Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Comments 801 to 850:
-
Charlie_Brown at 15:26 PM on 3 February 2024Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
The problem with the articles by Seim, et al., is that the poor experimental design is inadequate to simulate an Earth/Atmosphere environment. It does not simulate and cannot demonstrate the mechanism of global warming. This is a result of an incorrect description of the mechanism provided by the authors, who apparently do not understand the descriptions offered by their references. The authors fail to describe the global energy balance properly by focusing on backscatter (an incorrect term for re-radiation) or back radiation. Instead, the correct mechanism for global warming is a result of reduced energy lost to space emitted from the cold atmospheric layer at the bottom of the stratosphere. This is neglected in both the description and the experimental design. Reduced energy loss to space emitted by CO2 from this layer is obvious from the spectrum. Global warming is a result of upsetting the steady state global energy balance as increasing CO2 further reduces emittance to space. To learn more about the mechanism, please read my guest post at: Introducing-an-Atmospheric-Radiation-Model-to-Learn-About-Global-Warming.html
This is in addition to the comments made on Seim’s paper a year ago, as pointed out by Bob Loblaw @453, by Bob, MA Rodger, and myself. MA Rodger also uses the MILIA model in those comments. -
Doug Bostrom at 13:59 PM on 3 February 2024Skeptical Science New Research for Week #5 2024
Thank you OPOF.
In rough connection with that, see:
How Not to Worry About Expense: Modern Monetary Theory and Climate Spending
There is a lot of conventional wisdom (and motivated reasoning) glued onto our understanding of economics, particularly when in collision with governmental finance. Some supposed degrees of freedom are inoperative in reality, dead-end hypotheses that arguably live on in part because they're amenable to exploitation by narrow interests. On the other hand, we have degrees of freedom lying fallow because they contradict traditional, deeply accepted but often wrong thinking— and challenge self-interest. As in the case of MMT, where plain facts contradict what we're habituated to believe without question.
-
John ONeill at 06:59 AM on 3 February 2024Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Electricity is a natural monopoly, and its supply is a service, not a commodity. The introduction of the auction system for supply was pushed by Enron, which expanded like a cancer through the natural gas markets during the 90s, got a foothold in power through Oregon-based West Power, and proceeded to game the industry till a series of blackouts, massive power price increases, and financial scandals lead to its downfall. Enron also introduced large-scale wind into the US - after its bankruptcy, Enron Wind was the only surviving American wind manufacturer, and was bought by GE. Wind's erratic fluctuations are a natural partner for gas. Its alleged low price is for the developer - the power user pays it the same price as whatever supplier was needed to produce the last watt on the grid. Wind often bids negative prices, secure in the income from production tax credits and renewables mandates certificates. The increasingly-frequent negative wholesale prices seen, usually around midday, on high wind and solar grids are not shared by the customer at the end of the month.
-
Bob Loblaw at 02:50 AM on 3 February 2024Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Addendum:
As noted in the other SkS post I linked to in my previous comment, there is also discussion of the first Seim and Olsen paper on this SkS thread.
-
Bob Loblaw at 02:42 AM on 3 February 2024Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Dominic68:
Both those papers are published in "journals" from Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP), which has a pretty bad reputation. In addition to the Wikipedia link, note that SCIRP is listed on Beall's list of predatory publishers. Not a good start.
The first one also mentions Hermann Harde in the abstract, who is a known crank.
Third strike: the abstracts both refer to "backscatter" of IR radiation. CO2 does not scatter IR radiation - it absorbs it. The absorbed energy heats the air via collision with other gas molecules, and that warmer air leads to increased radiation (as IR, for earth-atmosphere temperatures). Any competent climate scientist understands the difference between absorption and later emission of IR radiation (what greenhouse gases cause) versus scattering of radiation (which happens to sunlight in the visible spectrum).
The experiments they propose are not worth looking at.
The second paper was previously discussed in comment on this post at SkS.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:22 AM on 3 February 2024Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
John... "largely because in the west none was being built..."
Don't you think that was primarily because it's hard to attract investment when, once built, these plants wouldn't be able to produce electricity at a competitive price? Even if projects are claiming they can produce at a lower cost, they're very far from proving that out.
In the meantime, wind and solar continue to scale exponentially.
If you're an investor in energy markets it seems pretty darned clear where the best place to put your capital is.
As I said before, I think there's perhaps a place for some nuclear. I know there are going to be people out there insisting it's going to work. I'd just say that's a long, tough row to hoe.
-
Dominic68 at 00:09 AM on 3 February 2024Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
I have had this publication and this one cited against me in argument. Has anyone come across them? Essentially they are being used to argue that C02 > 400ppm concentration will not trigger further heating.
-
John ONeill at 19:59 PM on 2 February 2024Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Sorry, nuclear, as you cite, only provides more power than either wind or solar separately, not together. Also as you say, it hasn't done much to cut emissions for the last twenty years, largely because in the west none was being built, and fairly successful efforts were going on to shut down those plants already existing. Whether wind and solar will manage to do so this year, we shall see.
