Recent Comments

Prev  2093  2094  2095  2096  2097  2098  2099  2100  2101  2102  2103  2104  2105  2106  2107  2108  Next

Comments 105001 to 105050:

105001. Peter Lang at 13:26 PM on 6 November 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Moderator, you might like to take a look at #343 and #346 for example, and perhaps reinstate my responses. My responses were to a succession of such comments - from people who think they are objective and dispassionate, but are far from it.
        Moderator Response: Given the overall nature and tone of this thread, emotions have been running a little high. Comment 343 is more egregious than 346, but is in that gray area in the Comments Policy, toeing the line but not openly violating it. As such, the Moderator at that time allowed it. By focusing on the content of your own comments and being mindful of tone when replying to others comments, despite any perceived provocations, we all will benefit from what you have to offer here. If you see another's comment that is in open violation of the Comments Policy, do not reply to its content, but bring that comment to the attention of the Moderator instead. Thanks in advance for your content contributions to SkS and compliance in this matter. Both are appreciated.
105002. Peter Lang at 13:20 PM on 6 November 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Moderator, I notice you are deleting some of my replies, yet comments like this remain from the anti-nuclear, pro renewable advocates. "Your shrill claims with little documentation are unconvincing."
        Moderator Response: Your comments that were deleted were in violation of the Comments Policy, containing insults, ad hominems, politics and being off-topic. Keep it clean and on-topic for that particular post and comments stay. You are not being singled out; others, too, experience this and learn in time to communicate their positions in their statements more effectively. To everyone's benefit.
105003. Peter Lang at 13:16 PM on 6 November 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Michael sweet Your claim of deviding R&D money by watts currently generated is obviously crank To not do so is obviously "crank". The subsides listed (a small part of the total subsidies) are annual. So they need to be divided by the energy produced. If you don't mormalsie the figures it is totally misleading. Its like sayoing SA produces more CO2 than Australia. So waht? It's meaningless. Just like trying to compare the annual subsides for wind and nuclear when wind generates about 1% of energy and nuclear about 20% (or what ever it is). It is pure spin. Not objective. Not reliable. Clearly "crank". Wind farm owners need to earn around $110/MWh to be profitable in Australia. It obviously varies from site to site. On top of this wind requires enhancement to the grid (not just more transmission lines) that cost around $15/MWh. Also, there additional costs for the fossil fuel plants that have to back up for wind power. The LCOE for New coal plants is around $50/MWh and much lower for existing plants. Put it all together and the cost of wind power is in the order of 2 to 2.5 times the cost of new coal power and much more than existing coal power. The gap is closed by mandating that wind power muct be bought by the distributors when it is available. That forces the electricity retailers to buy expensive, hard to manage, wind energy instead of cheaper coal or gas energy. The regulations caus eth cost to be about 100% to 150% higher. That is the subsidy I am talking about. Similar schemes exist in UK, Europe, Canada and I understand in Texas too.
105004. michael sweet at 12:56 PM on 6 November 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Peter Lang, you claim that wind is subsidized 100%. The only "subsidy" that I have heard of for the Texas wind farms was they wanted the transmission lines built. Can you provide a reference for your claim of 100% subsidy for these installations? I currently pay $8/month for a nuclear reactor that has not been approved for construction and, IF approved, will not provide electricity for 10 years. Wind is installed by investors with their own money. Who is getting the bigger subsidy? Your shrill claims with little documentation are unconvincing. The more of your posts I read the less I am inclined to listen to what you say. I am starting to lean against nuclear if this is the best argument that can be put forth. Your claim of deviding R&D money by watts currently generated is obviously crank-- an established technology like nuclear should have much less R&D by the government than a new technology just getting started. Nuclear and coal profits should support 100% of their R&D. Where are the thorium reactors you support operating so that I can check the costs? Comparing nuclear waste safety to wind is laughable. You have still ignored my question about nuclear power stations in Afganistan, Zimbabwe and Nigeria. Do you think those countries can operate reactors safely? How can we use nuclear to power the whole world if many countries cannot operate reactors safely? What fraction of countries can currently operate reactors safely? If you cannot answer these questions you do not have a valid proposal.
105005. miekol at 12:52 PM on 6 November 2010
        Climate change from 40 million years ago shows climate sensitivity to CO2
        #11 Thank you for your reply and your patience. No, I do not believe "that we can keep doing that without it having *any* negative impacts on our climate? " I have not said it would not have negative impacts on our climate.I have not said anything yet. "I'm still … collating, actually" :-)
105006. miekol at 12:52 PM on 6 November 2010
        Climate change from 40 million years ago shows climate sensitivity to CO2
        #9 You said, "You are not listening." Yes I am :-) You said, " Fossil fuels accumulated over millions of years." I know this. You said, "fossil fuel burning during the past 150 years (and half of that within the past 60)." I know this. My point is ALL of the history of the planet must be factored into the discussion otherwise we just might be missing an important element. Its called lateral thinking. :-) You must think outside the square, otherwise you might miss something :-)
105007. HumanityRules at 12:48 PM on 6 November 2010
        Climate change from 40 million years ago shows climate sensitivity to CO2
        Just a side note. This paper is associated with a perspectives article written in the same issue by Paul N. Pearson from the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Cardiff University. In it he writes "Maximum levels in the MECO reached 4000 ppmv or higher—similar, perhaps, to a future anthropogenic greenhouse maximum." I've never seen any suggestion that CO2 levels are heading towards this level. Presently were creeping towards 400ppmv. Is this pure alarmism? If so what's it doing in the pages of Science magazine?
