Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 Next
Comments 103101 to 103150:
-
Mikel at 22:14 PM on 27 November 2010Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
Over the past twelve months, there have been many references to these emails being leaked by a person or persons unknown, rather than the CRU server being hacked by a person or persons unknown. The clear inference is that leaking of these emails would not be in breach of any UK or EU law. Since emails contain personal data and the release of these emails was not authorized by the data controller, it is entirely possible that an offence may have been committed under Section 55 of the UK's Data Protection Act. It is also possible that a breach of the Seventh Principle of the Data Protection Act, which covers security, may have occurred. It is therefore unwise to assume that leaking of these emails would not be in breach of any law. -
Paul D at 22:03 PM on 27 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
I actually question whether a 'big' baseload capacity is required for a future where we need to cut the number of gadgets used, consume less per capita etc. Another issue is the massive inefficient use of energy in the US, partly because energy prices are low. Although probably no one wants really expensive energy, when prices are to low, there is a significant amount of waste, it's natural for people not to worry so much about what they use, if it is cheap. Some of the ideas Dana has posted about aren't really 'baseload' providers, the point being is that the nature of electricity generation will change since the 'load' is intelligent and adjusts it's consumption based on monitoring the grid. eg. we are talking about smart grid concepts. Finally it should be pointed out that current large scale generation is a quirk of consumerist history. Electricity generation companies, engineers etc, had developed the method for generating electricity from coal and oil, which needed a big consumer market to soak up the capacity (because that generation technology had to be running all the time to be efficient, stop start operation wasn't practical). This resulted in electricity companies desperately selling vacuum cleaners, washing machines etc in the 1950s, 60s so that they had a market to sell their electricity to. Now we have generations of people that don't know how to live without it. But the current grid technology had to be invented years ago to get what we have now. So it isn't unreasonable to expect changes in the way we use electricity in the future, with microprocessor controllers in fridges, freezers, cars etc, deciding how much energy can be drawn from the grid. Indesit are testing a fridge in the UK that does this and a smart grid test project is being set up to test different technologies. -
Paul D at 21:41 PM on 27 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Dana, i'll add two UK projects to your energy storage list: Isentropic energy storage: http://www.isentropic.co.uk/ Another CAES idea, Seamus Garvey's compressed air underwater energy bags: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/8500075.stm -
MarkR at 21:04 PM on 27 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
The problem we have at the moment is that whilst renewable power (particularly onshore wind) is getting close to the levelised costs of other sources of power (gas/coal), we haven't properly communicated the extra costs associated with it in terms of distribution, storage and smart grid tech. This gives renewables an reliably rosy impression. But the amount and cost of the storage depends on how much you rely on renewables. I think dana did a pretty good job, although the 'renewables are still decades away from providing most power in most countries' maybe should have been hammered a bit harder. We need nuclear and CCS for steep CO2 cuts. -
Stuart at 19:09 PM on 27 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
I can't say nuclear is a perfect technology, and I would hope that several decades down the track both coal and nuclear end up as obsolete alternatives to renewables. But between coal and nuclear - the two traditionally dominant baseload sources, the answer is crystal clear. On the other hand, there's also room for adaptation to intermittent supply on the demand side with smarter grids, metering, and appliances. -
70rn at 18:26 PM on 27 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
@ marcus Thanks for that. And I agree with you re - nuclear, there seems little point replacing one finite source with another. Quite apart from that issue there is a huge political hot potatoe to handle with the siting of such facilities, the nimby crowd is likely to start weighing in pretty rapidly with any new reactor developments, regardless (in some respects unfortunately) of whether or not it's actually a good idea. -
Marcus at 18:16 PM on 27 November 2010Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
