Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  Next

Comments 1101 to 1150:

  1. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #32

    Regarding "With Temperature and Other Climate Extremes Shattering Records, Should We Call it 'Global Boiling'? 'Weirding'? Or...? by Tom Yulsman"

    The idea discussed is that too much doomy rhetoric demotivates people. This is correct. It can have a deadening effect on people where they give up on contemplating solutions and habituate to the doom and just choose to live with the problem as best they can, like people in a war zone frequently do. 

    If there is any doomy rhetoric, its important to at least offer people solutions.

    Another idea discussed is that creating too much climate fear is not a good thing.This is different from doomy rhetoric. However fear is a natural human motivator. We are hardwired genetically to feel fear when threatened and this generally motivates action. We communicate threats to each other that will cause fear and motivate action. This is all psychology 101. So its absurd to suggest we should somehow soften rhetoric to not make people fearful. This would be a dangerous manipulation that could backfire. It would not even be accurate.

    However if the climate threat is innacurately described or exaggerated to try to cause fear this could backfire horribly because its likely the innacuracies or exaggerations will be exposed. We also cant solve problems effectively If we dont state them as accurately as possible neither understating or overstating a problem.

    The reasons for the slow pace of climate action are probably not so much the way the threat is communicated anyway. Most people must know the basic problem by now and the scientists consider it serious, unless they have been living under a rock for the last 25 years. The reasons for slow progress are many and varied but one issue is we are psychologically hardwired to respond most urgently to immediate threats (like a wild animal attacking us) rather than slowly unfolding future threats like climate change even if they are very serious. Given climate change is now being more present and dramatic this might start motivate more change. Reference:

    LINK

    Other reasons are raised by people like OPOF to do with many  leaders in society being reluctant to make lifestyle changes or support carbon taxes, because they are very addicted to materialistic displays of wealth as status signals.

    However these problems do suggest to me we should try to motivate people to make changes by putting a lot of focus on the wider benefits of climate solutions, like EV's being more reliable cars, less reliance on imported petrol, cleaner electricity generation, etcetera.This is actually probably why renewables are gaining some traction.

    Daniel Glick says " In communicating about that threat, we’ve tried terms like global warming, global weirding, climate emergency, and now global boiling." And he asks if any of this gets through to people and motivates people to make changes.

    I can only give my gut reaction. Global warming - accurate. Climate emergency - a bit too colourful for me and people easily dismiss it as an exaggeration by giving examples of obvious dramatic and very present emergencies like Ukraine war. Global boiling - quite good. Nobody with any sense takes it literally, but this sort of satirical hyperbole might resonate with people. It does with me. Global weirding - accurate.

    Just call anthropogenic climate change what it is: a huge problem for reasons xyz but that we have viable solutions. 

    Moderator Response:

    [RH] Shortened link.

  2. A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty

    I meant Eclectic @18. Doh!

  3. A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty

    Eclectic @11.

    I agree the cranks are a small subset of denilaists and that many of the denialists are fundamentally driven by selfish and economic motives. However you should add political motives to the list, being an ideologically motivated dislike of government rules and regulations. Of course these things are interrelated.

    I have a bit of trouble identifying one single underlying cause of the climate denialism issue. It seems to be different denialists have different motives to an extent, randging from vested interests, to political and ideological axes to grind, to selfishness, to just a dislike of change to plain old contrariness. Or some combination. But if anyone thinks there is one key underling motive for the denialim I would be interested  in your reasoning.

    The cranks are not all deniers as such. Some believe burning fossil fuels is causing warming but some of them think other factors play a very large part like the water cycle or deforestation. A larger part than the IPCC have documented. They unwittingly serve the hard core denialists cause. They are like Lenin and Stalins "useful idiots."

    I do visit WUWT sometimes, and I know what you are saying.

    "To very broadly paraphrase Voltaire : It is horrifying to see how even intelligent minds can believe absurdities."

    Voltaire is right. Its presumably a lot to do with cognitive dissonance.  Intelligent minds are not immunue from strong emotively or ideologically driven beliefs and resolving conflicts between those and reality might lead to deliberate ignorance. Reference on cognitive dissonance:

    www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326738#signs

    This does suggests cranks might be driven by underlying belief systems not just craziness.

  4. At a glance - The tricks employed by the flawed OISM Petition Project to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change

    John Mason @10. Thanks for listening. Your revisions look really good to me. I know it wouldn't be easy writing this sort of thing.

  5. Just how fast will clean energy grow in the U.S.?

    "Davz not here, man."

    (Extra points for whoever gets the cultural reference.)

  6. At a glance - The tricks employed by the flawed OISM Petition Project to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change

    @nigelj, we'e taken your suggestion on board and edited the start. Thanks!

  7. At a glance - The tricks employed by the flawed OISM Petition Project to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change

    And 'catastrophic' is a very loose term, is it not? One man's catastrophe may be another's bad day. Getting your car swept away in a flash flood if you are well-off and well-insured is a bad day but if a skint subsistence farmer and that flood destroys the year's crops it gets a bit trickier.

