Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 Next
Comments 81651 to 81700:
-
Eric the Red at 02:55 AM on 23 June 2011How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
Tamboro was one of the strongest eruption in human civilization. The estimate of the global temperature drop varies up to ~3 C (locally more), but was relatively short-lived, and temperatures began to rise after a few years. There would need to be a prolonged series of eruptions over a few centuries to explain the temperature drop. -
Albatross at 02:54 AM on 23 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
Some insightful and interesting comments thus far, the general gist seems to be that this is pretty much a storm in a tea cup. Just some of my own observations about this latest manufactured scandal: 1) I find it incredibly ironic that Lynas is accusing others of conflict of interest and driving their agenda, when he is clearly upset that the Teske scenario did not include nuclear. Lynas is a big advocate of nuclear, and him openly making false and misleading statements about the special report and then erroneously generalizing those to apply to the whole IPPCC on an issue that he has an axe to grind is nonsensical. 2) It should be clearly apparent to most reasonable and informed people by now that McIntyre and his associates are hell bent on bringing down the IPCC, and that they are willing to do so no matter what it takes. Really, McIntyre is nothing more than a cheerleader for conspiracy theorists and those in denial about AGW-- just read the Lynas thread or the threads at WUWT or ClimateAudit. This is how it works, McIntyre or someone else like Morano or Monckton make an unsubstantiated accusation of nefarious goings on, and it is then amplified and trumpeted around the world by all to willing people like Bolt, Delingpole, Gunter, Curry etc. Mission completed. And only then do they start looking into the matter closely and trying to weed out whatever scarps they can find to support their initial allegations, which by now are a well-established myth in the denialosphere. 3) It seems to have escaped McIntyre's attention that there were several FF industry people on the panel, and ignoring whatever influence they might have had. It is also lost on McIntyre and Lynas that many individuals and groups had to sign off on the report. This ultimately boils down to people being opposed to renewables period and reducing our GHG emissions, or opposed to the manner in which we reduce our GHG emissions (do we include nuclear or not), and/or trying to destroy the IPCC. It is incredibly disappointing that Lynas has tied his bandwagon to conspiracy theorists like McIntyre. Hopefully Mark Lynas will very soon see how he got this all so wrong and that by pursuing his own agenda, he ended up actually furthering the agenda of the conspiracy theorists and those in denial about AGW. Hopefully it is also an important learning moment for him too. I will say this though, the IPCC need to become a lot more street wise and they need to sharpen up on their media relations and public relations. This is no mean feat, because they will never (and I really do mean never) be able to appease people like McIntyre or Morano or Inhofe . So it is a bit of a fool's errand, but at the end of the day much improved PR and media relations cannot hurt. Pity that they do not yet really have the resources and means to do so. Finally, this must all come as a very welcome distraction and break for McIntyre, who has been implicated in the Wegman scandal. -
Eric the Red at 02:39 AM on 23 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
Raymonds Wright's report was not highlighted when the claim that 77% of global energy demand can be met with renewables. As paul emphasized, there may be good reason why the Teske scenario would be chosen, but to include Teske in the decision making process is a definite conflict of interest. Lead authors do not peer-review their own papers or submit papers in their own sessions, so why should this report be an exception. You would think the IPCC would take extra precautions in light of the IAC criticism of the IPCC for conflict of interest issues. -
Camburn at 02:10 AM on 23 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Tom@150: The river study provides enough information to realize that river flow has not increased in the past 50 years. That tells us that even tho we have warmed in the past 50 years, climate has not responded as thought it should. One has to think global in regards to extreme events. A flood here and there is not out of the ordinary, as it is a common occurance globally. What should have showed in the study, to support AGW, is an increase in flow. It didn't. To people expeiencing flooding, it seems extreme. On a global scale, it is normal. As the study indicates, what we think should be happening and what is actually happening have diverged. To a thinking man, this indicates a deeper study of the models projecting an extreme event. Something within the parameters is not quit correct. -