105008. Marcus at 12:24 PM on 6 November 2010
        Climate change from 40 million years ago shows climate sensitivity to CO2
        Sorry, I meant around 7 million years, not 70 million!
105009. Marcus at 12:17 PM on 6 November 2010
        Climate change from 40 million years ago shows climate sensitivity to CO2
        miekol, during much of the pre-Quaternary Era, the planet was subjected to massive levels of long-term (hundreds of millions of years) volcanism-as Pangaea slowly broke up & the continents moved into the positions we recognize today. This volcanism led to a *very* slow build up of CO2-to levels that were about 10 times higher than they are today-& this gave the planet *average* global temperatures of around 22 to 24 degrees Celsius (or around 6 to 8 degrees warmer than at any point in the Holocene). The CO2 was locked up again, over *tens of millions of years*, by the extensive plant-life that existed during the Carboniferous Era (during this time, most complex forms of animal life still spent the bulk of their time in the water). During the Carboniferous Era, temperatures also fell to levels more closely approximating our own. For at least the last 70 million years, though, levels of CO2 have remained locked between around 200ppm & 280ppm, which is testament to how slowly CO2 levels build up in the atmosphere due to volcanic influences. In the last 200 years or so, though, humans have been digging up these ancient reservoirs of prehistoric carbon & burning them-releasing their stored CO2 back into the atmosphere. Do you *really* believe, Miekol, that we can keep doing that without it having *any* negative impacts on our climate?
105010. HumanityRules at 12:05 PM on 6 November 2010
        Climate change from 40 million years ago shows climate sensitivity to CO2
        Having read the paper I've got the usual questions. 1)Where do they get the 2-3 times increase in CO2? In my mind going from 600-1600 to 6400-15000 is an increase by a factor of ~10? Just to clarify #1 and #2 in case they haven't been able to read the paper John has quoted the paper accurately. The authors say a factor of 2-3 but like Mike and KR I'm confused. This seems like such simple maths there must be an easy explanation. 2) I see no accounting for polar amplification in this work. There presently exists a theory that says temp will increase greater at the poles. I think ATM the arctic is believed to be warming at twice the rate as the global average. The paper actually says a "high latitude climate sensitivity". John are you assuming a global climate sensitivity in your write up here? I imagine if you were to take this papers estimate of "high latitude climate sensitivity" as accurate you would probably have to reduce the number if you were to try to estimate a global climate sensitivity from this work.
105011. muoncounter at 10:58 AM on 6 November 2010
        Climate change from 40 million years ago shows climate sensitivity to CO2
        #9: "The fossil fuels that was once living organisms had to get their CO2 from the atmosphere," You are not listening. Fossil fuels accumulated over millions of years; fossil fuel burning during the past 150 years (and half of that within the past 60). "What about the other 4,520,000,000 years?" We live here, now. Comparing the distant past doesn't add to the discussion. Use the SkS Search if you're curious.
105012. muoncounter at 10:52 AM on 6 November 2010
        Climate change from 40 million years ago shows climate sensitivity to CO2
        "Vast amounts of carbon were injected into the atmosphere during the Middle Eocene - where did it all come from?" The Eocene was intensely volcanic, including: The most powerful single eruption of this series took place 54.0 million years ago (Ma) and ejected ca. 1,200 km3 of ash material which makes it one of the largest eruptions in geological history. --Egger and Bruckl 2006 Zachos et al 2008 did a nice job of summarizing the climatic impacts.
105013. miekol at 10:37 AM on 6 November 2010
        Climate change from 40 million years ago shows climate sensitivity to CO2
        #7: My point exactly. The fossil fuels that was once living organisms had to get their CO2 from the atmosphere, so early on the atmosphere must have been loaded with CO2. Like I said, its a closed system. Re:How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?....quote "atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years." What about the other 4,520,000,000 years?
105014. Peter Lang at 10:04 AM on 6 November 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        JMurphy @347 From David Mackay, Plan C, page 2: Total electricity generation = 125 GW Nuclear generation = 70 GW "The electricity comes from the following sources. (The numbers given here are average outputs, not capacities.) Wind: 30GW; tide: 8GW; waste-to-energy: 2.5GW; “clean coal” and biomass co-firing: 3.2GW; nuclear: 70GW; concentrating solar power in deserts: 10GW. (That’s a total of about 125GW of electricity.)" 70 GW / 125 GW = 56%
105015. Phil at 10:04 AM on 6 November 2010
        Climate change from 40 million years ago shows climate sensitivity to CO2
        Re 5 & 6 The correct thread might be here Some comments (incurring the wrath of the moderator) though, 1. Climate change may result in loss of biodiversity and the extent of loss is likely related to the rate of change 2. Wouldn't a warming world preferentially favour non-homeostatic organisms (e.g. bacteria and viruses over humans) ? 3. I was under the impression that for the marine ecosystems cold water played a vital role due to its increased O₂ content.
105016. muoncounter at 09:50 AM on 6 November 2010
        Climate change from 40 million years ago shows climate sensitivity to CO2
        #4: "all the CO2 that's here has always been here. Its just moved around a bit" Over-generalizing a wee bit? You would do well to read up on what is called the Carbon Cycle and how the climate changed in the past in the past. The quick answer? It is clear that all that CO2 has not always been in the atmosphere. A lot that spent millions of years as fossil fuels was dumped into the atmosphere in a very short period of time.