Camburn, the fact that the long-term trend is "down" over the last 8,000 years doesn't mean a thing-its exactly what we'd expect from our position in the current Milankovitch cycle. The fact is, though, that this downward trend is infinitesimally small-properly measurable only on a multi-century time scale. Similarly, the upward trend since 1850 actually petered out around the 1930's-1940's, & was driven by a massive increase in solar activity. Yet this upward trend was still less than *half* the speed of the trend we've seen in the last 30 years (in spite of falling sun-spot numbers). So, yes, the climate has changed before-but did so according to well known *Natural* forcings-& occurred at a much slower pace than what we're seeing now. Also, if the current rate of climate change persists, we could end up with global temperatures *higher* than during the Holocene Climatic Optimum. -
Marcus at 18:05 PM on 27 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
tt23-ah, the old "nuclear energy will save the day" speech-though you took a while to get around to it. Face facts, nuclear power is a pipe dream. 60 years of R&D & government subsidies, & its still one of the most expensive forms of electricity around. Even PV's are threatening to provide cheaper electricity over the next 5-10 years. However, unlike nuclear power, PV's don't generate large quantities of long-lived nuclear waste, don't use up precious water & don't generate large quantities of surplus electricity during off-peak periods. Also, what happens when those 80 years worth of uranium reserves run dry? The reality is that, with proper storage technologies, most of the currently available renewable energy technologies are already capable of producing close to base-load power. Developments over the next decade will probably bring them up to base-load capacity-assuming they get the public funding they deserve, but have for so long been denied. Of course, then you have tidal streams-which are already capable of producing reliable power. Then you have bio-gas from landfill, sewerage plants, forest plantations & farms. They're already in the process of generating electricity using osmotic potential-so it probably won't be long before Osmosis plants will be generating base-load electricity. As I said above, the potential of renewable energy has only just been tapped, which has the mainstream energy suppliers scared out of their minds! -
Marcus at 17:57 PM on 27 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
@ Camburn-you'll have to do better than some pathetic MSM propaganda piece. They're trying to blame renewable energy for rising electricity prices here in Australia too-even though there is no causal link between renewable energy investment & change in tariffs between the various states. Fact is, the retail cost of your electricity is 10.22c/kw-h. If Minnkota is buying Wind-Power for 4.5c/kw-h, then I don't see how his company can be losing money. For the record, the cheapest price wholesale price I've seen for base-load electricity (coal or nuclear) is around 4c/kw-h. Here in Australia, the wholesale price for coal-fired electricity is actually closer to 5c-6c/kw-h. Of course that doesn't stop the retailers charging us more than 20c/kw-h for electricity during peak times. So please tell us *why* you believe this obviously self-serving Utility CEO? Can't you tell when someone is trying to invent excuses to rip off their customers? -
Marcus at 17:51 PM on 27 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
70rn, I got my information from a book called "The Big Switch", by Gavin Gilchrist, & he sourced his information from a man called C. Weinberg. The information is from 1993, which is why I used 1990 Inflation adjusted dollars. -
Marcus at 17:46 PM on 27 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
@ Camburn. If Thorium were so amazing, then why is it still not in commercial development? Perhaps because of the fact that its incredibly expensive, largely untested & has a number of key engineering issues which are nowhere near being solved. Fact is, all I'm reading in the above posts is the usual Denialist Clap-trap about how "useless" renewable energy technologies are. In truth, they've had a far, far more rapid rate of development-in terms of efficiency, cost & reliability-than coal or nuclear power-& with only a fraction of the Research & Development Budget. Contrary to the above claims, the strongest winds are at night-when the sun doesn't shine-& the majority of solar energy systems currently in existence don't require direct sunlight to work. Rapid developments in storage technologies over the last decade are making cheap high density storage a reality. Of course, the great advantage of renewable energy systems (& I'm including gas in there too-given that methane can be easily sourced from nature) is that they can be more easily "tuned" to meet demand, whereas coal & nuclear power produce almost as much electricity at night as they do during the day-resulting in a massive *glut* in off-peak electricity. Not only that, but renewable energy systems can be built small & close to the source of demand-thus reducing the roughly 10% loss of electricity that occurs during wide-spread transmission & distribution of electricity. Overall, coupled with the lack of an ongoing fuel requirement, most renewable energy systems will leave coal & nuclear power for dead-which is exactly what has the owners of these technologies so scared-& why they & their MSM allies run such a concerted fear campaign against them! -