thepoodlebites at 02:05 AM on 23 June 2011How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
Tom Curtis #85 Yep, +3.7°C (A1B scenario) by 2100 is another bold prediction. That's about 0.4 C per decade, we'll see. It's possible that the ITCZ migration may head back toward the equator, just like during the Little Ice Age. Seems just as likely to be another natural mode of climate variability. Just tagging this on, what volcanic eruptions occurred during the Little Ice Age that could explain the temperature drop (1400-1800)? Tambora (1815) and Krakatoa (1883) but these occurred after we were coming out of the Little Ice Age. There's Kuwae (1452) and Huaynaputina (1600), but neither was as strong as Tambora and Huaynaputina was a southern hemsiphere eruption. -
pauls at 01:50 AM on 23 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
52, Philippe Chantreau - McIntyre may be highlighting this matter based on a double-standard but his arguments as written are not dependent on it. Yes, Greenpeace and the Jamaican Oil Industry were represented equally by lead authors but only one of these had their paper highlighted in the chapter they authored. Now, there may not be an issue with this. As dana1981 replied earlier there are good reasons why the Teske ER-2010 scenario would be picked, though I wouldn't say it is necessarily an automatic choice. I think if it was shown by the minutes that Teske was able to promote his own scenario using his position as lead author then questions should rightly be asked. As things stand McIntyre is just engaging in sensationalist speculation, as is his wont, but that doesn't mean there definitely isn't an issue. -
dana1981 at 01:33 AM on 23 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
I think it needs to be emphasized again that Teske's is just one scenario. It's technologically and economically viable, but it may not be politically viable to, for example, dramatically increase use of public transportation and decrease individual passenger vehicle use. As I said, this report doesn't evaluate what's politically viable. However, it certainly looks to me like we could meet the Teske plan if we had the political will to do so. -
Tom Curtis at 01:08 AM on 23 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
quokka @36, it appears you are right. I apologise for my error. In this case, then, I will have to disagree with the CCC and you. It is certainly possible to design or refurbish buildings in Germany or Scandinavia to require little or not direct heating. If it works in Scandinavia, it will also work in Britain, so it is certainly feasible to reduce primary energy requirements by shifting to renewable heating. -
Philippe Chantreau at 01:07 AM on 23 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
TC at 45, couldn't agree more. This is yet another example of the double standard of deniers (can't call them skeptics any more). Why has no skeptic protested against the inclusion of Raymond Wright? Just more nonsense from McI to fuel a non controversy and fool the gullible who buy his snake oil. It is obvious to anyone who has a bit of sense and has observed McIntyre's actions that nothing but the worst propaganda tactics can be expected from him, again and again. -
Bob Lacatena at 00:55 AM on 23 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
50, Eric the Red, On temperatures, follow the link I supplied. I didn't say they were merely warm because it's summer. That would be silly. How foolish do you think other people are? UAH temperatures yesterday were just a hair short of the 2010 level, and above all other temps since 2002, under ENSO neutral conditions. On sea ice, follow the link I supplied. Don't go by a simple graph that does nothing but display the sum of the areas of ice with 15% or greater. Look at how far back the southern line has retreated, and how many areas are above that 15% mark, but clearly breaking up and vanishing. Look at the holes. Look at the details. Go to the North Pole Web Cams and actually see the melt ponds forming a week or two earlier than normal. You are not listening. You are denying, down to the very last detail. Weather is definitely fickle, but climate is not. You can blame extreme weather on random variation for only so long. This may be a year that makes you finally sit up and take notice. It may not. It may be next year, or the year after. But unless thousands and thousands of very well educated and invested thinking people have it all completely wrong, then you are wrong, and you will sit up and take notice. It's inevitable. -
Eric the Red at 00:50 AM on 23 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
I would say that a given minimum or maximum is more telling than the ice at a particular date. But I agree that a single year should not be given too much attention or taken out of context of the larger trend. Yes, anything could happen.Response:[DB] "Yes, anything could happen."
Yes, anything physics-based. Which (at this point) eliminates a recovery of the ice to pre-1980 conditions.
