  Two minor criticisms, at the beginning when you were talking about paleoclimate you buried your lede, taking a long time to build up to the conclusion about how greenhouse gases affect climate.  Second, when you hit the nutter at the end you might have said something about your opinion being based on physics.  On the whole excellent, but I fear you will now have the problem of champion fighters, with every drunk in the bar thinking that he can take you.On Climate skeptic plays hookey posted 1 year, 11 months ago 11 Responses

Taylor,

You dissembled, and you were called on it.  You used a VERY SPECIFIC statement about economists estimates of US GDP increasing or decreasing because of climate change, now you tell us you are comparing this to Stern's conclusions on global GDP rather than anything Stern said about US GDP.  Stern makes it perfectly clear that the major damage will occur in the developing world and that GDP changes in the developed world will be relatively small.  IN FACT the statistics you quote are right in line with what Stern quoted.  

When challenged you try and twist what you said to justify your unethical behavior.  Typical, but thanks for letting us know how much trust to put in your words and your organization.  A number significantly lower than zero.

Michael is wrong to hope that one can have an honest conversation with anyone from Cato.    On Cato's Jerry Taylor responds to Michael Tobis posted 1 year, 11 months ago 131 Responses

Mr. Taylor is a slippery fellow

If you look carefully, very carefully at his statement:

"In short, the number of economists who thought global warming would improve the U.S. economy outnumbered the number of economists who thought that global warming would harm the economy to the extent feared by the Stern Review."

It refers to

a.  The US not the global economy
b.  Specifically to the extent feared by the Stern Review not anything else.

But in fact even on THAT basis, Mr. Taylor has not RTFR.   If he has not, why is he trying to pretend he has.  If he has, why is he misleading us?

Stern does present an analysis for the US GDP, in chapter 5 of his review.

"In the USA, one study predicts a mix of costs and benefits initially (± 1% GDP), but then declines in GDP even in the most optimistic scenarios once global temperatures exceed 3°C."

and further on

"Jorgenson et al. (2005) used a general equilibrium model to estimate the impacts of climate change on investment, the capital stock, labour and consumption in the USA for two scenarios: one "optimistic" (assuming "optimal" adaptation, a strong carbon fertilisation effect and low potential damages) and one "pessimistic" (assuming little adaptation, a weak carbon fertilisation effect and high potential damages). Recent field-based studies suggest that the carbon fertilisation effect may be about half as large as the values used in the "optimistic" case (more details in Chapter 3).

For a warming of 3°C, the study projects a net damage of 1.2% of GDP in the pessimistic case and a benefit of 1% of GDP in the optimistic case. In the optimistic case, the benefits peak at just over 2°C warming and then decline from around 3.5°C. In the pessimistic case, warming causes increasingly negative impacts on GDP. The range of outcomes encompasses other earlier estimates of the costs of climate change for the US economy, such as Mendelsohn (2001)."

Which turns out to be right on what the survey that Mr. Taylor presents says

35.7% thought that GDP growth would be neutral

19.6% thought the losses would be > 5%
21.4% thought losses would be btw 1 and 5%

That's 41.0% who thought things would be worse.

How many thought things would be better

16.1 thought gains would be 1-5%
7.1 thought gains would be > 5%

that's 23.2.

Now why can't our Jeremy Taylors read and add? On Cato's Jerry Taylor responds to Michael Tobis posted 1 year, 11 months ago 131 Responses

Mark

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.  On Search for local climate skeptic in Texas proves fruitless posted 1 year, 11 months ago 61 Responses

Mark Dahlin

You ain't a climate scientist and I am a Rabett.  Got it now.  

PS.  That's a pretty good approximation for any parcel of the atmosphere which is what you were blathering on about see on the original Deltoid particularly comments 208, 217, 219, 225 and 235.  Pay attention to what Scott Church said in comment 227On Search for local climate skeptic in Texas proves fruitless posted 1 year, 11 months ago 61 Responses

So

Without objecting to a debate btw AD and TB, let me point out that Andrew's initial statement was

"While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's not the case."