caerbannog at 17:41 PM on 27 November 2010Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
Follow up on DO events -- they were greater than regional, but were most likely hemispherical "see-saw" events (NH cooling coupled with SH warming and vice-versa). For these DO events, the evidence indicates that the NH and SH were "out-of-phase" with respect to temperature. They were also smaller in magnitude (on a global scale) than were the really large climate events that are now linked to changes in atmospheric CO2/methane concentrations (Permian-Triassic, Triassic-Jurassic, PETM, etc). DO events have little in common with the current warming trend where the NH and SH are rapidly warming together. (During DO events, NH cooling was accompanied by SH warming.) -
tt23 at 17:37 PM on 27 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
I am resentful this article was posted, as it is a bunch of half-truths at best, which damage the stellar reputability of this blog. Here is my list of objections: 1. All the "baseload renewable energy" schemes mentioned in the article are extremely expensive and therefore unrealistic as a solution. The fundamental reason for this is the same as why these energy sources were abandoned by our ancestors some 200 years ago: low energy density and finicky energy flows related to these sources. And please keep in mind that there were 1/6th of population o the planet then with 1/10 - 1/100th of per capita energy use. Even then it was not enough. Renewable energy advocates have been posting wishful thinking along these lines for well over two decades, and the complacency generated in thinking public did a lot of harm as an impediment to the necessity of actually facing the dire reality. I should say these energy sources are great in specific niches, however thinking we can build a backbone of industrial society using these sources is delusional wishful thinking, which I object to. What follows are specific objections to the mentioned energy generation schemes. 2. Concentrated Solar Thermal - great some places, untenable in others. Not every place has sunshine as regular as southern California or Spain. Few hours of energy storage do not qualify as "baseload", even in these places. Using CST as baseload in northern Europe or Canada does not add up, when there are cloudy and rainy days and weeks with little sunshine. Even in the most sunny places CST is still prohibitively expensive despite centuries of development. 3. Geothermal - great but limited to places with appropriate geology - a heat source close to the surface. Even then, some such suitable places developed earthquakes and the projects had to be abandoned (such as close to Basel in Switzerland), or the heavy metal pollution brought up from the GT wells is prohibitive (such as mercury pollution which closed GT plants in Italy). Most of the places with suitable geology are already used, or are not available for exploration. Who of the environmentalists want to convert Yellowstone National Park to a GT plant, which would supply few percent of US electricity at best? Therefore GT does not scale up to be much more useful then it already is. 4. Compressed Air Energy Storage - CAES does not compress and reuse compressed air, as the article suggests. The expanded air drops in temperature (pV = nRT), and would freeze & destroy the turbine. CAES indeed use the compressed air to aid compression stage in a gas fired turbine. In another words, CAES plant is a gas plant with efficiency improvements. We should keep in ming that there is less energy available in natgas reserves than in oil (according to BP2010 statistics), so unless we want to go with all-out fracking, which has its own dire environmental consequences, any scheme which relies on natural gas is doomed to fail, as is clearly neither renewable nor sustainable. 5. Pumped heat storage - there is no heat storage which was demonstrated to scale. 6. EV battery storage - the largest component the variable cost of running an EV is not the cost of electricity, but the battery amortization with use. In another words, cycling the battery is more expensive than the electricity it stores. Unless there is some great break-through in battery storage which would reduce battery amortization by at least an order fo magnitude, this scheme is a wishful thinking. 7. This article does not mention hydro electricity, by far the largest non-nuclear clean and sustainable source of dispatchable energy. Pumped hydro is by far the largest storage we actually have on the grid. It has issues similar to most of the above, namely it does not scale anymore, as most of the suitable locations are utilized. 8. To summarize, none of these sources can realistically replace coal as a baseload source. On the other hand, we do have a baseload energy source which readily replaces baseload coal at lower costs (in most places), and which is steady, controllable, scalable, and clean (or as clean as wind/solar in life cycle emissions) - nuclear energy. This is not to say that nuclear energy is a kind of fairy dust which does not have its issues, it is just to say that nuclear is the best of all realistic alternatives. Time we spent wishing that there was fairy dust solution to our problems is a time wasted in daydreaming. -