    The very wording of the petition is weaseliferous!

  8. A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty

    Nigelj @17 :

    Cranks or crackpots do inhabit the Denier spectrum, But IMO they are outliers of the main body.   Dr Frank's wondrous "Uncertainty" simply produces absurd results  ~ see his chart showing the envelope of uncertainty which "explodes" from the observation starting point, rendering all data nearly meaningless.  Yet he cannot see the absurdity.  He falls back on the bizarre argument of uncertainty being separate from error.  (But in practical terms, there is a large Venn Diagram overlap of the two concepts.)

    WUWT blog is an enjoyable stamping ground where I observe the denialists' shenanigans.  Most of the commenters at WUWT are angry selfish characters, who do not wish to see any socio-economic changes in this world ~  and hence their motivated reasoning against AGW.

    Certainly, WUWT has its share of cranks & crackpots.  Also a large slice of "CO2-deniers" who continually assert "the trace gas CO2 simply cannot do any global warming".   (WUWT blog's founder & patron, Anthony Watts initially tried to oust the CO2-deniers . . . but in the past decade he seems to have abandoned that attempt.)

    Dr Frank's comments in a WUWT thread are worth reading, but sadly they rarely rise above the common ruck there.  Much more interesting to read, is a Mr Rud Istvan ~ though he does blow his own trumpet a lot (and publicizes his own book "Blowing Smoke"  which I gather does in all ways Smite The Heathen warmists & alarmists.   Istvan, like Frank, is very intelligent, yet does come out with some nonsenses.   For instance, Istvan often states mainstream AGW must be wrong because of reasons A , B , C & D .    And unfortunately, 3 of his 4  facts/reasons are quite erroneous.  He is so widely informed, that he must  know his facts/reasons are erroneous . . . yet he keeps repeating them blindly  (in a way that resembles the blindness in Dr Frank).

    To very broadly paraphrase Voltaire :  It is horrifying to see how even intelligent minds can believe absurdities.

  9. Just how fast will clean energy grow in the U.S.?

    Oops  - forgot to link to the EIA electric generation by source.  Always best to provide links to the raw source data to back up any statement

     

    www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/expanded-view/electric_overview/US48/US48/GenerationByEnergySource-4/edit

  10. Just how fast will clean energy grow in the U.S.?

    Michael @ #9 in response Davz

    Your statement that France's nuclear shuts down over the weekends appears to be completely unsupported. Do you have link to any source data to shows that statement to be correct.

    This link from France's gov shows no such shutting down of nuclear on weekends.

    https://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/power-generation-energy-source#

    It would also be contrary to every other country that uses nuclear. I have attached a link to the EIA.gov for electric generation by source (which I have frequently linked to). Electric generation from Nuclear is just about as constant as constant can be. Same story for Germany, prior to the closing

    Can you provide any citations for your other statements in your response to Davz

    Thanks

  11. Just how fast will clean energy grow in the U.S.?

    Michael

    n response to your reply, My comment is fully supported by the source data which I linked to

    See Jacobson appendix / table S11 which I cited. Those values I cited are directly from his study

    The german electric generation data is directly from the source data I cited. I am reposting the link for your benefit.

     

    I alwasy cross check against the source data so that I can evaluate the statements based on factual evidence

     

    www.agora-energiewende.de/en/service/recent-electricity-data/chart/power_generation/09.08.2022/09.08.2023/today/

  12. Just how fast will clean energy grow in the U.S.?

    Michael

    A few points to clarify context - Using gross capacity factor is misleading since it greatly overstates the projected electric generation as noted by the except below from the US energy department.

    https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what-generation-capacity

    Capacity factors allow energy buffs to examine the reliability of various power plants. It basically measures how often a plant is running at maximum power. A plant with a capacity factor of 100% means it’s producing power all of the time.

    Nuclear has the highest capacity factor of any other energy source—producing reliable, carbon-free power more than 92% of the time in 2021. That’s nearly twice as reliable as a coal (49.3%) or natural gas (54.4%) plant and almost 3 times more often than wind (34.6%) and solar (24.6%) plants.

    When comparing capacity factors, its important to fully understand the different reasons why each type operates below their capacity ratings. Fossil fuel generation has greatly reduced generation below capacity during the spring and fall when demand is the lowest, while achieving much higher rates of capacity when needed in the winter and summer. Whereas, Wind and solar produce at or near capacity when weather conditions are optimal. You have to compare apples with apples

  13. At a glance - The tricks employed by the flawed OISM Petition Project to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change

    I agree with NP.

    It may also be about the term catastrophic which I believe is a strawman. Because climate science never claimed at that time that heating would be catastrophic, which is a colourful, imprecise, loaded term that many may associate with billions dying very fast. Science claimed anthropogenic warming will cause  very serious problems xyz, and cause a significantly increased mortality rate in the tropics.

