New definition of lukewarmer


This self-description of a lukewarmer (at Bishop Hill) gave me a good laugh:

Now I’m probably some sort of a lukewarmer – I don’t e.g. agree with Turning Tide that the fact that CO2 concentrations are low means ipso facto that it is irrelevant.

Like luketoxers who acknowledge the fact that arsenic in low concentrations doesn’t ipso facto mean that it’s irrelevant. It’s like saying I’m not a total doorknob.

Curious, I went back to read what Turning Tide had written and came across this gem:

What I found most telling is how certain facts about the atmosphere are very hard to track down for the layperson. For example, I’m pretty sure the average joe has no idea how little CO2 there is in the atmosphere, and how small a proportion of that little amount is contributed by human activities. It’s almost as though there’s a conspiracy of silence to keep such information out of easily accessible sources.

Can everyone who has a CO2 concentration widget on their blog please remove it now? We’ve got to keep it a secret that its concentration is a meagre 395 parts per million.


Tags: , , , ,

84 Responses to “New definition of lukewarmer”

  1. sharper00 Says:

    You’d think that given a word like “lukewarm” it would be defined relative to the “warm” position so maybe something like “I think the planet is going to warm by closer to 2 degrees than 5 and the problems will become slowly apparent over the next 100 years requiring well organised global efforts to mitigate and avoid” (which is to say the mainstream opinion).

    Instead it seems to be defined relative to the most extreme “skeptic” position so “I don’t outright reject the physics of greenhouse theory but I think it’s interesting that [something not very interesting, notable or even true]”

    The scientists are pretty good at the science, the skeptics are pretty good at framing the argument and controlling the terminology. But then experts are busy studying the ocean, bloggers have all day and all night to complain about how it should be called “ocean neutralisation” not “ocean acidification”

  2. Dana Says:

    It’s difficult to define exactly what “lukewarmer” means, because all deniers want to be considered “lukewarmers”, because the term makes them sound reasonable. So you get people across the spectrum trying to invoke the label, and it becomes impossible to define.

    Frankly I think “lukewarmer” is just a subset of “denier” – generally one who accepts humans are causing some global warming, but denies the abundance of scientific evidence indicating that climate sensitivity is approximately 3°C (likely between 2 and 4.5°C) for 2xCO2, and that the consequences of several degrees of warming (business as usual) will be quite bad.

    In most cases I think “lukewarmers” accept the basic science but fall in the “climate sensitivity is low” camp and deny the consequences will be bad. Thus it allows them to seem reasonable and yet continue to oppose greenhouse gas emissions cuts, which ultimately is the motivation behind all climate denial. I think we’ll see more and more “deniers” transition to this form of “lukewarmer”-ism because it is a less unreasonable position, but allows them to maintain their ideological opposition to climate solutions.

  3. Jos Hagelaars Says:

    Like Dana, it also seems to me that a “lukewarmer” simply says that of a scientific uncertainty of 2 to 4.5 degrees the outcome can only lie on the low side or even less. When the outcome of such limited reasoning is that humanity doesn’t undertake any actions against its carbon emissions the amount of CO2 will surely double and quadruple. Even with a low climate sensitivity a 2 degrees rise in temperature will then be reached, it only takes longer and in the end the effects and related problems will be the same of course.
    So actually a “lukewarmer” should also state that humanity should limit its carbon emissions into the atmosphere to prevent a warming in e.g. 200 years (instead of 100 years). I have never encountered such a statement.

  4. RickA Says:

    Dana: If all you need to do to be considered a denier is not believe that climate sensitivity is between 2 and 4.5, then if it turns out that after CO2 doubles, if the temperature only rises 1.5 degrees C (for example), would you agree that you were a denier?

    I thought it was generally agreed that the temperature increase from just the CO2 doubling was around 1.2 degrees C – with the rest of the increase coming from positive feedbacks or amplification effects.

    I would propose that a lukewarmer is a person who agrees with the proposition that the temperature will increase around 1.2 degrees C if the CO2 level doubles, but isn’t as convinced about the magnitude of the amplification effects as the consensus.

    Personally, I think that a bunch of other effects are being lumped into and attributed to CO2.

    Take the .8C of warming we have experienced since around 1850.

    Subtract the warming due to the sun being more active than normal.

    Subrtract the warming due to carbon black.

    Subtract the warming due to cosmic ray induced cloud formation net warming.

    Subtract the warming due to land use changes.

    Subtract the warming due to any errors or manipulation in the temperature record.

    What is left over?

    I don’t know the answer to this question and I am not sure anybody knows the answer to this yet.

    But lets guess that it is .4C of warming which can fairly be attributed to the increase of CO2 from 285 ppm to 390 ppm (around 1/2).

    So if 105 ppm give .4C, then a simple ratio for the additional CO2 to hit 560 ppm (double 280) gives 170/105 * .4 = .65 degrees C additional warming.

    Isn’t that generous, because the increase is not really linear, but log based.