70rn at 17:32 PM on 27 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
@ Marcus I'm intersted in the rise of coal power as a dominant player. Where did you source those figures from? -
Albatross at 17:19 PM on 27 November 2010Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
Camburn @38, "With the above being said, CRU still did not follow the law." Please follow the link in my post @38, and then desist from perpetuating this rumour of yours. You can no longer claim to be ignorant of the facts and the truth. For now, I will ignore the other misinformation in your post regarding your interpretation of the science, as doing so would require going off-topic. But thanks for showing us all what your true motivations are. -
caerbannog at 17:18 PM on 27 November 2010Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
Camburn is laboring under some serious misconceptions about climate-science. The models do not project the certainty that some would have you believe. This statement about climate-models indicates that he is not aware that the strongest evidence linking CO2 with global-warming isn't climate models; it's physical evidence obtained from the Earth's crust by paleoclimatologists. Even if every single climate-model result were thrown out, there would still be a mountain of evidence linking CO2 to global-warming. The trend in temp since 1850 has been up. The long term trend since 8000 BP is still down. These are known facts. Had Camburn done his homework before posting here, he would have realized that the causes of the downward 8000-year trend and upward 160-year trend are well-understood by climatologists. The 8000-year downward trend is a result of the Earth's decreasing tilt that is causing a reduction in the amount of solar energy being received at the high latitudes. This is one of the Milankovitch-cycle orbital components. The recent warming is a result of human-caused CO2 emissions interrupting the very gradual multi-thousand-year Milankovitch-cycle-forced cooling trend. This is no mystery to those who have done their homework. There have been climate shifts that dwarf what is occuring now with no good explanation. They are called DO events. The DO events were regional, not global. And the most of the major global climate shifts that have dwarfed what we have seen in recent decades are tied to concentrations in atmospheric CO2. Continued uncontrolled CO2 emissions will certainly result in climate-shifts comparable with the largest ones in the past -- and on a much more-compressed time-scale. Before Camburn posts here again, he would be well-advised to spend an hour of time watching this video: http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml -
renewable guy at 17:17 PM on 27 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
What Dana has not talked about is the smart grid to control loads, HVDC lines for more efficient transmission of power. North Dakota has plans to sell wind power to Chicago over HVDC lines. Today we have the equivalent of the dumb grid. There is very little control over peak loads. Being able to shut down loads intermittently would be able to reduce power by about 20%. Also tieing the grids together in a national grid would bring the cost of power due to the ability to have more competition. With a cap and trade program or some funding source, we would be able to modernize our power lines to handle our energy needs more intelligently. -
Albatross at 17:16 PM on 27 November 2010Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
Camburn, The emails were not leaked. Police have revealed that at around the same time as the CRU emails were hacked, several other climate centres (e.g., CCCMA) survived attempted hacks into their systems. The thieves also hacked into the RealClimate server and uploaded the stolen emails together with a message. -
Albatross at 17:12 PM on 27 November 2010Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