105017. Peter Lang at 09:47 AM on 6 November 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        CB Dunkerson @346 "The simple reality is that countries all over the world are going forward with major wind and solar developments." They are being massively subsidised. 100% to 150% for wind power and in the order of 1000% for solar. Don't you read anything I post, or do you simply ignore what doesn't fit with your ideological beliefs? Why don't you advocate the same treatment for nuclear if you are genuinely more concerned about cutting CO2 emissions than about your ideological beliefs? "This inherently belies all arguments that they have no significant contribution to make." What do you mean by "significant"? Put some figures on it and put it in context as to how much CO2 emissions they can avoid compared with what we need to avoid, and the cost of avoidance compared with the cost of avoidance using nuclear. If you simply use adjectives and don't quantify any of your statements, then we cannot hold an intelligent discussion. - Did you mention that previously? a few times? :) There are many places where they are already making a significant contribution and that is set to become a worldwide reality in the next couple of decades." What do you mean by "significant"? Do you believe that renewables can/will cut emissions more than nuclear and at less cost? If so why. Layout your arguments, your figures, and authoritative sources. If Greenpeace and the like is your source, we can't have an intelligent conversation!!! The point is that you are the extremist. You want to block nuclear. I don't want to block renewables, I just want the least cost solution. Not a solution where one technology is blocked because of ideological beliefs. I say let's have a level playing field. If we do then I expect nuclear will be the dominant supplier of electricity and non-hydro renewables will have a small role. I presented the case as to why. Here is one of them (built on others that are cited in the document). Emissions cuts realities This shows just how impossiblly costly it would be for renewables to provide a predominant proportion of our electricity supply: Zero carbon Australia – Stationary energy plan - Critique
105018. Peter Lang at 09:11 AM on 6 November 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        HI scaddenp, @5 (or perhaps #346 of numbers are fixed) We do? We ban nuclear weapons but as far as I know, no banning nuclear power. Last time I heard a government minister on the subject, nuclear was off table on economic grounds. So far we generate 70%+ electricity from renewables with plenty of remaining capacity for wind (no subsidies for power generation here) and some for geothermal. Replacing our transport fuels are another story however. I would guess NZ to be reasonably unique though (perhaps like Iceland) with small population and abundant renewables including lots of wind. About 50% of our CO2e is farm-related, mostly methane. I agree with all you say here - for New Zealand. But does that apply for your West Island (i.e. Australia for foreigners)? We have very little additional, viable hydro capacity (we could develop some pumped hydro and I gave a link to an example in a previous post) We have some limited wind resource mainly along the southern coast of Australia. However, this is unreliable and can go for days at a time without generating power (across all the NEM's wind farms spread over 1200km east-west by 800km north-south). The National Electricity Market draws about 600 GWh per day, so the amount of energy storage that would be required to make wind power dispatchable would be enormous. We do not have any volcanic areas like New Zealand, Iceland and other places located on the ring of fire and mid Atlantc ridge. Hot Dry Rock and Hot Fractured Rock geothermal is another unproven technology that suffers from similar limitations to solar - i.e a diffuse source of energy. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a pipe dream propogated by the coal mining industry to delay action for as long as possible. It will sequester some CO2 but the contribution will be insignificant and at huge cost. Wind power, when backed up by fossil fuels as would be the case in Australia, displaces negligible amounts of CO2 emissions (so I understand, I can be corrected on this if someone has access to studies based on measurement data). Much less than the wind industry claims. Wind power has not closed down fossil fuel power stations anywhere. So why would it in Australia? Solar thermal. The technology does not exist to enable it to provide baseload power. The costs for what it can provide are huge. See "Zero Carbon Australia - Stationary Energy Plan - Critique" Therefore, I suggest: 1. Australia's only realistic option for cutting emissions massively, over the long term, with a sustainable trend of reducing emissions by 50% or more by 2050, is to go nuclear in a big way. I agree there will be some renewables and so there should. But we need to unblock the log jam that is prohibiting nuclear and has been for the past 40 years. 2. Allow whatever technology is best able to meet the requirement at the time. Do not prohibit any. Do not stack the cards for or against any technology. Do not provide massive subsidies for renewables, coal, gas, CCS while providing none for nuclear (as we do in Australia). Do not mandate renewables. If we want to mandate anything it should be "clean energy" no "renewable energy". Mandating "Renewable energy" as we do now is a demonstration of policy based on ideology. 3. New Zealand doesn't need nuclear. You mentioned it was not economically viable. That is the case in Australia too, at the moment and based on the assumption of a regulatory regime as applied in the other western democracies. We, and I expect NZ, are looking at the cost of nculear under a regulatory regime which makes them uneconomic. I argue we have the option of high cost nuclear or low cost nuclear. High cost nuclear is nuclear in the USA, Canada, UK, EU. Low cost nuclear is in Russia, China, India, Korea. The plants all meet the IAEA requirements. We do not need high cost nuclear. There is little difference in the safety (if any) and all are far safer than what we have now, and accept nbow as sufficient. So any move to nuclear of any type will have a major improvement in health and safety and cut CO2 emissions. So we should go for least cost nuclear. 4. There are many advantages of going least cost, as I've said in previous posts. Low cost electricity will displace fossil fuels for heat and transport faster then if the cost is higher. I gave the comparison of France and Germany to demonstrate this. Also we need to develop low cost clean low emissions electricity in the west so it will be chosen in preference to fossil fuel generators in the developing nations. That is where the really big emissions cuts (or avoidance) will have to be achieved. I provided a post with much more detail a few pages back. 5. Stop the blkocks. Stop the ideologically based policies. Stop the extremesism (only renewables).