    So .8 + .65 = 1.25 degrees C, just from increased CO2.

    That is, unless you get to add in all the additional effects due to more land use changes, more carbon black, and all the other non-CO2 things which have impacted the temperature over the last 150 years.

    Anyway – I am not a denier because I do not deny that the climate changes.

    Nor do I deny that we have warmed over the last 150 years.

    I am doubtful that the temperature will be found to rise 2 to 4.5 degrees C based solely on CO2 doubling from 280 to 560ppm.

    This is based on my understanding that the temperature has not risen enough from the rise of 105ppm from 280 to 390, when looking at the temperature rise JUST from CO2.

    Maybe that is what a lukewarmer is?

  5. Dana Says:

    RickA – your question doesn’t make any sense. We won’t know how much the planet is going to warm in response to our emissions until we actually reach equilibrium over a century from now (or possibly many centuries, if you consider slow-acting feedbacks and long-term sensitivity, but right now we’re talking about sensitivity to fast feedbacks only). But based on our current knowledge, the research from many different lines of evidence is all consistent with a (fast feedback) sensitivity of 2 to 4.5°C for 2xCO2.

    You’re disputing the body of scientific evidence based on some rather wild guesses and throwing around random numbers, which I would classify as a form of denial. But I agree, that is rather consistent with self-proclaimed “lukewarmers”, which is why I think it’s just a subset of denial.

  6. Dana Says:

    I also recommend you read “Lindzen Illusion #1: We Should Have Seen More Warming”, since your argument is very similar to Lindzen’s. Plus in subtracting all the ‘natural’ factors which have contributed a small amount of warming over the past century, you’re neglecting aerosols, which have contributed a substantial amount of cooling, and ignoring thermal inertia of the oceans. Again, Lindzen does the same thing, as I discussed in Lindzen Illusion #1.

  7. RickA Says:

    So how much of the .8C of warming over the last 150 years do you think is caused by the increase in CO2 level from 280 ppm to 390 ppm?

    Lets just start with that question.

  8. Heraclitus Says:

    I wonder if this is the same TurningTide who is very anxious we should all know that anthropogenic carbon emissions are dwarfed by natural emissions and that failure to point this out is blatent scaremongering?
    It does seem familiar.

  9. Dana Says:

    RickA – using the likely range of transient climate sensitivity values, between 0.5 and 1.5°C, with a most likely value of almost 1°C. Of course aerosols have offset a substantial amount of that, and then there’s the smaller warming influence of the Sun and other GHGs, but that’s my answer for CO2 alone. Probably greater than 100% of it.

  10. Jeff Id Says:

    I think Dana’s explanation of lukewarmer is reasonably accurate except for the attribution of motives. I really don’t believe climate sensitivity is as high as advertised, although evidence mounts, it isn’t fully proven yet. I also believe the reasonable minded know emission solutions don’t exist and mitigation is a fools errand. So when Dana writes that a lukewarmer doesn’t want the solutions, I agree, when Dana writes it is done to make those like me seem reasonable, I disagree.

    It is done because that is the direction an unbiased review of the evidence points and the flat fact is, there are no solutions to carbon emissions with today’s technology. It is a simple engineering fact. And the only thing which can even dent that reality is nuclear, which the greens won’t allow.

    I deny that I am a denier,
    I deny your ability to discern who is the denier,
    If you deny my logic then I deny your objectivity.
    Oddly enough, some would call me a lukewarmer, but I deny that too.

  11. Dana Says:

    Jeff, there have been numerous studies proposing plausible methods to achieve the necessary emissions reductions. It’s clearly not an engineering problem. We have the necessary technology already (i.e. see here and here, and there are many other examples). Looks to me like you’re a climate solutions denier ;-)

    I do agree it’s highly unlikely that we’re going to achieve the necessary emissions cuts, but that’s because we lack the will, not the technology. And blame for that can be placed squarely on the “lukewarmers” and deniers.

    And of course regardless of whether the solutions exist, that tells us nothing about climate sensitivity, and doesn’t excuse denying the body of scientific evidence on that subject. I’m certainly with you in hoping that sensitivity is low since I think we’ll fail to solve the problem, but there’s really no scientific case to be made that it is low.

  12. Sailrick Says:


    I think you missed Dana’s point about inertia.

    The warming up until now is probably from emissions up to about 1980.
    The warming from todays emissions will not become apparent until about 2040 or later. There is a 30-40 year lag from the thermal inertia of the oceans.

    CO2 concentration in 1980 was about 340 ppm, not 393ppm, which is the present case.

  13. Sailrick Says:

    Jeff Id

    “It is done because that is the direction an unbiased review of the evidence points and the flat fact is, there are no solutions to carbon emissions with today’s technology. It is a simple engineering fact. And the only thing which can even dent that reality is nuclear, which the greens won’t allow. ”

    Solar thermal power plants with heat storage is part of the solution.
    Base load power from the sun, day and night. And unlike nuclear or coal plants, they can shave the peak load or follow the load.
    This ability for firm capacity plus dispatchability will make integrating PV solar and wind into the grid easier. This combination of steady power and flexibility would also command higher prices for the power.