IfTim Ball ain't one of the recycled dozen, who is?  Mayeau and Bahner are not climate scientists by any accounting.  The bench is really thin over there.  

Moreover, having actually read AIT, it is clear that Mayeau is distorting the message of the book and the movie, which is that mankind is responsible for the care of the Earth.  A very powerful message to children, but an important and correct one.On Search for local climate skeptic in Texas proves fruitless posted 1 year, 12 months ago 61 Responses

The issue is not principle

The issue is not principled opposition but expert opposition, and from what Andrew recounts and observation of the very thin bench of denialist scientists, it appears that the later is lacking.  Worse, for a scientific theory opposition based on political principles may be effective, but it is destructive.  Kwaq goes on to say

"Of course there are scientists out there who don't buy the AGW theory."

But not very many of them.  Moreover most of those are fairly old and retired or near to being so, which is a sure mark of a field having passed them by.

"The science is far from settled."

While there are parts of climate science that are not settled (and some of those parts are really scary), the basic principles are well established such as an anthropically enhanced greeenhouse effect.  

"The IPCC models are non-empirical and apparently have no predictive value."

This is a) false and b) false. but one wearies.On Search for local climate skeptic in Texas proves fruitless posted 2 years ago 61 Responses

Well the window has moved

Eli suggests that this is further evidence that the Overton window has moved, and what you need now is not to try and shove it back but to debate the situation with, for example, Gerald North, who I believe is more skeptical about some of the evidence than you, and somewhat more reticent about taking immediate action.

It seems to me that you can now offer your class a real debate about real choices.  Of course, Texas, being Texas, reality is not all it is cracked up to beOn Search for local climate skeptic in Texas proves fruitless posted 2 years ago 61 Responses

IPCC members

technically are governments, not individuals.  That is one of those stupid questions whose answer can be both true and useless.  The IPCC plenary appoints experts to prepare reports.

http://www.ipcc.ch/about/faq/IPCC%20Who%20is%20who.pdfOn Flawed new analysis purports to show that there's no scientific consensus on climate change posted 2 years, 2 months ago 34 Responses

The elephant in the room

The issue is that greenhouse gas forcing is the elephant in the room, so large that the rest are just details and greenhouse gas forcing is probably the best understood of all the possible forcings, the longest lasting (hundreds of years for CO2 and zillions for perfluorides and ok, hydrocarbons are a few years before they oxidize to CO2).  So to get a ballpark of the future temperature rise, pretty much all you have to know is the ghg forcings.

Of course, a lot of the devil and the damage are in the details, such as the rate that the Greenland ice cap melts atOn No, but we still know enough to start taking action posted 2 years, 6 months ago 20 Responses

You might remember

Gore was the driving force behind the Partnership for New Generation Vehicles.  GM took the research money and did bupkis with the design that was developed (it was a diesel hybrid).  Gore did GM talked.On Read his cranky email to a consumer posted 2 years, 8 months ago 7 Responses

Sorry,

Wasn't very clear.  I really don't know either but was wondering if you knew more about the why and wherefore.  Certainly there is bitterness.  A lot of the denialists have a personal backstory, for example Jastrow, the first director of GISS when GISS was about space science.  I think you can trace through him to Baliunas.On What should be the cost of skepticism? posted 2 years, 8 months ago 13 Responses

What's really concerning

What is really concerning is that Tennekes is clueless about computer codes, software engineering and modeling in general.  Still he acts like the high priest and the groupies say more please.On What should be the cost of skepticism? posted 2 years, 8 months ago 13 Responses

Wood chips

Many wood and paper processing plants use chips to generate the power that they need.  Buring wood is carbon neutral.On Texas renewable energy schemes posted 2 years, 8 months ago 32 Responses

Calling Falsh Gordon

Dr. Zarkov is off his meds Flash, come and take him back to Mongo where Ming can administer some useful therapy.   Water vapor has this useful habit of precipitating, e.g. raining on your parade, which is what controls the water vapor content of the atmosphere.  Trying to raise water vapor content by brewing tea is like pushing on wet spaghetti. On This one in North Carolina posted 2 years, 9 months ago 21 Responses

