Comments Jason Peterson has made

  • BOT in a way

    So, with the price of cells coming down, the ability to mine wind some places (ever drive around the hills of the East Bay Area in central California?) and the desire for renewable energy (not to mention the money in building, transporting and repairing PVs, perhaps even charging rent to place them certain places) is a great thing, and this and other technologies are great to invest in instead of things of dubious merit (and will probably on many levels make this "what to do" arguing become moot fairly quickly).

    Imagine solar panels in orbit providing endless and huge amounts of hight wattage power 24/7  Take into consideration highly efficient panels on houses and etc removing the need to buy (or generate) electricity for A/C, water heating, light, etc.  And then think; batteries to take care of the night, or to run your car, or to feed your hydrogen production.  

    So let's take this another direction.  Imagine the (ir)rational and (il)logical conclusion.  Approaching the year 2100, if the global mean land/sea temperature seems on track to reach the high end of the estimate in rise, and technology innovations, wealth, mitigation and adaptation have not slowed or stopped the warming, there's a very simple way to solve the problem at any time.  We simply have a lottery, and kill 90% of the humans and animals on the earth.On Don't fight it posted 2 years, 6 months ago 44 Responses

  • IPCC

    First of all, it's not really part of this issue of solar, but for those of you that like to think of these things (as I do) I find it perplexing that someone can't doubt or make comments about what the IPCC says without being called names.  Ever think it's possible neither "side" has a 100% correct factor and everyone can be at least somewhat correct?  So confusing that there are those that agree it's warming but distrust an international body or a committie or a political organization?  (or one that's all of those....)

    This is especially perplexing in light of the IPCC coming up with scenarios but giving them no probabilities.  And then they say this in their own documentation!

    However, many physical and social systems are poorly understood, and information on the relevant variables is so incomplete that they can be appreciated only through intuition and are best communicated by images and stories.

    Future levels of global GHG emissions are the products of a very complex, ill-understood dynamic system, driven by forces such as population growth, socio-economic development, and technological progress; thus to predict emissions accurately is virtually impossible.

    Sometimes GHG emissions scenarios are less quantitative [scientific models] and more descriptive, and in a few cases they do not involve any formal analysis and are expressed in qualitative [non-scientific] terms.

    Or the factors influencing scenario plausability:

    1.  Extensive review of the emissions scenarios available in the literature.  
    2.  Alternative modeling approaches.
    3.  Peer review (Including by the IPCC web site "open process").
    4.  IPCC review and approval processes.

    Given that, what do they say about scenario uncertainties?

    Choice of Storylines.
    Authors Interpretation of Storylines.
    Translation of the Understanding of Linkages between Driving Forces into Quantitative Inputs for Scenario Analysis.
    Methodological Differences.
    Different Sources of Data.
    Inherent Uncertainties.

    So I can't see why we can't calmly discuss what exactly "Global mean surface temperatures are projected to increase between 1990 and 2100 by about 1.4 to 5.8°C." means or "Projected by models to warm 1.4 to 5.8°C by 2100 relative to 1990" and how much we should trust it as far as to the range.  Why is that not something a reasonable person might do?On Don't fight it posted 2 years, 6 months ago 44 Responses

  • Ooops, misspell

    (That should have been Bryan, extra 't' in the above post.)

    That was supposed to be sarcasm, in response to the idea that Republicans are incapable of being concerned about the environment...  (Compare and contrast to "College Station has no Greens", or "Austin has no conservatives".)

    But everyone in Vermont is a tree-hugging hippie btw.   :)On Hey, that's me! posted 2 years, 6 months ago 8 Responses

  • Rather a slam dunk

    I believe this is pretty much linked to the rise of computers since the early '90s.  As time has passed, LCD screens (and the like) have gotten larger and larger and cheaper and cheaper as economies of scale have been reached.  More and more faster and faster.  Now we just need to find a cheap renewable way to make plastic-like materials.On Don't fight it posted 2 years, 6 months ago 44 Responses

  • Perhaps not by the US EPA

    But individual states in the US can (and do) still have their own rules.  For example, I was in New Jersey about a month ago, and they still have 15% ethanol fuel.  I'm sure California does also, etc.On The weather will matter more and more posted 2 years, 6 months ago 13 Responses

  • Indeed it is.

    Not everything tried or promising will work out.On Crap, another means of continuing business as usual failing to survive scrutiny posted 2 years, 6 months ago 11 Responses

  • Better gas mileage.

    I not long ago filled up with half 85% ethanol and half normal gasoline.  

    Got better mileage.  

    However, I was less worried about mileage than I was worried about the unintended consequences of doing what I did (or going with a full tank of 85% ethanol).  I was mostly worried about higher ignition temperatures damaging my 4 cylinder 1999 engine.   But I took the risk.