-
quokka at 00:41 AM on 23 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
#35 Tom Curtis You are misunderstanding the CCC report. This is the sort of Heat Pump they are referring to. Not something to circulate waste heat for district heating. -
Eric the Red at 00:25 AM on 23 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
DSL, Good post. Science evidence will prevail eventually. It make a year, it may take longer. History has shown that people like to hold their own beliefs sacred, and new ones take time to become acclimated. Sphaerica, The mercury is rising because it is summertime. Compared to last year, 2011 is still much cooler (~0.2C based on both CRU and NOAA data and 0.3C according to GISS). It may be due to the lack of an El Nino as you mentioned. Arctic sea ice is now greater than in 2010 according to several reporting agencies, so the week to three ahead can be scrapped also. Weather is definitely fickle. Probably the main reason that 2011 is very unlikely to approach 2010 in warmth. We will probably have to wait until at least next year.Response:[DB] "Arctic sea ice is now greater than in 2010 according to several reporting agencies, so the week to three ahead can be scrapped also."
Patently untrue for the metric that matters most, volume. The only reason extent and area are similar at all to 2010 is due to the record spring melt of 2010 (which period ended about this time last year; 2010 ice loss then stalled for all of July and part of August) and the much greater spreading of the thinner ice this year. With the majority of the melt season yet ahead, 2011 will show record ice losses in volume and likely in extent and area as well.
But that was a nice attempt to manufacture doubt and controversy.
-
Tom Curtis at 00:23 AM on 23 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
quokka @33, I just reported on the claims of Teske et al 2010. However, your source estimates that waste industrial heat could supply "around 70% to 90% of non-residential space heat" in the UK. That is a very large amount of heating which requires only pumping (much less energy expensive), and if implemented would represent a large reduction in primary demand for electricity. It appears that your assumptions are exactly that, and are not supported by your chosen source. -
JMurphy at 00:17 AM on 23 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
Chemware, further details of costs are given in the Report : Wind power plant investment costs rose from 2004 to 2009 (Figure 7.20), an increase primarily caused by the rising price of wind turbines (Wiser and Bolinger, 2010). Those price increases have been attributed to a number of factors. Increased rotor diameters and hub heights have enhanced the energy capture of modern wind turbines, for example, but those performance improvements have come with increased turbine costs, measured on a dollar per kW basis. The costs of raw materials, including steel, copper, cement, aluminium and carbon fibre, also rose sharply from 2004 through mid-2008 as a result of strong global economic growth. The strong demand for wind turbines over this period also put upward pressure on labour costs, and enabled turbine manufacturers and their component suppliers to boost profit margins. Strong demand, in excess of available supply, also placed particular pressure on critical components such as gearboxes and bearings (Blanco, 2009). 7.8.3 -
quokka at 00:06 AM on 23 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
#32 Tom Curtis The UK Climate Change Committee doesn't even mention solar or geothermal as significant players in renewable heating in the Renewable Energy Review. They see heat pumps and on a more limited scale resistive heating as the primary technologies for renewable heat. They set aside district heating using waste heat from nuclear or CCS power generators as a potential source but requiring further study. On heat pumps they estimate:Although there are limits on the suitability of these technologies, our analysis suggests that these could meet 55% to 75% of residential heat demand and around 70% to 90% of non-residential space heat demand in the UK.
Assumptions that heating will not require independent energy generation to drive it seem extremely dubious to me (and also it would seem to the CCC). -
Bob Lacatena at 00:00 AM on 23 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
DSL,...is to wait for the evidence to build up. And it is building up.