Zakaria, oh yes

he was the one the Pentagon consulted on how to sell the Iraqi invasion to the public.  A fine piece of work.On It's seductive -- and wrong posted 2 years, 9 months ago 54 Responses

Well, let us start with #3

"Some scientists, including those on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, conclude that since 1975, human activity has been the dominant factor influencing climate. This conclusion is based on computer models that forecast future trends based on a complex mix of factors that influence the climate. On the surface, this conclusion seems plausible as basic physics suggests that increased emissions of greenhouse gasesâ€"mainly carbon dioxideâ€"by humans would trap more heat in the Earthâ€^TMs atmosphere, a process called the â€oegreenhouse effect.”"

Why do you claim that the IPCC reports ONLY rely on computer models?  There are many other threads to the argument, including but not limited to paleoclimate studies, which I note, you do your best to trash in #2 as unreliable.  I could also quibble about some scientists, more accurate would be the vast majority of those who study climate, but that would not convey the image you are trying to create..On How a conservative think tank's foray into climate policy stirred up a media hornet's nest posted 2 years, 9 months ago 25 Responses

I see, and climate models are not compared

with past climate and evaluated on that basis....Hmm, maybe you were sleeping in class again Z.

As to the boundary layer being saturated, why it always rains at sea....not.  The reasons you give, rain, clouds, etc apply as much or more to higher altitudes where relative humidity is NOT 100% (the Clausius Clapyron eq predicts the saturated vapor pressure.  Lower relative humidity is the percentage of the saturated vapor pressure one observes, say in the Sahara).  Therefore, as I said, the oil layer does not appear to be having much influence on the status quo ante.  

There may (here I speculate) be two reasons for this.  First, there are natural sources of oil such as decayed or excreted oil from biological sources and leaks from oil deposits under the oceans.  Thus, this oil layer could be a naturally occuring phenominon, perhaps increased by oil spills from tankers, etc.  I regard this as likely.  Second turbulance (aka waves) can expose enough water to the atmosphere to maintain the saturated vapor pressure in the boundary layer.

Those interested in reading more about the matter can look at Ray Pierrehumbert's article on the relative humidity of the earth's atmosphere, if nothing else section 4.On Op-ed on the IPCC and climate change posted 2 years, 9 months ago 10 Responses

A couple of important things

There are big questions still opened that have to be asked and perhaps answered.  Although I agree with the thrust of your argument, there are many details through whose neglect you allow the AEI to sweep issues under the rug.  I have a rather long new post on some of these issues with the appropriate title of Virgins need not apply

There were two letters.  The one to Schroeder and NORTH made an UNCONDITIONAL offer of $10K.  No other copies of such a letter have appeared. The second made a conditional offer.  Only the AEI would determine what would be paid.  Replies were to have been received by 9/1/06.  Who were these letters sent to.  Who replied.  What were the replies. On How a conservative think tank's foray into climate policy stirred up a media hornet's nest posted 2 years, 9 months ago 25 Responses

A very thin bench

I have put up a transcript of Steve Schroeder's interview with As It Happens. In it he mentioned that he wrote an article on climate modeling with Ken Green.  What he does not mention is that the third man was Tim Ball and that Green was at the Fraser Insitute at the time the article appeared.  

Further, in the following interview Green states that the letter was sent to mostly policy people and economists.  As you have shown there were two letters.  Note that the $10K was UNCONDITIONALLY offered to Schroeder and North, but the offer in the second letter is UP TO $10K, e.g. conditional on AEI's approval.  It is not clear to me that anyone north of Fred Singer would bite on this, and even he would negotiate the fee first.  

The next step for this story is to figure out whom the second letter was sent to.  Since Tim Ball is well known to Green I'll toss him and Richard Tol into the pot.  Any other guesses?  On Follow-up on think tank paying writers to question IPCC posted 2 years, 9 months ago 6 Responses

Well,

Asked the same question 1/20.  I think a lot of people did.On Run out of a Senate committee, no less posted 2 years, 10 months ago 5 Responses

John

Without being tooooo confrontational, allow me to point out you are aspiring to High Broderism here.  

