Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 Next
Comments 105351 to 105400:
-
Peter Lang at 12:10 PM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Stephen Baines, I am well aware of all that. It's not as if it hasn't been said a million times. The problem is that most of the general belief about nuclear, renewables, energy security, distributed electricity generation is wrong and it is being perpetrated here. Someone mentioned up thread we need to educate people about DAGW. Well, why doesn't that apply just as much to the misunderstandings about nuclear and renewables? If we want to cut emisisons, surely we need to educate people about what solutions are actually viable as oppsed to be wishful thinking. I'll pick on just one of your points: Also, while I tend to agree that we have some way to go to have renewable energies completely replace what we have, the fact is that some argue the NP/renewable divide as an either or scenario. I agree with this statement "the fact is that some argue the NP/renewable divide as an either or scenario." It is clearly true that environmental NGOs and Greens and most on the Left have tried to block nuclear totally. They do not want any of it. So clearly your statement is correct. It is not true that anyone has tried to block renewables, however. I want whatever is most economic. I argue that renewables, in most cases are uneconomic. They are economic in some situations, and where that is the case I strongly support their use. -
Peter Lang at 11:56 AM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
CBDunkerson @303 No objections there... we just need to base 'economically rational' on actual costs vs fictional costs. I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. I believe that is what I am doing and I believe it is what the PRANs are not doing. For example, we cannot compare wind or solar with nuclear purely on the basis of $/MWh. We have to include the cost to make wind or solar able to provide power of equivalent quality and reliability. That means we need to include the cost of back up. Here is a comparison on the basis of average power (a very simplistic way to get a rough cost of energy for technologies where the upfront cost dominate). Nuclear = $4,500/kWy/y Wind (with gas back-up) = $11,800kWy/y wind with pumped hydro storage = $132,300/kWy/y This is admittedly simplistic, but the result is not too far off. Wind energy, when you include all the costs of the back-up required and all the extra costs of enhancing the grid to enable it to manage the fluctuating power supplied by wind and solar, costs around three times the cost of nuclear energy. The costs of energy storage at the scale required make it not viable now or probably ever. I'd urge people to try to see the big picture as a first step. -
Eric (skeptic) at 11:44 AM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
#306, JMurphy, you posted another link about subsidies. This time they determined the full price for nuclear power taking into account all capital and operating costs, plus insurance against meltdown. A total of 21 cents per kWh. The German price from my link in #192 is 52 cents. Nuclear provides fully-costed power at 2/5ths of the price. -
Stephen Baines at 11:39 AM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
At Peter Lang. I was following this debate with interest for a while. It has broken down a bit, but I think your leap from frustration to questioning the integrity of those who partake in climate science discussion at this site (including by extension John) is completely unecessary, logically unfounded and not even sensible given your desire to promote NP. This is the way I see it. Many people would prefer not to have to deal with a system that produces waste that requires a lot of babysitting (in some cases for centruries) and poses significant security risks over long intervals. Another simple fact is people fear radioactivity deeply. It has nothing to do with being an enviro anything. You should see the looks I get from parents and students (or my mother!) when I explain that I use it all the time in my research. The cold war seems to have etched that fear deeply in the minds of the public, in the same way that some seem to think that communists still exist and want to take over the world. Others also hope for a decentralized structure for power distribution rather than a centralized one, for a number of reasons. There might be a personal preference for the independence that implies, maybe there's a distruct of centralized political power that results from such structures, or a distrust that risks will be evaluated fairly once we're committed to it (I tend to share that view!) or maybe a sense that distributed systems would be more resilient, though difficult to engineer. These are legitimate concerns, though some are very hard to argue against, I admit. Finally, many think that renewable energy alternatives have not received the investment that other more centralized forms of power distribution have. We haven't seen that kind of funding for those technologies, and people want to see them given a far chance. I think you tend to undersell there potential a bit. Also, while I tend to agree that we have some way to go to have renewable energies completely replace what we have, the fact is that some argue the NP/renewable divide as an either or scenario. That typically hardens stances. All that has nothing to do with the goal of this site - which is to discuss the scientific bases underpinning our role in climate dynamics. -
Peter Lang at 11:35 AM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
CBDunkerson @303 None of this seems remotely accurate to me. Subsidies on renewable energy have been tiny. If you add it all up renewable power gets LESS public funding than nuclear... and those two combined are insignificant compared to the subsidies fossil fuels have received. You cannot compare on the basis of the raw numbers. You need to compare the subsidies on the basis of the amount of energy supplied. See post #310. -
Peter Lang at 11:14 AM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
JMurphy @306. You suggested the readers should "chew on" the Mark Jocobson paper: A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030 - Scientific American Nov 2009. Chew on and spit out is all that paper is worth. It is nonsense. You might like to chew on just one of the many critiques. Critique of a path to sustainable energy by 2030 -
Bibliovermis at 11:05 AM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
I have not questioned your veracity, integrity or credibility in this thread. I therefore bid you a good day. -
Stephen Baines at 11:04 AM on 4 November 2010Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
@ protestant First, we only have only 8 years of good data. You have to take what you can get. Second, the point of the 30 year trend averages in temp data that "people" insist on is that climate varies significantly because of El Nino and other internal dynamics, as well as volcano eruptions. Looking at shorter time series can reveal short-term increases or decreases that are irrelevant to the longterm overall increasing trend. Now, looking at this series(and the CO2 series for that matter) can you really doubt the existence of a trend? There is a very repeatable seasonal signal, but other than that the decrease is virtually monotonic. Finally, I take the point that its hard to know the exact rate at which melting is increasing given the length of this time series, but is it really so unbelievable that melting rate will increase if temperatures get warmer? And while the rate of melting is not something to worry about now in and of itself, the point is that we don't actually want it to get to the point that it does matter. If a doubling of melting has occured over 8 years, that would be troubling to me. It's worth keeping a very close eye on rather than simply dismissing it. -
Marcus at 11:01 AM on 4 November 2010Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
Actually, protestant, no-one has said trends shorter than 30 years are not allowed-all that has been said is that trends shorter than about 15-20 years tend to lack statistical significance. Yet that never stopped the "skeptics" from claiming there was a cooling trend from 1998-2008(even though no such trend existed). However, whenever it suits them, the skeptics are quite happy to drag out "statistical significance" as a means of refuting the trends that don't suit them. Statistically significant or not, even Blind Freddy can look at the graph above & see a downward trend in the Greenland Ice Mass! -
Peter Lang at 10:51 AM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Credibility and Integrity Regarding the many comments about credibility and implied lack of integrity, I similarly have little faith in the credibility and integrity of many who participate here. It appears to me these people believe what they want to believe and dig around to try to get evidence that supports their belief. It appears their Pro-Renewable Anti-Nulcear (PRAN) beliefs are based on faith, rather than objective analysis. I wonder whether they have used the same approach to support their other strongly held beliefs. The demonstration on this thread of their phobia about nuclear power, tends to make me suspect such people’s beliefs and opinions about other faiths they hold so dear may not be objective either. If the PRANs want to regain credibility with me, they would need to do the objective research on how the world can cut emissions by the extent advocated; show how it can be done at least cost to the world ecoomy; and show how the proposed solution is practical (clearly getting an international, economically efficient ETS is not possible at the moment and may not be for a long time). -
Daniel Bailey at 10:27 AM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Re: Peter Lang (311) You left out the Don Quixote Society. I tilt at them all the time. As for my unlamented credibility, I think I shall still sleep well at night. The Yooper -
Stephen Baines at 10:26 AM on 4 November 2010Hockey stick or hockey league?
