Chu says matter of factly, "we need a new industrial revolution." He calls Waxman-Markey a "comprehensive bill", a decent start, so "let's get moving." The transition to clean fuels and a green economy contemplated in the bill will create jobs, says Chu.
Chu talks about a McKinsey report on energy efficiency strategies — all that would pay for themselves — that would create massive efficiencies. Buildings are a massive opportunity for savings, including better insulation, passive heating/cooling — even painting roofs white to reflect solar energy back into space. Not glamorous, not complex — and no sacrifice of quality of life. None.
Chu sees hope in new energy-generating technologies. Most intriguingly, he spoke of a potential "Moore's law" effect in solar energy — hopefully resulting in modules that can create much more power much more cheaply over time. The prices have come down by a factor of 10 already; Chu says they need to come down by another factor of 5 to be truly commercially viable without subsidy. Chu also sees nuclear energy, cellulosic fuels from tall grasses, and bacteria-creating gasoline as being the fuels of the future.
Several questions from the audience challenged Waxman-Markey as being insufficiently strict on emissions to stave off climate catastrophe. Waxman-Markey doesn't meet the standards set by the IPCC for 2010, and "the climate science doesn't care about climate politics", said a field organizer for Greenpeace.
Chu said he'd rather have a bill this year rather than next. Markey again expressed hope for the potential of unleashing creative and market potential — but said if this bill doesn't pass, we might have to wait for a second Obama adminstration to pass something like it, as opposed to using that time to add to Waxman-Markey.
Someone from the Center for American Progress asked about the political paranoia that Waxman-Markey seems to engender. Markey hoped that in the fall, after health care is put away, the President will be able to make a strong case for new gadgets, new technologies and new efficiencies.
Bottom line: We're hoping for a market miracle here. We're hoping for a total transformation in our economy, fueled (ahem) by a culture of innovation and the urgency of the historical moment. We're counting on a marketplace revolution spurred on by government leadership — in money, research, and incentive-setting. What I take away from this — what I think Chu and Markey both basically, ruefully admit — is that the US government's actual law-making power will almost certainly not be enough to halt the catastrophe. We have to hope for the self-enforcing feedback loop of the new clean-energy marketplace to get the job done. Based on where we are now, what we've seen over the last 30 years … that's a disheartening prospect. Let's hope that past is prologue, and not due for a repeat.
How many days have we had over 90 degrees this year? Can you show me just one water mark at high tide in Boston Harbor and environs which is above what it was 100 years ago? Where, specifically are the sea levels rising? Charley me boy, I am not terrified by the potential for “global warming” as much as I am terrified by charlatans like Markey and Chu.
The issue is global warming not New England warming much less Egarthearmenian-backyard-warming.
<
p>Yes, this year seems to have been exceptionally cool in New England.
how spikey the graphs are that Charley posted below.
about the supposedly increased ocean rises? I know that this stuff is like a religion for you, but please observe your environment: it’s been a cool summer. I’d say that a lot of you are reality deniers.
As far as Dr. Chu is concerned, there are many, many scientists who disagree with his prognosis.
How about the water levels in Boston Harbor? Anyone checked lately?
<
p>2. Tides. Oceans aren’t level. The Pacific and Atlantic aren’t equi-distant to the center of the Earth. Currents, winds, and the contours of the sea bottom all alter the “sea level”.
<
p>
<
p>In a sense, the tide cycle and the season cycle are similar. You’re complaining that you can’t find a small increase in the mean at any given time, fully ignoring that the change in the mean is quite small when compared to the daily (or seasonal) changes in sea level (or temperature) due to tides (or seasons).
I’d like to see at least an inch or two rise in the ocean at this point of time. Especially when some of your scientists are predicting disaster in less than 15 years.
Show me one of, ehem, my scientists predicting disaster in less than 15 years.
<
p>But to your first point, you’ve seen the plots on this thread showing global temperature increase. This can only mean one of two things:
<
p>1. Hot and temperate areas get hotter, but by more than the increase, because cold areas aren’t getting hotter. More heat related injuries, more droughts, etc.
