Copenhagen Diagnosis

The Copenhagen Diagnosis is an update to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report to cover research published since then.

i-87b327363657705b302f2535c14ae21b-Copenhagen_Diagnosisf16.png

This is the science that the cracker who stole the emails from CRU wants to distract you from.

Via RealClimate.

Comments

  1. #1 Ken Zack
    December 1, 2009

    Thank GOD the truth is finally coming out. Although billions$ have been wasted and nearly three decades have been lost in exploration etc. we must now get the word out so that we can hold accountable, all those responsible for perpetrating this scam upon the west. Especially U.S. and UN politicians as well as the green movement etc. They were well on their way to a communist utopia.

  2. #2 Ken Zack
    December 1, 2009

    Thank GOD the truth is finally coming out. Although billions$ have been wasted and nearly three decades have been lost in exploration etc. we must now get the word out so that we can hold accountable, all those responsible for perpetrating this scam upon the west. Especially U.S. and UN politicians as well as the green movement etc. They were well on their way to a communist utopia.

  3. #3 dhogaza
    December 2, 2009

    Shorter Ken Zack – physics is wrong. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Mike shot never happened.

    Science is a total fraud.

    Evidence such as the existence of my laptop, and whatever Zack has posted from, to the contrary.

  4. #4 Ken Fabos
    December 2, 2009

    Arthur, I trust the scientist who actually do climate research more than I trust your criticisms of their methods. I think that’s the bottom line. I certainly never called you an infidel or suggested burning you. What I do suggest for you is to get better informed.

    I think the future costs and consequences of climate change are serious enough to warrant serious policy action now and it’s false prosperity if economic development continues to be based on high emissions technologies with the uncounted costs to be deferred. Physics – the real world – means there’s no defaulting on them.

    Insisting action must wait on greater prosperity is an argument for delay. Your arguments, attempting to show climate science can’t tell us enough about those costs to base policy on are arguments of doubt. Your insistence the tools science uses don’t work and it’s results are invalid are arguments of denial. Doubt, denial and delay. When it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

    The immediate needs of economic development will always be with us; using the argument that action on climate change must wait on prosperity, it will never be the right time to act to reduce emissions – unless it’s cheaper and easier (with those future costs ignored) to do so. I say we can’t ignore those future costs any more than we can afford to fail to make R&D efforts to make the alternatives cheaper.

  5. #5 Bernard J.
    December 2, 2009

    Lest there be any doubt at all, I am not the [Bernard](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/copenhagen_diagnosis.php#comment-2116686) who is completely and utterly bereft of any knowledge of the use of punctuation marks, paragraphs, grammatical coherence, who has no acquaintance with fact, who couldn’t differentiate science from the fairytales that I read to my 2 year-old, and who wouldn’t recognise a sensible argument if it drove over him with a steam roller.

    Just so that we’re all clear…

  6. #6 Arthur Von Neumann
    December 3, 2009

    Firstly, let me disassociate myself from the Ranter Bernard and Mr. Zack’s zealous repetitiousness. Sometimes reading that kind of junk makes me want to be on the other side of the equation. Luckily, the skeptics are not all so frothy.

    I’ll take it a post at a time…

    Chris, that isn’t necessarily so. The history of technology does not bear out your assertion.

    Former Skeptic, I think my characterization was fair. The equations are approximations, not just averaged, but also linearized, and this is a statistical method. Just because the method doesn’t look like statistical sorcery, that doesn’t mean it isn’t. This is why a physical appreciation of the equations is just as necessary as a mathematical one. As far as epistemological nihilism, I could easily turn that around and say that it is far more nihilistic to surely cause harm in the hope that it prevents some future possibility of harm.

    Luminous Beauty, firstly, the xylem is not wholly dead cells. This seems to be a common misconception. On old growth trees, I don’t think there’s a foolproof method of knowing just when a ring becomes biologically inactive. Furthermore, I would direct you to the recent research on ion-mediated changes in xylem hydraulic resistance. Regarding Aggrippa’s trilema, I think I indicated which courses of action I thought sensible. So, your claim that I am all about inaction is nonsense. I believe in positive action, rather than negative action. And the consensus formed 10 years ago, before the recent plateau and scrutiny of the research, is being reexamined by many science oriented people who want a green environment as much as any AGW hard charger. It would seem impossible to imagine that you have not revisited your beliefs on this matter, not even once, in the last decade, even putting aside the CRU revelations.

    jemima, the manhattan project and the apollo missions were POSITIVE technological ventures. They were not punitive or restrictive. Thus my comparison between these heroic ventures and the next technological step, which also would be a POSITIVE step. Furthermore if government money goes into developing the next tech, that is all to the good. But governments make their money from tax revenue, and that requires a strong economy to create that financial base to foster the innovation. Its all tied together. The punitive tax and control stance, IMHO, shows very linear thinking and too much reliance on unsettled understanding of the extremely complex system of our global climate. Lastly, I believe Crichton was correct when he stated that as technology progresses it becomes less carbon-producing per unit of energy output. We shouldn’t interrupt that trend, but instead, as the chip makers have sought to make Moore’s law true by pushing innovation, we should seek to continue it by energy innovation as well.