    If an area 42 x 42 miles, of the American southwest, and, of what the NREL calls premium solar resource, was filled with solar thermal plants with molten salt heat storage, they would produce as many megawatt hours as all the coal plants in America.
    I figure that is about twice the area now evacuated around the Fukishima nuclear plant in Japan.

    Arizona alone, has 285 GW potential. Adjusting for capacity factors, that is the equivalent of about 120 nuclear power plants.
    Power tower plants with salt heat storage can have 65% capacity factor, and solar trough plants 50%.

    There are over 1,000 GW potential in the southwest states.
    This is based on carefully selecting the land to not interfere with sensitive areas, roads, lakes, parks, rivers, human habitation etc.

    If they were co-fired with natuarl gas, biomass or biogas, they could have capacity factors as high as nuclear or coal. This would also expand the amount of area where solar thermal is feasable. It normally requires areas of intense sunlight.

    Together with wind, and PV solar, most of our energy needs could be met.

    Here’s a how a CSP plant with 3.5 hours heat storage on typical summer day in Nevada would run.

    The plant would start saving heat at sunrise. A few hours later, it would start generating electricity and continue storing heat in the salt. By 1pm when the sun peaks, it would be at full rated power, say 1250 MW. It would continue to put out at least it’s full rated power, while increasing output and peaking at about 3,000 MW at 5pm, exactly when demand in the grid peaks in the southwest. It would continue putting out steady but declining power until midnight. No fluctuation when clouds pass by.

    Cloudy periods, which are rare in the southwest can be planned for by the plant manager and utility, from weather forecasts. In the daytime in what the NREL calls Premium Solar Resource areas, there is sunshine all but about 4% of the time.

    3.5 hours heat storage means enough to provide 3.5 hours at full rated power, without any input from the sun.

    The first plant with molten salt heat storage in the U.S. is being built in Arizona. It will have 6 hours heat storage.

    In the winter there is less solar resource due to the angle of the sun mostly, but demand falls even faster than output in non summer months. Air conditioning is the biggest demand, in the southwest.

    HVDC tranmission lines would enable solar thermal in this area to feed power into other regions.

    Solar thermal will not work everywhere, nor does every country have the land mass for it. However European countries could join in the Desertec venture.

  14. Jeff Id Says:

    Dana and Sailrick,

    Both links from Dana and the discussion of solar by Sailrick are of very poor quality. The reason is that when the solar energy isn’t there, or the wind isn’t there humans still need energy. We do.

    Therefore an entirely separate grid must be activated to provide the energy when they are not. You have paid for generation two times.

    The solar heat storage technology described by sailrick even runs out at midnight, what is not discussed is that the plant does absolutely zero on a cloudy day. What is also hidden is the massive cost of energy, a point so often ignored by a certain political view. He claims the sun is on all but 4% of the time, except we also need energy during those times and it turns out that even Arizona has night time from what I recall.

    Until storage technologies improve these are nothing but cost sucking boondoggles and ‘all of the above’ people are simply using shotguns so that the discussion of why it won’t work takes days. One hundred bad solutions is not equal to one good one.

    Look at Dana’s first link. Nuclear is completely phased out. Why? It is the single technology we have that can help ‘save the planet’ under IPCC assumptions. Yet you won’t use it.

    The lack of nuclear (which is not my favorite choice) exposes a political bias that is the Achilles heel of the green movement. Are we helping the planet or are we playing politics?

    We need a new technology to do what you want. That’s it. The rest of this garbage is engineering nonsense. I have done the calculations myself from numbers provided by the companies themselves. It isn’t even close to a good idea to be putting up windmills and solar plants now. You are far far better off investing in natural gas or nuclear if CO2 reduction is your goal.

  15. Dan Olner Says:

    JeffId: you seem to lump together an argument for low sensitivity AND that solutions are not feasible – “It is done because that is the direction an unbiased review of the evidence points and the flat fact is, there are no solutions to carbon emissions with today’s technology.”

    Which sounds like “we’re not heading towards a cliff and anyway this car has no brakes.” I mean, it’s logically possible to believe both things, and even for both to be true – but talking about them in the same sentence, you can see how that might sound a little awry?

  16. Bart Says:

    Dan, I’ve run into the same curiosity. See e.g the conversation between Jeff and me ensuing in the comments here (and the end of the post):

  17. Jeff Id Says:


    I can and will only write what I believe. I don’t really care if people have the wherewithal or wish to accept it. From a science perspective, how can anyone expect anything different.

    The engineering facts about ‘renewable’ energy production are indisputable. Not that it won’t stop those with motive from disputing it. I own a ‘green’ technology company BTW. If you follow the IPCC view that we are heading toward a cliff and you rationally conclude that we cannot stop CO2 production from pushing you toward that cliff using fake solutions, what would you suggest a thinking person write?