The comment above now makes no sense...giving the offending post is now gone. My apologies. -
Stephen Baines at 10:24 AM on 4 November 2010Hockey stick or hockey league?
@ protestant: How is it arrogant to plot those through time to see if they agree with records of past temperature? John has explicitly defined what he means by radiative forcings in the figure, so he's not being disengenuous. He is simply making the assertion (or repeating what has been asserted in the literature) that we do understand the main drivers of climate. He then produces a time series that represents a hypotheses for patterns of past climate change based on that assertion that can be tested against paleo data. This is what science is supposed to do. Present assertions or hypotheses and test them. Are you suggesting that we don't do so for fear of appearing arrogant? That would seem to be an abrogation of responsibility and lack of concern that itself would be a far worse form of arrogance, IMO. Also, I don't think climate oscillations from air-sea interactions can be classified as climate forcings in the typical sense -- they can't drive the climate permanently in one direction of the other. Rather they are redistributions of heat back and forth between the atmosphere and ocean. They can add to variability for sure. But much of variability on that scale has been filtered out of both the temp and the proxy data sets by a 40-year smoothing filter. That is intended to allow the comparisons among the temp records and the proxy data to be more apples to apples, rather than apples to oranges. The thermometer record on the graph that alarms you is for northern temperate land records (CRUTEMP3). The proxies in this particular graph are from that region of the globe so it makes sense to compare these temps to those proxies. That record shows more change in temp (~0.8) than the global average due to it being over land and in the northern hemisphere. You can also see the HADCRUT3 records that combine land and sea surface temps and they are, predictably, lower than the CRUTEMP data. Finally, you have it backwards in the end. The proxies do not confirm the paleo record. The paleo records are consistent with the notion that we understand the main forces driving climate, and that current GHG forcing is causing that forcing (and climate) to diverge from the trend of the last 2 centuries. The fact that the proxies are indirect measures that are sensitive to local conditions and some other factors, I think it's impressive that we can recover the patterns predicted from climate forcing reconstructions (recent warming, LIA, some medieval warming). -
Peter Lang at 10:07 AM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Daniel Bailey, @309 you said: I agree that NP should be a primary (short term and long term) replacement for fossil fuels. If you want to recover any of your lost credibility with me you will lay out here what efforts you have and are putting into trying to convert the the anti-nuclear, pro renewables policies of Greenpeace, WWF, FoE, and the Greens. -
Peter Lang at 10:02 AM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Bibliovermis @307 You quoted figures for US government subsidies for 2006. I have several observations after a very quick scan of the article you linked to: 1. It seems the main subsidies for wind and solar are not included. These are the cost that must be paid because wind and solar are mandated by government. They are “must take” generators (that is the utilities much purchase whatever they generate). There are also costs imposed on purchasers by feed in tariffs and by mandating the amount of energy that must be purchased. These amount to 100% to 150% mandated subsidy for wind energy and in the order of 1,000% subsidy for solar energy. In Australia we have guaranteed feed in tariffs for solar which are up to ten times the cost of power from conventional power stations. And that subsidy is guaranteed for 20 years. And we have and Renewable Energy Certificates (REC). Similar regulations exist in USA., Canada, UK, EU. None of those subsidies are included in the analysis you provided (as far as I can see). 2. You quoted the total amount of subsidies by technology. But you did not normalise these amounts by dividing by the amounts of electricity generated? Why not? If you had done so the figures you would have provided would have been: Estimated Federal Energy Subsidies in 2006 Techno;ogy $/MWh Nuclear: $1.42 Wind: $8.22 Solar: $156.33 Hydro: $1.05 Coal: $1.29 Oil & Gas: $3.61 This shows that subsidies (just the ones included in you source document) for wind energy are 8 times and for solar energy are 130 times the subsidies for nuclear per MWh supplied. 3. If you divided by the real value of the energy generated (solar and wind power is near valueless because it is not dispatchable and because of the extra cost required to manage it), then the subsidies for wind and solar are near infinite per $ value of the energy supplied by these technologies. Your post appears to me to be an attempt to mislead the readers. This is why I doubt the integrity and credibility of many posting here, and have shown a sense of frustration in some of my replies to some people, regretfully sometimes these responses have been addressed to the wrong person. Sources: Government Financial Subsidies IEA, Electricity and heat for USA, 2007 -
Daniel Bailey at 09:49 AM on 4 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Re: chriscanaris (17) In large part I think you are off-base a bit with your points about Marcus' comment. Calling a spade a spade is not ad hominem. When someone posts a comment that is wrong, it is then not wrong to point out the error. Where I think you have a bit of a point is in the bit about accusations of fraud and deception. In the process of pointing out error, sometimes it is in the error itself where fraud and deception may lie. "Skeptics" repetition of errors so soundly debunked that every subsequent re-emergence of the meme requires a "rebunking" of the myth rises to the level of fraud/deception on the part of the "skeptic". So in the case of Marcus' calling out of thingadonta, as pointed out by several, the meme being called out has been rebunked many times. In this case, I would posit allowing for a human reaction of vexation on the part of Marcus in his wording of his comment and let it go by. Note: I do not use "" when applying the appellation of skeptic to you, chris. For the most part, I find you to be internally consistent in your skepticism. I'll win you over to the side of light someday. ;) The Yooper -
ranyl at 09:46 AM on 4 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