kdkd@37, Like most "skeptics", Camburn, is clearly partisan beyond the pale. While several posters here, including me, and the Sir Russell Inquiry have acknowledged that UEA/CRU may have not dealt with the vexatious FoIA issue appropriately-- Camburn, like most "skeptics", will never concede any wrong doing by the likes of McIntyre (Wegman maybe?) and company. More importantly, last time I looked CRU/UEA did not break any FoIA laws, despite what some on the internet are claiming. Camburn et al. need to please read this, in which they state: "A subsequent letter to UEA from the ICO (29 January 2010) indicated that no breach of the law has been established; that the evidence the ICO had in mind about whether there was a breach was no more than prima facie; and that the FOI request at issue did not concern raw data but private email exchanges". The double standard of the skeptics only acts to make the credibility that they so dearly crave even further out of reach. They are fooling no-one except themselves. In fact this whole series of James has been a delightful illustration that "skeptics" have no interest in objectivity, facts or truth. They seem much happier to entertain conspiracy theories, malign scientists and perpetuate myths and misinformation to distract themselves and others from the fact that the planet is continuing to accumulate energy, mostly because of anthropogenic GHGs. To be honest, I find such behavior by the "skeptics" rather sickening. -
gallopingcamel at 17:08 PM on 27 November 2010Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
Daniel Bailey (#67), Thank you for quoting Christidis et al. They are comparing a change of 85 deaths per million due to cold [CRM] from 1976-2005 to a change of less than 1 death per million due to heat [HRM]. I hope we can agree that 1976-2005 was a period of warming so they are saying that the increase in mortality due to rising temperatures is orders of magnitude smaller the decrease in cold related mortality (at least in England). Anyone who has lived in England for any length of time (as I have) will agree that a contrary conclusion would be risible. When it comes to adaptation, very few households in the UK have air conditioning whereas most have excellent heating systems. That should tell you something about the dangers of heat vs. cold in that country. I am puzzled by your comments about apples, breadfruit and Na'vi. This is about heat vs. cold. -
Camburn at 16:56 PM on 27 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Kooiti Masuda@5: I agree. We should be building thorium reactors. Known tech, deff baseload power, low co2 footprint. I live in a state that has tremendous wind resources. The problem is, when the wind stops, it stops over a very wide area. And it does stop, and stops at times for over 48 hrs. During that lull, there still has to be energy delivered from a base facility. -
Camburn at 16:52 PM on 27 November 2010Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
kdkd: Of course I am opposed to the leak of the e-mails. That also is a non-issue as far as climate. The issues that deal with climate is the mis information on both sides. The models do not project the certainty that some would have you believe. The temp data gets pulled in both directions. The sensativity of climate to co2 is a very much loaded question. There are holes in the AGW hypothosis. These are known. The sad thing is that they are not being addressed as quickly as I would like them to be. The trend in temp since 1850 has been up. The long term trend since 8000 BP is still down. These are known facts. There have been climate shifts that dwarf what is occuring now with no good explanation. They are called DO events. Does co2 affect climate? Most certainly to a degree. With the above being said, CRU still did not follow the law.Moderator Response: Nobody claims that climate models are certain. Everybody knows there are still large uncertainties to do with aerosols, cloud feedbacks, etc. However, the climate sensitivity predicted by the models is confirmed by independent paleoclimate evidence. D-O events are a red herring; they were characterized by opposite temperature trends in the two hemispheres, and that is not the case with the current warming. - James -
kdkd at 16:35 PM on 27 November 2010Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
Camburn #36: So you're also vigorously opposed to the theft of the emails from the CRU? -
Camburn at 16:23 PM on 27 November 2010Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
archiesteel: @34. CRU did not follow the law. It is that plain and simple...and yes it is. Phil Jones said they didn't. The law is the law. Why should I support breaking of a law? -
Camburn at 16:20 PM on 27 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Marcus: Renewable costs in Minn: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/11/23/wind-power-electricity-rates/ -
kdkd at 16:14 PM on 27 November 2010It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
muoncounter #27 My analysis is pretty crude, and does not confirm to climate science conventions. However if you're interested you can see it starting here. -
Kooiti Masuda at 15:58 PM on 27 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Unavailability of wind and solar power cannot cancel together even at the national scale. If we want to hedge it at a national grid, it requires huge energy storage capacity. I think there must be local implementation of energy storage. Actually I am not optimistic about fulfilling energy demands of modern societies by renewable sources. I think we should try to redesign local energy demands to match local energy availability in space and time. -