105019. miekol at 08:38 AM on 6 November 2010
        Climate change from 40 million years ago shows climate sensitivity to CO2
        Earth's climate will have changed many times over its 4.54 billion years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth Since the Earth and its atmosphere is a closed system all the CO2 that's here has always been here. Its just moved around a bit :-) So what? So what nothing! Its simply my layman observation. Perhaps someone else can add to it.
105020. Daniel Bailey at 08:04 AM on 6 November 2010
        Climate change from 40 million years ago shows climate sensitivity to CO2
        John, thanks for the interesting summary of the paper. One housekeeping question: the abstract mentions both Peter K. Bijl and Alexander J. P. Houben contributed equally to the paper. In that event, wouldn't it be customary to cite both principal authors in your reference (i,e., Bijl and Houben, et al 2010)? Another question: do they give some idea as to how long it took to both raise CO2 concentrations and temps? Just trying to prepare for the inevitable nay-saying. Thanks! The Yooper
105021. KR at 08:02 AM on 6 November 2010
        Climate change from 40 million years ago shows climate sensitivity to CO2
        Was that intended to be 2-3 doublings of CO2?
105022. Rob Painting at 07:23 AM on 6 November 2010
        The Grumble in the Jungle
        One pathway studied was trying to identify a 'critical soil moisture threshold' at which vast tracts of forest just burn away" - and this is a statement Yes, a strawman one. Nepstad papers study precisely this very concept of fire risk and nothing more. So let's get this straight, because the studies did not specifically set out to determine drought sensitivity itself, uncovered this anyway, but it doesn't count because they didn't set out to study it?. Is that what you are saying? It is not me, who is implying a single threshold Well it appears that way. Ecologists understand local conditions do vary within the Amazon. Some regions receive more rainfall than others, water table heights vary. The threshold exists over a range of values of precipitation. Such 'thresholds' do exist, if you can at all call them that, but they arrive after years of soil moisture deprivation under artificial drought conditions, not just with 'a slight reduction of rainfall'. Yes, I would call them thresholds, given that's the term used in the scientific literature. And no, the threshold has not been established using only data from the through-fall exclusion experiments (though they've proven very useful). I would ask you to think about it for a moment - why would half the forest 'react drastically', to 'even a slight change in rainfall', as unsubstantiated as that may be, if you believe that the system response 'likely to be complex', 'not necessarily homogenous', given 'the varied conditions'? Simply because the Amazon is (or maybe was) a system in equilibrium. The local vegetation exerts profound influence on water recycling and nutrient recycling. "If" a threshold is crossed it will lead to chain reaction, a series of positive feedbacks which cause it to "react drastically". A later post will address this, as understanding of ecology doesn't get much coverage on climate blogs, and it's an important aspect to consider. Roger Pielke Jr discussed the issue at Climateaudit, following which he wrote a post, which has since been picked up and quoted. These are folks who either support the IPCC or are outside parties to the Amazongate debate. Thanks, but I always do my own research. I'd rather not rely on the opinions of others (skeptic or non-skeptic), but on the peer-reviewed studies themselves. I also think you are ill-informed if you consider Pielke Jr etc, outside the debate.
105023. rhpflieger at 06:57 AM on 6 November 2010
        Solar cycles cause global warming
        There is a widespread belief that global warming is caused by sunspots. This is the result of a 2006 NASA prediction that near the end of 2010 there would be a higher than normal solar maxima. We have to be more careful with our predictions. This was picked up by a TV station which specializes in potential disasters. Dire predictions of super solar storms which could shut down our electrical power distribution network indefinitely. The reality is that the newest NASA predictions are for a solar maxima in 2013 and that this will be a mild maxima. As of November 1, the sunspot number was 30 whereas the 2006 prediction called for a sunspot number as high as 175 at this time. The problem was that they hadn't waited for the true minima which occurred late 2008 and early 2009. The problem is that few people are aware of the truth that we have been in an extended quiet period of the sun for close to 7 years.
105024. Eric (skeptic) at 03:56 AM on 6 November 2010
        The value of coherence in science
        CBDunkerson, yes, between the surface and deep ocean, because their main propagation vector is the same: movement of water.
105025. muoncounter at 03:44 AM on 6 November 2010
        Models are unreliable
        #270: "As a result, codes may be riddled with tiny errors that do not cause the program to break down, but may drastically change the scientific results that it spits out." There's a crust of value in this observation, as it must apply equally to both sides. Hence, analysis of surface temperature measurements, all of the 'no, its not' repeated ad nauseum here, etc. must be subject to the same risk of error. If you can't trust a climate scientist, why should you trust a climate skeptic?
105026. CBDunkerson at 03:15 AM on 6 November 2010
        The value of coherence in science
        Eric #77: Are you suggesting that heat and carbonic acid should disperse through the oceans at identical rates?
105027. Esop at 02:33 AM on 6 November 2010
        It's cooling
        Since Adrian was so easily convinced by the UAH temperatures, he should take another look at the graph and realize that we are in big trouble after all: Channel 5 is now once again smashing the all time record, despite the second strongest La Nina on record.