Here we are and it is only the first day of summer, 2011. The mercury is rising... temperatures are quickly approaching those of last year -- but there's no El Niño firing it this time around. The ice is melting -- it appears to be a week to three ahead of last year, and 2007, when looking at it in detail instead of a mere 15%-sea-ice-extent graph. The actual images are scary. The fires are burning. From that page: "Wildfires in 2011 have so far consumed more than 6 times the ten-year average, and rising." And summer hasn't even started. Weather is fickle, but climate is not. Time is going to tell, and evidence is that at least for the moment, time may tell sooner than we think. -
Tom Curtis at 23:45 PM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
Pauls @29, from Teske et al 2010, the difference between their Energy Revolution scenario and their "advanced Energy Revolution" scenario consists in the assumption that energy use in transport will be reduced by the wide spread adoption of public transport and/or electrical vehicles; and the assumption that heating will be done using solar, geothermal or waste heat sources, thus not requiring independent energy generation to drive it. Total energy demand for normal power purposes increases by the same amount as in their less ambitious Energy Revolution scenario, and in fact a little bit above that to power the electrical vehicles. However, for base industrial and domestic power supply, the scenario assumes reduced energy intensity but increased overall demand due to a population growth of 2.48 billion and a per capita GDP growth rate of approximately 2% per annum. -
DSL at 23:44 PM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
I agree with Andy to an extent, David. I would add, though, that we're not fighting with McIntyre, Watts, et al. Rather, we're fighting with public perception and governmental policy-makers (owned by various interests, but primarily by big business). Michaels and Lindzen might be laughingstocks to working scientists, but the public is generally unaware of this, and various powerful members of the U.S. Congress know it (actually, every member and attendant consultants know it). They know all the public sees is "scientist," and the public has no basis to judge one from another. The public will typically respond to the message that makes them feel most comfortable (George W Bush as a regular, grew-up-down-the-block Joe actually worked), until the evidence begins to shift probability toward reality. Then the public will get angry, but the damage will be done. This is the same pattern politicians have worked through since the beginning of mass media. The answer to this is to overwhelm the public with evidence. Demand that mass media news step up to reality. Use the internet to force mass media news to compete with one another for the truth. Right now, I'd say that the message of the necessity of sustainability is winning in the U.S., but the empowerment of that message is losing. In other words, yes, the world is getting worse and we're the cause, but we can't really do anything about it. It's too hard. We'll have to give up our individual liberty. We'll become socialist or maybe even communist. We'll have to give up all the good things in life. We'll have to sacrifice and suffer. People want a miracle cure, as the strong response to renewables indicates (some wait for the miracle, and some see miracles--and thus renewables--as fantasy). Renewables are not a miracle cure. They will ultimately require significant economic and subsequent cultural change. That's the barrier we face. So McIntyre, Watts, et al. would indeed be worth ignoring if the issue was beetle wings. It is not. Instead, these normally powerless doubters become life preservers--a defense mechanism to save people from drowning in a sea of change. Their science needs to be revealed for what it is, and they need to then be publicly ridiculed (thank you, Tamino)--until, of course, they actually start acknowledging the probabilities and attacking the anti-scientific rhetoric that they currently actively and passively support. Then they stop functioning as life preservers. The only other way to disempower them is to wait for the evidence to build up. And it is building up. -
John Hartz at 23:37 PM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
Recommended reading: Five Predictions for the Future of Energy -
dhogaza at 23:37 PM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
The only thing that is creating an "impression of partiality" here is a deliberate and unwarranted beat up by McIntyre that has been uncritically repeated by others with a desire to stick a knife into Greenpeace
Into the IPCC ... Greenpeace is the excuse, bringing down the IPCC the goal. -
dhogaza at 23:36 PM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
AndyS:However, the report would have been more convincing, especially to skeptics, if the senior authors had all been people--probably tenured academics--whose integrity and independence from any pressure from their employers could be clearly demonstrated.
You're living in a fantasy land. Look at all the scorn heaped on tenured academics by McIntyre, the press, etc after "Climategate". Eric the Red:As suggested, using Teske as a contributing author is fine. However, making him lead author can give the impression of partiality.