    So its understandable that a petition saying there is no convincing evidence of catastrophic heating of the atmosphere would get plenty of signatures. If the petition had just said there is no convincing evidence of serious problems it probably wouldn't have got nearly as many signatures.

    But by using a strawman the denislists got plety of people to sign and thats what people notice more than the significance of the word catastrophic. Dont be fooled by the denialists tactics.

  14. A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty

    MAR @14. Good points.

    Franks "wondrous theory" does indeed sound crazy. What mystifies me is how a guy with a Phd in chemistry, thus very highly scientifically literate could get relatively basic things like that wrong. Because its fairly well doumented that the up and down variation in year to year temperatures is due in large part to a component of natural variability cycles. And he does not seem like a person that would dispute the existence of natural climate cycles.

    It makes me wonder if he hasnt actually read much background information like this on the actual climate issue - and perhaps feels he is such a genius that he doesn't need to. Yet this would be astounding really that he is unaware of short term climate cycles and cant see their relevance. I do not have his level of scientific training by a long way, but its obvious to me. 

    It seems more likely he is he just being crazy about things for whatever reasons and this craziness seems to be the main underling characteristics of a crank. But their frequent narcissim means no matter how much you point out the obvious flaws they just go on repeating the same theories, thus their nonsense certainly compounds over time.

  15. Just how fast will clean energy grow in the U.S.?

    Davez

    Your unsupported claims also have no merit.

    Renewable energy is the cheapest electricity in the world.  While the turbines and solar farms cost billions to build, they saved more billions when gas prices went up. Carbon Brief has several articles where they analyze the enormous amounts of money saved by renewable energy and document that "cutting out the green crap" in the UK ended up costing consumers billions more when gas prices went up.  Simply stating how much it costs to build renewaable installations without considering how much low cost electricity is generated is deceptive.

    Battery storage currently competes on cost with gas peaker plants.  Battery costs are rapidly decreasing.  Batteries will replace all peaker plants due to economics in the near future.

    You argue that wind energy at night is wasted (without any citations to support this wild claim) and then say that nuclear, which cannot be turned off at night, is the way to go.  That is a direct contradiction that negates your argument.  In France nuclear generation is only 70% of nameplate because they have to close up on weekends.  They sell nuclear electricity at a loss at night. 

    Nuclear supporters like you ignore the fact that nuclear requires at least as much storage as renewable energy does.  The largest pumped hydro storage facilities in the USA were all built to store nuclear electricity generated at night.  This is a second contradiction in your arguments that negates your claims.

    In any case, nuclear is too expensive and there is not enough uranium to build a significant amount of nuclear.  

  16. Just how fast will clean energy grow in the U.S.?

    Dav8id-acct:

    Everyone knows that new build power supplies are rated by maximum capacity to generate.  You are simply arguing semantics when you object to the industry standard.

    I note that you have no citations to support your claims.

    The Jacobson et al paper you cite with no link concludes that a fully renewable system using batteries at the current cost would be the cheapest way to generate future energy.  He finds that there will be no problems supplying electyricity 24/7/365.  Renewable energy that produces 20% of rated capacity is the cheapest electricity in the world.  Your unsupported claims have no merit.

  17. A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty

    nigelj @13 wrote " I have never come across any articles in our media by climate scientists or experts addressing the climate denialists myths. The debunking seems to be confined to a few websites like this one and realclimate.org or Taminos open mind"

    That's true - but don't forget 'And then there's physics'... and Climate Adam and Dr Gilbz (both phd'd climate scientists) on Youtube quite often debunk stuff. Here's them collaborating - it's fun!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojSYeI9OQcE

  18. At a glance - The tricks employed by the flawed OISM Petition Project to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change

    I've always thought that the exact wording of the Oregon Petition

    "no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate"

    was grammatically constructed to actually have been technically signable AT THE TIME OF FIRST LAUNCH even by such climate luminaries as James Hansen.

    It comes down to the artful use of "is causing" and "will cause" - instead of 'may cause' -  catastrophic heating and disruption etc. The petition does not state that its wording assumes that mainstream climate science was asserting that emissions will continue to rise sharply and that climate sensitivity to CO2e was at the top end of published expectations back then (somewhere around 6°C per doubling if I remember, although 10°C was mentioned https://skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm ) but it is the underlying insinuation (of the text) that climate science was saying these things that enables the rhetorical deceit inherent in that exact wording. It allows any scientist who was fairly familiar with the science back then to jump to the conclusions that, because such emissions rises weren't certain to take place, and that ensemble figures for climate sensitivity were showing a 'most likely' figure of ~3°C per doubling, then it was definitely not certain that 'catastrophic heating' would occur.