    Ken Fabos, I am trying to be better informed. Are you? Regarding my simplification of some of the attitudes around here to mere labelling, I was being half-serious. And I did not throw a big blanket over the tools of science. The question is the difference between a tool used with integrity and a tool used injudiciously or without a sense of the limits of the tool. I assure you I am fully aware of the extraordinary success of science, and more importantly how and why it became so successful. And as I said earlier, I am not for inaction.

  7. #7 Chris O'Neill
    December 3, 2009

    AVN:

    Chris, that isn’t necessarily so. The history of technology does not bear out your assertion.

    Sure. Just tell me a technology that is now ABSOLUTELY FREE TO IMPLEMENT. As I said, no amount of research will make sequestering coal emissions cost the same as not sequestering coal emissions, i.e. free.

  8. #8 Arthur Von Neumann
    December 3, 2009

    Chris, mufflers and catalytic converters are part of every car at a completely negligible price.

    Once the next technology is there in terms of effectiveness, and it is nearly cheap enough to be “just another part”, THEN we can mandate it be part of our autos and factories and whatever. And the mass production required to meet the mandate will itself make the large scale production of the technology cheap enough to be economically feasible, which is to say, economically negligible.

    It seems to always be the case that new technology increases its reach by exponential growth, starting out very small and expensive and then becoming so widespread and ubiquitous its cost becomes negligible. The usual example is that ENIAC filled a room and cost millions. Whereas, I got my iphone for free from Apple with the purchase of a new computer. (Much like a muffler comes “free” with a car.)

  9. #9 Janet Akerman
    December 3, 2009

    Arthur writes

    >*I believe Crichton was correct when he stated that as technology progresses it becomes less carbon-producing per unit of energy output. We shouldn’t interrupt that trend, but instead, as the chip makers have sought to make Moore’s law true by pushing innovation, we should seek to continue it by energy innovation as well.*

    The other trend you leave out Arthur is that we are on a trajectory of accelerating energy use faster than efficiency gain. Hence interupting that (monumental growth in CO2e emission) trend is precisely what is necessary.

    We need to also correct/counter (as much as possible) strong perversions in the current markets that reward externalising cost and punish internalising them. That is the new growth and genuine adancement that will preserve civilisation longer and have the potential for enhancing it.

  10. #10 Janet Akerman
    December 3, 2009

    Arthur writes:
    >*But governments make their money from tax revenue, and that requires a strong economy to create that financial base to foster the innovation. Its all tied together.

    Which is why Norway is looking pretty strong with [78% tax and royalty dividends](http://www.secureenergy.org/files/files/1004_SAFE%20Intelligence%20Report%202-4–2009.03.19.pdf) on natural resoruces and [green taxes](http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fin/Selected-topics/taxes-and-duties/The-history-of-green-taxes-in-Norway.html?id=418097) (which counter perverse externalization and allow economies to better internalize and respond to real costs.)

    And why high taxing Nordic countries are so innovative gaining [more than 10 times more patents per captia]( http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_pat_gra_percap-economy-patents-granted-per-capita) than the USA.

    Author continues:

    >The punitive tax and control stance, IMHO, shows very linear thinking and too much reliance on unsettled understanding of the extremely complex system of our global climate.*

    Arthur, can you define which ‘punitive tax and control stance” you are referring to here? Are you referring to cost internalizing taxes such as a carbon tax as punitive? Or tax & dividend on unproductive speculation such as a Tobin tax? Or Royalties on natural resources such as Norway? Which specific taxes are punitive in your opinion and which are protective of a fair and balanced economic system?

  11. #11 Chris O'Neill
    December 3, 2009

    AVN:

    Chris, mufflers and catalytic converters are part of every car at a completely negligible price.

    Much like a muffler comes “free” with a car.

    So you’re telling me that the $215.33 it cost me to buy new mufflers, excluding the value of my labour, for my car was negligible or “free”.

    What other fairy tales do you know?

  12. #12 Janet Akerman
    December 3, 2009

    Arthur,

    Though the application of catalytic converters were avaliable since the [early 1900s](http://indianhillmediaworks.typepad.com/energy_matters/2009/06/catalytic-converters-an-introduction-to-the-science-and-environmental-concerns.html), they didn’t gain wide use until [effective regulation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_emissions_control) removed the perverse subsidy of opting out of pollution controll.

    Now, as Chris points out, wide spread use has resulted in costs reducing to approx 1% of the cost of a new car.

  13. #13 Arthur Von Neumann
    December 3, 2009

    What’s with all the Norway ads?

    The reality is Norway has massive oil deposits which amount to a 1/4 of their GDP!

    Luck is not a strategy that is exportable.

    Having money pouring out of the ground makes it easy to seem smart, and be green friendly, have a wonderful currency, and all that. They also have abundant gas fields. Not to mention, beautiful landscape. Luck, luck, and more luck.