Kooiti Masuda at 15:29 PM on 27 November 2010Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
The crowd often called climate change skeptics consists of a broad spectrum from curious amateurs to outright demagogues. They are not coordinated as a single body. A member may be angry when he is misrepresented as another part of the spectrum. Apparently people at CRU suspected that McIntyre was an agent of fossil fuel interests (based on circumstantial evidence), but it was contrary to McIntyre's self-identification. Even McIntyre's organized campaign to flood CRU with FOIA requests now seems to have been planned by himself with a few friends. But one can suspect that it was planned by capitalist think tanks. I think that this mismatching of perception amplified mutual disbelief both before and after the exposure of e-mail messages. -
muoncounter at 15:18 PM on 27 November 2010It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
#26: "observation of increasing oscillation of longer term cycles is nicely consistent" Except that wdwk pins his story on Landscheidt's solar cycles (see #25). In this scheme, its the sun and only the sun. Note that in these 'papers', the references are mainly to other papers by the same author; isn't that an odd feature for scientific research? "results from my regression analysis suggest that the most likely causal agent for this increase is CO2" Excellent -- did you post this? -
johnd at 15:16 PM on 27 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
In order for renewable sources to provide baseload power, the system has to have extra capacity to collect and store energy, over and above it's rated output, and just how much extra energy it can capture on any given day is likely to be highly variable subject to prevailing weather conditions. I am wondering if there are any advantages to be had by running output below capacity in order to store energy, especially when there will be no advanced knowledge whether the system will accumulate energy for one hours output or six hours output on any given day, over putting all the output into the grid as it is being generated. I can understand that storage would be necessary for a stand alone unit, but isn't it just unnecessarily increasing costs and lowering efficiencies if such systems were made part of a national grid? -
archiesteel at 14:48 PM on 27 November 2010Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
@Camburn: if this has nothing to do with the science, why do deniers keep using Climategate as a "watershed moment" in their efforts to prove AGW is a hoax? The fact is, there was an organized campaign to harass honest, hard-working scientists, and you seem okay with that. It doesn't cost much to condemn this, just a few words, and yet you won't...why? -
archiesteel at 14:45 PM on 27 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
@damobel: the graph simplifies how the heat exchange mechanisms work. You can't look at such a graph and claim it is supposed to accurately represent the path of each photon. Others have explained this clearly. If you still can't understand it at this point, then one of two things must be true: a) this is beyond your intellectual capacity, or b) you're not debating in good faith. There are a lot of trolls and astroturfers here, please don't join their ranks and make a serious effort to read the material on this site before repeating the debunked junk peddled by professional climate deniers... -
Marcus at 14:38 PM on 27 November 2010Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
So Eric, you're believing the claims of ClimateAudit (the people behind the FoI requests) instead of the claims of multiple, independent sources who say otherwise? That doesn't sound very genuinely skeptical to me! -
scaddenp at 14:04 PM on 27 November 2010It's the ocean
h-j-m. "The logical consequence of this claim is that rising atmospheric temperatures (due to anthropogenic global warming) causes rising ocean temperatures." But this is NOT what is happening. It is not warm air that is warming the sea - it is increased radiation (sun + backradiation) that is warming the sea. Ie radiative heating not conductive heating. And in that setting, it is warm ocean that is warming the air, not the other way round. -
Bibliovermis at 13:39 PM on 27 November 2010It's the ocean
Yes, there is a net flow of heat from hotter objects to cooler objects. That flow results in the cooler object becoming hotter and the hotter object becoming cooler. Hence, if the oceans were warming the atmosphere they would be cooling. -
Bibliovermis at 13:32 PM on 27 November 2010Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
I agree that it isn't relevant to the scientific basis. Why do so many self-described skeptics make it out to be a "final nail in the coffin of AGW"? As several here have explained to you, there is nothing plain & simple about this. Do you think CA was wrong for organizing the intensive campaign of vexatious requests? -