More fantasy land. McIntyre would've been screaming as loudly if Teske had "only" been a contributing author. We'd still be seeing all the crap about its being unacceptable to include a paper written by a Greenpeace employee. -
Tom Curtis at 23:25 PM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
Eric the Red @44, why should making Teske a lead author create an impression of partiality? As a lead author, Teske has less influence on the report than the two Coordinating Lead Authors of Chapter ten, Prof. Dr. Manfred Fischedick and Roberto Schaeffer. He also had no more influence than any of the eight other lead authors, Akintayo Adedoyin (Botswana), Makoto Akai (Japan), Thomas Bruckner (Germany), Leon Clarke (USA), Volker Krey (Austria/Germany), Ilkka Savolainen (Finland), Diana Ürge‐Vorsatz (Hungary), Raymond Wright (Jamaica) And why does it give an "impression of partiality" to have a member of Greenpeace as a lead author, but not give an impression of partiality to have a lead author on the same chapter with a direct financial interest in fossil fuels? Is there some subtle principle that says that members of Greenpeace automatically have a conflict of interest if they work for the IPCC but Special Project Managers for fossil fuel related companies do not? What I think we have here is a very clear double standard. Greenpeace personnel are persona non grata simply because McIntyre and Lynas, and apparently, you do not like Greenpeace's political views and wish to censor them. Whereas Raymond Wright, who has been "... a Consultant to companies and governments in all continents except Australia" and is currently "Special Projects Manager at the Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica", and that is not even worth mentioning. Nor has any issue been raise about Leon Clark being a co-author of the paper on which the third scenario was based, nor apparently any concern that Teske was an author of the paper (the same one as it happens) from which scenario one was drawn from. The only thing that is creating an "impression of partiality" here is a deliberate and unwarranted beat up by McIntyre that has been uncritically repeated by others with a desire to stick a knife into Greenpeace. The correct response is completely reject his absurd claims and show why it is a beat up. And to demand of McIntyre and of anybody who uncritically repeats him a full list of those organisations whose politics is so unacceptable that no member of that organisation is permitted to work as a scientist. -
CBDunkerson at 23:02 PM on 22 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Given that ice 'extent' can vary by as much as 667% (1 / 0.15 minimum concentration) for a given ice 'area' I'd agree that "today's date is irrelevant"... but so is any given September minimum. Ice extent is simply too disconnected from ice amount (i.e. volume) for any single year value to be significant. Right now ice melt pond formation, extent, area, and total volume are all at new record values... which certainly makes a new record minimum extent this year seem more likely. However, given the huge potential disconnect between ice amount and ice extent anything could happen. -
Eric the Red at 22:37 PM on 22 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
michael, last year was the third lowest recorded (2007 was the lowest, followed by 2008). We are approaching the halfway point in the melt season, and a time when the rate of melting reaches its maximum. 2007 was near the high side of the past 10 years during mid June, but went into a steep decline thereafter. Clearly this date is nothing special in the measurement season. In fact, going back one month, to the middle of May, and 2006 and 2004 had the lowest sea ice extent, yet neither of those years made the bottom five. Today's date is irrelevant. Wait until Septemeber, then we will see. -
Ken Lambert at 22:32 PM on 22 June 2011Australia’s contribution matters: why we can’t ignore our climate responsibilities
Pretty Good Questions Agnostic: Here are your answers: • How are Ministerial assurances that coal use will grow as an energy source consistent with reduction of Australian CO2 emissions? Answer: Its not - just an example of the hyprocrisy of our political leaders. Open a new coal mine one day - and tout an ETRS the next. • How is provision of financial assistance for coal production and use is consistent with placing a price on carbon or reduction of CO2 emissions? Answer: Ditto. • How will development of CCS technology reduce CO2 emissions, knowing its application is so expensive it makes production of electricity from renewable sources cheaper than using coal? Answer: CCS is BS and always was. Do the numbers. • How does excluding agriculture from a carbon tax help reduce CO2 emissions when that sector contributes over 20% of Australian emissions? Answer: Electric Trucks and Tractors and non-farting cows. • How is assisting the motor industry to produce more fossil fuelled vehicles consistent with the government aim of reducing CO2 emissions? Answer: What about the hybrid Camry? • How is CO2 reduction achieved by increasing Federal and State government dependence on revenue derived from expanding coal production and use, rather than aiming to reduce that its use and dependence on its production? Answer: Our federal and state budgets depend on the revenue from coal exports. • Why have we adopted a target of reducing our emissions by 5% by 2020 when climate science advises reducing by 95% by 2050 and when other have adopted targets of 20-25% by 2020? Answer: A bit of pathetic tokenism by our politicians who think there might be votes in it from the kiddies who feel impelled to do something about global warming without sacrificing hot showers and warm lattes. -
Eric the Red at 22:17 PM on 22 June 2011How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
RC has a much heavier emphasis on modeling - no real surprise with Gavin there. The discussion tends to get much deeper into the details of some of the aspects of global warming. Discussions tend to get more heated, with less tolerance to opposing opinions and more personal attacks. The moderators are a little more sensitive than here, and are quick to send those undesireable posts into the "bore hole." Here, OT posts (like this one) will usually receive a warning, followed by future movement to the appropriate thread.Moderator Response:(DB) It is duly noted that differences exist between RC and SkS; as you also note, we are now well off-topic so let us return the discussion to the OP.