  19. A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty

    Bob Loblaw @11

    I was interested in what the two reviewers listed actually said. I couldn't find it. Wunsch is highly unlikely to have given it a 5* review and I don't think Zanchettini, who is much less well known, would either.
    The reason it would be helpful to know is that Frank's recent '23 paper and its past incarnations, such as '19, are currently being promulgated across the denialosphere as examples of published peer reviewed literature that completely undermines all of climate science. If one knew that Wunsch and Zanchettini had both said seomthing like 'the overall construction of the paper was interesting but has some major logical and statistical flaws in it', and Frontiers in Science had decided to publsih it anyway, that would be very useful anti-denialist 'ammo'.

  20. A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty

    Nigelj @13,
    The paper Frank (2019) did take six months from submission to gain acceptance and Frontiers does say "Frontiers only applies the most rigorous and unbiased reviews, established in the high standards of the Frontiers Review System."
    Yet the total nonsense of Frank (2019) is still published, not just a crazy approach but quite simple mathematical error as well.

    But do note that a peer-reviewed publication does not have to be correct. A novel approach to a subject can be accepted even when that approach is easily show to be wrong and even when the implications of the conclusions (which are wrong) are set out as being real.
    I suppose it is worth making plain that peer-review can allow certain 'wrong' research to be published as this will prevent later researchers making the same mistakes. Yet what is so often lost today is the idea that any researcher wanting publishing must be familiar with the entirety of the literature and takes account of it within their work.


    And for a denialist, any publication means it is entirely true, if they want it to be.

    In regard to the crazy Frank (2019), it is quite simple to expose the nonsense.

    This wondrous theory (first appearing in 2016) suggests that, at a 1sd limit, a year's global average SAT could be anything between +0.35ºC to -0.30ºC the previous year's temperature, this variation due alone to the additional AGW forcing enacted since that previous year. The actual SAT records do show an inter-year variation but something a little smaller (+/-0.12ºC at 1sd in the recent BEST SAT record) but this is from all causes not just from a single cause that is ever accumulating. And these 'all causes' of the +/-0.12ºC are not cumulative through the years but just wobbly noise. Thus the variation seen do not increase with variation measured over a longer period. After 8 years in the BEST SAT record is pretty-much the same as the 1-year variation and not much greater at 60 years (+/-0.22ºC). But in the crazy wonderland of Pat Frank, these variations are apparently potentially cumulative (that would be the logic) so Frank's 8-year variation is twice the 1-year variation. And after 60 years of these AGW forcings (which is the present period with roughly constant AGW forcing) according to Frank we should be seeing SAT changes anything from +17.0ºC to -12.0ºC solely due to AGW forcing. And because Frank's normal distributions provides the probability of these variations, we can say there was an 80% chance of us seeing global SAT increases accumulating over that 60 years in excess of +4.25ºC and/or decreases acumulating in excess of -3.0ºC. According to Frank's madness, we should have been seeing such 60-year variation. But we haven't. So as a predictive analysis, the nonsense of Frank doesn't begin to pass muster.

    And another test for garbage is the level of interest shown by the rest of science. In the case of Frank (2019), that interest amounts to 19 citations according to Google Scholar, these comprising 6 citations by Frank himself, 2 mistaken citation (only one by a climatological paper which examines marine heat extremes and uses the Frank paper to support the contention "Substantial uncertainties and biases can arise due to the stochastic nature of global climate systems." which Frank 2019 only says are absent), a climatology working-paper that lists Frank with a whole bunch of denialists, three citations by one Norbert Schwarzer who appears more philosopher than scientist, and six by a fairly standard AGW denier called Pascal Richet. That leaves a PhD thesis citing Frank (2019)'s to say "... general circulation models generally do not have an error associated with predictions"
    So science really has no interest in Frank's nonsense (other than demonstrating that it is nonsense).

  21. Just how fast will clean energy grow in the U.S.?

    Davz

    "In 2020 wind generation of uk output was 25%, remember though that includes night time generation that went to waste. "

    I wonder if thats accurate. Because when demand for power is very low, I recall reading somewhere that wind farms get turned off. So I would think the 25% of generation would only include when the turbines are actually generating power. I stand to be corrected if anyone can post a link saying otherwise.

     

  22. Just how fast will clean energy grow in the U.S.?

    Davz - do you have a good link to the electric generation by source data for the UK similar to the eia for the USA or the germany version https://www.agora-energiewende.de/en/service/recent-electricity-data/chart/power_generation/09.08.2022/09.08.2023/today/.

     

    I alway like to be able to cross check against the source data.  The 25% generation of capacity in the UK from solar seems slightly high given UK's latitude.  

  23. A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty

    I enjoyed Bob Loblows article because it did a thorough debunking and I learned some things about statistics.

    Some of the errors look like almost basic arithmetic and I thought a key purpose of peer review was to identify those things? They did an awful job. It looks like they didnt even bother to try.

    Regarding whether such papers should be debunked or not. I've often wondered about this. Given the purpose of this website is to debunk the climate myths it seems appropriate to debunk bad papers like this, or some of them. It would not be possible to address all of them because its too time consuming.

