tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post2899053888810692204..comments2023-08-07T16:41:49.660+02:00Comments on Die Klimazwiebel: Is climate research physics?eduardohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-40290591048952409932010-03-01T02:02:37.394+01:002010-03-01T02:02:37.394+01:00@ 31
Philip wrote 'Do you (or anyone else here...@ 31<br />Philip wrote 'Do you (or anyone else here) have any suggestions on where to look to get a better understanding of why so many people are convinced of dangerous warming? '<br /><br />I think your question is not about physics, but about social psychology (?). First, I am not so sure that so many people are convinced of dangerous warming, if you consider the whole population. Also, I think it is very difficult to disentangle what people say they think, and what they really think. Perhaps Dennis Bray can provide an answer here.eduardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-81358843746425332442010-03-01T01:51:28.172+01:002010-03-01T01:51:28.172+01:00@ 32
Reiner wrote 'Eduardo (and others) - are...@ 32<br /><br />Reiner wrote 'Eduardo (and others) - are there national differences with regard to the relation between physics and climate science? Is it possible to get a degree in 'climatology' or 'climate science' in some countries? '<br /><br />I dont know any country where it is possible to obtain a degree in climatology, but my sample is limited. Some universities do offer a master in climate science, which I guess is pursued by oceanographers, meteorologist, physical geographers, etc. <br /><br />In Spain, for instance, you cannot even get a degree in Meteorology or Physical Oceanography. These are considered<br />branches of physics.<br /><br />From my limited experience I do feel that physicist tend to consider themselves at the top of the tribe, in particular in Germanyeduardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-43403923196976205782010-02-26T22:09:01.736+01:002010-02-26T22:09:01.736+01:00@ 38
The Institute of Physics publishes, among ot...@ 38<br /><br />The Institute of Physics publishes, among other more specific journals, Physics World. PW is broadly read within the physics community, together with Physics Today, its American counterpart. <br />I was indeed a bit surprised, but not totally, by the clarity of this text, and I am curious about whether Physics World or Physics Today will publish anything at all on this topic.<br /><br />This could be a first sign of a bid to redesign the funds share of public research funds. I guess that the fact that even a European project contained in its web page the Himalayan glacier claim will not pass unnoticed by scientist of other disciplines with influence in EU research policyeduardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-17104957931258950262010-02-26T21:30:26.494+01:002010-02-26T21:30:26.494+01:00Talking about Physics and Climate Science, here...Talking about Physics and Climate Science, here's a statement by the British Institute of Physics to the Parliament re CRU emails. Pretty damning methinks...<br /><br />http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htmitisi69https://www.blogger.com/profile/00601918913188476920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-19462280075593045012010-02-26T20:25:53.949+01:002010-02-26T20:25:53.949+01:00Henk/28 - I have no knowledge about the issue of h...Henk/28 - I have no knowledge about the issue of heat exchange between the earth's crust and the oceans. Thus I have asked a colleague - here is his answer: <i>Fuer das globale Mittel werden etwa 0.07 W/m**2 angegeben. Starke raeumliche Variation. In den Risszonen der Ozeanischen Ruecken geht die Temperatur bis auf einige 100 Grad C; da ist es dann deutlich mehr. - Bei starkem Interesse: Besuch in Bibliothek empfehlen.</i>. -- HansHans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-34181189372780710122010-02-22T22:16:46.209+01:002010-02-22T22:16:46.209+01:00I think this is OT and we perhaps need a thread on...I think this is OT and we perhaps need a thread on the PP. In my view, you exemplify the charge of ideological attitude by calling one principle as based 'on imagination', and the other principle (which you now say is not a principle but a case by case approach) as based 'on knowledge'. Loading the terms with preferred values is the semantic trick I mentioned earlier. Who would want to disagree that we should decide on the basis of knowledge and not fantasy? The problem is: what to do when the knowledge is not certain.@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-63426474745111386502010-02-22T00:50:53.618+01:002010-02-22T00:50:53.618+01:00@Reiner Grundmann:
a) “In fact, you have introduc...@Reiner Grundmann:<br /><br />a) “In fact, you have introduced a simplification in suggesting that one principle is ideological and the other not.”<br /><br />No, I have not suggested to use another principle than the PP. My suggestion is: Use no principle. Decide what to do on a case-by-case approach. Measures should be adapted to the individual, local problems. This is in my opinion not an ideology, because it defines no general approach. <br /><br />The failure in the PP is exactly the term “even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically”. This opens up the door to use the results of science independent from their validity. The PP itself established the link between climate science and a special ideology. It is used to support measures based on imagination, not on knowledge.<br /><br />b) “So you are not afraid of a traffic accident because you have seatbelts and airbags in your car?”<br /><br />Yes. If I would be afraid of a traffic accident, I would not drive. Whenever using a car (a train, a plane, …) I do it convinced of arriving at my destination without any accident.<br /> <br />The life itself is full of risks, everywhere and everytime. This is the reason for using insurances. To have a fire insurance does not prevent the fire, for example. But it reduces the impact of a fire when it happens. When buying or building a house, e.g., do you think: Well, I should better build no house, because it could be damaged by a fire?<br /><br />Don’t you fell in love because there is a chance that the relation will break up sometimes in the future?Peter Hellerhttp://www.science-skeptical.denoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-72302704620555848252010-02-21T10:37:44.946+01:002010-02-21T10:37:44.946+01:00‘So the absence of an ideology is an ideology too?...<i>‘So the absence of an ideology is an ideology too? This is too complex for me, I am thinking much more simple.’</i><br />In fact, you have introduced a simplification in suggesting that one principle is ideological and the other not. But this is not the case. <br />You also use a word (‘ideological’) to give one principle (PP) a bad name, while the other is seen as neutral or even positive. You see, semantic tricks are everywhere. You say ‘semantic trick’ is another ‘dirty’ word (well, actually TWO)? You have a point, and for this reason sociologists use the term ‘framing’ for such activities. We all do it, but we should be conscious of it and be ready to discuss the assumptions and implications. We also have to lay open data and code … ;-)<br />As regards the PP, its authors and defenders say measures should be taken ‘even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically’. This principle counters the previous decision rule which was based on the continuation of the business as usual, unless we have scientific proof. Hence the label ‘wait-and-see-principle’. Both principles have to be treated on the same level (hence the term ‘ideological for both, if you start using it for one). <br />The PP appeals to common sense. We cannot expect scientific proof to become available in risk debates and the levels of risk people are willing to take is not uniform. If we just followed the ‘wait-and-see’-principle, it might be too late for measures. And you will get public unrest. Remember the days when scientists and engineers declared it nearly impossible that anything could go wrong with nuclear power plants (Based on probabilities)? Would you go so far and say the protesters are ideological (or irrational) while the scientists and engineers were rational and therefore should have had the decisive say in political decision making?<br /><br />Here is a good discussion of the problems with the PP (Marko Ahteensuu 2007. Defending The Precautionary Principle against three Criticisms, TRAMES, 11(61/56), 4, 366–381)<br /><br />As regards the safety tool as impact management, I agree. My point was to qualify the specific example (seat belts). If you start using it, it may be not be so straightforward as one might think, because of the effects on aggregate behaviour. Also, if you think about the analogy, you say ‘There is no need to fear storms or floods or droughts, if you are prepared.’ So you are not afraid of a traffic accident because you have seatbelts and airbags in your car?@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-79013920463428061312010-02-21T01:15:54.151+01:002010-02-21T01:15:54.151+01:00@ Reiner Grundmann:
So the absence of an ideology...@ Reiner Grundmann:<br /><br />So the absence of an ideology is an ideology too? This is too complex for me, I am thinking much more simple.<br /><br />You have not understood the seatbelt-analogy as it was meant. It is not about risk management, it is about impact management. The seatbelt does not minimize risks, John Adams is absolutely correct in this questions. The seatbelt minimizes impacts.<br /><br />Maybe your argument is, that in the case of minimizing impacts people will not be worried about climate change. That is absolutely true. And this is, what "climate-seatbelts", adaptation concepts, will do. There is no need to fear storms or floods or droughts, if you are prepared.