"The PETM carbon release rate was estimated using our initial carbon input of 3,000 Pg C and an input timescale of the order of 5,000 years (ref. 29), giving a rate of 0.6 Pg C y-1. The average carbon release rate from fossil-fuel burning and cement manufacturing from 1954-2004 is 5 Pg C y-1 (ref. 30)." Zeebe 2010 as above. ref.29. Röhl, U., Bralower, T. J., Norris, R. D. & Wefer, G. New chronology for the late Paleocene thermal maximum and its environmental implications. Geology 28, 927-930 (2000). 30. Marland, G., Boden, T. A. & Andres, R. J. Global, Regional, and National CO2 Emissions (CDIAC, ORNL, US DOE, 2007). Interesting facts, the rate of CO2 pulse in PETM was 0.6yr compared to 5yr currently (and increasing) so that is rate of 8.3x as fast at present. CO2 levels have risen by 40% of a doubling, although this rises to ~65% with CO2e, and the total rise in the PETM was 70% of a doubling, so basically equivalent, but the rise in the PETM took 1000-5000yrs and now it has taken 200yrs although >50% in the last 30years. The rate of temp. rise as pointed out already was 0.06 per decade then and is now 0.2 per decade, or 3.3x as fast for the last 30-40 years. Also note that the temp. rise in the PETM was 5-9C, which gives a climate sensitivity of 7.1C to 12.8C which is interesting. So basically the same degree of heating force has been added to the earth's system at rate 8x higher than at any other time noted so far and if that rate is translated into the same increase in rate in temperature change that would be 0.06Cx8 = 0.48C per decade, considering there is 30-40 year lag in the system (meaning the current rate of rise is most reflective of CO2 conc in 1970-80 so about 330ppm) maybe things are about to speed up and the rate of current warming does seem to be accelerating in general trend over the last 50 years or so. Also it seems when something is heated slowly things occur steadily yet when heat is added quickly things seem to occur in a more choatic way and the harder you push a choatic system the more interesting and dramatic the changes of state are. In the case of earth's chaotic system these interesting changes mean interesting weather patterns and it does appear that new weather patterns are emerging or rare ones occuring more often (Arctic dipole and continental winter cold pattern (http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/ArcticReportCard_full_report.pdf)). Anyway time will tell exactly how fast the earth can warm to a very sudden and very large (in terms of % of doubling) increase in one of its a basic warming influencing. And it is rate of rise that seems to be related to mass extinction induction and at present the earth's eco-systems aren't that healthy. -
Daniel Bailey at 09:36 AM on 4 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Re: Mike (36) Thanks for the link. Reading it, one can clearly see that it erodes the basement rocks upon which skeptical geologists rest their foundations. :) The Yooper -
Rob Painting at 09:33 AM on 4 November 2010The Grumble in the Jungle
The website could not have been copied from the report because the report came after the website Well, you are correct on that point only (re-reading on my part), however the WWF report is as follows (link provided above): " Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall. In the 1998 dry season, some 270,000 sq. km of forest became vulnerable to fire, due to completely depleted plant-available water stored in the upper five metres of soil. A further 360,000 sq. km of forest had only 250 mm of plant-available soil water left. "(46) 46 = D. C. Nepstad, A. Veríssimo, A. A l e n c a r, C. Nobre, E. Lima, P. Lefebvre, P. S c h l e s i n g e r, C. Potter, P. Mountinho, E. Mendoza, M. Cochrane, V. Brooks, Large - scale Impoverishment of Amazonian Forests by Logging and Fire, Nature, 1999, Vo l 398, 8 April, pp505 Nepstad 1999?. I'm sure there a few copies of that lying around. See above. Secondly, I reiterate, the IPCC and the WWF report claims are different - it is even evident in the small portion of the claim you have reproduced above. I must admit, I've known for a while, where you were heading with that particular "gotcha". Ho-hum. See Nepstad's comments reproduced in my previous post @21. The IPCC rules for use of grey literature (found in Principles governing IPCC work) state that authors should critically evaluate grey literature and the requirement for its use in its reports From the IPCC principles appendix: Authors who wish to include information from a non-published/non-peer-reviewed source are requested to: a. Critically assess any source that they wish to include. This option may be used for instance to obtain case study materials from private sector sources for assessment of adaptation and mitigation options. Each chapter team should review the quality and validity of each source before incorporating results from the source into an IPCC Report. b. Send the following materials to the Working Group/Task Force Bureau Co-Chairs who are coordinating the Report: - One copy of each unpublished source to be used in the IPCC Report - The following information for each source: - Title - Author(s) - Name of journal or other publication in which it appears, if applicable - Information on the availability of underlying data to the public - English-language executive summary or abstract, if the source is written in a non English language - Names and contact information for 1-2 people who can be contacted for more information about the source. Critically assess, seems somewhat subjective don't you think?. Public availability doesn't seem an issue either. Could the IPCC have handled this better?. Absolutely, they should have simply referenced the peer-reviewed literature, for starters. The crucial issue is whether the IPCC statement on the Amazon susceptibility to drought is correct - it is. There's ample research carried out since the 2007 IPCC report that strengthens this view (to be covered in a later post) and as a matter of fact severe drought is currently affecting the Amazon: Drought strikes the Amazon rainforest again -
Marcus at 09:19 AM on 4 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
For the record, Chris Canaris, you will note that I have *never* resorted to ad hominem attacks against you-or ever accused you of deception-largely because you seem willing to have an intelligent debate about the issues. Thingadonta-& several others who post here-instead resort to the usual tactics of denial for its own sake-even to the point of repeatedly misrepresenting the science. My ultimate point is still valid though-that in spite of any uncertainties, the warming of the last 30 years alone (against the backdrop of a relatively quiet sun) suggests that a BAU approach is extremely unwise-if not downright fatal-especially as most of the negative feedbacks we know of from geological time take centuries to millenia to take effect-wheras the positive feedbacks (like reduced ice-albedo, reduced CO2 uptake by a warming ocean & the melting of clathrates) occur in the space of decades. If I were a gambling man, that knowledge would make me very wary of betting on a "She'll be right" outcome! -
Daniel Bailey at 09:19 AM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Re: gallopingcamel (272), Barry Brook (277), Peter Lang (254, et al) Apologies for not attending to this earlier (still Internet-access-challenged for a few more days). Several posters upthread had queried Peter as to his position on AGW (for various reasons I, which I won't dwell on here). Curious, I asked Peter myself in my comment at 249. My reasoning for doing so was stated there. Peter was kind enough to respond to me in his comment at 254, wherein he spelled out what he would talk about INRE: Co2"I’ll talk about cutting CO2 emissions, costs of doing so, security of supply etc, and leave others to join the dots in the way they want to."