    Economies which must rely on their own ingenuity don’t have the same luxury to play around with their economy.

    As far as taxes, what matters to me in the overall is getting the U.S. economy moving again. And any rise in transportation costs instantly causes hiccups… essentially acting as a stress test. Now’s not a great time for that in the U.S. or most anywhere else.

    Regarding the Tobin Tax, I’m against any impingement of U.S. sovereignty by any outside bodies or institutions. This would include the ability of an international body to levy a tax on our global commerce. If some country wants to set a tariff, that’s there business. It’s there country. But the idea that an international body would seek to assert sovereignty over global trade, no way. If I don’t elect a ruler, he doesn’t represent me. Period.

  14. #14 Arthur Von Neumann
    December 4, 2009

    Chris “Snarkmaster General” O’Neill… The price for a NEW muffler is $200. In ratio to the price of a NEW car, which, let’s say, can go from $15-$50,000 this is negligible. Nobody buying a new car really worries about the price of the muffler on the itemization slip.

    Similarly, if you purchased a used car for $5000, (which originally was, just for an easy example, $20,000), the cost/ratio of the muffler on that used car is about $50. (That should put it in perspective for you. I’m assuming in your example you are putting a new muffler on an older car, which is why the price doesn’t seem all that negligible by comparison to the overall cost of the vehicle.) I should point out that my first answer was based upon a mistaken reading of your post. I didn’t see “free” and can’t really argue “free.” But I can argue “negligible.”

    And of course, the noise coming off an unmufflered engine is a fairly obvious bit of pollution with a direct connection between cause and effect.

    Janet Akerman – the point still stands that the effective technology existed already, before the implementation, and was not all that expensive to implement. Which made the regulation feasible. Also, like the muffler issue discussed above, the smog problem was a very clear case. The relationship between emissions and smog was incontrovertible.

  15. #15 Gaz
    December 4, 2009

    Arthur, I’m afraid I must correct your grammar.

    In order to be consistent with the tone of your latest post, you should amend this:

    It’s there country.

    …to read..

    It’s that there country.

  16. #16 Janet Akerman
    December 4, 2009

    Arthur, Norway demonstrates that a natural resource tax of 78% (or higher) is good! No trouble selling their oil, no trouble gaining investment.

    I also notice you avoided the issue of reducing perversity by reguation to protect business that internalise costs.

    And the successful reguation to bring on catalytic converters, and Finland, Sweden, Denmark patents per capita etc.

  17. #17 Janet Akerman
    December 4, 2009

    >the point still stands that the effective technology existed already, before the implementation, and was not all that expensive to implement. Which made the regulation feasible

    The point that stands is that it was only regulation that brought en-mass. And en-mass production made it cheaper.

    Repeat with seat belts, air bags and fuel efficency standards. Repeat with carbon.

  18. #18 Janet Akerman
    December 4, 2009

    Arthur writes:
    >As far as taxes, what matters to me in the overall is getting the U.S. economy moving again. And any rise in transportation costs instantly causes hiccups… essentially acting as a stress test. Now’s not a great time for that in the U.S. or most anywhere else.

    The US economy is not going to be repaired by continuing to externalise transport costs. The US is leaking jobs due to its high debt burden and over consumption culture. Failure to properly price transport will only delay the necessary transition and deepen the debt with a few more millions tonnes of imports being trucked around. racking up excess miles.

    Shift the tax burden from goods (such as employment and tax on the working poor) to bads, (excessive carbon use), driving innovation and jobs.

  19. #19 Ken Fabos
    December 4, 2009

    Arthur, there is no shortage of people, books and sites that us science knows less about climate than it claims to, that what it tells us is flawed and wrong and that expectations of the pace and extent of climate change are exaggerated. Rather than spend my time sifting through such material I prefer to take my lead on this from the scientists and institutions that study climate Data – and the reports and summaries they put together, such as the document that started this discussion. It shows that the pace and extent are faster and greater rather than less than IPCC estimates.

    Taking the science to be essentially correct means the option of continuing to put off serious action to reduce emissions is very likely to make future action harder and more expensive and the damaging impacts more severe. I disagree that development based on further reliance on fossil fuels can provide the necessary prosperity to replace those new coal fired power plants with clean technology – especially not over the time scale that science is telling us is required to avoid seriously damaging consequences.

    I certainly don’t think Carbon Capture and Storage is a realistic option given the mass of CO2 is more than 3 times the mass of coal burned to make it, it’s a gas that’s bulky, difficult to separate, costly to transport and is unlikely to ever be cheap. Even coal reliant industry has failed to make serious investment in it except for PR purposes that, frankly, look like greenwash and delay tactics. CCS is unlikely to be able to be added to existing plants either.

    Development that relies on greater use of fossil fuels will just be locking in ever greater emissions at least for the life of that infrastructure. Those emissions will make the problem bigger and the costs of reducing them greater. Prosperity that is dependent on greater reliance on fossil fuels is false prosperity.