    Maybe the Marvel Mystery Oil helped so my engine didn't catch fire. Maybe it was the will of the gods. Maybe it was something else.

    Regardless, I have not done it since.On The weather will matter more and more posted 2 years, 6 months ago 13 Responses

  • What people say and what they actually believe/do.

    Reality versus Potential

    Younger son: "Daddy, what is the difference between potential and reality?"

    Dad: "I will show you son."

    Dad turns to his wife and asks: "Would you sleep with Robert Redford for 1 million dollars?"

    Wife: "Yes, of course. I would never pass up that opportunity."

    Dad then asks his daughter if she would sleep with Brad Pitt for 1 million dollars.

    Daughter: "Wow! Oh my God! That is my fantasy!"

    Dad turns to his elder son and asks: "Would you sleep with Tom Cruise for 1 million dollars?"

    Elder son: "Yeah, why not. Imagine what I could do with 1 million dollars. Wouldn't hesitate."

    Dad then turns to his younger son and says: "You see son, potentially we're sitting on 3 million dollars. But in reality, we're just living with two sluts and a poofter."On Green the Pope way posted 2 years, 6 months ago 29 Responses

  • Wait a durn minute.....

    Do they actually hire Greens in Bryant/College Station?  

    Whoa, my reality is bending....On Hey, that's me! posted 2 years, 6 months ago 8 Responses

  • Proposed v. yeah/nay

    Just because legislation is proposed doesn't mean anyone seriously believes it would ever be passed.  I'd hazard a guess that in most cases, passing it is not the goal.  

    But I'm not sure of the statistical deviation around the mean "the guess" actually exhibits.  On Dingell promises climate legislation posted 2 years, 6 months ago 3 Responses

  • Yes

    David, you are spot on.  

    OTOH, I'm not so terribly sure anyone is correctly estimating the level of mistrust that "Conservative Republican Free-Market" (CRF) types have for the motivations behind this movement, or the people in it, or the importance of it.  Part of the problem stems from the (arguable) fact that emotional arguments generally beat logical ones.  

    I'm also not sure that anyone is correctly estimating the degree of motivation the CRF types have to stop as much of the implementation they don't agree with as they can, as well as by any means needed.  

    Who cares if we have "projected" or "likely" or a rise "thought to be" of .00005% or .003% or 10% or whatever.  Meaningless details, pointless points. There is money and/or power involved here, and it's needed to understand the political, economic, social and other questions here.    

    That may be (and probably is) too simplistic, but in general, trying to fight your enemies with shades of gray doesn't work.  

    I'm reminded of something I read related to googlebombs {french military victories} on Albino Blacksheep:  

    Barbary Wars, middle ages-1830.
     Pirates in North Africa continually harass European shipping in Meditteranean. France's solution: pay them to leave us alone. America's solution: kick their asses.

    Or even part of a Monty Python skit:


    Presenter:  The contestant is Karl Marx and the prize this week is a beautiful lounge suite.  Now Karl has elected to answer questions on the workers' control of factories so here we go with question number one. Are you nervous? {nods} The development of the industrial proletariat is conditioned by what other development?

    Karl: The development of the industrial bourgeoisie.

    Presenter: Yes, yes, it is indeed. You're on your way to the lounge suite, Karl. Question number two. The struggle of class against class is a what struggle? A what struggle?

    Karl: A political struggle.

    Presenter: Yes, yes! One final question Karl and the beautiful lounge suite will be yours...   Are you going to have a go? {nods} You're a brave man. Karl Marx, your final question, who won the Cup Final in 1949?

    Karl: The workers' control of the means of production? The struggle of the urban proletariat?

    Presenter: No. It was in fact, Wolverhampton Wanderers who beat Leicester 3-1.


    On Time to quit pretending otherwise posted 2 years, 6 months ago 6 Responses

  • Ah, yes.

    Clean coal, perhaps nuclear, photovoltaics, hydrogen, hybrids....  These are all things we need to keeping working on, as well as others, in addition to spending rational sums of money to reduce what we can in all emissions, not just one substance.  This requires convincing the people that have the power and money.  All else is all else.

    I believe "Warming over the next 100 years is likely to lie between 1.4 and 5.8 deg C." was something William Connolley wrote in an FAQ on RealClimate.  It's not anything the IPPC directly said, at least in the TAR or before.

    It would be nice if we were arguing about what to do, instead of not even discussing the same subject.

    As far as the entire "debate" I think it's clear what the IPCC SPM said:

    "The globally averaged surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8°C (Figure 5d) over the period 1990 to 2100. These results are for the full range of 35 SRES scenarios, based on a number of climate models10,11."

    A fairly static statement of fact, making no comment on how much it's projected, nor much about the models.  The footnotes are fairly vague as to specifics.  Then, guess what?  You go see what the scenarios are.