But he again declined to specify a position on AGW. Very curious. Why have CO2 emissions reductions as an area of concern when Peter won't even acknowledge the veracity of the science behind it (which says it's a profound problem)? And if he is indeed truly pro-AGW on other websites, why the sudden reticence here? I do not dispute his knowledge on NP (far in excess of mine). Heck, I agree that NP should be a primary (short term and long term) replacement for fossil fuels. But, given the current prevailing public sentiments towards NP, pragmatism dictates an inclusionist perspective at the "lets replace fossil fuels as energy sources" dinner table party. I was not dictating any specific mix, but in my response at 267 I did specify that NP should be central to the equation. So, why does Peters silence on AGW matter? It revolves around the fundamental crux of education. Without acknowledgement of a need to change, change cannot readily take place. For example, alcoholics will not begin to recover until they admit they have a problem. Our world has a problem with excess CO2 emissions. That is what the science tells us. The role of educating the world on the dangers of excess CO2 has to be filled somehow, by someone or something. That is the role for SkS: convincing those who will convince the world of the need to leave fossil fuels in the ground, where they can do no further damage to the world on which all of us depend. Given success in that educational path, a replacement stategy for coal as a source for energy production has to then be developed and sold to the public. In that area, Peter's knowledge and expertise would be valuable. But if he's unwilling to be transparent about potential conflicts of interests and motivations here, among a more friendly and receptive audience, how much sway will he have convincing the public at large? One more thing: even if a full-NP solution is implemented, rollout will take time. Without the education to convince areas without NP to replace fossil fuels, do you really think people won't continue to burn what they have? Even a full-blown implementation of everything we have, solar, hydro, tidal, geothermal, wind, NP...all will take years to roll out and implement. During which CO2 will still be injected into the carbon cycle. How much is too much? How much time do we have? At some point, where do we cross that line in the feedback process where methane clathrate/hydrate releases from permafrost go from a remote possibility to a real possibility? To an eventuality? Can anyone say that we haven't already crossed that line? Bueller? Disaster planners speak of planning for the worst possibility, not the worst expectation. A PETM-style methane release from permafrost hydrate/clathrate stores is still just a possibility at the moment (from my understanding of the literature). But given the uncertainties, to avoid a shift into it becoming a probability, every effort to avoid more CO2 releases by humans should be undertaken wherever and whenever possible. This experiment we are in the middle of can only be done once. There are no do-overs. No extra lives. Who amongst you feels differently? On what knowledge do you base this? Please do share, if so. Peter, I care about my children, my neighbors, my countrymen, my race. As I'm sure you do as well. I respect your obvious knowledge and expertise on NP. I feel NP must occupy a central role in weaning the world off fossil fuels, with time of the essence. But I don't need you compromising your potential role in the upcoming educational process with the public, which must take place, because you feel reluctant to take a stand on AGW here, among a friendlier audience than you'll find in the world at large. I need you to step up here, for me, my children and yours. And everyone else. The Yooper -
Rob Painting at 09:14 AM on 4 November 2010The Grumble in the Jungle
I have read Nepstad 1994, 1999 and 2004. They do not support the IPCC's claim. Shub, Your posts thus far, (aside from the South Park - Chewbaccan logic) have consisted of taking your word over that of Daniel Nepstad. I find it notable that you never provide references for your claims. This is the internet remember? Anyone can write anything, which is why we prefer posters to provide legitimate references. Notice the difference between my posts and yours?. I've read Nepstad's papers, and a whole lot more besides, I agree with Nepstad. I'll recap, here's what Nepstad (a scientist who has studied the Amazon for decades) and the lead author of those cited studies had to say (from the link provided above): "The Rowell and Moore review report that is cited as the basis of this IPCC statement cites an article that we published in the journal Nature in 1999 as the source for the following statement: "Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall. In the 1998 dry season, some 270,000 sq. km of forest became vulnerable to fire, due to completely depleted plant-available water stored in the upper five metres of soil. A further 360,000 sq. km of forest had only 250 mm of plant-available soil water left.[Nepstad et al. 1999]" (Rowell and Moore 2000)" "The IPCC statement on the Amazon is correct, but the citations listed in the Rowell and Moore report were incomplete. (The authors of this report interviewed several researchers, including the author of this note, and had originally cited the IPAM website where the statement was made that 30 to 40% of the forests of the Amazon were susceptible to small changes in rainfall). Our 1999 article (Nepstad et al. 1999) estimated that 630,000 km2 of forests were severely drought stressed in 1998, as Rowell and Moore correctly state, but this forest area is only 15% of the total area of forest in the Brazilian Amazon. In another article published in Nature, in 1994, we used less conservative assumptions to estimate that approximately half of the forests of the Amazon depleted large portions of their available soil moisture during seasonal or episodic drought (Nepstad et al. 1994). After the Rowell and Moore report was released in 2000, and prior to the publication of the IPCC AR4, new evidence of the full extent of severe drought in the Amazon was available. In 2004, we estimated that half of the forest area of the Amazon Basin had either fallen below, or was very close to, the critical level of soil moisture below which trees begin to die in 1998. This estimate incorporated new rainfall data and results from an experimental reduction of rainfall in an Amazon forest that we had conducted with funding from the US National Science Foundation (Nepstad et al. 2004). Field evidence of the soil moisture critical threshold is presented in Nepstad et al. 2007. In sum, the IPCC statement on the Amazon was correct". -