    Meanwhile the economic impacts of climate change will start to bite; in Australia, agriculture particularly looks to be impacted already. SE Australian agriculture may never recover, even temporarily. I don’t see that the loss of agricultural export income should be reason to expand our reliance on exporting coal.

    I don’t see that failure to deal with this issue is optional. Too hard and too expensive has to be weighed against the longer term costs and consequences and those look to be capable of making our worries about rising energy prices pale to insignificance.

  20. #20 Arthur Von Neumann
    December 4, 2009

    Gaz… Grow up.

    Janet, I noticed you avoided the point that Norway can play around all it wants because no matter what, cash will still pump in. That’s great that they can go 78% socialist. Better hope the oil doesn’t run out, because that’s what keeps it all afloat. And nobody has trouble selling oil, so nobody is going to pat them on the back for that.

    If you could rephrase your questions regarding “internalised costs” and “perversity by regulation” and “externalising transport costs.” that might be helpful. I’m not familiar with the jargon you’re using.

    And I have no idea how “patents per capita” factors in. My first question would be, what are the patents? Lots of patents are for nothing important. And really, I don’t know what your obsession with Norway is. Its a lucky country. And luck can’t be distributed.

    Regarding your misunderstanding of the point I was making, catalytic converters, seat belts, slightly better gas mileage, air bags… these are not high tech problems that need steep tech advanced in order to be solved. And they all solved clear problems, with clear causation. And nobody cared about catalytic converters before cars became ubiquitous and smog resulted. So your point about how long it took catalytic converters to become a mandate is disingenuous. And, besides, carbon reduction is a different kind of issue to deal with.

    Your opinions about why the U.S. is “losing jobs” are spurious. There’s a host of reasons economies slump, just as there is a host of reasons other countries are slumping.

    As far as your advocacy to control everything you think is bad through taxes, I don’t think you’re an arbiter I would trust to make such decisions. I don’t see that you understand how either innovation, markets, or economies function. (Thus your advocacy for a Norway-style economy for all!) But this is just my opinion of course.

  21. #21 Arthur Von Neumann
    December 4, 2009

    Ken Fabor, if I thought the science and the implications generally bandied about by AGW advocates had unimpeachable merit, I would more forcefully advocate for Dyson’s recommendation to plant a lot more trees.

    You also have this great assumption that doing some grand Carbon emission limit is going to affect something about climate change in Australia or whatever. Its purely speculation on your part, and frankly seems really far-fetched. You don’t know what’s causing problems in Australia and neither does anybody else.

    What isn’t far-fetched is how such an idea would negatively affect the major world economies. My great worry is that a bunch of greens with no experience in science outside of AGW propaganda, and no experience either in economics or business, will enact economically unfeasible emission standards that cripple the major economies, throwing millions into poverty and starvation… and then the climate isn’t affected one way or another. Certainly a possibility.

    Lastly, your negative predictions about the future of carbon sequestration demonstrate a failure of imagination and a failure to appreciate the history of technology. Never say never. Especially with the nanotechnology revolution quickly coming down the pike.

  22. #22 Janet Akerman
    December 4, 2009

    Arthur you claim that I ignored the point you made about the Arthur you claim that I ignored the point you made about the Norway’s fortune in oil, but on the contrary I addressed it by raising the success of Finland, Sweden, Denmark that do not have the same wealth of oil. The answer to your claims about Norway’s success being all about oil are countered by the similar economic success of other countries with similar social-democratic policies.

    The fact that 78% tax on natural resources is successful is highly relevant to any country with natural resources. Many countries are giving up their irreplaceable inheritance too cheaply.

    Patents per captia is a proxy measure of innovation. When Nordic countries have an order of magnitude higher rate than the USA that says something about innovation and culture. You can quibble, but without counter evidence, your case is not strong. This proxy is also backed-up by the high-tech manufacturing output of Nordic countries (Nokia, Ericsson, etc.)

    Arthur I again note you have not substantively addressed my point about “reducing perversity by regulation to protect business that internalise costs.” Feigning ignorance doe s not suit you.
    You then state:

    >* Regarding your misunderstanding of the point I was making, catalytic converters, seat belts, slightly better gas mileage, air bags… these are not high tech problems that need steep tech advanced in order to be solved. And they all solved clear problems, with clear causation. And nobody cared about catalytic converters before cars became ubiquitous and smog resulted. So your point about how long it took catalytic converters to become a mandate is disingenuous. And, besides, carbon reduction is a different kind of issue to deal with.*

    This response reads as disingenuous. You have not made the case that I have misunderstood the point, nor that my response was in anyway disingenuous.
    [My point]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/copenhagen_diagnosis.php#comment-2122386) was a clear rebuttle to your claim that it was the simply the cost that made the regulation feasible rather than the regulation that allowed that costs to come down.
    >> the point still stands that the effective technology existed already, before the implementation, and was not all that expensive to implement. Which made the regulation feasible

    >The point that stands is that it was only regulation that brought en-mass. And en-mass production made it cheaper.
    >Repeat with seat belts, air bags and fuel efficiency standards. Repeat with carbon.