Figures for wind and solar production were from Elecricity Maps, which I can no longer access on my computer, only on my phone app. You could try www.Electricitymaps.com. You'll be pleased to see that since Jan 26, when wind only made 3% of Wyoming's power, it's been picking up, to about a quarter, and emissions are correspondingly down, to 'only' 580grams CO2/kWh.
If you're charging your electric car off Florida Power and Light, 23% of it last year would have been from nuclear, 5% solar. Gas did the rest. Supposedly those gas plants are to be converted to hydrogen in the next decade or so.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 15:59 PM on 2 February 2024Skeptical Science New Research for Week #5 2024
Thank you for another informative and enlightening curated set of research reports.
I particularly recommend: How Economics Can Tackle the ‘Wicked Problem’ of Climate Change, Stiglitz et al., School of International and Public Affairs/Institute of Global Politics, Columbia University (from this week's government/NGO section)
The entire document is a relatively brief presentation. I am a fairly slow reader. And it only took me 40 minutes to read all of the document.
The following extracted points may encourage people to read the full document.
Introduction ends with:
This report describes how the tools of economics, when combined with insights from other disciplines, can help policymakers address tradeoffs, implement climate policies that are both equitable and cost-effective, and help the world achieve a more sustainable future.
The Conclusion ends with:We cannot “optimize” climate actions with any useful precision by balancing the benefits and costs of action — understanding risk and uncertainty and the concomitant urgency of addressing climate change are central to climate policy. Carbon prices work best when combined with other policies to support the development of infrastructure, institutions, regulations, and alternative technologies. In addition, international treaties are most effective when they combine sticks and carrots to encourage deeper cuts in emissions over time while maintaining broad — if not universal — participation. As befits a “wicked” problem, we need to continue to learn from the past and adapt our strategies for reducing emissions as we go.
What I found particularly informative was in the section headed WHAT SHOULD BE THE GOAL OF CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY? The following quote is from the middle of the section:
A surprising source of fodder for the climate action naysayers has come from a group of economists who use models that generate so-called “optimal” pathways by attempting to balance the benefits and costs of climate action. While these models can be calibrated to show virtually any result, the versions that have received the most attention show that the “optimal” level of action would be to allow the earth to warm between three to four degrees Celsius by 2100 — a level of warming that most scientists say is truly frightening.4 Recent updates to the model suggest an optimal warming of 2.7 degrees in 2100.5
This level of warming is still high. Researchers at Columbia and elsewhere have investigated these models, called Integrated Assessment Models (or IAMs) because they integrate environmental effects with economics, something that all good models do. The assumptions ingrained in these models about the environment, the economy, and how they interact are badly flawed.
The section then elaborates on the flaws including the following selected quotes:
- ... while climate change is a threat multiplier that will affect societies in countless ways, damage estimates focus on the few effects of climate change that are easiest to capture. Many or most categories of climate damage — migration, conflict, ocean acidification, biodiversity loss, etc.— are not included in state-of-the-art models.
- ...the models usually ignore distributional concerns, which are highly relevant to policy responses because climate change has the greatest impact on the poor, who have the fewest resources to protect themselves.
- Future generations will also be disproportionately harmed by climate change, and they are typically undervalued in IAMs as well. Indeed, a critical assumption in the IAMs is how future benefits are “discounted.” A dollar today is worth more than a dollar 100 years from now, but how much more? And how do we value the reduced risk of a climate catastrophe confronting our grand-children? Most climate damage estimates implicitly undervalue future generations by discounting future benefits using market rates of return, which are determined largely by the preferences of individuals today over consumption at different points during their lifetimes — thus failing to grapple with the ethical issues raised by taking on risks that will be borne by future generations.
- More reasonably, and more ethically, we should value our children and grandchildren as much as we value ourselves. Consider a situation where climate change’s effects turn out to be particularly severe, which is a realistic possibility that most IAMs ignore. Incomes of future generations will be reduced as a result — but they will have to spend a lot to repair the damage and to adapt to the new climate, at precisely those times when they are least able to do so.
- In addition to undervaluing the benefits of action, the IAMs do not provide useful estimates of the costs of climate action, in part due to the extreme difficulty of forecasting technological innovation over centuries. The models also assume that markets are perfectly efficient, or that they would be efficient if only we could get the price of carbon right — the only distortion is caused by green-house gas pollution. But, as we discuss further in the next section, research over the past 50 years has highlighted the multiple inefficiencies in market economies that serve as barriers to emissions reductions — imperfections of competition, of information, of absent markets, and ill-informed or less-than-rational individuals.
- To be sure, the most recent studies have produced enormous improvements over earlier versions of IAMs. For example, an analysis by Danny Bressler of Columbia University shows a seven-fold in-crease in climate damages from incorporating an estimate of human mortality caused by temperature increases.9 The latest estimates from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency now includes damages from temperature-related mortality.10 However, even the state-of-the-art estimates of climate damages are plagued by the same limitations noted earlier.