protestant at 08:55 AM on 4 November 2010Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
Like John Kehr pointed out at #26, there is also a recent study which cuts the melting in half. Yet your graph shows a double loss without any explanation why you picked this information over another. At #29: Yeah very significant. With 103+-24Gt loss / year doesnt sound very significant considering Greenland has 2 600 000 Gt of ice. But of course when the plots are zoomed 1300x the original size it seems significant. Note that todays instruments are VERY sharp and just because we find a result on a direction or another it doesnt yet mean squat. If you would print the data on A4 and then plot also the rest of the scale (whole 2 600 000Gt) you would get 273meters of A4's on top of each other. With the current speed it will melt in just 25 000 or so years. And claims of "acceleration" are pointless when coming from people claiming no shorter trends than 30 years is allowed. Now you have just 8 years of data and instantly claim it "accelerating". Thats a very unsound and hasty conclusion. -
scaddenp at 07:21 AM on 4 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Thingadonta - Please lets have some clarity about what I claim (or more importantly the published science claims). "1. We don't know it went up 6 degrees in 1000 years at 55Ma. The resolution is not <5,000 years." The resolution claimed by Kennett and Stott (data source for Zeebe) is about 800 years. However there are a lot of factors to consider in the both the temperature and CO2 proxies and I would say that it is safer to claim that both the CO2 and temperature rose together over a time period of less than 5000 years. "2. .... Shouldn't it be 5,000/1000 years?" I am claiming that climate response for that impulse of CO2 was 6 degrees and that the record such as we have is consistent with known physics. I see no evidence in the record for some negative feedback that might save us. I do not claim that you can infer maximum rates from this record - I infer those physical models. "He takes linear projections of current rates" I do nothing of the sort. I would infer rate from climate modelling and these do not give any support for linear projection. "The geological record generally indicates that major climate changes associated with c02 generally occur slowly" They do? Where is your evidence? The PETM data I pointed to show warming was rapid to point of stretching the resolution of the records. Have you looked at that data? The trouble with geological records is that resolution issues constrain lowest possible rate of warming but make it hard to constrain the highest possible rate. If temperature jumps from x to y in between two samples then rate must be faster than (y-x)/sample resolution but you cant tell how much faster. What you can say is that they are consistent with physics which would predict a rapid rate. "AGW proponents, see this past geological data, and the last several decades of climate changes and emission data, and based on linear projections" I havent seen such assertions. Can you point me to publications making such linear projections please? "there are negative feedbacks that kick in to slow the rate of climate change, which negative feedbacks have not yet been observed, understood or incorporated into the IPCC models." This is entirely possible but where is the evidence for them? Certainly not in the PETM data. "But as far as recent climate change is concerned, he has now abandoned these negative feedbacks," No, a recognition that while they exist, they operate on timescales that do not prevent mass extinctions and not fast enough to prevent climate disruption to human activities. "The catastrophists (for mine, similar to today's AGW proponents) were the ones who were resisting evolution by natural selection, not the gradualists" This is completely irrelevant to climate change. The rapid acidification of ocean at PETM isnt catastrophic enough for you? For my money, climate theory rests on known physics. Geological records support the inferences of climate theory. -
Bibliovermis at 06:29 AM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Cato Institute: Hooked on SubsidiesPro-nuclear groups herald the coming flood of applications as proof that nuclear energy makes economic sense. Nonsense. The only reason investors are interested: government handouts. Absent those subsidies, investor interest would be zero. ... How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors. The only nuclear plant built in a liberalized-energy economy in the last decade was one ordered in Finland in 2004. The Finnish plant was built on 60-year purchase contracts signed by electricity buyers, by a firm (the French Areva) that scarcely seems to be making good money on the deal.
-
Bibliovermis at 06:16 AM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Peter,My impression is that the anti-nuclear and renewable advocates have dominated energy policy for the past 40 odd years.
Your impression does not square with recorded history.society in the western democracies will have to take the necessary steps, including some subsidies to nuclear until it can be competitive again in the western democracies. The precedent has been set with the massive subsidies we’ve paid to renewables, so arguing this case should not be opposed.
This claim is wrong. The US Federal government subsidized nuclear power equivalent to all subsidies on solar, wind & hydro combined in 2006 (most recent complete data available). Energy Report - Government Financial SubsidiesEstimated Federal Energy Subsidies in 2006 Nuclear: $1.19 billion Wind: $458 million Solar: $383 million Hydro: $295 million Coal: $2.75 billion Oil & Gas: $3.5 billion
BP, Point 1: Facetious. Solar energy production does not require sole use of the land. Sole-use facilities can be built where land is plentiful and unused for other purposes, e.g. a desert. They can also be deconstructed without centuries-long containment procedures & extensive land reclamation. Point 2: This is not a difficult problem in widescale deployment mixed with other technologies. There are many storage methods currently available & viable. It is facetious to claim that hydropower can be distributed, but that solar & wind cannot. Point 3: Beyond the pale ludicrous. This point is wholly indicative of straining to validate a belief. I must congratulate you on coming with a point that I have never heard of before though.The only reasonable way to spend public money on energy issues is by supporting basic research (with no political pressure on its supposed directions whatsoever).