    Many low carbon alternatives are available now but are suppressed by perverse pricing on dirty fuels. Internalising parts of the cost through regulation of carbon price, will make feasible a whole range of further market responses. Which inturn will bring further improve the availability of options.

    Arthur writes:

    > Your opinions about why the U.S. is “losing jobs” are spurious. There’s a host of reasons economies slump, just as there is a host of reasons other countries are slumping.
    Let looks at exactly what I said:

    > The US economy is not going to be repaired by continuing to externalise transport costs. The US is leaking jobs due to its high debt burden and over consumption culture. Failure to properly price transport will only delay the necessary transition and deepen the debt with a few more millions tonnes of imports being trucked around. racking up excess miles.
    Shift the tax burden from goods (such as employment and tax on the working poor) to bads, (excessive carbon use), driving innovation and jobs.

    I have not doubt that people raise many spurious reasons for the collapse of the US economy, but are your seriously going to argue that the US “high debt burden and over consumption culture” is one of the spurious variables? I could list a few more contributing factors but few are as uncontroversial as “high debt burden and [the] over consumption culture”
    Your final paragraph seemed to deteriorate even deeper into a blamange of non-specifics and strawman rants. If you believe I’ve misrepresented this paragraph please state your case again clearer.

  23. #23 Chris O'Neill
    December 4, 2009

    AVN:

    Chris “Snarkmaster General” O’Neill…

    Sorry, I just get tired of being told the same old crap over and over and over again.

    The price for a NEW muffler is $200. In ratio to the price of a NEW car, which, let’s say, can go from $15-$50,000 this is negligible. Nobody buying a new car really worries about the price of the muffler on the itemization slip.

    Perhaps it might actually affect them directly unlike, say, power station operators who dump their CO2 into the atmosphere.

    Similarly, if you purchased a used car for $5000, (which originally was, just for an easy example, $20,000), the cost/ratio of the muffler on that used car is about $50. (That should put it in perspective for you. I’m assuming in your example you are putting a new muffler on an older car, which is why the price doesn’t seem all that negligible by comparison to the overall cost of the vehicle.) I should point out that my first answer was based upon a mistaken reading of your post. I didn’t see “free” and can’t really argue “free.” But I can argue “negligible.” And of course, the noise coming off an unmufflered engine is a fairly obvious bit of pollution with a direct connection between cause and effect.

    You’re missing the point. The noise coming off an unmufflered engine is a fairly obvious bit of pollution to the driver that he himself does not want to put up with. With a power station dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, there is no significant direct effect on the power station owner so, as they all do now, they dump it into the atmosphere. You are failing to understand this difference.

    In any case the cost of CO2 sequestration cannot avoid but be substantial. The cost of handling waste CO2 will be at least as much as the cost of handling the coal that it came from and that is not negligible. Coal handling does not have additional costs that CO2 handling will have, such as the enormous amount of energy required to compress the CO2 down to the sequestration reservoir or the pumping and infrastructure costs of transporting the CO2 perhaps hundreds of kilometers to the sequestration reservoir.

    There is just nothing about your argument that stands up. The cost of CO2 sequestration will never be “negligible” and even if it was there still needs to be some motivation for people to do anything, even if the cost is “negligible”.

  24. #24 Ken Fabos
    December 4, 2009

    Arthur, you are back to denying the validity of climate science. Doubt, Deny, Delay. That’s climate denial tactics in a nutshell. If you thought the science was valid you would be arguing for urgent action to reduce emissions. That you have no problem with – and advocate – putting off urgent action on emissions makes it clear to me you really think the science is wrong and the consequences aren’t that serious.
    Enough time wasted. Bye.

  25. #25 Janet Akerman
    December 4, 2009

    Corrected format:

    Arthur you claim that I ignored the point you made about the Norway’s fortune in oil, but on the contrary I addressed it by raising the success of Finland, Sweden, Denmark that do not have the same wealth of oil. The answer to your claims about Norway’s success being all about oil are countered by the similar economic success of other countries with similar social-democratic policies.

    The fact that 78% tax on natural resources is successful is highly relevant to any country with natural resources. Many countries are giving up their irreplaceable inheritance too cheaply.

    Patents per captia is a proxy measure of innovation. When Nordic countries have an order of magnitude higher rate than the USA that says something about innovation and culture. You can quibble, but without counter evidence, your case is not strong. This proxy is also backed-up by the high-tech manufacturing output of Nordic countries (Nokia, Ericsson, etc.)