    Follow that with what looks to me like a non-IPCC low sensitivity, non-IPCC damage scenarios, and everything I write comes together quite neatly.

  18. RickA Says:


    I understand the inertia argument, but this inertia or lag is present in every snapshot or every forecast.

    When 2100 rolls around, if the temperature isn’t the predicted higher temperature, will you say we have to wait 40 years to actually see what the temperature really was in 2100?

    I say no.

    When someone forecasts the temperature for a future date, it already takes account of the lag.

    When I say it will be 70 F tomorrow, I don’t really mean 40 years from tomorrow.

    The lag is baked in to everything, including the models.

  19. RickA Says:


    So CO2 caused around 1 degree C of the .8 C temperature rise over the last 150 years.

    So that necessarily means that all other forcings, both positive and negative, (aerosols, carbon black, cosmic rays induced cloud formation changes, land use changes, naturally emitted methane, naturally emitted CO2, etc.) all add up to a negative .2C – correct?

    Is that really what the attribution studies show?

    Your CO2 number seems high to me.

    However, if your CO2 number is correct, than I can see why you believe that a 105 ppm increase in CO2, leading to a 1.0 C rise in temperature will lead to total 2 – 4.5 C increase when CO2 doubles to 560 ppm.

    It seems to me that I read an attribution study that stated that carbon black alone could account for .25C of the .8C temperature rise (but I am going off memory). Something about soot in the snow changing the albedo. I thought land use was a positive forcing. I thought cloud formation due to cosmic rays was a positive forcing. I guess I didn’t remember volcanoes and aerosols being such a large negative forcing as they must be to offset CO2 (1.0), carbon black (.25) and however much the other positive forcings add up to – but if you are correct, they must be over negative .45C.

    It will be interesting to wait until CO2 hits 560 ppm and look at the actual observation of how much temperature has increased. Then we can actually use that as a measure of climate sensitivity (although it will not be solely due to CO2, as the other forcings are changing over the interval until 560 ppm). Still I believe the climate sensitivity number does reflect all forcings, positive and negative anyway.

    Would you agree that if the temperature rises less than 1.5C when CO2 hits 560 ppm that our understanding of the climate and therefore our climate models are wrong? I think the IPCC said climate sensitivity was very unlikely to be less than 1.5C.

  20. Dana Says:

    Jeff Id, you say:

    “Both links from Dana and the discussion of solar by Sailrick are of very poor quality. The reason is that when the solar energy isn’t there, or the wind isn’t there humans still need energy.”

    The links are to summaries of the reports. As they’re summaries, obviously I didn’t go into all the details (I don’t particularly appreciate you calling my posts “poor”, btw), but I provided the links to the reports themselves if you want the details.

    If you want to talk about renewable baseload in more detail, I’ve written about that, too. I’m working on another article on the subject this weekend, as it so happens. Basically you seem to have your mind set that renewable energy can’t provide baseload power, but that’s simply wrong. And again, this has nothing to do with climate sensitivity or climate science in general.

    RickA – attribution studies (i.e. Meehl et al. 2004) don’t break it down into ‘x’ warming from CO2, ‘y’ warming from black carbon, ‘z’ cooilng from aerosols, etc. They break it down into a net anthropogenic influence and a net natural influence. Unless you’re talking about studies of individual components. For example, Ramanathan and Carmichael (2008) which estimated the forcing from aerosols at -2.3 W/m2 and from black carbon at +0.9 W/m2 (CO2 is +1.7 W/m2). Cosmic rays, by the way, are a negligible effect.

    You also can’t just wait for CO2 to reach 560 ppm to determine climate sensitivity. That will tell you transient sensitivity (once you factor out other forcings), but it will take many additional decades to determine the fast-feedback equilibrium sensitivity.

  21. Bart Says:

    I just started a new open thread for the interesting though off topic discussion taking place here. If you would all be so kind…?

    I kicked it off by replying to RickA: Earth has warmed as much as expected (as Dana has already made abundantly clear, but well)

  22. Jeff Id Says:


    I’ve spent quite a bit of time on the subject of ‘renewable’ energy from a basic math perspective. You are wrong, and plans to replace what we have with biofuel, solar and wind are both dangerous and irresponsible. Lives are at stake, and this is what makes extremists like yourself so dangerous.

    BTW, telling me I have my mind made up is a clear situation of pot and kettle.

    Bart, is this also off topic from the lukewarmer thread?

  23. Dana Says:

    This isn’t the place to argue about renewable baseload energy, and I’ve already provided you with the resources to read about the subject, so I don’t have any desire to continue arguing about it anyway. You’re certainly entitled to your (wrong) opinion, though I think it’s rather silly to claim that something which many studies have demonstrated is possible, is impossible. The research speaks for itself – if you want to deny it, that’s your choice.

  24. Jeff Id Says:


    I did my own research on energy creation, if it worked my money would be pouring into it – it doesn’t. I denied the Antarctic was warming and got the same responses from your like, and published on the matter with my coauthors correcting the record. It ain’t happening as advertised. Paleo hokeysticks – bad stuff, wind, PV, thermal solar, biofuels – garbage.