I agree. -
Mike Palin at 06:08 AM on 4 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
The statement by the Geological Society of London now makes it "two for two" from the oldest, most prestigious professional organisations of geologists on the issue of climate change. Read this policy statement from the Geological Society of America, recently revised and released in the April of this year and here for further details on development of the statement, references, and responses to criticisms made by some members prior to release. These statements reflect the fact that many, many geologists recognise the immensity of changes to Earth's climate and oceans that will result from the burning of fossil fuels in the recent past, present and foreseeable future. -
Phila at 05:33 AM on 4 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Thingadonta #21 It is the same sort of inconsistency with Lovelock's recent statements (and his recent book) about his Gaia hypothesis. He originally claimed the Earth was (like) a self-regulating organism-meaning there are negative feedbacks that negate pertubations within the Earth system. But as far as recent climate change is concerned, he has now abandoned these negative feedbacks, and claims, in contradiction to what he said before, and the basic foundation of his whole idea, that the Earth, essentially doesn't self-regulate and there are essentially no effective negative feedbacks. This strikes me as a frivolous misreading of Lovelock, who was talking about homeostatic mechanisms in terms of preserving planetary conditions that are suitable for life per se, rather than preserving specific species, let alone a specific level of human civilization. As far as I know, he has never claimed that homeostatic imbalances are impossible, or that negative feedbacks can't be overwhelmed, or that having created dinosaurs, Gaia was obliged to nurture them forevermore. Echoing DSL @28, Lovelock's response to your criticism would probably be that one possible "negative feedback" in this case would be the collapse of industrial civilization, after which earth would eventually stabilize in a new homeostatic state. You may disagree with that idea, but it's not inconsistent with Lovelock's theories, which he's taken some pains to argue are not teleological in the sense that your human-coddling concept of "self-regulation" seems to be. -
Phila at 04:45 AM on 4 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
chriscanaris #17 I'm sorry to say it but none of this passes for civilised discourse. It certainly doesn't fit in with my interpretation of the comments policy. Of course, it's pretty normal for the blogosphere - hence, people are desensitised. I'm picking out Marcus today but other commentators on other threads can be just as feral. Does misrepresenting the stance of the Royal Society also count as an affront to "civilised discourse"? Or do these lamentations apply only to commenters who are irked by the reiteration of a thoroughly debunked talking point? I agree with Albatross @26. The patience on display in this thread — and at SkS generally — is remarkable. There's a lot to be said for maintaining a civil tone, but as I see it, making a consistent effort to get one's facts straight is equally essential to civilized discourse. Also, there's a basic inconsistency in lamenting the decline of civilized discourse online while referring to other commenters as "feral." That's a rather aggressive and basically uncharitable characterization, isn't it? Perhaps even "inflammatory" or "overheated"? -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:28 AM on 4 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
thingadonta... It also strikes me as a foolish strategy to bet the farm on factors yet to be observed, or understood, on the chance that these are going to somehow kick in to save us from a major crisis. It's rather like living the big life, racking up charges on a dozen credit cards, with the assumption that you're going to win the lottery at the last minute. -
JMurphy at 04:28 AM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
More figures to chew on : Nuclear Subsidies A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030 - Scientific American Nov 2009 Those should be understandable, whether you are an engineer or not - although, is anyone else surprised by reading engineers proclaiming the wisdom (virtual infallability, even) of their own branch of science, while sneering at and belittling what have been previously described as 'scientists' who work in Climatology ? -
Alexandre at 04:26 AM on 4 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Good for the Geological Society. I consider is to be a duty of every scientist to come out to inform the public about their findings on this critical issue. -
JMurphy at 04:12 AM on 4 November 2010The Grumble in the Jungle
Shub, have you read the Intermediate version of this argument ? There, you can read the following : The WWF correctly states that 630,000 km2 of forests were severely drought stressed in 1998 - this figure comes from Nepstad 1999. However, the 40% figure comes from several other papers by the same author that the WWF failed to cite. A 1994 paper estimated that around half of the Amazonian forests lost large portions of their available soil moisture during drought (Nepstad 1994). In 2004, new rainfall data showed that half of the forest area of the Amazon Basin had either fallen below, or was very close to, the critical level of soil moisture below which trees begin to die (Nepstad 2004). The results from these papers are consistent with the original statement that 'Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall' To really see the connection, you have to differentiate between "Amazonian forest", "Amazon basin" and "Brazilian forest". -
Berényi Péter at 03:39 AM on 4 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
#276 scaddenp at 11:16 AM on 3 November, 2010 A blanket "solar energy is not economically viable" is false. Do you object to the idea that all subsidies on fossil fuels should be dropped for starters so we have a level playing field. It is not false. There are three problems inherent to solar energy that are difficult if not impossible to overcome in terrestrial installations.- Power density is small, therefore land use is wasteful
- It is intermittent, needs temporary storage capability
- Competes with plant life for the resource
-
DSL at 03:19 AM on 4 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Thingadonta: "there are negative feedbacks that kick in to slow the rate of climate change." You're absolutely right. The source of the problem dies. -
actually thoughtful at 03:13 AM on 4 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Thingadota - You are trying to have it both ways. If fast changes in the past triggered fast warming - that is the likely scenario now. If slow gradual feedbacks brought earth back to what we would consider a temperate climate over 100s of thousands of years, that is the likely scenario now. Yet you would like us to believe that there will be FAST feedbacks, and SLOW changes (even though we are ALREADY witnessing fast changes). So do you have ANY published science to back this up? Or should we relegate this to the "wishful thinking" bin? I admit I like your ideas - you lift the rather harsh penalties that mother nature seems to have in store for us. But acting on your theories, when reality is otherwise, would be the height of folly. -
Shub at 03:05 AM on 4 November 2010The Grumble in the Jungle
Dear Rob, I have read Nepstad 1994, 1999 and 2004. They do not support the IPCC's claim. The website could not have been copied from the report because the report came after the website. The website in question, is extensively cited in the WWF report in several other contexts. Secondly, I reiterate, the IPCC and the WWF report claims are different - it is even evident in the small portion of the claim you have reproduced above. Thirdly, The IPCC rules for use of grey literature (found in Principles governing IPCC work) state that authors should critically evaluate grey literature and the requirement for its use in its reports. Additionally, it states the lead authors should archive a copy of any such material available for general use. The IPCC did not archive a copy of the website page. Moreover, the passage you quote, is not part of the rules (or governing principles) - it is just a description of its methods. And lastly, I am not Richard North. :) -
Albatross at 02:21 AM on 4 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Chris @17 Actually Chris, I think people's responses here have been quite tempered in light of the inflammatory and highly misleading posts made by Thingadonta on this thread. Thingadonta also seems to be trying to insinuate that the Geological Society is purposefully omitting some key components/processes of the earth-atmosphere system with the intent mislead people or that they do not know what they are talking about. In reality though, it seems that it is Thingadonta's misunderstanding of the science which actually seems to be the problem here. Rather ironic....and so the faux debate and manufactured doubt continues. -