105028. Albatross at 02:25 AM on 6 November 2010
        The value of coherence in science
        Cross posted by request. The comment below was made in response to this post on the Models are unreliable thread. Poptech, This is what you should have said, which might have been somewhat closer to the truth, albeit still highly misleading: "Nature Admits Climate Scientists are Computer Illiterate" My retort would be (as exemplified by your post and as noted by Stephen @2701 above): "Climate "skeptics" illiterate on the science and fact checking" [edit-- the offending post is probably also a good example of the incoherence of the arguments put forth by "skeptics"] Anyhow, 1) Nature did not admit that "climate scientists are computer illiterate" as you would so dearly love to believe. The title you elected to use is clearly your spin of the article's content. 2) The example from the University of Edinburgh that Wilson discusses (and which you bolded) does not seem to apply to climate scientists, but scientists in general. Yet, you oddly chose to conclude that he was referring to all climate scientists. Also, From the very same Nature article: "Science administrators also need to value programming skills more highly, says David Gavaghan, a computational biologist at the University of Oxford, UK." "The mangled coding of these monsters can sometimes make it difficult to check for errors. One example is a piece of code written to analyse the products of high-energy collisions at the Large Hadron Collider particle accelerator at CERN, Europe's particle-physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland." So using your (flawed) logic, are all CERN scientists, and by extension all physicists, computer illiterate Poptech? No, of course not. "Aaron Darling, a computational biologist at the University of California, Davis, unwittingly caused such a mistake with his own computer code for comparing genomes to reconstruct evolutionary relationships." So using your (flawed) logic are all computational biologists, and by extension all biologists, computer illiterate Poptech? No, of course not. "The CRU e-mail affair was a warning to scientists to get their houses in order, he says. "To all scientists out there, ask yourselves what you would do if, tomorrow, some Republican senator trains the spotlight on you and decides to turn you into a political football. Could your code stand up to attack?" So your post at #270 was seriously flawed, and a perfect example of confirmation bias and cherry picking which is often used by "skeptics" to distort and misinform. You would have been better of citing the example of Harry at CRU that they discussed...oh, but that has already been done months ago, and is not sufficient evidence to make sweeping generalizations. Please, do not insult us here with your misinformation.
105029. Eric (skeptic) at 02:19 AM on 6 November 2010
        The value of coherence in science
        Where I say "ocean" above, please substitute "deep ocean"
105030. Eric (skeptic) at 02:17 AM on 6 November 2010
        The value of coherence in science
        Another CAGW incoherence I just noticed: the http://www.skepticalscience.com/billions-of-blow-dryers.html argument basically claims that about 1/3 of the extra heat from CO2 winds up in the oceans on a continuous basis (essentially 1W/m2 out of 3W/m2) implying a few decades for complete turnover. But a much lower ocean turnover rate is used for the long CO2 residence time argument (500-1000 years) http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm
105031. Albatross at 01:51 AM on 6 November 2010
        Models are unreliable
        Moderator, I hope that you allow this comment, b/c Poptech's latest post is an especially egregious example of poor form by a "skeptic". Poptech, This is what you should have said, which might have been somewhat closer to the truth, albeit still highly misleading: "Nature Admits Climate Scientists are Computer Illiterate" My retort would be (as exemplified by your post and as noted by Stephen @270 above): "Climate "skeptics" illiterate on the science and fact checking" Anyhow, 1) Nature did not admit that "climate scientists are computer illiterate" as you would so dearly love to believe. The title you elected to use is clearly your spin of the article's content. 2) The example from the University of Edinburgh that Wilson discusses (and which you bolded) does not seem to apply to climate scientists, but scientists in general. Yet, you oddly chose to conclude that he was referring to all climate scientists. Also, From the very same Nature article: "Science administrators also need to value programming skills more highly, says David Gavaghan, a computational biologist at the University of Oxford, UK." "The mangled coding of these monsters can sometimes make it difficult to check for errors. One example is a piece of code written to analyse the products of high-energy collisions at the Large Hadron Collider particle accelerator at CERN, Europe's particle-physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland." So using your (flawed) logic, are all CERN scientists, and by extension all physicists, computer illiterate Poptech? No, of course not. "Aaron Darling, a computational biologist at the University of California, Davis, unwittingly caused such a mistake with his own computer code for comparing genomes to reconstruct evolutionary relationships." So using your (flawed) logic are all computational biologists, and by extension all biologists, computer illiterate Poptech? No, of course not. "The CRU e-mail affair was a warning to scientists to get their houses in order, he says. "To all scientists out there, ask yourselves what you would do if, tomorrow, some Republican senator trains the spotlight on you and decides to turn you into a political football. Could your code stand up to attack?" So your post at #270 was seriously flawed, and a perfect example of confirmation bias and cherry picking which is often used by "skeptics" to distort and misinform. You would have been better of citing the example of Harry at CRU that they discussed...oh, but that has already been done months ago, and is not sufficient evidence to make sweeping generalizations. Please, do not insult us here with your misinformation.
        Moderator Response: Albatross, obviously I (Daniel Bailey) don't speak for John, but I see nothing wrong with it. As a teaching tool, it may also have more value if you cross-post it over on the The value of coherence in science thread. Thanks!
105032. CBDunkerson at 01:12 AM on 6 November 2010
        CO2 has a short residence time
        One need only look at records of air samples trapped in ice cores to see that over and over again it has taken ~90,000 years for a ~100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 to return to the previous level. Thus the Kaiser & Johnson contention that a similar change would now happen within 30 years flies in the face of reality. Both current observations and past records indicate a MUCH longer time period... fully in line with the royal society's findings.
105033. Ned at 01:05 AM on 6 November 2010
        CO2 has a short residence time
        Grim_Reaper, yes, it looks like the same (wrong) argument. Also, propagating one piece of misinformation apparently isn't enough, since they also throw in the canard about volcanoes as a source of the observed CO2 increase (briefly dealt with here).