    I own a green company which has saved more CO2 than anyone on this blog. Because it saves money and it works. We don’t even advertise the ‘green’ aspect because I don’t care about that, it is a drop in the bucket. I care about things that work.

    Nuclear works for the CO2 problem partially — only.

    You guys preach that science is science right until you don’t get what you want and you refuse to question the obviously questionable.

    Your anti-science conservative evil-capitalist business owner truly,

    Reality sucks.

  25. Dana Says:

    Like I said Jeff, I’m not going to argue renewable baseload with you here. I’m in the process of writing a post which summarizes more than a half dozen studies how various countries, regions, and the world as a whole can achieve 100% renewable energy by 2050. If you really want to dispute the science, the comments on that blog post (once it’s published) would be a good place for it. Maybe you can even come up with a specific concrete reason why those many plans won’t work, as opposed to personal opinion.

  26. Eli Rabett Says:

    Bunch of WINOs

  27. cce Says:

    If there isn’t enough sun to go around (which, BTW, closely matches air conditioning load), or if the wind stops blowing (a network of inter connected wind farms is as reliable as coal), or if enhanced geothermal doesn’t pan out, or if the smart grid and plugin hybrids don’t have enough elasticity to keep the grid running, then you do exactly what you do now: spin up an idle natural gas power plant.

    It’s worth reading the actual papers on the subject

    Click to access JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf

    Click to access DJEnPolicyPt2.pdf

    Also, unless I’ve missed something, O’Donnell et al showed that Antarctica was warming pretty much the way everyone believed until Steig et al came along.

  28. cce Says:

    Typo in first link:

    Click to access JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf

  29. Deech56 Says:

    The simple definition for “lukewarmer” is one who wants to have it both ways – accepting science up to the point of climate sensitivity. Dana on June 8, 2011 at 20:40 pretty much explains it all: “I think ‘lukewarmers’ accept the basic science but fall in the ‘climate sensitivity is low’ camp and deny the consequences will be bad.”

  30. tom fuller Says:

    Funny how those of you interested only intrashing lukewarmers manage to ignore everythin lukewarmers say./sadly thatincludes bart. Pitym that.

  31. Dan Olner Says:

    JeffID: “The engineering facts about ‘renewable’ energy production are indisputable. Not that it won’t stop those with motive from disputing it.”

    I’m new to your position, JeffID, so apologies if I’m not keeping up. There are plenty of people who a) think climate change is a clear and present danger and b) think there’s nothing to be done to decarbonise the energy system. A couple of examples: John Michael Greer always makes that case, as he’s doing in his current article, denouncing as he does “a flurry of proclamations that some energy resource or other would keep the grid up and running for the foreseeable future.”

    A recent curious example was Steven Smith over at the new Shaping Tomorrow’s World arguing that the 2nd law meant renewables were impossible (nooo.)

    As I say, I don’t know the details of what you think: is it that we shouldn’t be worrying about trying to decarbonise? That you want to counter arguments saying “if we do decarbonise it’s a win-win, even if climate change turns out to be invented by annanuki lizards from the 13th dimension, because then we’ll be energy-secure?”

    I’m very interested in the question of what sort of physical infrastructure is feasible and how we can think about that problem, and I’ve been looking out for good analyses. I haven’t found much, though the shape of the problem is getting more clear. Mostly I feel like I’m coming across a renewables version of Denethor in Return of the King, declaring his injured son is without a shadow of doubt dead, even if he has to burn him alive to make sure.

  32. Bart Says:


    I would hope that you agree that the desciption of a lukewarmer given by the quote in this post is ridiculous. Now either you can laugh about that or feel offended by that person for giving lukewarmers a bad name. Since I don’t self-identify as a lukewarmer the choice for me was easy. You can join me in having a good laugh about it or feel offended by “j”. Why you would be offended by me laughing about it is beyond me, unless you agree with j’s description of a lukewarmer. Now that would be disappointing.

  33. tom fuller Says:

    You’ve got a point, Bart. I imagine there are some on your side of the fence that make you feel embarrassed as well. BBut it couldn’t have hurt to mention he was an outlier…

  34. Steve Bloom Says:

    How nice for Jeff that he’s ever so much smarter than these well-known idiots.

    I’m quite hopeful about all of this, although less so when it comes to the question of whether it will happen quickly enough, in particular with regard to shale gas, to keep us from passing a tipping point we may well have already passed.

  35. Tom Fuller Says:

    Hey, Jeff–next time you pop by remember that solar produces most of its energy right at the time when most of us are using it. Kinda convenient, that. It’ll never replace all the power stations in the world, but then it doesn’t have to to be a valuable contributor.

    small steps, ellie

  36. Jeff Id Says:


    I’ve already written a half dozen articles on it. Work your own calcs rather than read and regurgitate.