    There is a school of thought that says ignore the denialists because "repeating a lie spreads the lie" and engaging with them gives them oxygen. There is some research on this as well. There has to be some truth in the claim that responding to them will spread the lies. It's virtually self evident.

    Now the climate science community seems to have taken this advice, and has by my observation mostly ignored the denialists. For example there is nothing in the IPCC reports listing the main sceptical arguments and why they are wrong, like is done on this website (unless Ive missed it). I have never come across any articles in our media by climate scientists or experts addressing the climate denialists myths. The debunking seems to be confined to a few websites like this one and realclimate.org or Taminos open mind.

    And how has this strategy of (mostly) giving denialists the silent treatment worked out? Many people are still sceptical about climate change,  and progress has been slow dealing with it which suggests that giving the denialists the silent treatment may have been a flawed strategy. I suspect debunking the nonsense, and educating people on the climate myths is more important than being afraid that it would cause lies to spread. Lies will spread anyway.

    A clever denialist paper probably potentially has some influence on governments and if its not rebutted this creates a suspicion it might be valid.

    However I think that actually debating with denialists can be risky, and getting into actual formal televised debates with denialists would be naieve  and best avoided. And fortunately it seems to have been avoided. Denialists frequently  resort to misleading but powerful rhetorical techniques (Donald Trump is a master of this)  that is hard to counter without getting down into the rhetorical gutter and then this risks making climate scientists look bad and dishonest. All their credibility could be blown with the decision makers. 

  24. A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty

    Eclectic @7, agreed overall.

    I didnt mean to imply all cranks are narcissists or lean that way. It just seems to me a disproportionately high percentage of cranks are narcissists. It's just my personal observation but the pattern is rather obvious and striking. I tried to find some research on the issue but without success.

    Perhaps the crank tendencies you mentioned and narcissism are mutually reinforcing.

    And remember narcissists do frequently come as cross as nice, normal likeable people, just the same as sociopaths (psychopaths) often do. They find this front works best for them. In fact they can be especially likeable, but its about what lies beneath and eventually one notices oddities about them, or in their writings, and if you get into a close relationship with them it can end very badly. Have seen some ciminal cases in the media.

  25. A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty

    MA Rodger @ 9:

    It is an open question whether it is better to ignore papers such as Pat Frank's most recent attempt, or spend the time debunking it. I chose to debunk it in this case, but to paraphrase Top Gun, "this is a target-rich environment". There are so many logical inconsistencies in that 46-page tome that it would take weeks to identify them all. Just trying to chase down the various references he uses would require months of work.

    I took this as an opportunity for a "teaching moment" about propagation of uncertainty, as much as an opportunity to debunk Pat Frank. Thanks for the reference to Lenssen et al. But what Pat Frank needs to do is start with a Statistics 101 course.

     

    Nick Palmer @ 10:

    I'm sure the general answer to your question is "yes", but I did not try to chase down every blog post and link in the lengthy chain exposed by the linked post at ATTP's. I did read parts of some, and remember that some of his earlier efforts to publish involved open review.

    Nigelj's comment that some people "...are unable to ever admit to themselves or others that they are wrong about something..." seems particularly true about Pat Frank.

  26. Just how fast will clean energy grow in the U.S.?

    Correction ~ my apologies Davz.  If the UK's 40 million vehicles use 2 gallons of lubricating oil per year each . . . then the wind turbines are using only about 1% of that (not the 10% figure I mentioned above).

  27. Just how fast will clean energy grow in the U.S.?

    Davz @3 , you are quite right that it is only the actual production of electricity that should be stated.  Like you, I am irritated by public announcements of XYZ generation capacity newly installed . . . when it would be more honest to quote the actual effective generation (which is in the 15-30% range, for various wind & solar).

    Since you have used UK figures (rather than the OP's North American bias)  ~ there we see wind turbines supplying around 20-25% of electricity needs.  Planned turbine growth will exceed expected growth of UK electricity needs.

    The UK usage of lubricating oil is an interesting topic.  Davz, on your figures the oil usage by wind turbines is close to 10% of the lubricating oil used by the UK's 40 million vehicles.  More turbines = more oil, and yet more more electric vehicles = less lubricating oil.  A nett advantage for EV's  (and that also ignores the fuel oil used by ICE vehicles).

    Davz, please check the figures for lubricating oil used by nuclear plants ~ on the little that I have seen, it is reported that "nuclear" uses a much higher oil amount per MegaWatthour than does coal / gas / wind turbine.  And then there is the problem of nuclear's huge costs & very slow build times (but I presume you know that).

    Costs of batteries is red-herring.  When wind turbines are over-producing electricity, the turbines are feathered or stopped down.  Future battery costs . . . who knows? . . . but the technology is leading to much lower prices.   Eventually, a small household battery may get to the price of a household refrigerator.

     #  By the way Davz, please return to your comment on another thread, where you suggested that climate warming had no way of contributing to increased wilfires.  It would be ethical of you to discuss your point further ~ or acknowledge that you were wrong.