Ken Lambert at 23:31 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Peter Lang has got it spot on. Anyone in the power engineering field knows these numbers. Fossil (coal, oil, gas) fuel, nuclear, hydro and geothermal are the only short to medium term available sources for base load 24/7 electricity generation. Windmills and PV Solar are probably energy black holes due to the low energy density tapped, storage devices required and distance from major loads. What is never discussed seriously is the fact that Windmill, PV Solar and other renewables have existing costs based on an industrial infrastructure mainly powered by fossil fuel (coal) and nuclear, hydro which are all relatively cheap. What would be their costs if produced by an industrial system powered by Wind and PV Solar? Low availability of Wind and to a lesser extent Solar (seasonal and weather) requires baseload backup plant to cover for periods of no or light wind and cloud/seasonal lows over large geographic areas. Molten salt (and pumped hydro) and similar storage devices significantly add to cost and though smoothing out the fluctuations, still have no effect on the general problem of low availability. -
CBDunkerson at 23:09 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Peter Lang #282: "At the same time they are forcing governments to waste extraordinary amounts of money and national wealth on subsidising renewables. For no significant benefit. That is the political and policy environment we are in." None of this seems remotely accurate to me. Subsidies on renewable energy have been tiny. If you add it all up renewable power gets LESS public funding than nuclear... and those two combined are insignificant compared to the subsidies fossil fuels have received. If you've got a study which says otherwise I'd love to see it because every one I've ever looked at makes it very clear that this claim that renewables get the most funding is pure nonsense. The closest I've seen on that would be studies showing that R&D subsidies for renewables are about the same as those for fossil fuels (but about HALF the R&D subsidies for nuclear) or studies that look at current subsidy amounts divided by the total energy production of each energy type... which is misleading since it ignores all the past subsidies which went into developing the massive fossil fuel infrastructure. "My position is I want to see an economically rational level playing field." No objections there... we just need to base 'economically rational' on actual costs vs fictional costs. "1. coal generates about 80% of Australia’s electricity. Baseload amounts to about 75% of our electricity consumption." I've read alot more about US, European, and global energy use than I have Australian so that may be part of the disconnect. Has the Australian government provided inordinate amounts of support to renewable energy? I wouldn't know. Seems unlikely given the strength of the 'global warming is a myth' contingent in Australian government. That said... Australia has huge amounts of sun drenched little used land in the interior. I believe the south coast also has decent wind power potential. So what would be wrong with developing such resources in the areas they are viable? "3. Nuclear and pumped hydro could meet all our requirements now. That would provide very low emissions electricity, and at the least cost (if we removed the impediments)." Consider for a moment a small isolated community in central Australia. They have low electricity needs, but they are far away from any large waterway or existing electrical grid. Which is going to be least expensive: 1: Building them their own nuclear power plant. 2: Building the electrical grid out from a major population center hundreds of miles away to their small community. 3: Building a small solar thermal power plant outside town. If you didn't say 3 then you are lying to yourself. If you did then you must see that 'nuclear and hydro would be least expensive' is false... there are situations where other power sources will clearly cost less. There are many isolated mountain communities around the world where the same issues make wind power the best choice. Ditto islands all over the world. Then add in all the places which will refuse nuclear power. You may not like it, but it is REALITY. Refusing to accept reality is a poor foundation for any plan of action. "4. Solar and wind cannot provide baseload power. They are unlikely to be able to for a very long time, if ever. I doubt solar will ever be viable for baselod generation." Simply not true. Setting aside space based solar and high altitude wind as technologies not yet ready for the mainstream (like thorium reactors for instance) it is still entirely possible for wind and solar to provide stable baseload power. This can be accomplished by storing energy during peak generation periods for use during peak demand periods and/or by having a large enough grid with enough excess capacity to meet demand even during low production periods. How can you advocate pumped hydro and not see how that, amongst MANY other options (e.g. molten salts, graphite heat sinks, compressed air, actual batteries, et cetera), can solve the supposed 'baseload problem'? Wind blows more than needed somewhere on the electrical grid... the excess is directed towards pumping water uphill... some part of the grid later doesn't have enough power... that pumped water is allowed to run downhill through a hydro power station... required energy is supplied. No amazing new technology or massive investment required. Simple application of existing technologies. -
Rob Painting at 22:47 PM on 3 November 2010The Grumble in the Jungle
If you claim that the Amazon statement is based "on peer-reviewed literature", and not just take Nepstad's word for it, it is incumbent on you to come up with the reference. Incumbent?. No not really. But read Nepstad 1994, 1999 & 2004. Links are provided above. The WWF document reproduces text verbatim, from a website which is not working anymore. Have you considered the website was copied from the actual report?. No?. The WWF document is linked to above, you'll find it was produced by the authors after consultation with a few "experts' including one Daniel Nepstad. See the acknowledgements section. these gray literature sources are based on peer-reviewed science, can you find them for us? See Nepstad papers above. Moreover, the IPCC claim is entirely different from what the WWF report makes. IPCC - "Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation" WWF - "Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount rainfall And lastly, the IPCC rules allow for appropriate gray literature only if no primary sources are available for any claim to originate from, or be substantiated by........clearly shows the IPCC was in violation of its own rules Each chapter presents a balanced assessment of the literature which has appeared since the Third Assessment Report[1] (TAR), including non-English language and, where appropriate, ‘grey’ literature Which rule was violated?. Tell me, are you Richard North?. -
boba10960 at 22:24 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
#22 Stephen Baines "As for Dolomite deposition in response to increasing CO2 -- I'm not clear how increasing acidity through CO2 would promote Dolomite formation. I was taught that such precipitation happened when conditions become more alkaline, not more acidic. Also wouldn't formation of dolomite reduce alkalinity (and increase acidity) by removing base cations and bicarbonate? I'm confused there." You are absolutely correct. Why would anyone say that formation of dolomite would offset acidification of the ocean by CO2? -
roundton at 22:02 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Also worth reading are some recent 'Geoscientist' letters responding to the Geol Soc position statement. See www.geolsoc.org.uk/letters -
Eric (skeptic) at 21:55 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
In #299, JMurphy posted more links about subsidies to nuclear. The "Economics of Nuclear and Renewable Electricity" link mentions a study by Greenpeace that found that in Germany "total (direct + indirect) subsidies from 1950 to 2008 amounted to 165 billion euros (US$235 billion)" In 2009, German nuclear power generated 149 billion kWh. Applying the subsidized solar price (my link in #195), "green" nuclear power is worth $77B per year. Either nuclear is an extreme bargain or the solar subsidies are way too high (or both). -
quokka at 21:31 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