105034. Grim_Reaper at 00:44 AM on 6 November 2010
        CO2 has a short residence time
        I take it the claims (from chemist Dr Klaus L. E. Kaiser & "leading Swedish" mathematics professor Claes Johnson) in the following link are a variation on this particular argument? Basically it seeks to undermine the Royal Society's latest report on climate change by claiming it's calculations are wrong. The Link
105035. JMurphy at 00:36 AM on 6 November 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        OK, getting away from all the political posturing/accusations, I will continue to give the renewables side a proper hearing : Renewable energy could provide up to 635 gigawatts (GW) of new electricity generating capacity [in the USA] by 2025 – a substantial contribution and potentially more than the nation’s need for new capacity. Renewable Energy Projections as Published in the National Renewable Energy Action Plans of the European Member States The 450 Scenario is achievable – but very challenging. It assumes a hybrid policy approach, comprising a plausible combination of cap-and-trade systems, sectoral agreements and national measures, with countries subject to common but differentiated responsibilities. End-use efficiency is the largest contributor to CO2 emissions abatement in 2030 compared with the Reference Scenario, accounting for more than half of total savings. Early retirement of old, inefficient coal plants and their replacement by more efficient coal or gas fired power plants, mainly in China and in the United States, accounts for an additional 5% of the global emissions reduction. The increased deployment of renewables accounts for 20% of CO2 savings, while increased use of biofuels in the transport sector accounts for 3%. Finally, additional carbon capture and storage (CCS) and nuclear each represents 10% of the savings in 2030, relative to the Reference Scenario. International Energy Agency
105036. Ned at 00:30 AM on 6 November 2010
        Compendium Maps: a visual summary of the climate debate
        Hey, this is really cool. Plus, I'm pleased to hear that someone has been able to use SkepticalScience in their dissertation. That's great!
105037. Shub at 21:49 PM on 5 November 2010
        The Grumble in the Jungle
        The decline in soil moisture will not necessarily lead to vast tracts of the rainforest simply burning away. The response is likely to be complex and not necessarily homogeneous over the whole region. I said - "One pathway studied was trying to identify a 'critical soil moisture threshold' at which vast tracts of forest just burn away" - and this is a statement, not an argument. This statement simply places in context the earlier papers from Nepstad - 1994, 1999, 2002 and 2004. The Nepstad papers study precisely this very concept of fire risk and nothing more. All the expected complex changes that you list, are not examined by the Nepstad papers, but the IPCC statements refers to them - which was my point to begin with. Think about it for a moment, what limits the current extent of rainforest in the Amazon?. It is not me, who is implying a single threshold - it is researchers such as Nepstad have studied looking for such a threshold. Such 'thresholds' do exist, if you can at all call them that, but they arrive after years of soil moisture deprivation under artificial drought conditions, not just with 'a slight reduction of rainfall'. I would ask you to think about it for a moment - why would half the forest 'react drastically', to 'even a slight change in rainfall', as unsubstantiated as that may be, if you believe that the system response 'likely to be complex', 'not necessarily homogenous', given 'the varied conditions'? Lastly, I pointed you to the sources above, because the questions and issues being discussed were put to Nepstad himself, whom you quote extensively. Roger Pielke Jr discussed the issue at Climateaudit, following which he wrote a post, which has since been picked up and quoted. These are folks who either support the IPCC or are outside parties to the Amazongate debate. It could assist in breaking out of the circularity of your claims Thanks
105038. JMurphy at 21:35 PM on 5 November 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Peter Lang wrote : "By the way JMurphy, you got this wrong: "(Total - 67.8, i.e. Nuclear contributes 41%)" You didn't understand what you've added. Try again (but read and understand first). The percentage is 56% nuclear." I thought I knew enough maths to understand that a projected 28kWh per day per person average energy contribution by nuclear, amounted to 41% of a total of 67.8kWh per day per person projected for total average energy requirements. But I'm obviously wrong...
105039. CBDunkerson at 21:06 PM on 5 November 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        The simple reality is that countries all over the world are going forward with major wind and solar developments. This inherently belies all arguments that they have no significant contribution to make. There are many places where they are already making a significant contribution and that is set to become a worldwide reality in the next couple of decades. Arguments that something which has already happened, renewable power providing significant power generation on local and national scales, CANNOT happen are pure denial. By definition.
105040. Stephen Baines at 20:24 PM on 5 November 2010
        Models are unreliable
        Or not...from the same paper "Another solution is to bring trained computer scientists into research groups, either permanently or as part of temporary alliances. Software developer Nick Barnes has set up the Climate Code Foundation, based in Sheffield, UK, to help climate researchers. He was motivated by problems with NASA's Surface Temperature Analysis software, which was released to the public in 2007. Critics complained that the program, written in the scientific programming language Fortran, would not work on their machines and they could therefore not trust what it said about global warming. In consultation with NASA researchers, Barnes rewrote the code in a newer, more transparent programming language —Python — reducing its length and making it easier for people who aren't software experts to understand how it functions. "Because of the immense public interest and the important policy issues at stake, it was worth taking the time to do that," says Barnes. His new code shows the same general warming trend as the original program." Seriously, poptech, how could consistent trends among dozens of climate models and several global temperature averaging algorithms, each coded by separate groups, result from random coding errors? You are applying several general statements in the article to climate modelers specifically when 1) none of the most damning examples provided by that article relate to climate modeling and 2) you haven't even bothered to find out what procedures and cross checks climate modellers have in place. This is the definition of quote mining.