TOP at 13:28 PM on 27 November 2010It's the ocean
If the ocean was feeding atmospheric warming, the oceans would be cooling. Boy, I don't follow this statement. If the oceans were feeding global warming they would have to be warmer than the atmosphere for heat transfer to occur. Heat flows from hotter to colder always whether it is conduction, convection or radiation. Since the oceans radiate very little it has to be conduction and convection. This is kind of like the beer illustration in reverse. Problems in assessment of the ultraviolet penetration into natural waters from space-based measurements interestingly seems to disregard or at least down play the role of the atmosphere (CO2 and air) in the absorption of UV in the oceans. The ozone hole, aerosols, clouds and the nature of the ocean with it's life seem to be bigger drivers of the absorption of UV. UV is of course a big player in warming the oceans. -
Eric (skeptic) at 13:12 PM on 27 November 2010Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
#25, dhogaza "McI and the CA crew knew that CRU could not release the small amount of data deemed to be proprietary by a few countries which owned it. McI and the CA crew peppered CRU with FOIs demanding this data anyway" The bulk of the FOI's demanded either data that was not proprietary or to see the agreements that stated that the data was proprietary. See http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/29/the-foi-myth-2/ for more info. -
JohnHarrington at 13:07 PM on 27 November 2010Skeptical Science now an Android app
Oh, I forgot to mention: the first time I downloaded the app, some of the topics appeared twice and some appeared to be missing. I think this was due to an interrupted download. I uninstalled and downloaded again, and that fixed the problem. -
JohnHarrington at 13:05 PM on 27 November 2010Skeptical Science now an Android app
I love this app almost as much as I love the website, thank you. @NewYorkJ (#10), I find the app useful for more than face-to-face battle with contrarians. I dip into it when I have downtime, to brush up on some of the arguments. The arguments are in brief form, but there is still enough detail for study. -
Marcus at 12:43 PM on 27 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
BTW, Dana, you forgot to mention Vanadium Flow Batteries. There is strong evidence to suggest that this could be an ideal way to store wind power for release when wind is not available. King Island Wind Farm-for example-is able to provide 50% of the communities power needs from Wind alone because of the batteries. It would probably only be 1/3rd that amount if they relied on the wind power *only* when the wind was available. -
Marcus at 12:36 PM on 27 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Camburn, when coal power was new, the power cost about US$3.00/kw-h (in 1990, inflation adjusted terms) & its only been in the last 60 years that electricity from coal-fired power fell below the US$0.20/kw-h (again, in 1990 inflation adjusted terms)-& that required much more tax-payer assistance than solar or wind has ever received. So as a new technology, I'd say that solar thermal is off to a very good start. Obviously as economies of scale are achieved, the price will fall below then $0.10c/kw-h range. Also, your claims about Minnesota don't really stack up too well either. According to the EIA, electricity prices in Minnesota have only risen by 0.1c/kw-h (barely a 1% rise), & are still below the average US rate of 11.53c/kw-h. So it seems that, on all counts, your claims just aren't backed up by the facts! -
Camburn at 12:36 PM on 27 November 2010Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
bibliovermis: how is it relevant to the scientific basis? It isn't. It is a legal issue, nothing else. Do you think it is relevant? -
kdkd at 12:26 PM on 27 November 2010It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
I find it interesting that WDWK after challenging me to analyse data before drawing conclusions then went silent when it transpired that I had already done so. The indication from my data analysis is that ENSO is a redistributor of heat, and is not a driver of global warming. WDWK's observation of increasing oscillation of longer term cycles (#13) is nicely consistent with this paper from Nature on Early-warning signals for critical transitions. The results from my regression analysis suggest that the most likely causal agent for this increase is CO2, as it overtook solar variability as the most important driver of temperature anomaly some time in the mid-20th century. -
Daniel Bailey at 12:14 PM on 27 November 2010Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
Re: gallopingcamel (67)"At the risk of shooting my own arguments in the foot, it would be very strange if Christidis et al. had failed to conclude that CRM [Cold Related Mortality] is much greater than HRM [Heta Related Mortality] in England."