  28. A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty

    Did anyone ever see what the reviewers (including Carl Wunsch and
    Davide Zanchettin) said about Frank's similar 2019 paper in Frontiers in Science?

  29. A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty

    I'm not sure Frank is responsible for 'propagation' or the spreading of nonsense. He is the creator of nonsense that others happily spread. But strangely the remarkable level of stupidity achieved by Frank and other denialists is not an issue for those who spread such denialist messages, or those who happily receive them.

    As for debunking Frank's crazyman attack on climatology, this debunking can be achieved in many ways. There is plenty of opportunity as the man is evidently heavily in denial over AGW and stupid enought to feel he is able to prove that his denial-position is correct while the whole of science is flat wrong.
    I'm not of the view that climbing down the rabbit hole to chase his nonsense round down in the wonderland world of Pat Frank is the best way to debunk Fank's lunacy. (I talk of 'chasing his nonsense' because his latest published serving of nonsense is an embellishment of work now a decade-plus old while a whole lot different from his nonsense from four years back featured in the video linked @4.) Yet this SkS OP is attempting such a chase.

    Frank's obvious stupidity does lend itself to debunking although his embellishments with lengthy coverage of associated stuff in this 2023 paper provides him a means of obfuscation. In such a situation, I'd go straight for the conclusions, or in Frank's latest paper 'final' conclusions.
    So Frank agrees that there has been warming since the 19th century (as shown by phenology which certainly does indicate "unprecedented climate warming over the last 200 years, or over any other timespan" has occurred in recent decades). But generally Frank's paper would suggest the instrument temperature record cannot show any warming. Indeed having told us of the phenological "direct evidence of a warming climate" he then tells us "The 20th century surface air-temperature anomaly, 0.74 ± 1.94 °C (2σ), does not convey any knowledge of rate or magnitude of change in the thermal state of the troposphere." That 0.74 ± 1.94 °C (2σ) surely suggests a 23% chance that measurement of actual temperature represents a cooling not a warming, with a 5% chance of a cooling of -1.2 °C or more.
    And really, if anybody were attempting to question the accuracy of the global temperature instrument record, it would be sensible to start with the work already done to establish such accuracy, eg Lenssen et al (2019). But Frank seemingly doesn't do 'sensible'.

  30. Just how fast will clean energy grow in the U.S.?

    All sounds great until a realistic analysis of the energy creation in countries that have invested billions into clean energy and it's not all it's cracked up to be.  Here in the UK we have over 12000 wind generators, mostly off shore.  The amount of energy they create looks on paper to be a reasonable return on the investment until you start looking at the numbers.  The issue is that generating the electricity carries on through the night and these figures are used by the govt to mislead the tax payer as the energy from the night isnt required, the vast majority of the population are asleep in bed.  It would be great if the energy could be stored but the cost of batteries is at the moment twice the gdp of the uk!  In 2020 wind generation of uk output was 25%, remember though that includes night time generation that went to waste.  In 2021 generation was 7% as the wind didn't do its job.  So to compensate for years the wind doesn't blow the Uk would have to invest in at least 100k wind generators and batteries for storage, that would cost many times more than gdp.....completely unaffordable. Then we have the problem that each wind generator Requires 80 imperial gallons of oil every year for lubrication, if the whole world invests in wind farms oil will still be needed.  The only realistic solution is nuclear.

  31. Just how fast will clean energy grow in the U.S.?

    This article describes the massive increases in new electric generation from solar installations by noting the huge increases in solar "capacity" including the following quotes:

    "....project that the U.S. will install about 63 gigawatts of new solar capacity by the end of 2024"

    " the record 24 gigawatts of solar capacity added in 2021 will likely be broken in 2023 "

    Gross increases in solar capacity should be read in full context. If one is going to discuss increases in electric generation from solar, one should be using realistic numbers. As noted by Jacobson in his study of 100% renewables, the US actual solar generation is approx 20.8% of capacity . See his table S11 in his recent 2022 study. Canada actual generation from solar is slightly less at 18% of capacity and Europe is only 17.6% of capacity. Also note that the winter months, the northern US and Canada the electric generation from solar is in the range of 10% or less of capacity.

    Below is a link to the German electric generation by source. Note that during the summer months, solar generates 12k GW's -15k GW's daily, while in the winter months, the electricity generated from solar ranges from 1k GW/s -4k Gw's and often falls below 1k GW's.

     

    www.agora-energiewende.de/en/service/recent-electricity-data/chart/power_generation/09.08.2022/09.08.2023/today/

     

    LINK

    Moderator Response:

    [RH] Shortened link

  32. Just how fast will clean energy grow in the U.S.?

     If only we could expand wind and solar as fast as China has.
    In 2020 they installed 72 GW of wind and 48 GW of PV solar.
    In 2022, they installed another 37.6 GW of wind and 87.4 GW of solar.
    In just the first two months of 2023 they installed over 20 GW of solar.
    But then, I think they have invested a lot in HVDC long distance transmission lines.