    Tom, solar costs are massive and it only takes one time down when the energy is needed for the thing to not work. It is simply not acceptable to have no energy when industry and individuals need it. It is also not acceptable to pay 4 to 6 times more for it\, even though Dana’s examples will have tons of hidden government support cash.

    Solar is the worst of the solutions now, but by my best guess will be the best in the future.

  37. Dana Says:

    Yeah, heaven forbid we actually believe the detailed peer-reviewed studies put forth by energy experts.

    By the way, if you want to talk about tons of hidden government support cash, look no further than coal. Absolutely massive costs not reflected in its market price. If we had to pay the actual cost of coal, renewables would already be cheaper.

  38. Jeff Id Says:


    The ‘experts’ to which you refer are most often on the take, there are also oil experts, would you question them?

    Think with your head and your calculator, not with your references.

  39. Jeff Id Says:

    If we had to pay the actual cost of coal, renewables would already be cheaper.

    Were that true, your boundless propaganda wouldn’t be necessary.

  40. Paul Middents Says:

    Jeff ID is the master of the one line put down.

    I would check his tAV for all the mathy analysis showing renewables are hopeless but his incessant beating of the libertarian drum puts me off.

    Maybe a link purged of free market nonsense and hewing strictly to a mathy analysis of renewables might entice me.

    Until then I am more persuaded by peer reviewed work. Care to document your throwaway about experts on the take?


  41. willard Says:

    My favorite description of lukewarmism:

    > [I]t has never been true that we ignore mainstream science; and anyone who reads AEI publications closely can see that we are not “skeptics” about warming. It is possible to accept the general consensus about the existence of global warming while having valid questions about the extent of warming, the consequences of warming, and the appropriate responses. In particular, one can remain a policy skeptic, which is where we are today, along with nearly all economists.

    Guess who.

  42. Dana Says:

    “Jeff ID is the master of the one line put down.”

    Can’t say I’m impressed by a couple garden variety conspiracy theories. “Any information I don’t want to believe is propaganda”. Pretty standard denier response. Sorry, “lukewarmer”.

  43. Jeff Id Says:


    I don’t think that my time is best served publishing on the weaknesses of false energy strategy. If ‘mathy’ conspiracy bothers you, perhaps you should watch sponge bob instead of commenting at climate blogs.


    Again, I have written and calculated publicly quite a bit on the topic. Prove the calculations wrong and we can talk. Demonstrate any weakness and we can talk. Call it a conspiracy theory, and you sit alone by yourself.

  44. Paul Middents Says:

    Jeff ID outdoes himself non sequitarily.

    “Mathy conspriacies”. Where did I say that?

    Publishing on the weakness of false energy policy is beneath you yet you tell Dana you have written and calculated publicly quite a bit on “the topic”.

    If you have something to offer either say it or give us a link–preferably to something devoid of your politics and focused on the math and the science. Our host might even give you a guest spot so you could reach those of us put off by the tone of your own blog.

    Sorry, Sponge Bob is after my time. Perhaps you grew up on him.

    I say again: Care to document your throwaway about experts on the take?

  45. Jeff Id Says:

    Publishing is quite a bit more time consuming than blogging and these facts have been discussed in literature by others.

    here is one of many links, the comments were interesting.

    You can search for solar and wind at the blog as well. I used to like the technologies far better than I do now.

    But on the topic of the thread, I am not really a lukewarmer. Models are running high now but that doesn’t mean the planet won’t catch up. I really don’t know the level of warming to expect, It is certainly non-zero but IMO it doesn’t have to be very big at all. Bart tends toward the high end and worst consequences, I tend toward few consequences and wonder if AGW warming will ever measurably occur. But as Bart has pointed out to me, I wonder if it is still being repressed by aerosols with the full impact being held from view. In clarification, the warming we’ve seen may very well be AGW induced, but it is currently very small and the consequences to quality of life are still likely positive through improved plant growth. The consequences to date also do not align with many of the extremist predictions but none of that precludes the possibility of the IPCC’s disaster scenario’s being at least partially accurate.

    There is an interesting thread at Lucia’s where a wide variety of sensitivities can be derived from n-order models giving nearly identical results. She and many there define themselves as lukewarmers. It is a reasonable position, which some here have insinuated as convenient. That is an unfair characterization of thoughtful informed and smart people who have a difference of opinion on the matter.

  46. Dana Says:

    I have to say Jeff, it’s hard to take someone seriously when he writes things like “Obamessiah” and claims EVs are “a horribly inefficient solution” (a patently absurd comment).

    Anyway, I’ve got a draft of the renewable baseload post up, if anybody would like a preview.

    Also, models aren’t running high in relation to surface temperatures. I presume once again you’re referring to atmospheric temps, in which case it’s more likely that measurements are running low.

  47. Bart Says:

    My opinions on climate change are very mainstream, in terms of the spectrum of scientific opinion, so your description of what I tend to is not accurate.

  48. Jeff Id Says:


    Perhaps it is the crowd you hang out with.