-
Chemware at 21:39 PM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
@28 JMurphy. Figure 2 above. 5 years is a guesstimate based on yearly (?) data points, given that the ordinate is installed capacity. -
Eric the Red at 21:13 PM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
I do not believe that science needs PR. The issue is not about the science of the work, but rather the politics. As suggested, using Teske as a contributing author is fine. However, making him lead author can give the impression of partiality. Politics needs positive PR, and always has, especially when the most recent PR has been negative. -
pauls at 20:51 PM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
30, dana1981 - 'if McIntyre had limited his criticisms to the press release, I wouldn't have had a problem with that. But he went a tad bit further. "Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated and, if the institution is to continue, it should be re-structured from scratch." I'd say that's a tad bit extreme if you're only complaint is about a flawed press release.' It's very extreme invective but nonetheless his complaints as written are banal on one point and unfounded on the other. You should probably know by now this is NFM - Normal for McIntyre. -
Bern at 20:45 PM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
JMurphy, the reason most scientists wont go around claiming McIntyre was demanding WG3 be put to death, is that they have moral integrity that they wont compromise to make a political point. Yet another point of differentiation with the hardcore deniers, some of whom seem to have sold their souls, and their scientific integrity, to the devil that is the fossil fuel industry. While I admit it would be very tempting to start slinging mud, if you do, you'll end up with a discourse akin to that seen in Question Time in the parliament (for those outside Australia - picture two bunchs of petulant children from different clubs screaming at each other across a fence, and you wouldn't be far wrong. If you're still curious, you can see video here.) -
JMurphy at 20:05 PM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
The world has come to a strange place when the suggestion is now made that science needs PR to be able to get its message across properly, and all those involved in it need to have no external associations with any group that can be used as propaganda against them - whether valid or not, doesn't matter. And it is certainly true that people like McIntyre would hate to be ignored. What would be even better, would be to use their own tactics against them, i.e. 'McIntyre said "Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated" - that is a shocking demand, tantamount to asking for death sentences on everyone involved in IPC WG3.' Not what he was suggesting ? How does anyone know that for sure ? Maybe he should release all his emails, so we can see what he really thinks. Until then, anyone can believe what they want about him and can make things up as they see fit - a tactic known as so-called skepticism. -
pauls at 20:01 PM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
14, dana1981 - I certainly don't dispute that energy demand can be reduced over time with improved efficiencies. What I can't see is how this can be coincident with unfettered growth in per capita GDP. Essentially Teske 2010 claims that economic growth can be decoupled from energy usage altogether (normally 'decoupling' refers simply to breaking the link bewteen economic growth and fossil fuel use). Is there anything which can back this up? 20, Tom Curtis - Table 10.3 in the report shows figures for both Energy Demand and Energy Intensity. While all four of the featured scenarios show reductions in Energy Intensity by 2050, ER-2010 (Teske) is a huge outlier in producing a reduction in Energy Demand by 2050. -
grypo at 19:57 PM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
David Horton "(a) we are constantly on the back foot as each new bit of idiocy comes up, constantly responding, being defensive, instead of offensive, and (b) treating this sort of crap as if it was a serious comment dignifies it and magnifies it into exactly that. McIntyre would hate to be ignored! " Good points. This is why the IPCC should have had something in place to deal with this before. They didn't, so they, and anyone defending them, look like they are playing catch-up. Had this not been picked up and run with by Lynas, there'd be less reason to worry about the PR aspect. But Lynas' response has been spun to be anti-IPCC when the situation is much more nuanced. He's like a their trophy. -
David Horton at 18:50 PM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
"Urging those in the real world to ignore this crap, as David Horton@33 writes,sounds more like capitulation than a winning strategy to me." - if you knew me you would know that precisely the opposite was true. I just think that (a) we are constantly on the back foot as each new bit of idiocy comes up, constantly responding, being defensive, instead of offensive, and (b) treating this sort of crap as if it was a serious comment dignifies it and magnifies it into exactly that. McIntyre would hate to be ignored! -
JMurphy at 18:50 PM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
Chemware, could you provide further details of the increase in cost that you mention ? -