-
michael sweet at 04:26 AM on 2 February 2024Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
It is difficult to reply to a post filled with so many half-truths and mistakes. All your claims have been shown to be false upthread.
1) As you pointed out, Jacobson and hundreds of other researchers have shown that an all renewable energy system (primarily wind and solar) can support the entire economy. It will cost trillions of dollars less than fossil fuels and save millions of lives. Your mentioning a few days with low wind is simply fake news. Since you provide no links to support your wild claims I will not link any either. There are several countries that generate essentially all of their electricity using renewables, a technology that has only been installed widely for less than10 years. France had to purchase a boatload of expensive electricity from its neighbors during the electricity crisis because their reactors failed. I note that no energy researchers support using nuclear power as the primary energy to power the world. Few or no researchers support using even a small amount of new nuclear energy in the future.
2) Your claim that nuclear power "is already larger than wind and solar combined" is deliberately false. According to Our World in Data, in 2021 wind and solar produced 2900 TWH of electricity and in 2022 wind and solar produced 3422 TWH of power world wide. That will increase by at least 15% in 2023. In 2021 nuclear produced 2750 TWH of power and in 2022 nuclear power produced only 2632 TWH of power. The amount of power produced by nuclear has not increased significantly for over 20 years. It is unlikely that the amount of nuclear power will increase for at least 10 years and it is more likely to decrease substantially as old reactors are shut down.
3) Why would a sane person suggest pouring more public money into a failed technology like nuclear? The "new" modular reactor proposals are old designs that were rejected in the 1950's and 1960's as uneconomic or simply too difficlut ot build.
4) Projections of 2024 energy use are that renewable energy will be built at a fast enough rate to reduce world wide carbon dioxide emissions. After 70 years nuclear provides less than 4% of all energy in the world and has not helped reduce carbon emissions for over 20 years. I note that 70% of primary power produced by nuclear is wasted heating the surroundings versus essentially zero waste heat using renewables.
5) Your claim work on using renewables for "transport, steel and fertilisers has hardly even begun" is simply false. Nuclear has not done anything to address these technologies. I, and millions of other people, already drive an electric car. More electric cars are sold every year. Electric trains are widespread. Electric heavy trucks are being manufactured. It is easy to make ammonia fertilizer from renewable energy. Steel is being made with electric furnaces and using green hydrogen. As more and more renewable energy is built it will be used for those purposes since renewable energy is cheaper than fosil fuels. Since renewable energy has only been the cheapest energy for about 5 years there has not yet been time to build out a completely new power system yet. After 70 years nuclear cannot even keep up with its current production as old reactors are retired.
6) Nuclear power in France was down by 50% last year. At all times in a system with nuclear power they require at least enough spinning reserve to cover for the sudden shut down of the reactors because nuclear reactors are prone to unplanned shutdowns at any time. This is not needed for renewables since they do not shut down with no notice. Ways to control for down transmission lines are still required.
7) Nuclear is a failed technology. It is too expensive and takes way too long to build. Due to economies of scale, smaller, modular reactors will be more expensive than big reactors that are already too expensive to compete with renewable energy. Since reactors take so long to build, the entire electrical system will be renewable before new nuclear designs are ready to be widely built. I do not even need to mention that there is not enough uranium in the world to power more than 5% of all power, an insignificant amount.
Whenever I examine nuclear supporters claims closely I find that they are not supported by the data.
Nuclear is not economic, takes too long to build and there are not enough rare minerals.
-
John ONeill at 12:40 PM on 1 February 2024Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
It's not what they are producing now, it's the extreme variation between what they produce at different times, and always will do. Solar obviously varies from zero to ~100% of its capacity on its best day, at any one time, but also by not much less, averaged over longer periods. Wind's minima are not so low, but even places in the trade wind belt have months well below the average. Mawson Staion in Antarctica, which is battered by near-constant catabatic winds (strong enough to destroy one of the wind turbines there), still has a calmer season. Modern economies facing loss of power are not analagous to reptiles - they can't just shut down for a while. Proponents of solar celebrate yearly records in capacity, but their predictions of a corresponding decrease in fossil use, or even of coal use, fail every year (covid excepted.) Fossil fuels still make up about 80% of energy use, as they have done for the last forty years, and they continue to grow every year. A few places have managed a majority of electric power from wind and solar, always backed up by either hydro, or imports of fossil-generated electrons. Academics such as Mark Jacobson's Stanford group, or the Lappeenranta University team, confidently predict 95% plus of all mankind's energy will be from wind and solar; so far work on huge sectors such as transport, steel and fertilisers has hardly even begun. That being so, why would you not support at least research on an energy source that is already larger than wind and solar combined, and that is the primary power source, not just for low-population examples such as Uruguay, Iowa and South Australia, but for major economies like France, Ukraine and Ontario ? Which three, incidentally, have all recently committed to a major expansion of their already large nuclear sectors.
-
scaddenp at 11:01 AM on 1 February 2024Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
John, to my mind you are still not addressing the key - why would you invest money in expensive nuclear rather than cheap renewables with storage? What wind and solar are producing now isn't the relative no. The question is what could they produce for the same money spent on the nuclear plant?
-
John ONeill at 10:20 AM on 1 February 2024Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Pacificorp East, which owns the Kemmerer plant, has 7.5GW of coal capacity, and made 47% of its power from coal, 23% from gas in 2023. Wind and solar combined totalled 25% over the year. Like most grids, its power profile shows an evening peak, with a relative drop overnight, a pattern the Natrium reactor could follow. Wind over the last eight days in the area has been producing 6-7% of power produced, versus 20-30% for the seven preceding days - not the kind of variation that could be easily covered by batteries. Daily solar over the last month has varied from 2.09% of the area's production to 6.51% ( @Electricity Maps)
If the reactor proves successful, there are plenty of other areas where a coal plant could be replaced by nuclear, especially one with the potential to load follow, and eventually to run on transuranics and depleted uranium.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:59 AM on 1 February 2024Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I would add, at least battery storage has the benefit of arbitrage (storing cheap renewables during peak generation to sell back later), whereas, nuclear is just expensive. Period. The only benefit I can see is relative to overall demand, where battery storage may run into deployment problems at full scale. Perhaps there nuclear can take up some of the available slack.
-
michael sweet at 03:23 AM on 1 February 2024Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
John ONiel,
The Natrium plant can only store about 2 1/2 hours of the plant power output. It can only generate 50% more power for 5 1/2 hours. That is not really load following. The overwhelming majoriity of the time it will have to run full out competing directly with renewable electricity producers. You need to read the details of the proposal instead of just the industry propaganda sheets.
I am surprised that you consider the Nuscale location to be "in the midddle of nowhere" compared to Kemmerer. Kemmerer is the seat of county government with a population of 2,414 in 2020. That is hardly a booming metropolis. There are no towns with a poppulation over 12,000 within 100 km. The biggest employer is the coal power plant that is shutting down. The Nuscale location must have a few people to support the Idaho National Lab. It appears to me that it would be difficult to be further "out in the middle of nowhere" than Kemmerer. Where will the workers building the plant stay for the seven years of construction?
Whenever I examine nuclear supporters claims closely I find that they are not supported by the data.
Nuclear is not economic, takes too long to build and there are not enough rare minerals.
-
John ONeill at 11:04 AM on 31 January 2024Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Natrium is not designed to compete with wind, but to complement it. I believe Warren Buffet has an interest in it, and his fund also owns large wind farms in Wyoming. Unlike most reactors, Natrium does not depend on selling steady base-load power. The sodium from the hot end is 200C hotter than the steam from a conventional light water reactor, and is to be run through a heat exchanger to heat a store of nitrate salts, as pioneered by solar thermal plants such as Ivanpah in California. The nitrate salt is pumped from a cold tank to a hot tank, both insulated, and is a much cheaper way to store energy than batteries. When the wind's blowing, the whole output of the reactor goes into filling the hot tank. When the wind dies, the reactor's output is used to heat steam for a turbine, as is the hot salt. The plant produces nothing when the wind's blowing, and prices are low, but when the wind drops and spot prices rise, it can make 50% more than its maximum nuclear output for as many hours as the hot tank lasts.
Whether it will be economic is another story, but Kemmerer welcomes employment to replace the coal plant it's losing. The proposed Nuscale plant, in contrast, was to be in the middle of nowhere. The regional suppliers who had agrred ten years ago to put an option on it can get plenty of power from gas, but they expected a carbon price to penalise that. No carbon price eventuated.
-
michael sweet at 01:11 AM on 29 January 2024Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Sekwisniewski,
Perhaps I should have said there is no approved method of disposal of the sodium waste. Given that there is no approved repository for the existing high level waste either, perhaps that is no reason to worry about.
I note that Terrapower originally had a completely different design that they gave up on. Terrapower has not applied for a design certification yet. Design certifications normally take 2 years or more. How does that fit into Terrapowers' plan to start construction this year? Where are they going to get the 16.5% enriched uranium now that Russia (the only current supplier) is constrained due to the Ukraine war? It takes many years to develop a new fuel chain.
According to your link the Natrium reactor would generate 345 MWE. SMR's are generally described as under 300 MWE.
I would prefer to delay any discussion of modular reactors until they have at least applied for design certification.
My first argument is always that nuclear is not economic. I am waiting for a cost estimate for the first natrium reactor. Bill Gates will be able to foot the cost, but that does not mean it will compete with renewables.
Nuclear is not economic, takes too long to build and there are not enough rare minerals.
-
sekwisniewski at 19:36 PM on 28 January 2024Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
"I note that there is no process for disposing of the sodium coolant after it becomes radioactive." - michael sweet wrote at 337.
Metallic sodium coolant can be converted to sodium carbonate and disposed as LLW (Low-Level Waste), which was done with previous sodium-cooled reactors. Source: Nuclear Waste Attributes of SMRs Scheduled for Near-Term Deployment Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Supply Chain (2022) by Argonne National Laboratory, pages 17-19.
-
BaerbelW at 18:53 PM on 28 January 2024Other planets are warming
Please note: the basic version of this rebuttal has been updated on January 28, 2024 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @ https://sks.to/at-a-glance
-
Postkey at 20:34 PM on 27 January 2024Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
“The Westinghouse AP300™ Small Modular Reactor is the most advanced, proven and readily deployable SMR solution. Westinghouse proudly brings 70+ years of experience developing and implementing new nuclear technologies that enable reliable, clean, safe and economical sources of energy for generations to come.
Our AP1000® reactor is already proving itself every day around the globe. Currently, four units utilizing AP1000 technology are operating in China, setting performance records. Six more are under construction in China and one AP1000 reactor is operating at Plant Vogtle in Georgia while a second nears completion.” ?Contents snipped
Moderator Response:[BL] Warnings issued a long time ago do not lose their strength with the passage of time. The last time you posted - 2-1/2 years ago - you had received several warnings that posting short quotes and links without discussing relevance was not acceptable. You may not remember, but we do.
You have returned after a long hiatus, with no change in behaviour.
Final Warning
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
michael sweet at 03:33 AM on 25 January 2024Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
John ONeil:
Are you addressing my link at 334? If you read the link it describes all modular reactors as costing at least twice as much as large reactors. This is due to economies of scale. Modular reactor supporters claim that by manufacturing thousands of reactors they will be able to learn by doing and reduce the cost of manufacture. I note that this does not happen most of the time in the nuclear industry.
The link provides analysis that shows it is virtually imposssible for modular reactors to be produced at the low prices that supporters claim. In addition, the costs of renewable energy continue to rapidly decrease. Modular reactors are trying to compete with coal. Coal is already too expensive compared to renewables.
I note that Terrapower claimed they would have operating reactors by 2020. They have not yet submittd a design to the regulators.
I note that there is no process for disposing of the sodium coolant after it becomes radioactive.
Nuclear power is too expensive, too slow to build and the materials do not exist.
-
John ONeill at 19:33 PM on 24 January 2024Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I think you're confusing the Nuscale proposal with Bill Gate's planned Terrapower reactor in Wyoming, Michael. Nuscale was to build at the desert site of Idaho National Laboratory, which has had plenty of test reactors built, but no real power plants. The consortium of local power suppliers who'd agreed to proceed at $58/MWh baulked at $89. (Offshore wind projects on the East Coast are suffering the same fate, as materials price rises lead to a consumer backlash.)
Terrapower's proposed Natrium plant in Kemmerer, Wyoming, is the one to go next to a former coal plant. It's a much more radical design than Nuscale's, but with pretty deep pockets funding it. One of the reactors its design was based on did run at Idaho National Lab - the Experimental Breeder Reactor II. EBR2 had no electrical generation, and its heat output was only a fortieth of Natrium's, but it ran fairly trouble-free for thirty years.
-
BaerbelW at 05:52 AM on 23 January 2024Reposted articles from Thinking is Power
Updated this overview page with a link to our latest repost: Give science denial the FLICC
-
michael sweet at 22:47 PM on 22 January 20242023's unexpected and unexplained warming
Cctpp85:
What do you want the moderator to do? At SkS the moderators delete inappropriate comments or try to explain the comments policy to readers. They do not interpret posts or suggest what others mean. I tried to be helpful.
We do not understand what you are asking. Try to rephrase your question so we can address your concerns.
-
BaerbelW at 15:57 PM on 22 January 2024The Debunking Handbook 2020: Downloads and Translations
Cedders @7
Thanks for the heads-up! The "under the hood" PDF is now available on Skeptical Science and the links above are corrected. The best link to use for the handbook is the short URL https://sks.to/debunk2020 which leads to this page on SkS. We had already noticed that the old links to 4C no longer worked and "redirected" the short URLs for them to SkS where we have them all available.
-
Cedders at 09:28 AM on 22 January 2024The Debunking Handbook 2020: Downloads and Translations
As of Jan 2023 there are some broken links here and on the wider web to GMU/climatechangecommunication.org. The English 2020 edition is still available via Link and there's a related publication for broadcast meteorologists:Link
Moderator Response:[BL] Links activated.
The web software here does not automatically create links. You can do this when posting a comment by selecting the "insert" tab, selecting the text you want to use for the link, and clicking on the icon that looks like a chain link. Add the URL in the dialog box. -
cctpp85 at 04:57 AM on 22 January 20242023's unexpected and unexplained warming
Help, moderation!
Moderator Response:[BL] As stated by Michael Sweet, below, readers and moderators here have no idea what you are asking for. The comments area is provided to allow discussion of the points made in the original blog post. The blog software does not have a "read commenters mind" function.
Moderators are here to make sure that the Comments Policy is followed. There is a link to it in the "Post a Comment" section that you have been using to post comments. Before posting again, you should probably read it in its entirety.
For example, in comment #7, a moderator removed part of your comment due to it violating a combination of items in the Comments Policy: accusatory tone, politics, and inflammatory tone.
If you are going to make comments here, you also need to be willing to engage in honest, constructive discussion of the points you have made. People have been asking you for clarification, and you have declined to respond - instead dismissing the issue as being of "secondary importance". If your point is not important enough for you to respond to questions, then don't be surprised if people think your point was not important to begin with. You reap what you sow.
-
BaerbelW at 20:27 PM on 21 January 2024Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
Please note: a new basic level version of this rebuttal was published on January 21, 2024 with the "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @ https://sks.to/at-a-glance
-
Eclectic at 11:44 AM on 21 January 20242023's unexpected and unexplained warming
Cctpp85 , your post #9 is even more difficult to comprehend than your earlier posts.
To be charitable, it would appear that English is not your Mother Tongue. In that case ~ let me first compliment you on the degree of fluency you have achieved thus far. English is a language cursed with a rather excessive amount of synonyms having many shades of meanings, and it is all too easy to convey a meaning which is misleading or nonsensical or unintentionally offensive. (But of course, every language has that room for error, to some extent.)
Allow me to respectfully suggest that you enlist the help of a bilingual compatriot who has a very high fluency in English. Alternatively, write out your questions/statements, and then use one (or more) of the on-line automated translator programs to render your comments into English parallel. Post both versions !
Yes, SkepticalScience here is primarily an English-based website, but there are very likely some volunteers here who are expert bilingualists. They can be helpful midwives, in delivering your "brain-child".
-
michael sweet at 05:12 AM on 21 January 20242023's unexpected and unexplained warming
cctpp85:
It is not clear at all what you are asking. Please re-ask with a straightforward statement.
You appear to me to be asking why the NCEP reanalysis product is not mentioned in the OP and some other reports on the 2023 record setting year. Dr. Hausfather, who wrote the OP, is a specialist who worked on the BEST project. Thus he is most interested in the data from measurements around the globe. The NCEP reanalysis does not compare directly to instrumental measurements.
I Goggled a little and found this article about the ERA5 reanalysis. A quick review of the article indicates to me that the ERA5 reanalysis is the same as the instrumental data reviewed in the OP. I presume the NCEP reanalysis is the same. Dr Hausfather does not have space in the OP to discuss all the data. The reanalysis data do not change any of his conclusions. He discusses what he is expert in. Since the conclusion from reanalysis is the same there is no nefarious intent in leaving their data out.
If the reanalysis data were significantly different it would be interesting to figure out why they were different. Since they are the same it is too time consuming to add more data to the article.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:56 AM on 21 January 2024CCDH Report: The New Climate Denial
John McKeon and Evan,
As and engineer with an MBA I have learned to be on 'high alert' for potential marketing disinformation by people wanting to manipulate me into 'using their products or services'.
The following follow-up questions should be asked after asking for a persons ‘information source’:
- How did the person find the source among the massive amount of potential sources?
- Among the massive diversity of opinions, how did the person determine that the specific understanding they are sharing is the most justified based on all of the available verifiable evidence (could be confirmed to be valid by other people – the way science pursues disproving a theory - the more consistent it is with all the available information and evidence, the more ‘warranted’ it is).
-
cctpp85 at 01:45 AM on 21 January 20242023's unexpected and unexplained warming
Hello,
I have said several times it is of second order importance regarding your expectations so I am not expecting anything more.
Hoping moderation convinces you better than me.
-
Evan at 22:08 PM on 20 January 2024CCDH Report: The New Climate Denial
John@1, I would like to echo your tactic of asking people for their sources. I also find this an effective tactic. Some get agitated when asked for their sources, because they realize that they themselves don't really know.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:33 PM on 20 January 2024Skeptical Science New Research for Week #2 2024
gerontocrat’s recommended reading (comment @2) is informative and enlightening.
It is well aligned with the pursuit of the Sustainable Development Goals and the Green-washing item I commented on @1.
The Introduction opens with:
Modern humans and millions of other species face an unprecedented number of existential threats due to anthropogenic impacts exceeding our planet’s boundaries.1 We are in dangerous territory with instability in the known realms of biosphere integrity, land system change and novel entities such as plastics and synthetic toxins, climate change, freshwater change and biogeochemical flows.
Considering the dynamic, closed and interconnected nature of Earth’s systems together, these threats pose an increasingly catastrophic risk to all complex life on Earth. Many scientists privately believe it to be already too late to avoid the tipping points that will trigger devastating and irreversible feedback loops.2
It is increasingly acknowledged that all of these threats are symptoms of anthropogenic ecological overshoot. Overshoot is defined as the human consumption of natural resources at rates faster than they can be replenished, and entropic waste production in excess of the Earth’s assimilative and processing capacity.
And the opening of the Conclusion is:
In summary, the evidence indicates that anthropogenic ecological overshoot stems from a crisis of maladaptive human behaviours. While the behaviours generating overshoot were once adaptive for H. sapiens, they have been distorted and extended to the point where they now threaten the fabric of complex life on Earth. Simply, we are trapped in a system built to encourage growth and appetites that will end us.
And the Conclusion includes the following:
The current emphasis for overshoot intervention is resource intensive (e.g. the global transition to renewable energy) and single-symptom focused. Indeed, most mainstream attention and investment is directed towards mitigating and adapting to climate change. Even if this narrow intervention is successful, it will not resolve the meta-crisis of ecological overshoot, in fact, with many of the current resource-intensive interventions, it is likely to make matters worse. Psychological interventions are likely to prove far less resource-intensive and more effective than physical ones.
- We call for increased attention on the behavioural crisis as a critical intervention point for addressing overshoot and its myriad symptoms.
- We advocate increased interdisciplinary collaboration between the social and behavioural science theorists and practitioners, advised by scientists working on limits to growth and planetary boundaries.
- We call for additional research to develop a full understanding of the many dimensions of the behavioural crisis (including the overwhelming influence of power structures) and how we can best address it.
- We call for an emergency, concerted, multidisciplinary effort to target the populations and value levers most likely to produce rapid global adoption of new consumption, reproduction and waste norms congruent with the survival of complex life on Earth.
- We call for increased interdisciplinary work to be carried out in directing, understanding and policing widespread behaviour manipulation.
I bolded the last item because it is a key point. The paper indicates that efforts to raise awareness and improve understanding of the problem, promoting the science, are not bringing about the required rate and magnitude of changes of behaviour.
The section immediately preceding the Conclusion is titled: Directing and policing widespread behaviour manipulation. It is brief and is quoted below:
Behavioural manipulation has been intentionally used for nefarious purposes before, and as we’ve just explored, has played a critical role in the creation of the behavioural crisis and consequential ecological overshoot. Eco-centric behaviour is the heart of any sustainable future humanity might wish to achieve. Moreover, we are at a crossroads,with three paths ahead:
- We can choose to continue using behavioural manipulation to deepen our dilemma,
- We can choose to ignore it and leave it to chance, or
- We can use an opportunity that almost no other species has had and consciously steer our collective behaviours to conform to the natural laws that bind all life on Earth.
This raises ethical questions, for example, who is worthy of wielding such power? At present, the answer is anyone with the necessary influence or financial means to exploit it. However, we should not entrust this to any individual human, company, government or industry. Instead, any continued use of widespread behavioural manipulation should be firmly bound by, and anchored within a framework built upon the laws of the natural world, as well as the science on limits to growth.
We urgently call for increased interdisciplinary work to be carried out in directing, understanding and policing widespread behaviour manipulation.
What the authors are calling for will require ‘policing of political marketing’. That will require ending the legitimacy of demands for the freedom of competitors for leadership and higher status to claim whatever they want as the justification for doing whatever they please, with popularity and profit being the measures of acceptability.
That ‘systemic change of what is allowed in competition for status and leadership' is essential for humanity to have a lasting improving future on this one, and potentially only, amazing planet that humans could have a long future on.
-
John McKeon at 14:24 PM on 20 January 2024CCDH Report: The New Climate Denial
Learning climate science and the science of climate change and the science of how and why burning fossil fuels at the scale that the world is now engaged is a BFD*, has been for me inextricably linked to learning about disinformation.
Disinformation is a phenomenon that also can be understood as a subject of disciplined scientific enquiry. If I get into a friendly sincere discussion with family members, friends, acquaintences or strangers I like to enquire as politely as I can manage about what sources they use to gather information (or DISinformation!) about the world.
* BFD is an acronym that I learned from the very calm, mild mannered climate scientist, Jim Hansen. It means Big #@$!%^& Deal. -
Eclectic at 09:42 AM on 20 January 20242023's unexpected and unexplained warming
Cctpp85 , it seems you are wanting to make a statement of some sort, but you are burying your message "between the lines" (to a large extent).
So much simpler, to plainly put your cards on the table; and explain what you think the problems are, and point those out very clearly. Point out any weaknesses or gross faults ~ and suggest how those may be fixed (if at all fixable, indeed) . . . . or at the very least, you should draw clear and valid inferences which will advance everyone's understanding of the climate situation.
Be boldly candid.
-
michael sweet at 00:42 AM on 19 January 2024It's only a few degrees
Retired guy at 10:
Arhennius predicted in 1896 (that is 1896, not a typo) that warming would be greater at night than during the day, greater in winter than summer and greater at high latitudes. Perhaps the scientists do not emphasize this point since it has been discussed so long by those who pay attention.
This sounds like another attempt by deniers to grasp at straws to try to minimize the problem. I have seen a lot of articles that say that high temperatures at night make it much harder for people to live in hot areas because there is no time to recover from the daily heat. Likewise many plants in temperate areas require night time cold to produce fruit (think apples, peaches, cherries, grapes and nuts). Of course sea level rise will be greater since Greenland and the Antarctic will melt faster when they are warmer.