  33. A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty

    Correction : should be Nigelj @ post 6.   Almost certainly!

  34. A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty

    Nigelj @8 , you are correct about some of the characters that you yourself encounter at RealClimate blog.   Psychiatrically though, the WUWT blog presents a "target-rich environment" for a wider range of pathologies.   And Dr Pat Frank is still to be seen making brief comments in the WUWT threads . . . but mostly his comments match the run-of-the-mill WUWT craziness stuff, rather than relating to the Uncertainty Monster.

    Anecdote ~ long ago, I knew a guy who had spent a decade or more tinkering in his garden shed, inventing an electrical Perpetual-Motion machine.  Continual updates & modifications, but somehow never quite hitting the bullseye.  He had a pleasant-enough personality, not a narcissist.  But definitely had a bee in his bonnet or a crack in his pot [=pate].    R.I.P.

    And the Uncertainty Monster still lives in the darker corners of public discussion.   Living sometimes as a mathematical nonsense, but much more commonly in the form of: "Well, that AGW stuff is not absolutely certain to six decimal places, so we ought to ignore it all."    Or existing in the practical sphere as: "It is not certain that we could eventually power all our economy with renewables & other non-fossil-fuel systems . . . so we should not even make a partial effort."

  35. A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty

    Pat Frank sounds like a classic case of a person promoting crank science. Scientific crank for short.

    I'm no expert in scientific cranks, or crank science, but I have a little bit of background in psychology having done a few papers at university, (although I have a design degree). I have observed that cranks have certain attributes.

    1)They are usually moderately intelligent, sometimes highly intelligent. This helps them come up with inventive nonsense.

    2)They are very stubborn and dont admit they are wrong, either to themselves or anyone else.

    3) They also frequently tend to be egocentric, arrogant, very confident and somewhat narcissistic. Some people have a disorder called NPD (narcissistic personality disorder) or lean that way:

    "Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental health condition in which people have an unreasonably high sense of their own importance. They need and seek too much attention and want people to admire them. People with this disorder may lack the ability to understand or care about the feelings of others. But behind this mask of extreme confidence, they are not sure of their self-worth and are easily upset by the slightest criticism." (mayo clinic)

    Narcissists are usually overconfident and very arrogant and they can sometimes be very dishonest.

    We all have some egoism or self love, but narcissists are at the extreme end of the spectrum. Maybe its a bell curve distribution thing.

    I've noticed that narcissists are unable to ever admit to themselves or others that they are wrong about something and perhaps its because its exceptionally painful for this personality type. So they just go on repeating the same nonsense forever. 

    While nobody loves admitting they are wrong, or have been fooled or sucked in, either to themselves or others most people eventually do and move on.

    Unfortuntately this means the cranks hang around influencing those who want reasons to deny the climate issue.

    And of course some of the scientific cranks prove to be correct at least about some things. Which confuses things further. But it looks to me like most cranks  aren't correct, especially the arm chair cranks who may not have science degrees.

    The Realclimate.org website attracts some of these cranks, including both climate science denialists and also warmists usually with dubious mitigation solutions. You guys probably know who I mean.

  36. A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty

    Yes, Eclectic. That video - and the comments from Pat Frank - are rather mind-boggling. That video is one of the key links given in the AndThenTheresPhysics blog post on Propagation of Uncertainty that I linked to above.

    There were many other red flags in the recent paper by Frank. On page 18, in the last paragraph, he makes the claim that "...the ship bucket and engine-intake measurement errors displayed non-normal distributions, inconsistent with random error." There are many other distributions in physics - uniform, Poisson, etc. - that can occur with random data. Non-normality is not a test for randomness.

    In this blog post, I focused on the most basic mistakes he makes with respect to simple statistics - standard error of the mean, etc.

    Frankly, it is Pat Frank that does not know what he is talking about.

  37. A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty

    There is a 2017 YouTube presentation by by Dr Patrick T. Brown (climatologist) which is highly critical of Dr Patrick Frank's ideas.  The video title is:-  "Do 'propagation of error' calculations invalidate climate model projections of global warming?"   [length ~38 minutes]

    This video currently shows 7235 views and 98 comments ~ many of which are rather prickly comments by Patrick Frank . . . who at one point says "see my post on the foremost climate blog Watts Up With That" [a post in 2015?]      # Frank also states: "There's no doubt that the climate models cannot predict future air temperatures. There is also no doubt that the IPCC does not know what it's talking about."

    Frank has also made many prickly comments on WUWT at various other times.  And he has an acolyte or two on WUWT who will always denounce any critics as not understanding that uncertainty and error are not the same.  [And yet the acolytes also fail to address the underlying physical events in global climate.]

    In a nutshell : Dr Patrick Frank's workings have a modicum of internal validity mathematically, but ultimately are unphysical.