JMurphy at 18:46 PM on 22 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Norman wrote : "Disasters are increasing but not enough data is available to determine if hazards are increasing." It seems, Norman, as Tom Curtis has shown, that you do not read what evidence you are presented with and cannot find out simple information for yourself. However, even when you are presented with it all (and even if you might have read some of it), it seems that you do not want to accept that which goes against your world-view. If you had read the post of mine which you were apparently replying to, you would have spotted the very same quote that you repeated. You would also have found out that it was produced by Oxfam, although it does reference the Munich Re report, and that it gives good definitions of all the relevant terms. It would help if you could compare what you believe to be the case, and what is actually the case, especially with regard to 'disasters', 'hazards', etc. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 18:02 PM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
An interesting comparison and 'other factor' here is comparisons to military spending. Dana's figures give a cost of $500-$700 Billion per year. World military spending is around 1.3 to 1.5 Trillion per year. How much of that military spending is really about protecting energy security? And consider how much military spending is actually 'wasted'. Not spent for its intended purpose. Australia is replacing its Leopard tanks with wizz-bang Abrahms, replacing its F111 & FA18 fleet, its entire destroyer & frigate fleet, planning for the replacement of its submarine fleet etc. And they have hardly ever fired a shot in anger. A small number of sorties in the Iraq war, a few small bombardments around Basra. The pasrts of our military that have carried the heavy lifting for many years are the special forces units, military transport aircraft and transport ships. Most oif the rest has been ever ready but not used. A world with fewer Big Power confrontations and Energy Security missions, oops I mean Carrier Battle Group deployments, is surely a world where we can still have our military security at a fraction of the cost. Isn't that a hidden cost advantage of moving away from energy sources that need to be transported around the world? -
Chemware at 17:08 PM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
Why has the cost of on-shore Wind power risen so much (50%+) in the last 5 years or so ? -
Riduna at 16:33 PM on 22 June 2011Australia’s contribution matters: why we can’t ignore our climate responsibilities
Of course Australia can influence regional emitters like Indonesia to do better but it seems to me that when our neighbors look at our policies and action we are taking they might be expected to first ask for an explanation of: • How are Ministerial assurances that coal use will grow as an energy source consistent with reduction of Australian CO2 emissions? • How is provision of financial assistance for coal production and use is consistent with placing a price on carbon or reduction of CO2 emissions? • How will development of CCS technology reduce CO2 emissions, knowing its application is so expensive it makes production of electricity from renewable sources cheaper than using coal? • How does excluding agriculture from a carbon tax help reduce CO2 emissions when that sector contributes over 20% of Australian emissions? • How is assisting the motor industry to produce more fossil fuelled vehicles consistent with the government aim of reducing CO2 emissions? • How is CO2 reduction achieved by increasing Federal and State government dependence on revenue derived from expanding coal production and use, rather than aiming to reduce that its use and dependence on its production? • Why have we adopted a target of reducing our emissions by 5% by 2020 when climate science advises reducing by 95% by 2050 and when other have adopted targets of 20-25% by 2020? -
Andy Skuce at 16:30 PM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
Phillipe@37 You may well be correct, probably the hard-core skeptics never will be convinced by anything; a lot of them are pretty dug in, I agree. However, the group we are trying to reach are the many people in the middle who don't have a strong opinion either way. Without them on side, we're going nowhere. Recent polls show that US public opinion is growing more skeptical, even as the evidence mounts. The evidence says that the contrarians are winning the only debate that matters. Urging those in the real world to ignore this crap, as David Horton@33 writes,sounds more like capitulation than a winning strategy to me. -
Paul D at 15:38 PM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
quakka: "If you want to pursue this energy intensity argument in the EU and Japan, then the purported improvements in energy intensity must take into the account the rising embedded energy in imported goods. Do they?" The reason is that emissions need to be accounted for based on consumption and government responsibility. If production is exported but the nation that exported the production continues to consume at the same rate, then effectively the consumer nation is held responsible for the emissions of the producer country. The consumer nation does have a choice as to how much it consumes and hence is responsible. -
Eamon at 15:35 PM on 22 June 2011Renewables can't provide baseload power
I can see how burning crop residue and plantation forests can be renewable - but how can they be clean? How much CO2 does this energy generation method use? -
Michael Hauber at 15:29 PM on 22 June 2011Australia’s contribution matters: why we can’t ignore our climate responsibilities