<br /><br />Another example especially from the field of mobility are adavanced driver assistant systems like automatic emergency braking. The driver will not be aware of this system. The system will only take control over the car, if an accident cannot be avoided. The accident will happen, if you have this system or not. But if you have it in your car, the impact of the accident will be less severe.<br /><br />This is risk management as performed by engineers. It is totally different from the risk management defined by the precautionary principle.<br /><br />Back to climate: The drought, the flood, the storm: All will happen, if we are prepared or not. Therefore it is better to be prepared. Minimizing the potential damage caused by bad weather is the strategy I prefer.Peter Hellerhttp://www.science-skeptical.denoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-12539706218551711522010-02-20T21:24:27.173+01:002010-02-20T21:24:27.173+01:00Eduardo (and others) - are there national differen...Eduardo (and others) - are there national differences with regard to the relation between physics and climate science? Is it possible to get a degree in 'climatology' or 'climate science' in some countries? <br /><br />Peter Heller: <br />the precautionary is as ideological as the opposite principle, wait and see. Both try to establish (different) procedural logics, obviously to do with the burden of proof.<br /><br />Hans (and others):<br />sorry to put some water on your growing enthusiasm for the seat belt analogy. This has been investigated by John Adams and he finds no evidence for the effectiveness of seat belt legislation. This is due to what he calls 'compensating behaviour': each safety tool will increase the risk taking on other fronts. People with seat belts will drive more reckless. <a href="http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/failure%20of%20seatbelt%20legislation.pdf" rel="nofollow">See here</a>@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-8510051416050155392010-02-20T21:20:09.148+01:002010-02-20T21:20:09.148+01:00@eduardo 31
That was a very interesting comment, ...@eduardo 31<br /><br />That was a very interesting comment, thank you. <br /><br />As a person originally trained in physics myself, I always would tend to expect to see good experiments and data to back up a theory. It is because I haven't been able to find any that I personally am skeptical about warming. But I know this doesn’t have to mean that there really is no evidence for it. Do you (or anyone else here) have any suggestions on where to look to get a better understanding of why so many people are convinced of dangerous warming?Philipnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-27299978200973976592010-02-20T18:50:14.034+01:002010-02-20T18:50:14.034+01:00I am a physicist. I got involved in climate resear...I am a physicist. I got involved in climate research after my PhD, and I still have some contact to former colleagues from solid state physics. I remember a comment from one of them after a talk a gave at my former university :'There is indeed a lot of physics in this stuff'. It seems that physicist indeed think of climate as something not really belonging to physics, and this mindset may explain that many physicists are to some extent sceptical about climate change, a well-known example is Dyson or even John Maddox, former chief editor of Nature (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/jan/28/environment.environment). From my point of view, I think climate research contains quite a lot of physics, much more than an average 'particle physicist' would suspect. The interesting aspects in climate research is that the physics are 'entangled'. For instance, a laboratory physics working on crystal growth would only have a vary basic knowledge about fluid turbulence. And by the same token a turbulence physicist would not even care about crystal growth theory. However, in cloud physics you encounter both theories entangled. This makes the whole problem really complex but at the same time very interesting. There are many other similar examples in climate research, which makes this science unique I think.<br /><br />However, the difficulty to conduct experiments strongly influences the way of thinking. In my early years, when we were discussing about competing models, we would just try to figure out what we could measure to decide which model is wrong. Just get a few more data points at higher or lower temperature or orienting the magnetic field in a different way and it would be possible to discriminate between models. In climate research, the approach is very different, much more statistical: which analysis of the data would give us a way to discriminate between models within a certain probability, or which is the simulation that should be conducted to explain some observation.<br /><br />While there is a lot of physics in climate, physics is by all means not all. In the carbon cycle there is a lot of biology; in long-term climate changes a lot of geology and biology; when dealing with proxy data, you have to be really an expert on everything, including some times not very simple statistics. When I look back to what I have learned from others in this field, a physicists should be much more humble. <br /><br />Sometimes, when I hear the sentence from a climate researcher 'I am a physicist' (for instance in this comment :-:) , I immediately imagine all the cubic light years of knowledge that the guy has no idea about.eduardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-51389882193843672452010-02-20T18:09:06.594+01:002010-02-20T18:09:06.594+01:00@Flin:
I do have the same problems as you, I am n...@Flin:<br /><br />I do have the same problems as you, I am not an english native speaker and usually I write essays and comments about climate policy in german. Therefore I often do not know the correct english terms to explain my view, misinterprations do occur often. I am much better in speaking english than in writing. <br /><br />I agree to Hans von Storch to take the discussion over into a new thread. But allow me to make a final remark. There are differences between us in the interpretation of what “free markets” really are. In my opinion the market is primarily driven by the suppliers (“Angebot”) and not by the demand (“Nachfrage”). We do have a lot of instruments regulating the demand, especially taxes and legislations. As long as only these measures are taken I characterize our markets as free, because a supplier can produce and offer, whatever he wants.<br /><br />You can implement a carbon tax or an emission trading scheme or comparable actions – but these are all “demand oriented” (“nachfrageorientiert”), they do not prohibit anyone from emitting carbondioxide, as long as he is willing to pay for it. <br /><br />In my opinion this is totally wrong (in the end it will not avoid any emission), but a compromise seems possible. <br /><br />The basic principle of the actual climate change mitigation policy is regulating the supplier side. The alarmists do want to establish a “supplier oriented” policy (“angebotsorientierte Politik”) in a way that reduces the options of suppliers to produce and to offer goods. This is in my opinion a “regulated market” and this is, were no compromise is possible. <br /><br />The ban of electric light bulbs in Europe is the first example of the future I am combating. It is a future of prohibition which will become reality under the dogma of a mitigation policy based on the precautionary principle. The greens want to forbid, not only nuclear power, but also powerful cars (at first), all fossil-fuel driven cars (at last), travel by plane, eating meat and so on.<br /><br />I really know, what I am talking about. In my daily work as a consultant I have to deal regularly with greens and their proposals. The prohibition of cars with e.g. more than 100 PS is a real example that has been seriously discussed. Other examples: The prohibition of parking space in cities, prohibition of driving on special days during the year, and so on. <br /><br />And this is only the beginning. In the city of Berlin for example a regulation is planned which will interdict “heating of air outside buildings”, which will ban not only heating mantles (“Heizpilze”) but also barbecues.<br /><br />This is, what I am thinking of when speaking about “regulated markets”.<br /><br />Thanks for taking over the example of the seatbelt, Mr. von Storch. I have read your essay on adaptation in the meantime. It could be productive to discuss it further.Peter Hellerhttp://www.science-skeptical.denoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-6562248235509789842010-02-20T17:22:57.464+01:002010-02-20T17:22:57.464+01:00Hans, a question regarding the physics of heat e...Hans, a question regarding the physics of heat exchange between the earth's crust and the oceans. I have tried to Google this a bit but didn't get very far. Is there any information about the amount of heating the ocean's deepest water receives from the core? There is mention of "petit" volcanoes apparently quite numerous in areas around tectonic shifting. After all the earth's crust is thinner at the ocean's bottom than anywhere else. <br />Maybe this wasn't the right place to post but don't know where else.<br />Thanks<br />HenkHenk Haknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-73068117567880206242010-02-20T16:56:19.982+01:002010-02-20T16:56:19.982+01:00First, Flin, no reason to be embarrassed - we all ...First, Flin, no reason to be embarrassed - we all make such errors. What is needed is that we clarify what we mean with which words. Plus, we should be aware that sometimes our communication is hampered by using words differently.<br />Second - the issue which approach is "better" - mitigation or adaptation - or which mix of these two approaches is best, should be dealt with in a separate thread dealing specifically with this issue.Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-90165815984005394222010-02-20T16:40:32.651+01:002010-02-20T16:40:32.651+01:00@Hans von Storch: Thank you for pointing this out....