I must respectfully point out that Christidis et al. concluded no such thing. From the Abstract:"Cold related mortality among people aged over 50 in England and Wales has decreased at a rate of 85 deaths per million population per year over the period 1976–2005. This trend is two orders of magnitude higher than the increase in heat-related mortality observed after 1976. Long term changes in temperature-related mortality may be linked to human activity, natural climatic forcings, or to adaptation of the population to a wider range of temperatures. Here we employ optimal detection, a formal statistical methodology, to carry out an end to end attribution analysis. We find that adaptation is a major influence on changing mortality rates. We also find that adaptation has prevented a significant increase in heat-related mortality and considerably enhanced a significant decrease in cold-related mortality. Our analysis suggests that in the absence of adaptation, the human influence on climate would have been the main contributor to increases in heat-related mortality and decreases in cold-related mortality."
CG, the point of Christidis et al. was to: 1. Measure the trends of the changes (if any) in CRM and HRM 2. To see what portion could be explained by human adaption (if any) and what could be attributed to climate change (if any). At no point do the authors conclude that CRM is higher than HRM. Apples and oranges. Comparing widely diverse areas by latitude is a bit of a strawman as well. The climatic variables impacting the United Kingdom and those impacting Australia as they relate to CRM and HRM are completely different. Apples and breadfruit. In the absence of every variable except for latitude, then yes, I would support your conclusion about the study. If they had made that conclusion (CRM > HRM). Which they didn't do. Apples and Na'vi. The Yooper -
Bibliovermis at 12:04 PM on 27 November 2010Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
Camburn, Confessions obtained under duress are dismissable. I still want to know why this issue is relevant to a discussion of the scientific basis since you admit that it has nothing to do with climate science. -
Camburn at 11:43 AM on 27 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
That 14 cents a kw sounds a bit pricey for Arizona. It will cost the consumer much more than 14 cents. Right now the consumer pays approx 11 cents per kw at the retail level. I hope it doesn't end up like Minnesota. Rates are going through the roof because of the contracts for purchase of wind power. -
wingding at 11:39 AM on 27 November 2010Climategate: Tampering with Temperatures?
Yep #12 seconded -
gallopingcamel at 11:29 AM on 27 November 2010Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
Daniel Bailey, At the risk of shooting my own arguments in the foot, it would be very strange if Christidis et al. had failed to conclude that CRM [Cold Related Mortality] is much greater than HRM [Heta Related Mortality] in England. The country is situated at high latitudes (50N to 55N), so dangerously high temperatures are rare. A similar study done in Australia (26S to 41S) might show quite different results. -
Daniel Bailey at 10:29 AM on 27 November 2010Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
Re: Camburn (22)"A wrong is a wrong."
Except when it's not wrong. 1. Should CRU, the UEA and the ICO have done a better job of making a better effort to comply with the FOIA requests in a more timely fashion? Yeah, probably. 2. Should CRU, the UEA and the ICO have complied with every FOIA request? Evidence shows that all specific, non-vexacious FOIAs not involving the intellectual property of another country were responded to. 3. Should those submitting FOIAs for intellectual property not belonging to CRU and not subject to fulfillment by an FOIA have then taken up their case with those foreign bodies? Absolutely. 4. Was it possible to get the needed data from the requisite foreign bodies in a timely fashion, write the needed codes and then replicate CRUs work? Tamino did it. Ron Broberg did it. Nick Barnes did it. Clear Climate Code did it. The Muir Russell Commission did it in 2 days and further said that any competent researcher could have easily done the same. 5. So where is the analysis, where is the replication, where is the published work of the "skeptics", now that precedent has shown that it tweren't all that hard to do? ( - insert sound of crickets chirping here - ) The real travesty of all this is the inability of "skeptics" to move on. Now that's wrong. The Yooper
Prev 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 Next