105041. Daniel Bailey at 16:30 PM on 5 November 2010
        Compendium Maps: a visual summary of the climate debate
        As a mapping guy I find this intriguing! Not to mention potentially very useful as well. It might be useful to include a link directly to the map in question. The Yooper
105042. Peter Lang at 16:26 PM on 5 November 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        HI scaddenp, @5 (or perhaps #346 of numbers are fixed) We do? We ban nuclear weapons but as far as I know, no banning nuclear power. Last time I heard a government minister on the subject, nuclear was off table on economic grounds. So far we generate 70%+ electricity from renewables with plenty of remaining capacity for wind (no subsidies for power generation here) and some for geothermal. Replacing our transport fuels are another story however. I would guess NZ to be reasonably unique though (perhaps like Iceland) with small population and abundant renewables including lots of wind. About 50% of our CO2e is farm-related, mostly methane. I agree with all you say here - for New Zealand. But does that apply for your West Island (i.e. Australia for foreigners)? We have very little additional, viable hydro capacity (we could develop some pumped hydro and I gave a link to an example in a previous post) We have some limited wind resource mainly along the southern coast of Australia. However, this is unreliable and can go for days at a time without generating power (across all the NEM's wind farms spread over 1200km east-west by 800km north-south). The National Electricity Market draws about 600 GWh per day, so the amount of energy storage that would be required to make wind power dispatchable would be enormous. We do not have any volcanic areas like New Zealand, Iceland and other places located on the ring of fire and mid Atlantc ridge. Hot Dry Rock and Hot Fractured Rock geothermal is another unproven technology that suffers from similar limitations to solar - i.e a diffuse source of energy. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a pipe dream propogated by the coal mining industry to delay action for as long as possible. It will sequester some CO2 but the contribution will be insignificant and at huge cost. Wind power, when backed up by fossil fuels as would be the case in Australia, displaces negligible amounts of CO2 emissions (so I understand, I can be corrected on this if someone has access to studies based on measurement data). Much less than the wind industry claims. Wind power has not closed down fossil fuel power stations anywhere. So why would it in Australia? Solar thermal. The technology does not exist to enable it to provide baseload power. The costs for what it can provide are huge. See "Zero Carbon Australia - Stationary Energy Plan - Critique" Therefore, I suggest: 1. Australia's only realistic option for cutting emissions massively, over the long term, with a sustainable trend of reducing emissions by 50% or more by 2050, is to go nuclear in a big way. I agree there will be some renewables and so there should. But we need to unblock the log jam that is prohibiting nuclear and has been for the past 40 years. 2. Allow whatever technology is best able to meet the requirement at the time. Do not prohibit any. Do not stack the cards for or against any technology. Do not provide massive subsidies for renewables, coal, gas, CCS while providing none for nuclear (as we do in Australia). Do not mandate renewables. If we want to mandate anything it should be "clean energy" no "renewable energy". Mandating "Renewable energy" as we do now is a demonstration of policy based on ideology. 3. New Zealand doesn't need nuclear. You mentioned it was not economically viable. That is the case in Australia too, at the moment and based on the assumption of a regulatory regime as applied in the other western democracies. We, and I expect NZ, are looking at the cost of nculear under a regulatory regime which makes them uneconomic. I argue we have the option of high cost nuclear or low cost nuclear. High cost nuclear is nuclear in the USA, Canada, UK, EU. Low cost nuclear is in Russia, China, India, Korea. The plants all meet the IAEA requirements. We do not need high cost nuclear. There is little difference in the safety (if any) and all are far safer than what we have now, and accept nbow as sufficient. So any move to nuclear of any type will have a major improvement in health and safety and cut CO2 emissions. So we should go for least cost nuclear. 4. There are many advantages of going least cost, as I've said in previous posts. Low cost electricity will displace fossil fuels for heat and transport faster then if the cost is higher. I gave the comparison of France and Germany to demonstrate this. Also we need to develop low cost clean low emissions electricity in the west so it will be chosen in preference to fossil fuel generators in the developing nations. That is where the really big emissions cuts (or avoidance) will have to be achieved. I provided a post with much more detail a few pages back. 5. Stop the blkocks. Stop the ideologically based policies. Stop the extremesism (only renewables).
105043. ishambat at 15:02 PM on 5 November 2010
        There's no empirical evidence
        I just wanted to say thank you for this post. The more available and easily readable evidence in public domain the better it is.
105044. scaddenp at 14:16 PM on 5 November 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        "Except that it's impossible to do it properly, or come up with a "Plan C" or Plan E for NZ, because they, like Australia, forbid nuclear." Um. We do? We ban nuclear weapons but as far as I know, no banning nuclear power. Last time I heard a government minister on the subject, nuclear was off table on economic grounds. So far we generate 70%+ electricity from renewables with plenty of remaining capacity for wind (no subsidies for power generation here) and some for geothermal. Replacing our transport fuels are another story however. I would guess NZ to be reasonably unique though (perhaps like Iceland) with small population and abundant renewables including lots of wind. About 50% of our CO2e is farm-related, mostly methane. The genesis of one part of my institute (the "N" of GNS Science) was to provide research for expected future nuclear power. A long time ago however.
105045. Pete Dunkelberg at 12:55 PM on 5 November 2010
        Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
        Denialism - everyone needs to be aware of it these days. While Freud's idea may come into it sometimes, the current concept is of rhetorical methods used to create an appearance of endless argument over matters that are already established. See the link for many specific methods. One simple direct method is to always argue as if nothing is known, and each new paper is obliged to prove everything from scratch. Since this is not possible in a single paper, the paper may be called "biased" for not doing what it was not intended to and could not do. This method is familiar to me from evolution denial. The series of comments above in this thread gives me the impression that the regular group here is more susceptible to denialism than it would be if the concept were kept in mind.