    **Arthur I again note you have not substantively addressed my point about “reducing perversity by regulation to protect business that internalise costs.” Feigning ignorance doe s not suit you.**

    You then state:

    >* Regarding your misunderstanding of the point I was making, catalytic converters, seat belts, slightly better gas mileage, air bags… these are not high tech problems that need steep tech advanced in order to be solved. And they all solved clear problems, with clear causation. And nobody cared about catalytic converters before cars became ubiquitous and smog resulted. So your point about how long it took catalytic converters to become a mandate is disingenuous. And, besides, carbon reduction is a different kind of issue to deal with.*

    This response reads as disingenuous. You have not made the case that I have misunderstood the point, nor that my response was in anyway disingenuous.
    What was my response:
    >>[Arthur writes] the point still stands that the effective technology existed already, before the implementation, and was not all that expensive to implement. Which made the regulation feasible

    My response:

    >The point that stands is that it was only regulation that brought en-mass. And en-mass production made it cheaper.
    >Repeat with seat belts, air bags and fuel efficiency standards. Repeat with carbon.

    [My point]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/copenhagen_diagnosis.php#comment-2122386) was a clear rebuttle to your claim that it was the cost that made the regulation feasible rather than the regulation that allowed that costs to come down.

    Many low carbon alternatives are available now but are suppressed by perverse pricing on dirty fuels. Internalising parts of the cost through regulation of carbon price, will make feasible a whole range of further market responses. Which inturn will bring further improve the availability of options.

    Arthur writes:

    > Your opinions about why the U.S. is “losing jobs” are spurious. There’s a host of reasons economies slump, just as there is a host of reasons other countries are slumping.

    Lets looks at exactly what I said:

    > The US economy is not going to be repaired by continuing to externalise transport costs. The US is leaking jobs due to its high debt burden and over consumption culture. Failure to properly price transport will only delay the necessary transition and deepen the debt with a few more millions tonnes of imports being trucked around. racking up excess miles.
    Shift the tax burden from goods (such as employment and tax on the working poor) to bads, (excessive carbon use), driving innovation and jobs.

    Are your seriously going to argue that the US “high debt burden and over consumption culture” is a spurious variable? I could list a few more contributing factors but few are as uncontroversial as “high debt burden and [the] over consumption culture”

    Your final paragraph seemed to deteriorate even deeper into a blamange of non-specifics and strawman rants. If you believe I’ve misrepresented this paragraph please state your case again clearer.

  26. #26 Arthur Von Neumann
    December 4, 2009

    Here we go again… Denier! Denier! Strawman! You misunderstood me! Ranter! Blamage! You forgot to address every tendentious point I made! I’m sick of listening to CRAP! Norway Norway Rah Rah Rah! I refuse to admit error or doubt! I’m smarter than you are! You aren’t specific enough! You’re no scientist! Its your fault you didn’t understand my jargon! You’re playing dumb!

    etc. etc. etc.

    What a pathetic irrational display of babble tactics.

    This is exactly why I want nothing to do with your co-religionists and I dearly hope you NEVER gain the power you so desperately crave.

    I stand by what I have written. For those who are new to the thread, or the argument, and have an open mind, they can read what I have written so far for themselves and decide for themselves the quality of the content. And whether I sufficient answered the nags.

    I’m fairly sick of the hard-bitten mentality on display here, and I don’t have the time to argue endlessly with people who aren’t interested in honest discussion, so I’m going to withdraw from the thread. This will mean that, yes, YOU HAVE WON THE CONVERSATION.

    I repeat, YOU HAVE WON THE CONVERSATION.

    Congratulations, all you unhappy media consumers.

    Begin snarky counter-attacks now:

  27. #27 Majorajam
    December 4, 2009

    AVN, you’re projecting. No doubt you have a high opinion of yourself and we’re excitedly anticipating your post-Deltoid victory lap, probably over on such hotbeds of intellectualism as WUWT. Far be it from us to pour water over your ritual self-affirmation by pointing out the manifestly ignorance and logical fallacy which is your stock and trade. Feel free to redirect your considerable faculty for suppressing dissonant cognitions toward your experience here. It might ease the pain.

  28. #28 luminous beauty
    December 4, 2009

    >Luminous Beauty, firstly, the xylem is not wholly dead cells. This seems to be a common misconception. On old growth trees, I don’t think there’s a foolproof method of knowing just when a ring becomes biologically inactive. Furthermore, I would direct you to the recent research on ion-mediated changes in xylem hydraulic resistance.

    Red herring, Artie.

    The number and size of woody cells either phloem or xylem is entirely dictated by the vascular cambium and highly constrained by the rigidity of their non-living cellulosic walls. The effect of some small number of xylem cells continuing some limited biologic activity on TRW is zero to none.

  29. #29 Gerald Posner
    December 4, 2009

    luminous beauty, I don’t you have it exactly right either. You’re not a dendrochonologist, are you?

  30. #30 Sim
    December 4, 2009

    >*”What a pathetic irrational display of babble tactics.”*

    Well at least AVN got that bit correct. A useful tactic it might seem to him, employed when it is expedient to avoid dealing with evidence and facts that conflict with preconceptions.

  31. #31 Chris O'Neill
    December 4, 2009

    Arthur Von Neumann loses the arguments and can only come back with nothing but snarks.