Personally I think Australia is too small to take a dramatic leadership position in climate change. We should be matching what other's are doing, and going a step or two further to encourage others to lift their game as well. And many other countries are doing plenty to combat climate change, with some high rates of renewable energy uptake already achieved in some European countries, and high rates planned in the near future in China for instance. I am personally amazed at how much is actually getting done on climate change globally despite the lack of a strong agreement to force such action. I can think of two possible explanations for this: a) despite the fact that politicians know that causing real pain for their electorate by raising energy taxes will cause voter backlash and reduce their chances of re-election they are committed to doing the right thing despite the significant personal cost. Contrary to what nearly all of us believe about politicians they are really in it for what they believe is the good of the country, and not for the pay perks or the glory and power of it all. b) The actions taken to date are cheap and will not have any noticeable impact on electricity costs or jobs or anything else that could cause a voter backlash. If we were willing to pay any real cost on climate change we would be able to do significantly more. c) Politicians have a secret plan to siphon of the extra carbon taxes to fund the creation of a one-world government. -
KR at 14:59 PM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
quokka - I'm actually of the opinion that synthetic fuels (carbon neutral) will be part of the ongoing solution. There are several in development now, including (as I've referred to before) one for aviation gas that is in the US FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) approval cycle (Swift Fuels). -
Philippe Chantreau at 14:51 PM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
Andy, nothing that goes toward controlling CO2 emissions will ever be credible to so-called skeptics, no matter what. -
quokka at 14:50 PM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
#22 Bern Partially true, but in some of the high renewables scenarios, there is a lot of biomass. The issue of the efficiency of heat engines is not going to go away any time soon. We don't even know yet how widespread the deployment of EVs is likely to be. It may turn out that carbon neutral synfuels of some type have a big role to play. Again the issue of heat engine efficiency looms large. I completely agree that there is an urgent need to dramatically improve public transport, but sometimes it is far more difficult than is commonly supposed. I spent a decade or so working in London as a contractor - some short term and some long term contracts so I got around a bit. I always had a car but I would rather slam my finger in a car door than drive to work every day as opposed to use train or underground. A lot of people in London share that sentiment. London has an extensive and heavily used rail and underground system and quite good local bus services. But the rail and tube is essentially a spoke network. If you need to travel any substantial distance across those spokes, then the buses take way too long and there is no alternative but to drive. This is why the M25 ring motorway (six lanes in each direction in parts) is the busiest motorway in Europe. There is no easy, and certainly no cheap solution to this problem. The existing rail and tube system has taken over a century to build. London is certainly not the whole world, but each public transport network will have it's own set of issues to address, and some of those issues are damned difficult to resolve and are going to take many decades, if indeed they are ever addressed. What I see repeatedly is an attempt to shoehorn purported solutions into the best of all possible worlds. It is done, not because those worlds are the ones that we are most likely to inhabit, but because of emotional attachment to alleged solutions. -
Albatross at 14:38 PM on 22 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Tom @149, Indeed. Up. -
jyyh at 14:26 PM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
"They just want to stir up the dirt." and what's so dirty in Greenpeace? I'm not a member though. But still, the message here was that 77% of the energy could be from renewables by 2050. -
Tom Curtis at 14:18 PM on 22 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Camburn @143, the study you reference suffers from several major disadvantages. This first that using annual discharge is a poor proxy for extreme weather events. Extreme weather events come in the form of both droughts and floods (among other things) which have opposite effects on river discharge. So, rather than use annual river discharge the study should have looked at change in the variability of monthly discharge; and changes in the maxima and minima of monthly discharges. Without doing so, the study is not even capable of being an adequate proxy for increased extreme events. Further, the study takes no account of potentially confounding factors. Fairly obviously increased evaporation due to rising temperatures will be a confounding factor, but no notice is taken of it. More crucially, increased water use by humans for personal, industrial or agricultural use is a major confounding factor. For one example of the studies ignoring this, one of the rivers analysed is the Thames. It is hardly plausible, however, that the growth in London's population (between 25 and 40% depending on the district in the last decade) has not increased the water usage from the Thames, and hence reduced discharge rates.
Prev 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 Next