  38. At a glance - The tricks employed by the flawed OISM Petition Project to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change

    Nigel J #5: Thanks for this feedback. If plenty of people "only read the headline or first paragraph, or half of articles", then there's the huuuuge problem with humanity/for our community straight away! That aside, I take your point here: it is a valid criticism. Noted for actioning at some nearby date (this is a big project so has to be time-managed appropriately)....

  39. At a glance - The tricks employed by the flawed OISM Petition Project to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change

    "How the OISM Petition Project casts doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change......Do you think that a lot of scientists reject the idea that human-caused carbon emissions are responsible for climate change - and is that because you once read about a petition signed by them to that effect? If the answer is yes, then this is for you."

    It is well known that plenty of people only read the headline or first paragraph, or half  of articles, and here you are stating in the headline that a petition casts doubt on the consensus on climate change, and the very first paragraph states that lots of scientists reject that human emissions cause climate change. With not even a  mention of how flawed the oregon petiton was in the first paragraph.

    Is this the impression you wanted to leave those readers with? It looks self defeating to me. 

  40. At a glance - The tricks employed by the flawed OISM Petition Project to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change

    Whenever these kinds of petitions come up. I always like to mention the National Center for Science Education's Project Steve. Although targeted at similar petitions related to evolution/creation science, it is equally applicable here. From their preamble:

    NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism."

    Creationists draw up these lists to try to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Not everyone realizes that this claim is unfounded. NCSE has been asked numerous times to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. Although we easily could have done so, we have resisted. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!

    Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, NCSE supporter, and friend.

    We'd like to think that after Project Steve, we'll have seen the last of bogus "scientists doubting evolution" lists, but it's probably too much to ask. We hope that when such lists are proposed, reporters and other citizens will ask, "How many Steves are on your list!?"

    Even more tongue-in-cheek was when a federal political party in Canada was proposing a process where a referendum could be forced if a group could get 3% of the electorate to sign a petition. The leader's name was Stockwell Day, and a comedy show gathered names on a petition asking Stockwell Day to change his name to Doris Day. (Yes, they got enough signatures. No, he did not change his name.)

  41. At a glance - The tricks employed by the flawed OISM Petition Project to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change

    Re #1 - a very good geologist colleague of mine totally fell for the petition, mainly because I guess he was politically very conservative and the very notion of global warming did not fit with his worldview. I soon realised good scientists can let politics get in the way of trusting other scientific disciplines to have the same rigour as one's own. In a sense, I learned an important lesson right there.

  42. A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty

    Gil @ 1:

    Who is "he"? Patrick Frank? Can you specify in which part of his article he makes this reference?

  43. At a glance - The tricks employed by the flawed OISM Petition Project to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change

    I suspect that many of the OISM signers have passed away over the past 25 years. The petition is now an irrelevant historical artifact. 

  44. A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty

    You cannot validate science with marketing, nor marketing with scientific processes. In this article there is a lot of taking something hot in one hand as proof the other hand is not cold. A lot of selling going on here. 

     

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] - Contents snipped. This is a return of a previously-banned user, using a new name, which is strictly prohibited by the Comments Policy.

  45. A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty

    He lost me when he called nominal thermometer precision with accuracy. Maybe it was a typo, but such an elementary mistake really takes a toll on any presumed ethos the author may have wanted to project. 

  46. At a glance - The tricks employed by the flawed OISM Petition Project to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change

    My Dad signed that petition.  He was a Crop Scientist.  I'm sure he meant well, but 'damage done'.  How hard is it to sign your name?  I took two terms of Atmospheric Physics.  For a few months I was working to get a PhD in climatology, but I later left to get a Masters in Mechanical Engineering.  Did I sign any petitions?  Have I signed any since?  Because I was lightyears more qualified to do so than my Father, who knew a lot about Plant Genetics, and a little about anything other than Plant Genetics.  But, regarding the Scientific opposition to AGW, that has rarely been a disqualifier.  As long as you 'wrote the book' on Plant Genetics, then you must certainly know everything there is to know about the subset of GeoPhysics called Atmospheric Science...

  47. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming

    Please note: the basic version of this rebuttal has been updated on August 6, 2023 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @ https://sks.to/at-a-glance

  48. The difference between land surface temperature and surface air temperature

    Here's a telling chart: July 2023 would have been warmer than average against 1961-1990 climatology, but against 1991-2020 it was a bit cool:

  49. The difference between land surface temperature and surface air temperature

    And according to Trevor Harley, July 1922 was the coldest on record with an average temperature of 13.7C.

  50. The difference between land surface temperature and surface air temperature

    also re - #2, I just checked and in the UK, July 2023 had a mean temperature across the month of 14.9C, 0.3C below the average for the period 1991-2020. Ironically, June was the warmest UK June on record with a mean temperature of 15.8C, this being 2.5C higher than average. Note the mich wider margin by which the heat record was broken; July was only a bit sub-par (no record there).

Prev  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  Next



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us