However, you and Dave have raised the issue of the "informed gut".  I worked for two guys who could not explain 2+2 = 4 to anyone, but KNEW exactly what was important to work on. I know that the trick is to figure out who has the "informed gut" and who just has a stomach ache. You cannot decouple previous performance from the gut issue.

A friend of mine put it this way.  Whenever he has a problem, he goes to two of his colleagues.  One of them, a Nobel Prize winner no less, always gives him the wrong answer for the right reason.  The second, also an eminent chemist, gives him the right answer but for the wrong reason.

A nice illustration is found in Jim Hansen's review of An Inconvenient Truth:

I did not hear from Gore for more than a decade, until January of this year, when he asked me to critically assess his slide show. When we met, he said that he "wanted to apologize," but, without letting him explain what he was apologizing for, I said, "Your insight was better than mine."

Indeed, Gore was prescient. For decades he has maintained that the Earth was teetering in the balance, even when doing so subjected him to ridicule from other politicians and cost him votes.

Knowing when you have such a treasure is the most important thing, because, indeed it can be made fun of.  Again Hansen:

An Inconvenient Truth is about Gore himself as well as global warming. It shows the man that I met in the 1980s at scientific roundtable discussions, passionate and knowledgeable, true to the message he has delivered for years. It makes one wonder whether the American public has not been deceived by the distorted images of him that have been presented by the press and television. Perhaps the country came close to having the leadership it needed to deal with a grave threat to the planet, but did not realize it.

Lasers....

Well it was going to have lasers, but then they speced out how much the power supply weighed.On It will have lasers posted 2 years, 10 months ago 13 Responses

Heidi missed what AMS should really do

AMS should include rigid standards about climate change for accredidation of meteo programs.

Good post

Less seriously, the American Physical Society has (had??) a rule that all members could present a talk at National Meetings.  There always were a fair sprinkling of nuts.  They were shoved into a session at the end of the program.  If you didn't have to run out of town, the goings on were entertaining, at least for physicists.  AFAIK no one ever brought ripe tomatos, but.....On Eh, why bother posted 2 years, 10 months ago 15 Responses

Banned in Seattle: Inconvenient Truth

Well, well, well, this is almost too good to believe.  Inconvenient Truth is religiously incorrect.On A dispatch from Gore's climate training sessions posted 2 years, 10 months ago 10 Responses

Mark,

You know full well that they defined likely as a 66-90% chance.On It muddles the science and policy debates together posted 2 years, 10 months ago 47 Responses

Three things are needed

Greg Easterbrook pointed out some time ago that the demonstrated successful way to meet environmental challenges is to first establish governmental regulations and then allow market driven solutions.  On Robert Novak does it on purpose posted 2 years, 11 months ago 8 Responses

On purpose and the AGU

American Geophysical Union, the professional organization of planetary science, including the Earth.  The AGU policy statement on the human impacts on climate can be found here.

I too am troubled by the disingenuous nature of Vranes' post and have written about it.  Lots of deniability but the purpose is clear.  I simply do not believe that anyone in policy studies writes anything without carefully considering the implications and that everything that is written has a purpose. On What do the climate scientists think? posted 2 years, 11 months ago 24 Responses

Why daddy

To first order the dew point increasesOn 'Consensus is collusion'--Is climate science maturing, or should we reach for our tinfoil hats? posted 2 years, 11 months ago 8 Responses

In fact.....

You can relate the strengthening of katrina to the warmth at depth in the Gulf.  There was an interesting article in EOS on that.  You can ask about the probability of finding that kind of temperature profile with and without global climate change and you can therefore say something about the probability that climate change contributed to the strength of the storm.

The question about NO is an interesting one because no one can make the argument that its being there was caused by recent building.  Thus the damage to NO had nothing to do with the economic boom along the Gulf Coast and that smoke screen vanishes.

Eli Rabett
http://rabett.blogspot.com
Ethon's pet bunnyOn Cleared up once and for all posted 3 years, 1 month ago 9 Responses