  32. #32 guthrie
    December 4, 2009

    Arthur, you lost the debate as soon as you started making erroneous statements like “The climate models can’t even predict the past. At least not without a glut of fudge factors “making things work.””

    Not to mention the lack of substance in your allegations.
    Climate change industry my arse. Whilst greedy money chasers will jump on any bandwagon to make money, that has nothing to do with the science, nor with the alleged Pr industry, which is certainly outspent by the think tanks who attack the scientists and their work.

    The fall of the media’s integrity, (Not that they had that much to begin with) was triggered by the owners chasing excess profits. Here in the UK the rot set in in the 1980′s, long before climate change became popular in any way. It accelerated in the 1990′s, such that many newspapers were cutting reporters and staff even whilst still making good money. Add that to deliberate dumbing down of their reports, and you have the modern media.

    Whilst the “disasters sell papers” critique is to some degree valid, it ignores the actual reality underpinning the research.

    You know, if people on our favourite anti-climate science blogs actually did sit down and do some real science as you suggest, it might help. Also it would help if we could turn the social culture away from making a quick buck and back towards a more sustainable interest in science. But the resources needed to do so are being siphoned off by the rich right now.

  33. #33 Pedro Passada
    December 4, 2009

    guthrie, do you have example of climate models that if you run, say from 1965, can accurately predict 2007?

    No, I no think so.

    So I think Mr. Neuman is not the liar you say. You should not call people so liars. Lot of people say, “no, no, no, all your arguments wrong and no substance” to Mr. Neuman. And you think by saying this, you win the argument. But it is more like children that close the ears, I think.

    This is only my opinion of this.

  34. #34 Janet Akerman
    December 4, 2009

    “Pedro Passada” AKA “Arthur Von Neumann”?

    With interesting twist use of English, but similar projection pathology expressed by Arthur.

    Odds on: 8 to 1.

  35. #35 Ken Fabos
    December 4, 2009

    Pedro expects natural variation and short term unpredictability to disappear for warming to be real. A bit like expecting the transition from winter to summer to be predictable day to day. A more direct and simplistic kind of denialist argument than Arthur’s.

  36. #36 Janet Akerman
    December 5, 2009

    Ken,

    Feigned naiveté?

    Its quite surprising that Pedro would use terms like; “liar” (never used in thread), and “”no, no, no, all your arguments wrong and no substance” which only sounds like “Arthur’s” breakdown [posts here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/copenhagen_diagnosis.php#comment-2123109).

    But most striking was “Pedro’s” phrase:

    >”*and you think by saying this, you win the argument. But it is more like children that close the ears*

    That has has strong consistency with “Arthur’s last post, which was overflowing with self projection, was non-factual and did not represent well any of the previous discussion.

    I don’t know many people who would be convinced by the [this type of breakdown](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/copenhagen_diagnosis.php#comment-2123109).

    Would be quite a coincidence.

  37. #37 jemima
    December 5, 2009

    I think the most authoritative sources Arthur cited were novelist Michael Crichton and once-was physicist Freeman Dyson. Oh did he also call Lindzen the greatest dude in climatology, everrr?

    Arthur: stop cherrypicking bits of nonsense from such fringe contrarian characters and spend the time you save doing more reading of the original literature! That might help you lose the attitude too. If you think you’ve been roughly dealt with here then you have an awful lot to learn just about the blogosphere.

  38. #38 Chris O'Neill
    December 5, 2009

    Pedro Passada:

    do you have example of climate models that if you run, say from 1965, can accurately predict 2007?

    Climate is not just one year. Climate is the statistics of at least about 30 years of weather. Saying a “climate model” can predict an individual year is like saying a “dice model” can predict an individual dice throw.

  39. #39 guthrie
    December 5, 2009

    Pedro – you do know the difference between making an erroneous statement and lying? I am quite confident that Arthur is convinced of what he says and has just got it wrong. Last I read, I’m sure it was the IPCC, they had indeed run climate models from early century starting points and got an output that fitted the evolution of 20th century climate. See page 800 in Chaper 8 of the FAR for an example figure:

    “FAQ 8.1, Figure 1. Global mean
    near-surface temperatures over the 20th
    century from observations (black) and as
    obtained from 58 simulations produced
    by 14 different climate models driven by
    both natural and human-caused factors
    that infl uence climate (yellow). The
    mean of all these runs is also shown
    (thick red line). Temperature anomalies
    are shown relative to the 1901 to 1950
    mean. Vertical grey lines indicate the
    timing of major volcanic eruptions.
    (Figure adapted from Chapter 9, Figure
    9.5. Refer to corresponding caption for
    further details.)”

  40. #40 Arthur Von Neumann
    December 5, 2009

    I apologize for my blow up. I did enjoy it, however. And while it seemed necessary at the time, it was fruitless.