    Other quotes from various IPCC sources Google hits are pretty much:  

    Models project this range of a rise, with no direct in-context comment by us on the projection's probabilities in any manner.

    "Global mean surface temperatures are projected to increase between 1990 and 2100 by about 1.4 to 5.8oC (figure 10d and 11)."

    "...Projected by models to warm 1.4 to 5.8°C by 2100 relative to 1990, and globally averaged sea level is projected by models...

    "...based on a range of climate models point to an increase in globally averaged surface temperature of 1.4 to 5.8° C over the period 1990 to 2100..."

    "...developed in the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), the globally averaged surface air temperature is projected by models to warm 1.4 to 5.8 ..."On It muddles the science and policy debates together posted 2 years, 6 months ago 47 Responses

  • Clarification

    Or more like a preemptive follow up.  I meant that page 1.2 "What are Scenarios?" is more like a paragraph of information turned into a page (or an essay that's far too long and rambling that repeats itself and is filled with obfuscating detail) than anything else.  This is what you get, I suppose, from something written by committee.  In fact, I'd say a lot of what the IPCC puts out is confusing and cross-linked all over the place, a by-product of the process, I'm sure....

    I didn't mean the entire SRES was a paragraph of info (obviously it's far more complex than that), although once you know what the scenarios are and what they're meant to do, you can take that into account if and when you read them.

    Let me see, page 1.2....  Something like this:

    Scenarios are attempts to summarize what might happen under various circumstances, and are mostly variously overlapping combinations of models and stories.  In a way, they could be called "scientific fiction."  Some contain no models, while others are based mainly upon models and should be more reliable.  However, the stories chosen, the interpretation of the story by the authors, and other factors greatly affect the scenarios and their degree of certainty.  The primary purpose of scenarios is to illustrate alternative futures on an intuitive level.  This is done to create controversy and therefore dialog, the intelligent use of which can hopefully assist in a robust design of policies and strategies.  On Some thoughts posted 2 years, 6 months ago 72 Responses

  • Hmmmm.....

    However, many physical and social systems are poorly understood, and information on the relevant variables is so incomplete that they can be appreciated only through intuition and are best communicated by images and stories.

    "Let's tell some stories and show some pictures, of things we don't know well and data we don't have, so we can use our intuition."

    The SRES seems mainly about a paragraph of information turned into a paper.  So what are scenarios?  

    "Models are blended with Stories to create Scenarios."  (Paraphrased paragraph)

    Given that, it doesn't seem they are in and of themselves "scientific", and factually they are not based totally upon science and therefore one could (and I believe should) argue they are not science.  Especially given what the IPCC itself says in the SRES:

    Future levels of global GHG emissions are the products of a very complex, ill-understood dynamic system, driven by forces such as population growth, socio-economic development, and technological progress; thus to predict emissions accurately is virtually impossible.

    "We can't predict emissions accurately in the future because there are so many uncertain variables."    

    They themselves list the uncertainties contained in the scenarios and the source materials, themselves:

    Choice of Storylines.
    Authors Interpretation of Storylines.
    Translation of the Understanding of Linkages between Driving Forces into Quantitative Inputs for Scenario Analysis.
    Methodological Differences.
    Different Sources of Data.
    Inherent Uncertainties.

    "We could have gotten everything wrong, please excuse our guesses if they're not correct --  there are a lot of factors here."

    This both supports that the scenarios are not scientific, per se, and that we could agree that not all are equally weighted as to possibility:

    Sometimes GHG emissions scenarios are less quantitative and more descriptive, and in a few cases they do not involve any formal analysis and are expressed in qualitative terms.

    "Some of these are more guesses than others."

    And some of it all is so vague as to be meaningless:

    Their plausibility is based on an extensive review of the emissions scenarios available in the literature, and has been tested by alternative modeling approaches, by peer review (including the "open process" through the IPCC web site), and by the IPCC review and approval processes.

    One could ask:

    1.  How plausible?
    2.  How extensive and by whom?
    3.  Which emissions scenarios?
    4.  What exact literature?
    5.  Which alternative modeling approaches?
    6.  Peer review of what?
    7.  Peer review how, like the SRES or like a science paper?
    8.  How much of the web site "open process"?
    9.  How much of the IPCC review and approval process produces results that are the biases of the people running them and are mainly political and social in nature, and how much does not?  

    Especially telling is that one line that tells me what the scenarios are for; clarify feelings (the intuition spoken of) so as to create and direct a dialog about the issue:  

    Good scenarios are challenging and court controversy... {and} used intelligently they allow policies and strategies to be designed in a more robust way.

    My point of all this is that the authors tell you what the SRES is for, and what it is, in the SRES itself.

    Given all that, I don't see what this argument  is about. Although it has been interesting to read. On Some thoughts posted 2 years, 6 months ago 72 Responses