@Hans von Storch: Thank you for pointing this out. Being no native english speaker i mixed these two up for the last three posts. Which leads to me being quite embarrased right now. Please let me reformulate my statement:<br /><br />Assuming that Global Warming is happening, the prediction of the effects of it are still unprecise and partially disputed. So if the effects of Global Warming are uncertain and not calcuable, won't a strategy of adaption be even more incalcuable?_Flin_noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-14312718540860483012010-02-20T15:58:46.049+01:002010-02-20T15:58:46.049+01:00Flin, maybe we have a problem of using words. Miti...Flin, maybe we have a problem of using words. <i>Mitigation</i> usually refers to efforts to reduce or even avoid man-made climate change, with reducing the emissions as main or sole tool.<br /><i>Adapation</i> refers to efforts to reduce vulnerability (of people, societoies, ecosystems) to climate hazards (possibly enhanced due to AGW).Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-75959191871473463622010-02-20T15:38:18.724+01:002010-02-20T15:38:18.724+01:00@Hans von Storch: It is true that there are differ...@Hans von Storch: It is true that there are different options. It is just my personal opinion that mitigation does not deal with the problem at all, but only with the symptoms. And while there is such a great uncertainty to what these symptoms are and to what extent these will happen, the calling for dealing with the symptoms appears to me a lot more incalculable than to tackle a known cause. Especially when there are many cheap and even beneficial countermeasures.<br /><br />At least in my perception the German economy has not been damaged by pursuing a path towards more green energy. Or am I just not aware of it?_Flin_noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-794372344025167592010-02-20T15:01:55.723+01:002010-02-20T15:01:55.723+01:00Sure, Flin. What you say is that there may be diff...Sure, Flin. What you say is that there may be different options ot deal with the problem. But even if one option is "better" - in some sense - than another, it may be that society for some cultural reasons opts for the option, which you consider worse. In other words - all this takes place in a socio-political context, where normative arguments mostly win the debate.Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-31695796084567196042010-02-20T14:57:00.952+01:002010-02-20T14:57:00.952+01:00@Peter Heller: Concerning the car analogy: While a...@Peter Heller: Concerning the car analogy: While a seat belt is surely a safe thing, a variable speed limit system is even better.<br />- it doesn't prevent you from driving, but prevents traffic jams from happening by optimizing traffic flow, thus enabling you to reach for goal faster, although it subjectively appears slower<br />- it lowers the risk of accidents in situations like heavy snowfall, rain, wind or traffic<br />- when there is no danger, it is turned off<br /><br />Apart from that the safetybelt analogy reminds me of someone felling a tree in front of his house. When he figures that the tree might hit his house he builds a scaffolding that he thinks is strong enough to withstand the tree. The obvious solution would be to walk around the tree and fell it in a way the house is not in danger._Flin_noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-69396490640865932942010-02-20T14:38:57.134+01:002010-02-20T14:38:57.134+01:00On free markets it is important to note that marke...On free markets it is important to note that markets cannot be totally free. There is always liability for caused damages against other market participants or customers.<br /><br />If a company produces a faulty product it will have to pay damages to the persons being damaged by it, if sentenced to do so. If a company violates Anti-Trust legislation, there are damages to the market itself and a company faces high penalties, up to the breaking up of the company.<br /><br />Markets need to be regulated and are regulated everywhere in the world (anti-trust legislation, environmental emission regulation, sewerage regulation, competition regulation &c.). The extent of regulation is both an intetellectual and a moral question, the question being on the one hand "Where does a free market damage the market itself?" and "Where does a free market damage society, customers or non-parcitipants of the market?".<br /><br />So the whole "Free Market" theme is just a phantasmagoria, because a free market doesn't exist anywhere anyway. And the free market has been proven scientifically long ago to be ineffective in regulating itself in the short term. The latest financial crisis was just a reminder of that, although a rather impressive one (Not that we learned anything from it anyway).