    The idea that Chrichton and Dyson should be discounted, is laughable. Don’t like what they say? Well then, call them amateurs and ex-scientists. Heretics! Really bad faith argument. VERY political of you. Anybody highly intelligent person who disagrees, DEMONIZE AND CRUSH THEM! Who cares that Dyson is one of the most brilliant scientists of the last 100 years, regularly consulted on the most difficult scientific problems of our age. Forget that Chrichton spent his entire life researching, was a Harvard trained M.D. and had a fellowship at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. (I’m sure everybody on here is aware that the bulk of the scientists who signed on to the IPCC were not climate scientists. Those folks are OK, though, because they agree with your ideology, eh? More bad faith argument. Yuck!)

    I think Pedro’s point is actually valid. To say a climate model can’t predict a future year’s temperatures is essentially to admit it has no competence to predict the future. Very simple. So why the excuses? These models ARE NOT SACRED. Get over it.

    This is the equivalent of meeting a fortune teller. She says, I see great things in your future, you will meet an attractive stranger, you will come into a sum of money, someone close to you will die. And then you ask, “will I get the job I interviewed for last week?” And the teller says, “well, my powers aren’t that specific.”

    I don’t think this can be argued. These climate models cannot model any NEW forcing trend that originates below the grid size or outside of the atmosphere, thus they cannot model the creation of a trend that isn’t already known. Since trends begin all the time, the models are wholly ineffective for predicting the future. It is really very very simple to understand this point. Even the FAQ you directed me to admits it only models “aspects” of the climate. The faith exhibited by the believers is absurd.

    And, my god, Figure 1… say,… let’s cherry pick 14 math models that make results close to the temperature we have (discarding the other 37 models that don’t fit) let’s put (the equivalent of) a slight randomize filter on there, then average the results, thereby removing the randomization… and voila! What great science!

    Love that they didn’t bother with vegetation. And don’t tell me those models predict volcanic eruptions? And don’t tell me volcanic eruptions can’t begin a climate trend.

    The amount that these models cannot know is staggering. The information about initial conditions necessary to even begin a true modeling is wayyy out of reach. Averaging and guessing from extremely limited data from the early part of the 20th century is not sufficient. Its fudging all the way up and down. Your holy book is just as spurious and tendentious as the bible.

    (I love all the hype words in the 8.1 FAQ. “powerful” “skill” “consistent” “significant” Funny stuff. Advertising pure and simple. If you have any experience with advertising or public relations, you know most graphs are simply selling tools. Trends aren’t vectors.)

    The circular argumentation going on is unbelievable… “look how well we model the past when we can, at whim, choose the maths that recreate what we already know.” The user bias is hilarious. This is not predictive modeling, this is simply crafting maths to the known values and then calling it predictive. Nonsense.

    MAIN POINT: If these models were truly robust, a scientist who DID NOT ALREADY KNOW the data he is supposed to replicate with the models, would be able to take a SINGLE CORRECT MODEL into a dark room and run an accurate simulation in ONE shot.

    Otherwise you are dealing with toys. Or fortune tellers.

    AvN

  41. #41 luminous beauty
    December 5, 2009

    Artie old bean,

    Like all your ‘arguments’, your diatribes against GCMs are red herrings. GCMs are not premises upon which the theory of climate depends. To the contrary, the utility of models is that they provide some, admittedly limited, additional insight into complex processes not available to what we can confidently predict simply from radiative physics, empirical observation and basic principles of system dynamics. Certainly it is a weakness that specific annual predictions cannot be made because of the chaotic behavior of weather, but it is a strength of their long term projective power that we know that chaotic behavior is bound by strange attractors. A further weakness is that the handful of empirical parameterizations they employ make them conservative in their ability to predict emergent non-linear behaviors, i.e. tipping points, though this is a concern that is less than reassuring. As Wallace Broecker has long pointed out, “The climate is an angry beast, and we are poking it with sticks.”

    The postdictive explanatory power of GCMs can readily be semi-empirically demonstrated without [computer models.](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/not-computer-models/)

  42. #42 Ken Fabos
    December 5, 2009

    Sorry Pedro, I was just assuming that you think AGW isn’t real, where you were actually talking about climate modelling. Essentially the same argument applies; short term variability in climate – and in climate models – make expectations of accurate prediction of year to year global average air temperatures unrealistic – a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of both what climate models do and the short term unpredictabilty of climate. That variability is around a longer term underlying warming trend of course and modelling does show that clearly. A lot similar to expecting summer to be hotter than winter but being unable to predict day to day and week to week temperatures.

    I do suggest that people who really have genuine scientific questions about any aspect of actual science start with information from actual institutions that do climate science. If there’s more required than reading can provide, take it to actual climate scientists. If it’s just ignorance of actual science and repetitions of the same old denialist misconceptions you won’t get polite agreement, but people seriously interested in the nuts and bolts of climate science will probably get civil responses.

    Janet, I don’t know if Pedro is a sock-puppet. I do know that endlessly refuting the same old false arguments feels like running on a treadmill – worse, as I’m not burning unwanted fat or getting fit in the process of going nowhere.