  49. dhogaza Says:

    Perhaps it is the crowd you hang out with.

    Scientists …

    Wrong crowd, obviously.

  50. Eli Rabett Says:

    WINO is much better than lukewarmer.

  51. Jeff Id Says:


    * 3 pounds rabbit meat, cleaned and cut into pieces
    * 1/2 teaspoon salt
    * 1/3 cup all-purpose flour
    * 1/2 pound bacon, diced
    * 1/2 cup finely chopped shallots
    * 1 clove garlic, finely chopped
    * 1 cup dry red wine
    * 1 cup water
    * 1 tablespoon chicken bouillon granules
    * 1 tablespoon currant jelly
    * 10 black peppercorns, crushed
    * 1 bay leaf
    * 1/4 teaspoon dried rosemary, crushed
    * 1/8 teaspoon dried thyme, crushed
    * 2 teaspoons lemon juice
    * 3 tablespoons water
    * 2 tablespoons all-purpose flour

  52. Steve Bloom Says:

    Jeff wrote:

    There is an interesting thread at Lucia’s where a wide variety of sensitivities can be derived from n-order models giving nearly identical results. She and many there define themselves as lukewarmers. It is a reasonable position, which some here have insinuated as convenient. That is an unfair characterization of thoughtful informed and smart people who have a difference of opinion on the matter.

    Self-blindered people, I’d say, who came to the science with an outcome already in mind. Focusing so much on the inherently difficult to calculate fast feedback sensitivity rather misses the point when we have observed slow feedbacks already kicking in, e.g. ice albedo and permafrost melt, with more to come. It’s funny that while all the lukewarmers were busy attacking the hockeystick that multiple studies have pretty well nailed down slow feedback (aka Earth system) sensitivity, it being ~5C. Things look much worse under fast transient conditions when substantial ice is present, as Hansen has demonstrated.

    In addition, their further focus on slight variations in the surface temperature record completely ignores other crtical aspects of current climate, e.g. the observed circulation changes in both the oceans and atmosphere. Drying of the sub-tropics? Northward shift of the ITCZ? Poleward movement of the storm tracks? Acceleration of the ACC? Etc., etc. What could possibly go wrong?

    But forget all that other evidence since they aren’t persuadable by it. I have to say as a native son of the small town upper Midwest that most of them just reek of paleocon. That’s why threads like this one, seemingly devoted to persuading them, are ultimately fruitless.

    So no, the lukewarmers deserve no respect.

  53. Eli Rabett Says:

    You gotta catch the bunny first Elmer. . .

  54. dhogaza Says:

    She and many there define themselves as lukewarmers. It is a reasonable position, which some here have insinuated as convenient

    The irony of self-definition combined with the fact that others point out it’s convenient for them to do so is duly noted, Jeff.

    Along with your inability to appreciate the irony.

  55. dhogaza Says:

    So, Jeff, I hereby define myself as a denialist …

    And a libertarian, too!

    It seems a reasonable position … you can’t challenge it, after all.

  56. dhogaza Says:


    Just like you, Elmer Fudd, to forget the first step in the recipe:

    catching the rabbit …

  57. Steve Bloom Says:

    Hmm, Jeff seems to have acquired himself a nickname, and a very suitable one too.

  58. Bart Says:


    Perhaps it is the crowd you hang out with.

    I’m spoiled, I know. Thanks for the recipe though, have you tried it? (no disrespect intended to the bunny)

  59. MapleLeaf Says:


    Jeff has made a threat of violence against Eli above.

    And don’t you or Jeff try and defend it with “but it was a parody” or “but there was a winky face” or some similar lame excuses. That was a threat of violence against Eli, to kill him and cook him. And yes, we here all know who Eli is (including Jeff) and that he is not a bunny, so I do not see much room for weaseling on this one. Would not be surprised if one of Jeff’s pals delivers a dead bunny to Eli’s door, similar to what someone did to Santer.

    And note that Jeff, having no compelling or substantive argument (other than referring to one of his fav blogs) to make, makes violent threats and then leaves.

    This all reminds why I stopped posting here a while ago….

  60. Jeff Id Says:

    I sincerely apologize to MapleLeaf and Eli for inadvertently insinuating that I might consider cooking and eating Eli or any other rabbit -with garlic and a glass of wine. My hope is that with counseling and family support we can all recover from this unintended horrific exchange.

    Waskly wabbit.

  61. dhogaza Says:

    We now return to our regularly scheduled program of Elmer Fudd spreading FUD …

  62. MapleLeaf Says:


    In view of his above posts, one has to wonder whether Jeff has perhaps sent some threatening emails to Australian (or others) climate scientists recently, or if he supports such ghastly actions. Maybe he will join us here in condemning the threats made against the Aussie climate scientists– not sure what the “lukewarmer” position is on that after reading his message to Eli.