105046. Pete Dunkelberg at 12:42 PM on 5 November 2010
        Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
        Comment # 3 (thingadonta) made little sense to me. A key misconception comes at the end: "Too many holes in the paper ...." It is not a paper, it is a statement. Even if it were a paper it would only justify the new research within itself, and use references for established science just as the statement does. It is quite appropriate for a position statement to be based on (not try to re-establish) established science. It would be strange for a position statement to try to re-establish its scientific basis. If thingadonta wants a rehash of all climatology, the IPCC AR4 WG1 report is one place to start.
105047. JMurphy at 12:13 PM on 5 November 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Peter Lang wrote : "So, instead of raising arguments to try to keep nuclear prohibited, why don't you put your effort into getting ACF, Greenpeace, WWF, FOE and the Greens to change their anti-nuclear policy." Like the majority, I am in between the extremists on both sides, i.e. you on one side and extreme Greens on the other. You deserve each other but, in the meantime, the real world (and the people who inhabit the real world) will find the solutions that work - not the solutions the ideologues or the conspiracy-theorists want. Sorry.
105048. Peter Lang at 12:04 PM on 5 November 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        By the way JMurphy, you got this wrong: "(Total - 67.8, i.e. Nuclear contributes 41%)" You didn't understand what you've added. Try again (but read and understand first). The percentage is 56% nuclear. However, as most in the business know, it will be much higher than that because the renewables canmnot and will not be able to make much of a contibution. The polasn C is good because it gets to many people and is politically correct. The suggested starting point is to keep all those happy who are hoping and praying for renewables to bea bale to paly a significant role. I'd suggest the end result will be similar to where France is now. You can havng onto your dream. Time will tell. But waht is im,portant is that we need to ramp up nuclwear now. We need to remove the prohibitions. We need to remove the impediments. We need to remove the over the top requirements. So, instead of raising arguments to try to keep nuclear prohibited, why don't you put your effort into getting ACF, Greenpeace, WWF, FOE and the Greens to change their anti-nuclear policy.
105049. Rob Painting at 12:00 PM on 5 November 2010
        The Grumble in the Jungle
        One pathway studied was trying to identify a 'critical soil moisture threshold' at which vast tracts of forest just burn away. This is a strawman argument. The decline in soil moisture will not necessarily lead to vast tracts of the rainforest simply burning away. The response is likely to be complex and not necessarily homogeneous over the whole region. The rainforest itself has significant influence over hydrology in the region, affecting rainfall distribution, cloud formation, altering soil structure, water storage capacity, surface solar radiation and lowering surface temperatures. Increased seasonality (i.e a drier dry season, and a wetter wet season) can kill trees, despite only a small change in annual rainfall. Increased fire risk, is but one of a number of negative consequences. The fact remains that, even after all aforesaid studies, no such single mythical threshold level exists or has been found, for tropical forests like the Amazon. Well, actually studies have identified a range of moisture thresholds for the rainforest. Think about it for a moment, what limits the current extent of rainforest in the Amazon?. Don't you suppose soil moisture might be a limiting factor?. If you are implying that one single threshold exists for all rainforests, that seems unlikely given the varied conditions. If soil moisture loss were to actually cause half of the Amazon system to burn away, the forest would be long gone Sorry, but again, strawman material. The Amazon WWF error and the Himalayan WWF Please stay on topic. And again I've amply demonstrated the IPCC statement is correct. The word "error" used here is simply an opinion, and one contrary to established research. these issues have been examined and discussed in far greater detail, at RealClimate, Wattsupwiththat....... Well it appears, not well enough, given your misunderstanding of the topic. And it might just be my interpretation, but that appears some kind of appeal to authority. If so, color me unimpressed. The WWF report, and therefore the Amazon statement from the IPCC, violates all these governing principles. Again, just your opinion. I've reproduced the relevant guidelines above. People can make up their own minds, they don't need you as some sort of arbiter of the written word. Really beside the point anyway, I've already stated the IPCC could have handled this better, the issue is whether the statement is correct. It is.
105050. Peter Lang at 11:55 AM on 5 November 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Further to my post #339 here is my reply on BNC to quokka on this matter (I'm posting these here because it may be informative for some): quokka said: It is inconceivable that nuclear power could be introduced without a regulatory and safety environment that does not at least meet IAEA recommendations. I totally agree and I have never said anything that should be taken to mean I disagree with this statement. All the other countries abide by the IAEA requirements and nuclear is a lot cheaper in some of those countries than in USA, Canada, UK, and European countries. I want to run with the low cost way of doing it, not the high cost way. I also want to advocate to get the other big nuclear countries to stop agitating in the IAEA for ever higher safety regulations. I want these countries to start agitating to back off to a level that is consistent with the requirements on other industries. France is trying to ramp up the requirement to try to make its EPR monster competitive. That is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing if we want nuclear to be rolled out in the developing and underdeveloped countries (I am thinking of the poorest countries in Africa, for example). If they do not have the option of cheap nuclear they will use fossil fuel generation. Australia will have to abide by whatever the IAEA dictates. But we can take a minimalist approach and I think we should – for the benefit of the whole world!!!

Prev  2093  2094  2095  2096  2097  2098  2099  2100  2101  2102  2103  2104  2105  2106  2107  2108  Next