<
p>2. Cold temperature areas are getting hotter (as well as, perhaps, other areas). If this happens long enough, ice will melt. It simply cannot stay on land; it will find it’s way to the ocean. Ocean waters will rise.
This summer? These guys are “charlatans” because you can’t see or feel the change?
Obviously, Chu is not a charlatan.
<
p>Just the same, when weekend weather forecasts are wrong 50% of the time, predicting the weather 100 years out is silly.
climate and weather. Some predictions about weather features can be made relative to longitudinal climate change predictions. After all, weather is a result of climate and it’s accurate to say that certain types of weather patterns occur with regularity in certain climates.
When you try to raise panic by citing weather predictions in 2100, the nuances between “climate” and “weather” are lost.
<
p>For the average American, such Cassandra pronouncements weaken the already tenuous case for draconian steps to combat hypothetical weather patterns in 2100.
between climate and weather. What you call obfuscation is, simply, definitional difference. Your inability to separate the effects of climate, i.e., weather, from the larger concept of climate itself is your own shortcoming, which, I’m sure, you are grateful to have corrected.
<
p>And while the “average American” may have difficulty discerning the difference between weather and climate–a concept taught in most sixth-grade classrooms around the nation–there is really no excuse for failing to grasp the distinction after it has been pointed out to you like it has been, repeatedly, here today. Continuing to champion poor critical thinking and ignorance is not an argument against the information presented in Charlie’s post.
… would smell as sweet.
<
p>
<
p>If Steven Chu is a ‘charlatan‘ then there are no experts, anywhere, ever again. You’ve raised that bar past what anyone can jump. Seriously.
<
p>And so, if no experts, then no problem? In fact, why even debate? If there aren’t any authoritative experts, then why are we even having this debate…? Steven Chu is a charlatan… but maybe you’re also a charlatan and therefore why should I trust you? Maybe, if there are no experts at all, then you’re lacking any and all standing to criticize. Maybe it’s all charlatans, like turtles, standing on each others backs, all the way down…
<
p>Or maybe your priorities are just plain out-a-whack. Maybe you ought to be terrified by what you should see in the mirror: an extraordinarily facile smallness of mind leaping over a screaming, gaping character void… ‘Cause there is very little else, other than outright psychosis, that explains why you think Steven Chu is a ‘charlatan‘.
<
p>
religion. Everyone needs something foolish to believe in.
<
p>I said nothing about climate-change. I merely pointed out that, by all objective measures and standards, Steven Chu is an emmenintly qualified individual. That is to say, I merely refuted your irrational contention that he was a ‘charlatan. One doesn’t have to have an opinion, either way, about climate change to realize your daft imprecation regarding Chu is… well… daft!
<
p>You replied with further inanities about ‘religion’, ‘comfort’ and ‘foolishness’. Perhaps we’re using different meanings of the word ‘charlatan‘??
your attention as to what I think of his views on “global warming.” Dr. Chu does not have unanimous support in the scientific community for his views on the subject. And, of course, the democrats picked a science advisor to the president who supports their political,brave-new-world gestalt.
<
p>Desire to get my attention does not absolve you from either hyperbole or calumny. Your willingness to play fast and loose with reality, merely for the sake of ‘getting my attention’ speaks volumes about you.
<
p>
<
p>Barack Obama doesn’t have unanimous support and he’s still president. What does ‘unanimous support’ have to do with anything?
<
p>If it makes you feel any better I’ll agree that Chu lacks ‘unanimous support’ if you agree that the support he does have forms a pretty solid super-majority… perhaps even a super-duper majority.
<
p>
<
p>A view, I’m sure, you gave voice to when the previous occupant of the White House installed a science advisor who supported an entirely different gestalt… (insert cricket chirping sounds here )
notice that I didn’t use obscenities against those whom I disagree with–which occurs often enough on your side of the fence. And,Petr, saying that Chu represents a “super-duper majority” does not make it so.
I’m not defending some of the jerks that Bush appointed, but you have to be objective enough to know that this game is played the same way by both teams. Chu is not the worst poltical appointment made by this president (take a look at the unqualified person who is now running NASA and say your prayers), but to deny the politics is really to have the blinders on.
<
p>
<
p>Objectivity?!?!?!
<
p>Did you not just cop to hyperbole and calumny? And now you’re trying to lecture on objectivity?? Are you tryiing to achieve a trifecta of fail?? You can’t, in one breath, admit to hyperbole and calumny and then, in the other breath, attempt to claim the moral high-ground of ‘objectivity’. I’m fairly certain you just sent Aristotle, Kant and Cronkite spinning madly in their graves. Every philosophy major on the planet just lost control of their bowels. You may have, in fact, irretrievably confused Umberto Eco. Quite a feat. Where would that kind of arrogance come from? From whence would that kind of cognitive dissonance derive??
<
p>Objectivity: Yet another word you’re throwing around without regard to it’s meaning.
<
p>
I’ll spare you the embarrassment of citing from some of your previous posts. And what do Cronkite and Eco have to do with anything? You must choose your admirees a bit more carefully. Look at yourself in the mirror and be honest for a change; try to be “objective.” Aren’t you the idealogue who blames all of the ills of mankind on republicans?
None the less, best wishes to you.
That’s a lot of work.
<
p>I think it really damages climate change arguments to make predictions about the weather in the year 2100. Annual hurricane predictions are wildly inaccurate, so how can anyone predict average temperature days 100 years from now?
<
p>Without debating the validity of climate change (I, for one, don’t believe the hysterical predictions,) such wild and unverifiable assertions hurt your case.
<
p>I always thought a national security argument was much more tangible … defund the terrorists, keep our wealth here, etc.
when people don’t know the difference between climate and weather.
<
p>Predicting average temperature on January 1, 2109 is predicting weather.
<
p>Predicting average temperature Jan 1-Dec 2109 is predicting climate.
<
p>
<
p>Maybe we need a Red Sox example. Jason Bay has 21 HRs in 102 games this year. Predicting he’ll hit a HR tonight is predicting the weather. Predicting he’ll hit another 10-12 HRs over the rest of the season is predicting climate.
You can’t predict Jason Bay’s batting average next year, within two standard deviations.
<
p>You can’t predict anything 100 years out except that you’ll be dead. We can’t even predict with any accuracy each year’s hurricane season. You think you can predict the climate 100 years from now?
<
p>Nonsense.
<
p>I know from the financial deals I assembled 10 years ago, with excruciatingly well-chosen and eminently defensible assumptions, that they are mostly wrong today. Everyone’s projections were wrong. 9/11 intervened. Economics intervened. Human behavior intervened. The problem is, assumptions aren’t linear. Inflation isn’t straight-line, or even positive all the time. Returns go up and down.
<
p>It’s even more variable with climate and weather. Tweaking a single variable is amplified and compounded over 100 years beyond reason.
<
p>Give me the model, and with ever-so-slight, and defensible, changes in the assumptions, I will drop average temperatures 1-degree Celsius by 2100.
Nate Silver, who’s also the guy behind http://www.fivethirtyeight.com
does a pretty good job of predicting the election.
<
p>So while you’re right that any model can be adjusted to achieve a desired result, it’s essential to use those models to inform our decisions, not develop models to back our pre-determined position.
<
p>The way I look at climate change is we’ve burned trillions of barrels of oil and trillions of pounds of coal, all of which sends CO-2 into the atmosphere, should we expect that not to have an impact?
Jason Bay’s standard deviation of his batting average is, by definition, unknown since we don’t know the actual distribution.
<
p>However, the sample standard deviation is 0.021 including 2009’s incomplete season, with no weighing for number of plate appearances per season. Within two standard deviations means I’ve got to get it right within 42 points. I’ll bet you I can do that.
<
p>Jason Bay’s worst season? .250
Jason Bay’s best season? .306
<
p>So I’m going to predict .278, the numeric average of his best and worst. I’m treating his distribution as uniform with unknown bounds, and using the expected value based on the sample. As long as he hits anywhere between .236 and .320, I’m “within two standard deviations”. I’ll bet you $100 straight up. You want to put your money where your mouth is? Or, do you just want to continue posting asinine thoughtless junk which is clever only in the mind of the irrational and irresponsible.
<
p>
<
p>It’s clear that you’re not interested in a reasonable debate. You insist on keeping your head in the sand, refusing to acknowledge the difference between accuracy and precision, between climate and weather, between financial markets and physics, and implicitly insisting that this stuff is supposed to be simple and linear — and thereby implying that scientists who are experts in everything from geology and hydrology to atmospheric chemistry are fools for not considering your simplistic “lack of evidence” questions.
OK, this is what has already happened. Not crazy predictions, what’s already gone on.
<
p>And for comparison:
<
p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…
Can you predict where the Nasdaq will be this time next year? You have all the past data.
predicting the behavior of the stock market with aggregated science (with science being the operative word) data dating back millions of years?
<
p>Good grief. You’re hopeless.
<
p>Well, yes he can. And so can you. He won’t be exact. Neither will you. If you want him to be spot on the number, exactly, then I can predict, with 99.999% confidence, that he won’t. But the point isn’t to be spot on, it’s to be in the neighborhood.
<
p>Insofar as there is a difference between accuracy and precision (just like there is a difference between climate and weather) he’ll almost certainly be imprecise (which you would then call ‘wrong’ because it’s not accurate to the error function you specify, basically epsilon) but accurate within a range of possibilities.
<
p>For instance, I can predict tomorrows weather first by postulating that a ten degree (Celsius) swing in temps is rare, and a 15 degree swing even rarer. (I’m making these numbers up, for demonstration purposes… I’m really not a weatherman). Furthermore, the most likely swing, for this time of year, might be in the 7 degree range. So, at the present 23 degrees I can predict, fairly accurately that the temp will fall between 13 and 33 degrees C, with a solid guess of between 15 and 30. I can then verify this with historical trends. Further I can look at prevailing winds, and how likely they are to change. Where the winds come from has a bearing on the temperature. I can take real time data on barometric pressure, humidity and cloud cover and make a solid hypothosis on whether the temp is likely to rise or fall. If rise, I’ll drop the lower bounds of my previous estimate and state that the temp tomorrow will be between 22 and 30 degrees with some cloudiness. Now, if you’re going to require more precision than that, to prove a point, you’ll be disappointed.
(1) except for the black line, haven’t temp trends exhibited a sharp dip in the past 50 years?
(2) how do you account for the very high temperatures circa 1000? Not much industrial activity. The light blue line is HIGHER than any temp recorded, except for the black line.
(3) following from (2), maybe human activity isn’t to blame for climate warming.
(4) anyway, why do you think these trends will continue straight up?
(5) perhaps increased temps are because of increase solar irradiance, graph here. Can you overlay it onto your first graph? Looks like a pretty good fit.
<
p>You should not fear either the ‘up’ direction, nor the ‘down’ arrow, but rather fear how quickly (sharply) they might change (in either direction). sharp downturns are as scary as sharp upturns.
<
p>
<
p>This graph represents a survey of temperature reconstructions, 10 in all, performed by climate scientists in the past decade or so. They do not represent different temperatures, but different views of the same temperature. The stunning thing is that they, more or less, align. The error bars, present in some of the originals, are not present here so we can’t say for certain that the light blue line is higher due to reality or if the error bar was particularly high.
<
p>
Following from my previous post, maybe accuracy and precision are really different things?
<
p>
<
p>Well, that’s the tricky part. No, not really. I get that you might not buy the notion that dumping particulates indiscriminately into the atmosphere might not be responsible. I’m convinced of the primacy of greenhouse gas emissions. You’re not. Why is it, therefore, that I’m required to be the one in the wrong here??
<
p>
<
p>You’re arguing against the notion that greenhouse gases increase the effects of solar radiation by saying the effects of solar radiation are increased…
…that I attended a lecture the other night at the United States Geological Survey. The presenter acknowledged both human and cyclical causes of climate change and showed that we were at the peak of a 100,000 cycle. Problem is that according to the pattern we should be heading back down, but he predicts based on the models that will continue to go up. I am most definitely not an expert, but feel free to browse the link I provided herein.