#297 JMurphy There is an international treaty governing the use of nuclear power called the Non Proliferation Treaty. Non nuclear armed states that sign up are entitled to do what they will for the peaceful use of nuclear power in return for forgoing nuclear weapons. No state that has signed and not subsequently withdrawn from the treaty has ever developed nuclear weapons. The IAEA will provide assistance to states new to nuclear power for such purposes as establishing appropriate regulatory structures. I don't know what all this "going it alone" business is about. The Bushehr reactor is a Russian built VVER-1000, Russia is supplying the fuel and taking back the spent fuel. To my knowledge no nation that is planning for new nuclear power is going it alone. They are all forming agreements with foreign suppliers and building established designs. eg Vietnam/Russia UAE/Sth Korea. All suppliers have a vested interest in not seeing their products go bang. If Iran wished to "go it alone", it would hardly be surprising considering the constant harassment and "all cards are on the table" threats. Especially as the harassment has a long history, most notably the CIA (cheered on by the Brits) engineering the overthrow of a social democratic government and installing the Shah. Who knows, without that there may have been no Islamic revolution and possibly a secular social democratic government in power today. Will Iran build nuclear weapons in the future? Who knows, but the more they perceive they are being threatened, the better then chances are. -
Shub at 21:28 PM on 3 November 2010The Grumble in the Jungle
Dear Rob, You say: "And your stipulation originates from where exactly?." I believe you do understand how these things work. If you claim that the Amazon statement is based "on peer-reviewed literature", and not just take Nepstad's word for it, it is incumbent on you to come up with the reference. I cannot prove a negative, i.e., I cannot show where the Amazon claim did not come from. Let me help. You say above (in post #12): "The omitted citations, supporting the WWF document & the IPCC claim, are peer-reviewed literature." This is incorrect. The WWF document reproduces text verbatim, from a website which is not working anymore. It omitted to cite the website. Both these sources are not peer-reviewed. If as you claim later down, these gray literature sources are based on peer-reviewed science, can you find them for us? Moreover, the IPCC claim is entirely different from what the WWF report makes. Ultimately, let us remember, it is the IPCC statement is what we are interested in. And lastly, the IPCC rules allow for appropriate gray literature only if no primary sources are available for any claim to originate from, or be substantiated by. Your point above #16, clearly shows the IPCC was in violation of its own rules. I liked your Chewbacca link. Pretty interesting. :) -
JMurphy at 21:24 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Peter Lang wrote : "I'd suggest you need to decide which you believe is more important: cutting emissions substantially or prohibiting nuclear power. The choice is that simple. Get to grips with it." No, the choice is that simple in your view. Cutting emissions is the most important need - the choice in the immediate future is whether we want to pay for that necessity while continuing to waste energy, or whether we want to cut back on the profligate use of the energy we are already producing. The simplest choices are those that are available right now : efficiency of production and use of energy, to reduce present CO2 production; use of available renewables as much as possible now; planning for and use of nuclear where necessary, to plug any gaps between the carbon-based supply of energy of today and the future renewables-based supply of energy; closure of CO2 emitting energy production as soon as possible - all depending on how serious we are (as nations) to pay and to reduce use. That, simplistically, is what we should be getting to grips with but I'm not going to harangue anyone, or dogmatically push any political agenda to get there. I am prepared to compromise to get to a low-carbon economy : are you ? Extremism (whether pro- or anti-nuclear, in this case) will get you nowhere fast. -
Stephen Baines at 20:44 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
We posted those last notes at the same time. So I hope we're not talking cross purposes. But I still don't get how scaddenp is talking about linearity. In fact, it seems to me he is talking by definition about non-linearity. Look, the geological record suggests that our estimates of the equilibrium sensitivity of the climate to increases in CO2 are correct. It doesn't really have much to say about the time frame over which that new equilibrium is reached because of the poor temporal resolution of that data. Our current experience would obviously be more pertinent to that problem and it suggests we could reach equilibrium quickly, then stop thereabouts, unless we've changed something pretty drastic. It seems Thingadonta is the one assuming linear change, just over a longer time scale ala gradualism. Much geological action is gradual, like erosion, weathering, sediment deposition. But some processes aren't, like meteor impacts and hydrate releases. I don't see why we must assume all processes are gradual simply because the geological record is too coarse to reveal faster dynamics. BTW...while Lovelock claimed that certain negative feedback mechanisms related to life maintain the earth's climate within a range capable of preserving life, he was largely talking microbial life, not human life (or dinosaurs for that matter). -
Maarten Ambaum at 20:39 PM on 3 November 2010On Statistical Significance and Confidence
This is a very nice article - and all very true. I spent some time myself studying the use of significance tests in climate science. The result? There is a real problem! Significance tests are misused by many, perhaps most, climate scientists. There will be a paper appearing in the Journal of Climate which analyses the precise problem, using Bayesian statistics. In a nutshell: significance tests are generally used to quantify the validity of some hypothesis while it is is nothing like it. In fact, the significance statistic is largely irrelevant. Unfortunately, misuse of significance tests is widespread. Not only climate science suffers, also economics, medical science, social science, psychology, biology. I am afraid that significance tests have muddied the waters of several climate papers and there is a real communication problem here. We need to accept that statistics alone cannot usefully quantify the truth of some hypothesis. And significance tests are possibly the worst in this respect. For more details read Significance Tests in Climate Science. -
JMurphy at 20:36 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Berényi Péter wrote : "Conclusion: in order to make solar panels a viable option, we need government support. In other words, solar energy is not economically viable at all. For government support is not for free, it is financed by tax money." Adding to what others have already highlighted about that irony, it's lucky that nuclear has had so much government money pumped into it over the years, otherwise it would never have got going and would not be continuing now. And, having read what others have written about how essential nuclear is now, it makes you wonder whether some believe that a free market should only apply to certain energy supplies and not others. Another report to add to the long list of others posted : Despite 50 years with huge accumulated subsidies, the true economic costs of generation II nuclear energy are consistently far higher than admitted by proponents, who use misleading presentations to hide its very high capital costs. The vast majority of nuclear power stations built to date have been over time and over budget. Furthermore, since 2003 the estimated capital cost of new nuclear power stations has escalated much more rapidly than the capital cost of renewable electricity, with one recent estimate of the projected cost of new nuclear electricity being comparable with that of solar PV power stations. Economics of Nuclear and Renewable Electricity The following I add because of its discussion of various assertions made, particularly with regard to Denmark (and I like the title !) : The Base Load Fallacy and other Fallacies disseminated by Renewable Energy Deniers More available, especially with regard to the energy-production response to global warming, at energyscience All I have read on this and other sites points to a balanced mix of energy production (including a role for nuclear), with renewables being the most important in the long run.
Prev 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 Next