<br /><br />Furthermore, Climate Change can't be solved by the market as long as energy is cheap and there is no governmental penalty for emitting CO2. (Please lets not fall back into the CO2 yes no trap. I know some of you think this is bogus, you don't need to tell me again.). Without legislation, there is no economic reason not to produce as much CO2 as one can, as long as I don't kill people with it or make them sick or damage my production equipment with it.<br /><br />On the other hand, the costs of reducing CO2 aren't high at all in the beginning. There are a lot of action that can be undertaken that are actually benefitting, even without things like Peak Oil or similar. Using different lighting for example. Or just turning the lights off. Emission targets for the Automobile industry. Insulation. More efficient machines.<br /><br />Especially in the transportation, residential and commercial sector there are a lot of opportunities to cheaply reduce CO2 output. The energy production sector is hard, but not that hard if there is a long term legislation.<br /><br />Mitigation of the effects on the other hand is really really hard to do, as long as you don't know the exact effects. And when they are suddenly there you figure out that you didn't save for them, because the money went into the last tax break, because polls for reelection were surely looking dire._Flin_noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-31232270912399013362010-02-20T14:10:38.726+01:002010-02-20T14:10:38.726+01:00Peter Heller,
the example of car accidents and sea...Peter Heller,<br />the example of car accidents and seat belts is a good one! Will use it in future. (Does not mean that I agree to the rest of your analysis, but thanks anyway!)<br />An earlier talk of mine, on adaptation has been published in September 2009 (nobody told me) - see <a href="http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/BadHonnef_0805-adaptation.pdf" rel="nofollow">On Adaptation – a Secondary Concern?</a>, The European Physical Journal - Special Topics, 176: 13-20 DOI 10.1140/epjst/e2009-01145-0. <br />We should have a discussion of the merits of mitigation and adaptation. I guess there may be some joint positions among our readers.<br />HansHans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-28216773981086676862010-02-20T14:01:33.667+01:002010-02-20T14:01:33.667+01:00@Marco:
There are many car-accidents on our street...@Marco:<br />There are many car-accidents on our streets and many people are severely injured or die by such accidents. The only way to minimize the risk is not driving. Now think of a seatbelt. It is in no way able to avoid any accidents. It is only useful when an accident happens. It is able to avoid severe damage, it is minimizing impacts, not risks. The seatbelt is not like the market-regulations I am speaking of. Because it is not about forbidding driving. It is about affording driving despite of the risks. This is the risk management we need.<br />Climate change is a topic about bad weather. But there has been bad weather in the past and there will be bad weather in the future. If there is an anthropogenic influence or not – we have to minimize the impacts of bad weather by developing and implementing “seatbelts”. This strategy will work if there is a manmade climate change, it will work, if there is none. This strategy is resilient in case of any possible future.<br />The mitigation-strategy is not resilient. It only makes sense, if there is a manmade climate change leading to a substantial increase in bad weather events. Otherwise it leads to wasting money for nothing. And the mitigation strategy is based on the precautionary principle, which is about taking actions independent of the scientific knowledge. The precautionary principle is therefore based on ideology, not on science.<br />The precautionary principle has been implemented by the environment movement. That was their great victory. Since the UN-conference in Rio 1992, where the precautionary principle has become the official strategy of the industrialized world to deal with environmental challenges, climate policy is in fact independent of any scientific progress. The environment-oriented NGO’s are powerful, because they are able to spin the public opinion, especially in Germany. And politicians take care of the public opinion to gain votes.<br />In my opinion the only way to deal with the global demand on energy today and in the future is using all possibilities. We need fossil fuels as well as the development of all alternatives we can think of. The question here is not about substitution, it is about adding the alternatives to develop our world. The conventional sources alone or the alternatives alone will not be able to satisfy the future demand. We need both. The IPCC scenarios about the future emissions, on which the climate projection are based, predict a doubling of the world energy demand every 50 years. This is consistent with the reference scenarios of the International Energy Agency. The mitigation strategy based on the precautionary principle is about regulating the supply side of the markets. This is the type of regulation we cannot accept, because it will prohibit the development of the poor countries. We need more energy, not less, we need more freedom for suppliers to get solutions, not less.Peter Hellerhttp://www.science-skeptical.denoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-62052480177072245972010-02-20T09:42:55.571+01:002010-02-20T09:42:55.571+01:00@Peter Heller: Allow me to rock your boat on a few...