  63. Zero Tolerance! « the Air Vent Says:

    […] Here’s the exchange copied below with stuff removed starting with Eli’s rip on lukewarmers. Why post it? Because the zero tolerance crowd  – is not sane! […]

  64. Bart Says:


    You’re not referring to the hassenpfeffer recipe, are you? Rather than a “threat of violence”, I think Jeff thought it funny to express his dismay by copying and pasting a recipe here as a pun on Eli’s bunny handle. If Eli regards it as a serious threat I’ll reconsider my stance, but for now I think you’re stretching it. Plagiarism perhaps, but a threat of violence?

  65. willard Says:


    There’s no intellectual rights on recipes. Only trade secrets.

    Cuisine is not the only domain like that:

  66. MapleLeaf Says:


    Remember, many a true word is said in jest…..

  67. dhogaza Says:


    There’s no intellectual rights on recipes

    However any written description of the recipe will be covered by copyright …

  68. Kan Says:

    I sincerely hope that Dana, in her forth coming article on renewable energy, calculates the upper limit on how many solar cells (at any given efficiency) can be put into use before there is an adverse effect on the ever critical solar energy that maintains our homey 255 K blackbody.

    Just thinking about the year 2121.

  69. willard Says:


    I believe you’re right!

    Click to access fl122.pdf

    Interestingly, sightings of Elvis can’t be copyrighted neither:

  70. Eli Rabett Says:

    Eli asks whether he should cloak his outrage in sarcasm and condescension following the examples on display at climate audit and climate etc. or shall he don the full metal jacket

    Naw, Eli does bemused, not guano nuts.

  71. Bart Says:


    Me mentioning plagiarism was a failed attempt at being funny rather than being serious.

  72. dhogaza Says:

    Bart – I thought it was funny.

  73. Jeff Id Says:

    woah… Dhogaza and I agreed on something.

  74. Paul_K Says:

    re:Steve Bloom Says:
    June 12, 2011 at 04:24
    Self-blindered people, I’d say, who came to the science with an outcome already in mind. Focusing so much on the inherently difficult to calculate fast feedback sensitivity rather misses the point when we have observed slow feedbacks already kicking in, e.g. ice albedo and permafrost melt, with more to come.
    Waht an extraordinarily stupid comment. I would suggest that it you wish to make a comment on the article to which Jeff is referring, you actually read it. You will find it here.

  75. Steve Bloom Says:

    To be polite, I read it more carefully. What a wathte of time. My initial take wath thpot-on. If anything, math deluthion ith more like it.

  76. Steven Mosher Says:

    it is common practice on the internet to post a recipe in exactly the situation that Jeff did.!-(w-poll)

    Next people will argue that Lamberts “disemvoweling” is a threat

    And for the record. Lukewarmer.

    1. RTE is settled science.

    2. If we have to bet, we will take the UNDER bet: under 3.C and we will take the over bet if you think its 1.2C

    basically we expect something less than the ensemble model mean.

    Our favorite GCM is modelE.. ECR of 2.7

    Yes. modelE is a luke warmer.

    Policy: We probably all agree that we need to shift to nuclear as fast as possible. no regrets. But basically there is no universal lukewarmer position on policy. That pisses people off because they want to lump us in some policy camp. They want to lump us in a policy camp because that is handy. sorry, no lukewarmer policy. And dont take the lack of any definite stance on policy to me that we believe in delay. I think we need to take action now.

  77. dana1981 Says:

    An equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.7°C for 2xCO2 is ‘lukewarmer’? That’s pretty darn mainstream.

  78. Tom Says:

    haven’t we had this discussion here before?

  79. J Bowers Says:

    2. If we have to bet, we will take the UNDER bet: under 3.C and we will take the over bet if you think its 1.2C

    basically we expect something less than the ensemble model mean.

    It’s not a question of betting at all, it’s a question of preparing. In light of all of the uncertainties, mostly with feedbacks, what should you prepare for; the best case scenario or the worst? What are the wisest choices to make?

  80. Ryan V. Stewart (虚空) Says:

    I fear that we’re already doomed to the extinction of the human race by the middle of this century. I think positive feedbacks have been largely underestimated.

    The question then becomes, “How much time do I have to enjoy my life before the world goes to hell? 5 years? 10? 15?”

  81. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    Mr. Stewart, I believe you are unnecessarily worried. The IPCC does not think that climate change will doom the human race. Why should you?

  82. Bart Verheggen Says:

    Ryan Stewart,

    I do think that climate change poses very serious risks, but to claim that “we’re already doomed to the extinction of the human race by the middle of this century” is fatalistic nonsense. See this take-down by Michael Tobis of an influential predictor of doom, Guy McPherson.

  83. Ryan V. Stewart (虚空) Says:

    “Worried?” I’m filled with utter horror at the fact that climate change has been allowed to happen. Seriously, how myopic did humanity have to be to not see this coming. The greenhouse effect has been documented for over a century.

    Well, I hope for all our sakes you’re both right!

  84. Ryan V. Stewart (ES) Says:

    Perhaps I was quick to judge. You’re probably right.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: