Recent Comments

Prev  1618  1619  1620  1621  1622  1623  1624  1625  1626  1627  1628  1629  1630  1631  1632  1633  Next

Comments 81251 to 81300:

81251. Pete Dunkelberg at 01:48 AM on 26 June 2011
       Rogues or respectable? How climate change sceptics spread doubt and denial
       Things to know: The Denialists' Deck of Cards, and note that denialism is often industry-based behind the scenes. What Eli adds. And if you try to really get to the bottom of it, it takes long hard work to discover how low it goes.
81252. Tom Curtis at 01:46 AM on 26 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       Eric the Red @224, the Munich Re report states what has occurred, but it also states "... for which we believe climate change is partly responsible ..." and when stating how they assess the risk that say, "We adopt a multidisciplinary approach, using and combining the pertinent experience and expertise of our scientists, specialist underwriters, lawyers, economists, sociologists and actuaries as appropriate for the risk situation." Consequently, they do not say how somebody else attributed responsibility for the increase in extreme weather events, but how they attribute that responsibility. Further, it is based on that attribution that they consider the risk that extreme weather events becoming so frequent that insurance becomes impractical is real, and something they are spending share holders money now to prepare for. This probably says nothing more than that their scientists accept the scientific consensus on global warming, and absence access to peer reviewed studies by the scientists, that is neither here nor there. But they do not reflect "what if" scenarios nor attribute to others these beliefs. Rather they are, and are legally required to be, the considered views of the board of directors. Having said that, the only evidence of weight in their report and other documents is to the question of whether or not extreme weather events are on the increase. The answer is yes. Interestingly that is something predicted by the theory of AGW, and something not predicted by any opposing theory. Coupled with the evidence provided above about the effects of increased tropical pacific sea temperatures on the frequency of ENSO events, and the evidence of the increased frequency of tornadoes (though not the largest tornadoes), that should answer Norman's question.
81253. Rob Honeycutt at 01:42 AM on 26 June 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       okatiniko... Whether there are any 100% renewable markets is a rather pointless argument. It's like complaining that no one has ever walked on the moon at the point when Neal Armstrong was in the capsule sitting on top of his Saturn 5 rocket. Like it or not there are a lot of people working on creating a 100% renewable energy grid. There are billions of investor dollars flowing into this effort. You might not think it's possible but those billions of investor dollar are all saying they don't agree with you.
81254. Pete Dunkelberg at 01:38 AM on 26 June 2011
       Rogues or respectable? How climate change sceptics spread doubt and denial
       Oh brother. Just google Galileo gambit.
81255. Eric the Red at 01:23 AM on 26 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       The Munich Re report is neither an advocation for or against global warming. The report simple states that weather-related natural catastrophies are on the rise and evidence is that this is partly due to climate change. This is a very legalistic statement, which simply states what has occurred, and how someone else has attributed some blame. They then state that temperature increases should be kept below the much-cited two degrees to continue adequate insurance protection. Again, no claim either way. All these statements, and more, are "what if" scenarios, and that the insurance industry should position itself accordingly. While not exactly a scientific paper, insurance reports are based on real data, and risks are calcaulated based on past events and future probabilities.
81256. Marcus at 01:15 AM on 26 June 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       @ okatiniko. So please be so kind to provide some kind of *evidence* that proves Bio-gas is incapable of providing 24/7 electricity. Provide us with evidence that Micro-Hydro, which is *not* limited by geographic conditions (as there are very few-if any-Countries in the World that don't have access to at *least* one river system) is incapable of providing 24/7 electricity. Show us *evidence* that Tidal, Wave or Tidal Stream power are incapable of providing stable 24/7 power? Indeed, show us *evidence* that any source of renewable energy is incapable of providing stable 24/7 power? The point is that any lack of 100% Renewable Energy has much more to do with a lack of political will than a lack of technical feasibility-a fact that you clearly have no interest in coming to grips with.
81257. Eric the Red at 01:09 AM on 26 June 2011
       Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
       Michael, If you remember, this all started when you stated that if CO2 were stopped today, that temperatures would continue to rise for several decades, and sea level would increase several meters. I agree that CO2 emissions will not end today, tomorrow, or this decade. I made no estimate of the decline of atmospheric CO2 after that point, but merely stated that would - others have provided links to various decline rates. With regards to the sea ice trends, using the volume graph provided by Albatross in 106 and corresponding reference, the accelerating decline would reach zero by about 2015. The trend based on the sea ice area, even using the steeper decline since 1996, would take 30 years. Unless an infintely thin 5 million square km sheet of ice forms in the intervening decades, one of those proejections will have to be wrong. (mathematically a large area with zero height will result in zero volume, but physically, it is impossible). I have never advocated taking no action. I do not know were you get these ideas. I simply stated that if we waited, action will be harder, and that effects thus far (not sometime in the future) are reversible (I also never said easily). While I will admit to presenting what amounts to optimistic forecasts, oftentimes, they are a counter to those who are using the more pessimistic. For most forecasts, there is a wide range of possibilities, due to large uncertainties, which have not been resolved yet.
81258. Marcus at 01:08 AM on 26 June 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       @ okatiniko, you asked which countries had *stable* sources of renewable energy-namely sources capable of producing 24/7 power-& Iceland definitely fits the description with its Geothermal Energy. I do find it odd that those who try & defend the current fossil fuel monopoly of our electricity sector use extremely lame excuses to justify the continuation of said monopoly-just as you do. The fact is that the first coal-fired power stations were extremely expensive, inefficient & unreliable. It took a good 50 years for them to reach the price & reliability that we know today. Yet if we applied your false logic, then we'd have just abandoned the whole thing as a bad idea from the get-go.
81259. okatiniko at 00:28 AM on 26 June 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       Marcus, ( -snip- ). I asked you a very precise question, I didn't ask you to repeat arguments that I already know. And Iceland has a lot of hydroelectricity, too. The fact is : there is no country with almost 100 % renewable electricity without a large part of hydropower, and it is limited by geographic conditions. And there is no country with almost 100 % renewable electricity and without CO2 production. This doesn't demonstrate it is impossible : it only demonstrates that the feasibility of "100 % renewable energy" is still to be demonstrated, and that computer simulations and peer-review reports don't demonstrate they're right.
       Response:

       [DB] Refrain from personalizing the discussion, please.

81260. Tom Curtis at 00:10 AM on 26 June 2011
       CO2 has a short residence time
       Eric (skeptic) @96, what the environment does is restore equilibrium between the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere and the partial pressure of CO2 in the upper layer of the ocean. That is a rapid process, sufficiently rapid that even temperature fluctuations of 0.2 degrees C globally averaged can significantly affect the rate of absorption. That would not be the case if the surface and atmosphere where far from equilibrium. Consequently, the idea that the environment absorbs ~50% of annual emissions is much closer to the truth than that it absorbs 2% of the difference between current and pre-industrial CO2 levels. I can make the same point from a different direction. The fact is that ~50% of CO2 emissions have been absorbed annually since the industrial revolution. The rate of absorption is a function of the level of disequilibrium. Given that the rate of absorption has scaled with annual emissions rather than with cumulative emissions since 1850, it follows that the level of disequilibrium correlates with annual emissions rather than cumulative emissions. From that it follows that equilibrium is reached in a time scale close to one year. In the long term, CO2 levels will reduce despite this, because partial pressures of CO2 in the deep ocean and surface will equalize, gradually drawing down atmospheric CO2 to between 25% and 30% above peak values. After that the CO2 is only drawn down by geological processes, ie, over thousands of years. So, to conclude, your spreadsheet is based on a clearly false assumption. Again I refer you to Archer 2008. Or perhaps you will be content with Archer's rule of thumb (now considered optimistic), that CO2 will reduce to 25% increase over pre-industrial levels over a century, and that the remainder is there forever on human time scales. (I refer you to the charts posted by Dikran Marsupial @23.)
81261. Marcus at 23:48 PM on 25 June 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       @ okatiniko "They don't replace coke powered ironworks." If this were true, then its all the more reason not to be wasting the coal in power stations when we could-& should-be using renewable sources of energy instead. Just as we should be saving our oil to make all those things that can currently only be made without oil, instead of wasting it in inefficient Internal Combustion Engines, when cleaner & more efficient sources of fuel are available. "can you please list me the number of those producing a stable power supply, without coal or hydroelectricity ?" Again with your hearing problem. By your argument we should never have flown a plane because, by your logic, if no-one has done it yet then it must be *impossible*. Iceland, though, has entirely stable Geothermal Energy &, as I've already pointed out, Micro-hydro & Bio-Gas Electricity are entirely capable of providing completely stable power without *any* need for storage-& are readily available to virtually every nation on Earth. So too can Tidal Power, Wave-power & Tidal Stream Power. The only renewable energy sources that require some kind of back-up or storage is solar & wind, but with the right back-up these two are entirely capable of providing stable power. Not that coal or nuclear are as stable as some would have us believe. Both types of power are usually highly centralized, & so need to transmit their electricity over a wide geographic area-so what happens if a sub-station blows up, or a fire or wind-storm brings down any one of the hundreds of kilometers of High Voltage Power Lines linking the power station to the consumers? What happens if the power station breaks down? These things are likely to have a much more damaging effect than if a single wind turbine breaks down, or if a single solar dish breaks down or if....well you get the picture. The point is that almost all the existent sources of renewable energy are (a) modular & (b) relatively small size-so they tend to distribute their energy over a much smaller area, & so are less prone to T&D failures. Their modular nature, as I suggested above, means the loss of a single power generation unit will *not* bring the whole system crashing down!
81262. Eric (skeptic) at 23:38 PM on 25 June 2011
       Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
       michael, I answered you here: /argument.php?p=2&t=94&&a=80#55874
81263. Eric (skeptic) at 23:36 PM on 25 June 2011
       CO2 has a short residence time
       michael, yes my spreadsheet is completely academic since I stopped CO2 in 2008 (I only had CO2 data through 2007) and we are current increasing worldwide, not stopping. Yes, I will take your suggestion and redo it with a somewhat plausible scenario and a BAU for comparison. The back of envelope calculation that supports my estimate is this: the environment is said to absorb 1/2 of our new CO2 each year. But it does not and can not possibly do that. Instead it absorbs about 2% of our total remaining excess over preindustrial (818,000-597,000). Even that is very oversimplified. If it were linear it would be removed in 100 years, or half in 50 years. It clearly is not for the reasons you point out. I would add that warming since the end of the LIA would have increased CO2 by 5-10 ppm had man done nothing at all. But I think an exponential decay to preindustrial is a reasonable estimate until we have more evidence for permafrost melting, etc (those are extremely slow processes).
81264. JMurphy at 23:30 PM on 25 June 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       LazyTeenager, you forgot the bit asking how you intend to dispute the accuracy of the content of the reports. And since you bring up peer-reviewed papers, perhaps you have some in mind that you wish to challenge ? Do you have any evidence-based response at all ?
81265. JMurphy at 23:25 PM on 25 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       Eric (skeptic) wrote : "It is a bit amusing that we have here such faith in free enterprise in the reinsurance industry while demonstrating the ill effects of free enterprise in other industries." Who is showing "such faith" ? All I can see are acknowledgements that "free enterprise" will always try to safeguard itself against legal action and barriers to its continuing business; while constantly trying to keep itself in business by identifying future risks and ways to profit from those risks. None of that mitigates against any "ill effects" that such an enterprise may bring by focussing on itself to the detriment of others.
81266. LazyTeenager at 23:17 PM on 25 June 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       Dana at 25 reckons ------- I'm not sure what "agenda" you suggest is at play (*gasp* the get our energy from clean renewable sources agenda!), but it's irrelevant. If you dispute the accuracy of the content of the reports, then do so. -------- Yes you got the agenda correct. At this stage these reports are feasibly studies. They ares written by enthusiasts for the idea, and good luck to them. But there is always a gap between the feasibility study and it's implementation in practice. The equivalent in the sciences is the hypothesis vs the experiment. In engineering it's the design vs the prototype vs full scale. In economics I don't know how they verify stuff but since economic reports and assessments often don't agree there must be some resolution mechanism as in "apply the policy it and seewhat actually happens". Even being a peer reviewed paper is no guarantee that the analysis is a valid representation of the real world.
81267. Eric (skeptic) at 23:06 PM on 25 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       It is a bit amusing that we have here such faith in free enterprise in the reinsurance industry while demonstrating the ill effects of free enterprise in other industries. I think we can read between the lines above that profit comes through higher risk estimates. Here is an example of State Farm pulling out of the retail insurance business in Florida, only to return as a high-priced reinsurer based on risk estimates that turned out to be inflated http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20101205/article/12051021 Some caveats: the article is one-sided and the hurricane risk assessments were overblown by almost everyone following the 2005 season.
81268. michael sweet at 22:57 PM on 25 June 2011
       Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
       Eric, You are presuming that your personal (amateur) estimate of decline of CO2 is what will happen. Leaving aside the fact that you estimate is not reviewed at all (and you have provided no peer reviewed link that supports your extraordinary claim), there is no possibility that CO2 will stop tomorrow. If the decision to reduce CO2 as much as possible was made today, it would take decades to replace current carbon sources. Can you do your calculation over with a more realistic estimation of 2050 before carbon release is zero? Calculate temperatures with resonable feedbacks for the loss of the Arctic sea ice, which you agree will be gone by 2050. If it is 200 years before temperature returns to current temperature, that is forever for me and my children. You also completely ignore natural sources of carbon. It is clear that in the next two decades much carbon will begin to be released from thawing permafrost and sea floor methane clathrates. Does your naieve estimation include release of carbon from these sources? It is at least as likely that natural carbon sources will become larger than current sinks as it is for the sinks to absorb carbon at the rates you estimate. Where do you think the carbon came from in the PETM? You pick only the most optimistic projections to consider, and then you insist they are the only possible option. We all hope that the optimistic projections are correct, but prudence suggests we should plan for some downside. Since the 2007 IPCC report the changes in nature have exceeded many of the IPCC projections (for example: sea ice loss, ice loss from Greenland and WAIS). You insist that the most optimistic projections of ice melt are now correct. Why do you expect these changes to suddenly drop from above the maximium to the minimum of the projections? The Earth has been permanently altered by mankind. If we take strong action immediatley we hope to keep the change to a minimum so that life can continue with little disruption. You advocate taking no action until the problem is much worse and argue that if action is taken at some uncertain future time the damage will be easily reversed. The longer we delay before action is taken the more likely the changes will spin out of our control. Waiting to reduce carbon emissions seems to me to be a receipt for disaster.
81269. Eric (skeptic) at 22:28 PM on 25 June 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       I for one am happy to (finally) start getting serious about a smart grid in the U.S. which alleviate and eventually eliminate the idle fossil power described above (and make renewable more cost effective). As for any country having 100% renewable electricity, a more realistic statement (and long term goal for us) might be 99% or 95%. I give these Norwegians points for effort http://www.responsibletravel.com/holiday/3467/winter-trekking-holiday-in-norway but their legacy power is still apparently from diesel.
81270. Tom Curtis at 22:17 PM on 25 June 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       okatiniko @40, in Spain solar power plants with a firm load capacity of 140 MW for 20 hours of every day are already under construction, with the first expected to commence operation this year. The four hours of no load capacity can be coordinated with the time of minimum demand (2 to 6 am), which also happens to be a time of high wind power supply. Therefore, combined there is no in principle reason that the two technologies cannot between them supply base load. Alternatively Solar Thermal alone could provide base load by the coordination between planst of when stored heat is used. It has been shown that if solar plants capable of extracting four times their peak load as energy are used, 100% of energy supply can be drawn from solar thermal plants at a cost of 8.4 cents (US) per kWh. To extend the powered flight analogy, you are in the position of arguing powered flight is impossible as the first transatlantic passenger flights are being initiated. With respect to steel manufacture, the carbon for alloying with iron can be provided by charcoal as readily as from coal. Consequently there is no bar to an emissions free economy on that ground.
81271. BC at 21:47 PM on 25 June 2011
       Introducing the Skeptical Science team
       What's an adjunct lecturer and an adjunct fellow please? WA is a long way from Qld. How does that work? I agree with all the comments above. Congrats.
81272. Englishborn at 21:37 PM on 25 June 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       Okatiniko - Geothermal does not rely on volcanoes, it relies on a heat source below the earth's surface which is close enough to give a temp that allows the use of geothermal technology, such as in Southampton (no volcanoes there), in Iceland this heat source is a hotspot that makes geothermal technology extremely viable, so much so Iceland are now trying to market themselves as the perfect place for mass banks of servers which can be seen as green. It is estimated that the UK , an area of very stable region could produce 2% of its energy use via geothermal in the south west of the country alone. Report from DECC
81273. okatiniko at 21:32 PM on 25 June 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       Paul : "The question is, how long before all the steel ends up dispersed as oxide across the planet and becomes uneconomic to retrieve?? There's a thought :-)" Oh yes, it is ! and it applies to all metallic ores as well. In principle, biomass can provide carbon , but much less than what is currently burnt through FF. Marcus, have you already asked yourself about the ultimate origin of the free energy of waste, that you use when you burn it. it's an interesting question ..
81274. okatiniko at 20:53 PM on 25 June 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       Marcus,there are around 200 countries in the world : can you please list me the number of those producing a stable power supply, without coal or hydroelectricity ? Electric steel furnaces don't reduce the iron ore, but oxidize the extra carbon. They don't replace coke powered ironworks. Tom : to my knowledge, only hydroelectricity can provide a stable supply among all renewable sources (Iceland has a fair amount of geothermal power too, but a lot of hydroelectricity. And volcanoes can be a little bit unpredictable....). And again, even countries swimming in renewable electricity have a rather large amount of CO2 production per capita. Explain it as you want, it's a mere fact. Now you're free to believe in any prediction and computer simulation you want, as I said. But as far as they haven't been really implemented, they are just what lazyteenager said : hypothetical.
81275. Papy at 20:45 PM on 25 June 2011
       Rogues or respectable? How climate change sceptics spread doubt and denial
       To answer the question "rogues or respectable", have a glance on the brand new anti-RC Wiki site from the Heartland Institute : Climatewiki, which would make an interesting subject for an article too. How could a so little and kind tree not be respectable ?
81276. skywatcher at 20:17 PM on 25 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       Okatiniko #107: you have very handily demonstrated that you do not understand proxies or calibration at all. Thanks for that. The only person who has claimed to produce hockey sticks out of noise was a certain Steve McInyre, who could only do it through a hidden sorting of his 'random' data, so his selections were very far from random indeed - see les' link. Back in the real world, correlations will only exist if the proxy data happens to contain a shape close to that of the record being correlated against. In the real world the relationship will only be given credence if there is a physical mechanism to allow that link, say, like the expansion of ocean water with rising temperature. Otherwise if we were to believe your "random proxies would be very well correlated with temperatures in the calibration period", then anything could be correlated with anything else! I'll add my call for evidence to support your wild claims, also a call that if you cannot support those claims that you withdraw them.
81277. Marcus at 19:36 PM on 25 June 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       Any town in close proximity to a decent river can have zero-emission base load power *without* the need to back-flood large areas of land. Micro-hydro & Run-of-the-River Hydro power schemes can provide electricity without the need for dams or large lakes. Either part of the river can be diverted through a power station then returned to the river again downstream, or else can be diverted-stored in a small lagoon-then returned to the river downstream via the power station. So there is already one source of power that is proven to be base-load. Gas-fired electricity from farms, plantation forests, sewerage treatment plants & landfill sites are also fully capable of generating base-load power. So too can Geothermal Power. All of these are capable of generating base-load *without* the need for any kind of storage. Wind Power, PV's & Solar Thermal are also capable of generating base-load, albeit with some kind of storage capacity included.
81278. OPatrick at 19:35 PM on 25 June 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       The electrification of transport is an important element in this discussion. Of course it adds to the demands for electricity but at the very least it's nothing more than a transfer from one arbon emission source to another and the electric motor is so efficient that even with the highest carbon-intensity electricity sources an electric vehicle probably reduces emissions over its lifetime when compared to a petrol vehicle. But electric vehicles will potentially help to smooth the fluctuations in the gird and provide baseload. Most vehicles will be charged at night, when there is most likely to be a surplass of electrcity. The batteries can also be used to supply back to the grid at peak demand if a suitable system can be put in place. Also, when batteries reach the point where they no longer hold sufficient charge to continue to be viable in the vehicle itself they have plenty of future still in provideing another source of baseload power and there are already businesses being set up to buy old batteries for this purpose.
81279. Paul D at 19:31 PM on 25 June 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       Marcus: "even processes like Steel manufacture are increasingly making use of things like Arc Furnaces rather than Coal alone" This is I believe for recycling steel. I don't believe arc furnaces are used in making fresh steel. But then maybe most steel is from recycled stock now?? The question is, how long before all the steel ends up dispersed as oxide across the planet and becomes uneconomic to retrieve?? There's a thought :-)
81280. Tom Curtis at 19:25 PM on 25 June 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       Marcus @33, your reference to flight amused me with the thought of the Lazyteenager/katiniko argument against powered flight. You can imagine some suitable barroom expert holding forth in 1903: "The Wright brothers did not prove powered flight is possible - after all they did not fly fifty passengers across the Atlantic. Until such a flight takes place all you have is theoretical considerations. Everyone is free to believe in theoretical considerations: my position is only to believe in real facts."
81281. JMurphy at 19:20 PM on 25 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       okatiniko wrote : "The issue is then that : a hockey stick shape is automatically generated even by random data. This has been proved a number of times." Yes, as les asks also, could you provide links to the evidence backing that claim of yours, along with a brief summary ?
81282. Tom Curtis at 19:19 PM on 25 June 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       okatiniko @32, you claim to only believe "real facts", but that is demonstrably wrong. Specifically, the most obvious error in Lazyteenager's comment was that myth that "renewable energy sources can't meet baseload (24-hour per day) demand" has no more been put to the test than has the counter claim. In choosing to believe that myth, therefore, you and Lazyteenager are choosing to believe convenient untruths. That you then go on to ignore twentyfour hour power generation from solar sources among other things which show the myth to be groundless is not a triumph of empiricism over a priorism, but a refusal to allow your a priori beliefs to be weakened by empirical fact.
81283. Paul D at 19:13 PM on 25 June 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       Grayman - "@14 you say that you gradually work up to these solutions, yes, so why have these not been worked on for all these yrs" They have! It's taken a century to get the existing energy systems to where they are now. Over that time they have evolved into something sophisticated, monitored and controlled by computer systems. The same will happen with the next generation of systems. Parts of the existing systems will be changed. An example is the RLTec fridge technology that I mentioned previously, it is designed for a smart grid system (in which the electricity supply frequency is more likely vary), but will also work in the current system (in which the frequency is more stable). So we will see changes like this gradually build up.
81284. les at 19:01 PM on 25 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       107 - could you link to a published analysis supporting your last paragraph; and, preferably one not including anything about persistent red noise.
81285. okatiniko at 18:14 PM on 25 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       87 Paul : there has been also an answer to the comment by von Storch et al. The acknowledged the fact that their reconstruction procedure is not quite the same as Mann et al., but it doesn't change that the loss of variance is a well know phenomenon that occurs routinely in any proxy reconstruction, and the reconstruction of SLR has no reason to be immune against this artifact. The origin of the issue is rather simple to understand. Proxies are, by definition, NOT temperatures, but rather another physical quantity X which can be a thickness of tree rings, an X-ray density of sediments, a density of foraminifers, or anything else. So it has , at some moment, be converted into a temperature by a calibration factor dT/dX - just for dimensional reason. This calibration factor must be computed by some reference, calibration period, where two indications overlap. But the important thing is that this calibration includes automatically other randoms factors polluting the proxies. Actually the calibration can be done on ANY signal , including totally random ones that have no link with temperatures ! of course it is unlikely that climate scientists use physically uncorrelated signals, but the amount of "pollution" by extra variance is very difficult to ascertain. So the agreement with instrumental data is granted by the calibration procedure , but not that with past data - random proxies would be very well correlated with temperatures in the calibration period, but vary randomly in the past and give an average flat curve, so they would generate automatically a "hockey stick" shape. The issue is then that : a hockey stick shape is automatically generated even by random data. This has been proved a number of times. This doesn't prove that proxy reconstruction are wrong of course ; it only proves they are dubious.
81286. Marcus at 18:11 PM on 25 June 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       "Not only heating and cooling, but also for almost all means of transport, a bunch of industrial processes (metallurgy, fabrication of glass, cement, paper, carbo-chemistry including plastics, etc...), and, in all countries deprived of hydroelectricity, stable power generation." What a load of nonsense. You don't need coal or hydro-electric power for stable power generation-or haven't you been listening? As for industrial processes, most of them are do-able with *any* kind of energy & even processes like Steel manufacture are increasingly making use of things like Arc Furnaces rather than Coal alone. Transportation can run just as easily on electricity & bio-fuels as it can on petro-chemicals. Last of all, just because something hasn't been done yet, doesn't mean its not possible. Or do you believe we should never have tried to fly?
81287. okatiniko at 17:53 PM on 25 June 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       #25 Lazyteenager, Dana is right. You should have said : "But you have not disproved the myth. You have presented the results of peer-reviewed reports based on a whole bunch of hypothetical solutions." AT#80 "Okatiniko -thank you. So your point is that you need energy for space conditioning? " Not only heating and cooling, but also for almost all means of transport, a bunch of industrial processes (metallurgy, fabrication of glass, cement, paper, carbo-chemistry including plastics, etc...), and, in all countries deprived of hydroelectricity, stable power generation. The only evidence that computer simulations are right is to exhibit a modern country that has succeeded in doing this without fossil fuels. There is not a single one in the world, even among those who produce 100 % renewable power. Everyone is free to believe in computer simulations : my position is only to believe in real facts.
81288. quokka at 16:41 PM on 25 June 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       @Mark Diesendorf & dana1981

       For example, nighttime energy demand is much lower than during the day, and yet we waste a great deal of energy from coal and nuclear power plants, which are difficult to power up quickly, and are thus left running at high capacity even when demand is low

       Sorry, this is quite untrue at least in the case of nuclear. It is true that in most grids that nuclear is run at maximum capacity factor - for example over 90% in the US and South Korea. This is because there is a market for the baseload electricity they generate. I fail to see how this is wasting energy. Things are a bit different in France due to the high percentage of nuclear in the grid. French nuclear power plants do load following by virtue of "grey control rods" that can be adjusted to reduce neutron flux in the core, lowering reactivity. Fuel (and energy) is not wasted because the rate of fission of U235 drops. Load following is best done with plants where the fuel is reasonably new, but by appropriate staging of refueling across the whole fleet, the French grid operates perfectly well without alleged gross energy wastage. It demonstrates that even with old reactor designs, nuclear is sufficiently end efficiently flexible to power most of a national grid. Nuclear Power in France
81289. adelady at 16:18 PM on 25 June 2011
       Peer review process was corrupted
       Chris, try Taking the money for granted. Very often this 'government funding' stuff is about researchers funding a lavish personal lifestyle by pocketing grants. Not the way it's done.
81290. GP Alldredge at 16:17 PM on 25 June 2011
       Rogues or respectable? How climate change sceptics spread doubt and denial
       Minor correction: S. Fred Singer's co-author on "Unstoppable Global Warming ..." is not "John Avery", but "Dennis T. Avery". The book is still non-science.
81291. bill4344 at 16:08 PM on 25 June 2011
       Rogues or respectable? How climate change sceptics spread doubt and denial
       The source for Patrick Kelly's squishy little nugget is - quelle astonishment! - the George C Marshall Institute. Specifically here. Now, that's objectivity! There's even a heading called 'Alleged Tobacco Conspiracies' which is pretty funny given they were proven in court... This response - and it being tossed around like this as if it were 'fact' - really only manages to prove Oreskes' and Conway's point.
81292. ScaredAmoeba at 15:57 PM on 25 June 2011
       Rogues or respectable? How climate change sceptics spread doubt and denial
       DB [moderator], sorry! I'll try to remember not to do it again.
       Response:

       [DB] Perhaps I over-reacted a bit; sorry.  On threads with topics such as this, one must hold one's nose a bit.  Perhaps a not-so-direct quote with a link to the actual.

81293. adelady at 15:56 PM on 25 June 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       Agnostic "...cheap, durable, lightweight batteries able to rapidly recharge and store sufficient energy to meet all domestic needs and extend the range of electric vehicles." I rather think that Cambridge crude or some similar development will finish up as the solution (pun not necessarily intended) for both. I very much like the idea of petrol filling stations being steadily overtaken by 'sludge' extract and refill stations across our highways. Once a refill station is established, it will need only maintenance of its electrical system to recharge extracted material. No more tankers! And even if that's not immediately practical, I can certainly see commercial and industrial buildings, if not domestic dwellings, being fitted with suitable flow batteries. So large buildings could run entirely with their own solar PV - recharging the battery before exporting to the grid - on a routine basis.
81294. Tom Curtis at 15:51 PM on 25 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       Norman @219, I disagree with you regarding Munich Re as a source. For the Tobacco industry, anti-smoking strategies and the perception that smoking was damaging to your health results in losses, regardless of the accuracy of those perceptions. Likewise the Fossil Fuel industries stand to lose due to Global Warming regardless. In contrast, Munich Re will lose if global warming is real, and they do nothing about it; but they will also lose if global warming is not real and they lift their rates while their competitors do not. Their best interest is served by keeping their rates as low as possible while still accruing enough capital to cover any additional losses due to global warming. So unlike the tobacco industry which had (and has) a straight forward financial interest in deception, and the fossil fuel industry who have a straight forward financial interest in deception so long as they can avoid damaging their brand, Munich Re appears to have a financial interest (in this case) in honest reporting. Further, the directors of Munich Re have a very direct personal interest in not making false statements in share holder reports. The direct interest, in addition to opening themselves to being sued if the shareholders make a loss as a result of the false statements, is that such statements attract jail terms for violating the law. Consequently, absent evidence to the contrary, information that makes it into an annual report can fairly be deemed to be reliable. This is what Munich Re had to say about global warming in its 2010 annual report: From the CEO:

       "it is part of our social responsibility as a Group, given one of the great challenges faced by humanity – climate change and its consequences. We cannot remain silent and must act on this issue when we are in a position to help develop or support solutions with our knowledge and influence. But there is also an answer that is “nearer to home”: What is looming in connection with climate change has direct implications for our core business. Weather-related natural catastrophes are on the increase, and the evidence is that this is partly due to climate change. The consequences of global warming, if left unchecked, could be so serious in the long term that in a few decades adequate insurance protection would no longer be conceivable for people and firms in some regions. in all likelihood, this scenario can only be prevented if the warming is restricted to the much-cited limit of two degrees."

       (My emphasis) So, in a document to which criminal penalties attach if he lies, the CEO of Munich Re says that weather related natural catastrophes are on the increase; and that if unchecked that will make insurance simply to expensive to be commerically viable. Reporting on the business evnironment:

       "Our business environment is one of increasing complexity, with an upward trend in major insurance-relevant events. We are seeing a disproportionate rise in insured losses in relation to economic activity, for which we believe climate change is partly responsible, in addition to an increase in values in exposed regions. As a result, new risk potentials and accumulation hazards are emerging."

       (My emphasis) Reporting on risks:

       "Climate change Whilst we are in a position to adequately assess the known risks in our portfolio on the basis of current knowledge, scientific research into climate change is complex and the political and regulatory environment in which we operate is developing dynamically, so that we must remain vigilant with regard to the identification and representation of new and emerging risks. We adopt a multidisciplinary approach, using and combining the pertinent experience and expertise of our scientists, specialist underwriters, lawyers, economists, sociologists and actuaries as appropriate for the risk situation. Climate change represents one of the greatest risks of change for the insurance industry. In Munich Re’s Corporate Climate Centre, we are developing a holistic strategic approach to analysing and assessing these risks. The findings are made available to all business areas and our asset-liability management function. However, changes in the physical environment and new regulations resulting from climate change also open up many business opportunities. Applying the knowledge we have accumulated over decades, we exploit these opportunities – for example, through new insurance products for renewable energy technologies."

       So, the data which I have referred you to is being prepared by Munich Re so that they can properly assess the risks, and no company has a financial interest in lying to itself. Given that the information being given to shareholders in official financial documents is the same as that being prepared in the various reports which I have been quoting, if less detailed, I ask you again, do you have any specific reason to think the directors of Munich Re have indulged in criminal activity, or are you just discounting the information because you find it inconvenient?
81295. Camburn at 13:32 PM on 25 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       DB: I agree in that I didn't care for the character questioning part, but once past that Mr. Eschenbach did raise some valid concerns. I have now also read a paper that concludes that the proxy used in this study is not a good proxy for sea level. It has been quoted by several other scientists, but I need to find more confirmation before I post it here.
81296. Riduna at 13:07 PM on 25 June 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       Australia has the hottest (270C), shallowest (~4,500m) and most extensive hot granites found anywhere. By fracturing these rocks and pumping water over them, superheated steam is produced and brought to the surface where it is fed through a heat exchanger producing steam which drives a turbine to generate electricity. Condensate is pumped back underground or to the heat exchanger for re-heating. The system is sealed and there are no releases to the atmosphere. Known deposits of hot granite in Australia are sufficient to meet national energy needs by 2100 and continue doing so for centuries to come. Heat taken from granites is replenished by convection from hotter, deeper granites though the speed with which this occurs has yet to be demonstrated. Electricity produced from geothermal heat is base load and, like hydro, can be brought on or taken off the grid at short notice. It is therefore an ideal clean energy source. Some 30 companies are now engaged in its development. Australia also has vast areas of sun-drenched land in relatively close proximity to population centers on which solar power stations can be built. To achieve base load status, electricity produced from solar is largely dependent on ability to store electricity or supplement is with electricity produced from other sources. Electricity storage capacity has yet to be developed so the 2 solar power stations shortly to commence construction will rely on supplementation from fossil fuel when adequate sunshine is not available. In NSW a 150 MW PVC power station is to be built near Moree at a cost of $923m. Work commences in 2012 and it will be commissioned in 2015. During periods of inadequate sunshine, electricity produced from its 650,000 PVC panels will be supplemented by power generated from burning fossil fuels. In QLD a 250 MW a 250 MW solar/natural gas power plant is being built which will also come on-line in 2015. It is the largest of its kind in the world and will cost $1.2 billion. Electricity will be generated by solar steam with back up from gas fired boilers ensuring base load power is available will be 85% emissions free. Combined, these power stations will generate sufficient electricity to meet demand from 115,000 dwellings. Solar sourced base load electricity appears to be the future for most countries which do not have easy access to geothermal. Improvement in heat storage for solar thermal plants is needed and being made. Improvement in the efficiency of PVC’s and their cost are also required and are also being made. Progress is being made with both. The lag is in development of capacity to store electricity. Research is being undertaken into production of cheap, durable, lightweight batteries able to rapidly recharge and store sufficient energy to meet all domestic needs and extend the range of electric vehicles. These developments make it possible for Australia to achieve zero emissions by 2050 – something every country needs to do to if average global temperature is to be limited to <2C by 2100. The limiting factor, the real battle is not with technology but with those who have a vested interest in producing and burning fossil fuels.
81297. Bob Lacatena at 13:05 PM on 25 June 2011
       Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
       112, Eric et al, If I may, Michael probably merely misremembered which Hansen paper to reference. Hansen and Sato 2011 (which in turn is referenced by the paper to which Michael linked) contains the following (which is only part... it really should be read in its entirety, not in snippets):

       Alley (2010) reviewed projections of sea level rise by 2100, showing several clustered around 1 m and one outlier at 5 m, all of which he approximated as linear. The 5 m estimate is what Hansen (2007) suggested was possible, given the assumption of a typical IPCC's BAU climate forcing scenario. Alley's graph is comforting, making the suggestion of a possible 5 m sea level rise seem to be an improbable outlier, because, in addition to disagreeing with all other projections, a half-meter sea level rise in the next 10 years is preposterous. However, the fundamental issue is linearity versus non-linearity. Hansen (2005, 2007) argues that amplifying feedbacks make ice sheet disintegration necessarily highly non-linear. In a non-linear problem, the most relevant number for projecting sea level rise is the doubling time for the rate of mass loss. Hansen (2007) suggested that a 10-year doubling time was plausible,pointing out that such a doubling time from a base of 1 mm per year ice sheet contribution to sea level in the decade 2005-2015 would lead to a cumulative 5 m sea level rise by 2095.

81298. Camburn at 12:38 PM on 25 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       Again, historical evidence of what the sea levels were during the early AD period. They were quit a bit higher than the early levels developed for this paper. At least near Rome, and it appears also in Kent, which has been sinking for millenia. Salt studies from Roman Empire times
       Response:

       [DB] Camburn, reliance upon compendiums of anecdotal information, however interesting, is not science.  If you wish to add to the discussion, please find scientific papers that have survived peer review and have added to the body of knowledge of climate science in some way.  That is what Skeptical Science is, using established science in proper context to properly evaluate skeptical claims and new, emerging information in the field.

81299. Marcus at 12:34 PM on 25 June 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       Oh & on the issue of reducing base-load demand, we should expand our use of more energy efficient street lighting, & encourage far greater use of solar-battery powered street lighting. That will help to greatly reduce base-load demand. Industry Co-Generation will also help to reduce base-load demand by helping industries to meet more of their own power needs from the channeling of waste heat for electrical power!
81300. Camburn at 12:11 PM on 25 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       On a more serious note, Mr. Willis Eschenbach has raised some valid concerns about this paper at Anthony Watts site: Willis Eschenbach's concerns
       Response:

       [DB] OK, I made it 3 paragraphs in before the innuendo and accusations of malfeasance became too toxic for me.  IMHO, those who rely on such strategies deserve no credence.

       Camburn, you are really doing yourself a disservice and putting your learning curve on a two-steps-forward-one-step-back basis by your reliance on disinformation sites like that in your link.

Prev  1618  1619  1620  1621  1622  1623  1624  1625  1626  1627  1628  1629  1630  1631  1632  1633  Next