@Peter Heller: Allow me to rock your boat on a few points.<br />First: Why do you think adaptation and mitigation do not require government action affecting the free market?<br />Second: I consider myself somewhat of a libertarian (but a pragmatic one: government is at best a necessary evil). You can also call me an alarmist. I don't like a strictly regulated market, I don't want a strictly regulated market. But I also don't want to 'pay' for the greed of others.<br /><br />Regarding Greenpeace and WWF being such influential lobbyist: ask yourself why the coal industry has received billions and billions of euros in subsidies. Currently, the subsidies are running at 2 billion euros A YEAR, that's almost 60,000 euros per employee. How do you think they get this money? That's right, by lobbying.<br /><br />The simple facts are that fossil fuels have an unfair advantage, which should bother you as a free market ideologue: they have been supported by significant subsidies for decades, allowing their development as mature 'technologies'. Add the financial consequences of their actions (adaptation and mitigation is not free of charge), and the costs of non-fossil fuels isn't nearly as non-competitive as you may think.Marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07262670367947223521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-65644342127423814672010-02-20T04:38:07.399+01:002010-02-20T04:38:07.399+01:001. Question:
„Climate Science“ will become a pure ...1. Question:<br />„Climate Science“ will become a pure variant of physics in the near future. At the moment, it is build up mainly by two very different disciplines: “physics of the atmosphere” and “climatology”. In Germany you cannot study “climate science”, there is no university providing it. “Physics of the atmosphere” (“Physik der Atmosphäre”) is about understanding the the dynamics of our climate system, especially the processes of radiation and heat transfer. “Climatology” (“Klimatologie”) is a part of meteorology and deals with measuring, observing, analyzing and characterizing weather (temperature, humidity, wind speed and so on) on different spatial and temporal scales. The climatologist knows, what to measure and how to perform useful observations (which is not trivial), and the physicist tries to explain these observations by developing theoretical models. It is a little bit like the relation between astronomy and physics (I am astronomer as well as physicist). In former times the astronomer was the “observator” and the physicist tried to explain, what the astronomer told him. During the 1970ies astronomy has been totally integrated in physics at german universities. If you want to be an astronomer today, you need to study physics first. At the end you will be “astrophycisist”. I expect the same for “climatology” and “physics of the atmosphere”, the fusion will lead to the “climate physicist”.<br /><br />2. Question:<br />“Alarmists” and “skeptics” will never agree on the need to take actions in order to prevent any climate change, manmade or not. The strategy of “minimizing risks” is in my opinion (I am a skeptic) totally wrong, because it does need strong market regulations. We should implement a strategy of “minimizing impact” (in other words: adaptation and not mitigation). Adaptation does need free markets. All skeptics I know are supporters of free markets, all alarmists I know are supporters of strictly regulated markets. The climate debate is about economy, not about science, and not about nature.<br /><br />3. Question:<br />Yes. Too many physicists are not interested in economy, despite the fact that they often are able to explain economic processes better than the economists. Too many physicists think, that their way to see the world is the important and interesting one. But the only interesting thing in the climate debate is money.<br /><br />4. Question:<br /><br />a) The link between climate science (as an example for other disciplines as well) and politics. Is it useful for a scientific discipline to be the ground an ideology is build on? <br /><br />b) The lack of understanding science in the general public, especially in the media. Has climate science explained itself well enough and has it done enough against errors in the communication?<br /><br />c) The link between climate science and NGO’s, especially the role of Greenpeace and the WWF (in Germany also the BUND and NaBu), which are the most influential lobbyists of our times.Peter Hellerhttp://www.science-skeptical.de/noreply@blogger.com