The deniers have nothing so they make up stuff to argue about.
-
John Mason at 23:43 PM on 18 January 2024It's only a few degrees
#10, Retiredguy
A link to any such argument would be useful, if you would be so kind. But see the responses to Jasper above. They should at least partially answer your question. Denier logic is always badly flawed but we need more details of the argument to point out why.
-
retiredguy at 23:02 PM on 18 January 2024It's only a few degrees
I'm reading climate skeptic/deniers claim that because winter, nightime and high latitude temps have increased more than summer, daytime and lower latitudes, that the negative impacts of global warming are being exaggerated by climate 'alarmists', and that furthermore, the IPCC and climate scientists are intentionally not highlighting this. Can you comment ?
-
cctpp85 at 22:34 PM on 18 January 20242023's unexpected and unexplained warming
Hello,
Considering your political motivation, my request if of secondary importance.
I would be glad anyway if anyone can provide me with the details of the NCEP reanalyses recent story.
Moderator Response:[DB] Inflammatory snipped.
-
Eclectic at 21:26 PM on 18 January 20242023's unexpected and unexplained warming
Cctpp85 @5 :
Indeed, and thank you. But what are the significances of it all?
It is a technical point of second order importance, whether the tiger is a Bengal or Siberian tiger ~ but what is the conclusion that we should draw, when we see the beast, and what practical action should we take? In other words, what is the central thrust of the underlying message that you were intending to convey to readers?
Re-analysis (or other usage of statistics) has a purpose in science. How would you yourself clarify the situation, in the way that you would wish readers to understand?
-
cctpp85 at 18:48 PM on 18 January 20242023's unexpected and unexplained warming
Hello,
I replied recently to Daniel Bailey because he thought I was a beginner.
My first message was about NCEP "strange" reanalysis outputs and the fact that everyone left them out of recent discussion, which maybe has some link with the "strange" outputs. My natural curiosity leads me to look for more details about that story.
This is just a technical point, of second order importance, but many articles here are also technical points.
-
Eclectic at 08:59 AM on 18 January 20242023's unexpected and unexplained warming
Cctpp85 @1 and @3 :
Please clarify the main points that you wish to make. Casual readers - such as myself - like to improve our knowledge about important aspects of climate.
When considering matters of analysis and re-analysis, we like to "cut to the chase" and find out the practical end result of it all.
Somehow, I am reminded of an apocryphal story by David Attenborough, about a man who encountered a tiger in central Asia. And while the man was pondering whether it was a Bengal tiger or a Siberian tiger . . . . he "got et".
[ Excuse the Attenboroughian pronunciation. ]
-
michael sweet at 00:41 AM on 18 January 2024What role for small modular nuclear reactors in combating climate change?
I linked a paper on SMR's on another thread. Here is another link. Short summary: they will never work. Too expensive.
nuclear is too expensive and the materials do not exist.
-
michael sweet at 00:37 AM on 18 January 2024Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
This peer reviewed paper fron 2021 in IEEEaccess reviews the issues with small modular reactors. They conclude that SMR's will be at least twice as expensive as large reactors and the rest of the claims by SMR supporters are simply a bunch of stuff. It is unlikely that more than a very few demonstration reactors will ever be built. Those that are built will be paid for by governments. I note that the nuclear indusry has made many claims over the past decades that were a bunch of stuff.
-
cctpp85 at 19:35 PM on 17 January 20242023's unexpected and unexplained warming
Hello,
I know what is a reanalysis. The departure from observation-based analysis is not an argument because reanalyses consider observations as probabilities and are allowed to depart from observations if probabilistic optimization supports it.
Do you know about the details proving that all NCEP probabilistic optimizations are flawed?
In a multi model ensemble analysis, any model which is "often lower quality" but not clearly flawed participates nonetheless to the final probabilities. Otherwise it is not a multi model ensemble strategy and no final probabilities can be given.
-
Daniel Bailey at 07:24 AM on 17 January 20242023's unexpected and unexplained warming
cctpp85, one answer is that it's the difference between theory-based calculations (reanalysis products) and direct observations.
Parker 2016 - Reanalyses and Observations: What’s the Difference?
-
cctpp85 at 23:44 PM on 16 January 20242023's unexpected and unexplained warming
Hello,
Why have NCEP reanalyses been ruled out of the all time record estimate for 2023 in WMO and many others' articles?
Evidently NCEP reanalyses changed the SST source near 2020 which brings some complexity but I do not have more details.
-
BTGovier at 08:43 AM on 15 January 2024Statistic of the decade: The massive deforestation of the Amazon
Additionally, you'd need roughly 2 acres per head.
-
BTGovier at 08:38 AM on 15 January 2024Statistic of the decade: The massive deforestation of the Amazon
The cost of jungle land is much less than that (yeah, I'm Brazilian). Some of it comes free formland grabbers. Most of the land where cattle is has first been grabbed, the. harvested for timber, then burnt, then used for cattle.
