Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 Next
Comments 16001 to 16050:
-
nigelj at 15:59 PM on 19 January 2018A ‘new’ measurement of climate sensitivity?
Wili @4
The Guardian article might have made a mess of the numbers as well. They say "Earth’s surface will almost certainly not warm up four or five degrees Celsius by 2100, according to a study which, if correct, voids worst-case UN climate change predictions." I think they have messed this up.
The IPCC climate sensitivity was 1.5 - 4.5 degrees celsius, now the new research suggests to 2.2 - 3.4 degrees. The Guardian appears to have mistaken all these numbers for temperature predictions by the end of the century. They are not, they are only representing a doubling of C02 levels. In effect, they are a middle range scenario in terms of predictions.
The actual IPCC worst case senario for temperature predictions is actually 5.8 degrees (above the 1990 base line) based on heavy burning of fossil fuels. Therefore I would suspect the new worst case scenario is still somewhere between 4 - 5 degrees.
-
wili at 14:36 PM on 19 January 2018A ‘new’ measurement of climate sensitivity?
www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jan/18/worst-case-global-warming-scenarios-not-credible-says-study
As the last two paragraphs of this article show, they have not, in fact, "ruled out worst-case scenarios," just ignored them.
-
Bob Loblaw at 12:05 PM on 19 January 2018Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
Actually, Alan's post is primarily a good example of the "Science has been wrong before" argument.
-
Eclectic at 08:40 AM on 19 January 2018Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
Alan @48 , your post is rather discursive. Is there a cogent case (for something) that you wish to make?
Because Semmelweis was correct (but initially scorned) . . . does that mean we should be more accepting & respectful of Flat-Earthers and their ideas? No, Alan, your line of argument is illogical. Especially so, since "science" in the 1600's , 1700's , and much of the 1800's , has been a very different kettle of fish to the very integrated science of modern times.
What is the relevance of your fourth paragraph?
Clarity, please, Alan.
-
John Hartz at 07:39 AM on 19 January 2018A ‘new’ measurement of climate sensitivity?
Suggested supplemental reading:
Climate scientists say they may be able to rule out the worst-case scenarios — and the best ones by Chris Mooney, Energy & Environment, Washington Post, Jan 17, 2018
-
nigelj at 05:15 AM on 19 January 2018A ‘new’ measurement of climate sensitivity?
Some good quality media commentary and information on Cox et al:
www.carbonbrief.org/new-study-reduces-uncertainty-climate-sensitivity
-
Alan16409 at 04:16 AM on 19 January 2018Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
Your article starts with the premise that if one disagrees with an “official science” or consensual hypothesis, they are being fringe deniers. You then list nine different false assumptions made by some in the public and try to deconstruct them. With your permission, I will use your list to prove the opposite— their inherent worth to scientists. My rebuttal is not about climate change per se, but the arguments used to eliminate skeptical researchers.
First, some quotes are in order: “All great truths begin as blasphemies,” Shaw. “Science advances one funeral at a time,” Planck. “First it is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed, third it is accepted as self evident,” Schopenhauer. Lastly, “When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces of the world are all in confederacy against him,” Swift.
Next, a very minute list of great pioneering scientists, who were attacked, ridiculed and ostracized when their work went against consensual science; their “reward” follows. Mendel/Genetics--life in isolation. Semmelweis/Puerperal fever—death in asylum. Boltzmann/Statistical Thermodynamics—suicide. And of course, Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin who were all shunned.
I hope the above two paragraphs will lay to rest eight out of the nine positions of deniers, as any pioneer in groundbreaking work has had to resort to them.
1) Ignore a large body of evidence. Check, if it is wrong.
2) Cite small studies. Check, as his new findings are unknown. I purposely left out “low quality, cherry-picked,” since this is a prejudice.
3) Conspiracy theories. Check, and not a delusion when funding is denied.
4) Accuse opponents of being close-minded. Check, and the term “shills” is irrelevant.
5) Rely on anecdotes and personal experience. Check, since by itself, exactly what is wrong with that?
6) Cite non-conventional sources (blogs and videos). Check, not a mistake if they appear genuine and logical. This is called observation, and Newton used it in nature, as he did not have a laptop back then.
7) Science has been wrong before. Check, see examples above. Your mention of Einstein versus Newton omits many real mistakes, including modern medicine.
8) Just asking questions. Check, as pioneers are usually censured and stymied. The “Appeal to minority of fringe experts,” does not really apply, as a pioneer knows that it is impossible to be taken seriously when an observation turns science upside down.
Otherwise your well-written article describes how true science is supposed to work, but you left out one essential detail—man gets in the way with his petty behavior.
Moderator Response:[PS] This topic is report from "The logic of science". It would be polite if Alan made his points over there and that is possibly the best place for discussions not directly on climate science.
-
fpjohn at 03:54 AM on 19 January 2018A ‘new’ measurement of climate sensitivity?
And there is Cox et al which suggests 2.8C
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25450
Emergent constraint on equilibrium climate sensitivity from global temperature variability
Peter M. Cox, Chris Huntingford & Mark S. Williamson
Nature 553, 319–322 (18 January 2018)
doi:10.1038/nature25450Moderator Response:[JH] Link activated
-
rocketeer at 03:05 AM on 19 January 2018Scott Pruitt insincerely asked what's Earth's ideal temperature. Scientists answer
Scott, since sea level and global temperature are closely linked, your question can be reconstructed as, "What it the ideal sea level?"
Well, the sea gulls don't care, the fish don't care, even the coral reefs will move effortlessly if the change is gradual. However one species has trillions of dollars invested in coastal infrastructure. What is the ideal location for a major port? Ten meters above sea level? Ten meters below sea level? Or right at sea level where it currently exists?
-
MA Rodger at 23:37 PM on 18 January 2018Flaws of Lüdecke & Weiss
The roguish curve-fitting in this LW17 paper will surely become more apparent the deeper you dig.
I was intrigued by their use of HadCRUT4 and RSS (v3.3 as v4.0 was not published in April 2017) and their comment "For Bün, HADCRUT4 and Pet respectively the most recent years which show unusual deviations from the remaining reconstructions were also omitted." Perhaps this is why their Figure 3 makes such a poor showing at representing 20th century global temperatures. Their blue trace (31-year rolling ave, last data 2015) shows temperatures only reachng about 0.12ºC above the 1940s peak, about a quarter the actual value from HadCRUT4. And the final values plotted don't reach 2015 by a few years. Perhaps it was too painful to plot it all out properly as that would show their predictive red trace dropping 0.66ºC over the 75 year period since 1940 while the blue trace was travelling in the opposite direction by about the same amount. Such a mis-match looks to be unique on their 2000-year-long red-blue-dancing traces and, darn it, it is just at the point of interest.
It must be very frustrating for curve-fitters when their curves refuse to cooperate!
-
John Hartz at 23:30 PM on 18 January 2018The Key To Slowing Global Warming
Recommended supplemental reading:
With Donald Trump in the White House, the prospects for fighting climate change have never been any bleaker in the US. Yet there are options available to state governments to move forward with the greening of the economy even without federal support. This point is made crystal clear in two studies produced recently by economist Robert Pollin and some of his colleagues at the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst for the states of Washington and New York. In this exclusive interview for Truthout, Pollin explains the significance of Green New Deal programs.
How to Achieve Zero Emissions, Even if the Federal Government Won't Help by C.J. Polychroniou, Truthout, Jan 17, 2018
-
Wol at 15:45 PM on 18 January 2018Flaws of Lüdecke & Weiss
>>Unchecking all the boxes should stop any glossary terms from popping up.<<
Many thanks - I hadn't seen that.
-
ubrew12 at 13:16 PM on 18 January 2018Scott Pruitt insincerely asked what's Earth's ideal temperature. Scientists answer
Pruitt: "how do we know what the ideal surface temperature is in 2100"? Ideal surface temperature 4 C cooler than now. At that temperature, Eastern U.S. covered under a mile of ice, sea level hundred feet lower than present, wooly mammoth everywhere, plenty meat and skins for all neanderthal. Good times! Signed, Thorg.
-
Bob Loblaw at 12:44 PM on 18 January 2018Flaws of Lüdecke & Weiss
Wol:
When you are logged on, you should see a tab on the lower left of your window that says "Look up a Term". Click on that, and you open up the glossary function. On the right, you can customize your settings. Unchecking all the boxes should stop any glossary terms from popping up.
-
Wol at 10:01 AM on 18 January 2018Flaws of Lüdecke & Weiss
OK, off subject - but Mods, is it at all possible to change the site coding so that one has to say right click on an "explained" link instead of the explanation appearing just because the mouse has lingered momentarily over the link?
It's irritating to constantly have to cancel expanatory boxes which have appeared unwantedly!
-
Doug_C at 09:48 AM on 18 January 2018Flaws of Lüdecke & Weiss
It's a question of relative radiative forcings acting on the Earth's land surface, oceans and atmosphere.
The periods of deep glaciation in recent geological times that have covered a large part of the Northern Hemisphere in thick ice sheets and dropped global temperatures for thousands of years are likely the result of the Milanchovitch Cycles which can reduce the amount of Solar irradiation at northern latitude. These are on the order of a few tenths of a watt per meter squared and act over thousands of years in a dry process of more snow and ice cover lasting longer and reflecting more sunlight back into space dropping temperatures and drawing down more carbon dioxide cooling things even more creating more snow and ice cover which reflect more sunlight cooling things further. It's a feedback loop than when most of the continents are near the Equator can cover almost all of the Earth in ice.
The radiative forcing from the changes we have made in atmospheric CO2 alone are almost +2 watts per meter squared, we have totally swamped the natural focrings that have resulted deep glaciation periods.
There almost certainly will be no transition to a glaciation period due to the human release of CO2 alone. The Solar Cycles are also not that significant in relation to the forcings of atmospheric CO2 in recent times, once again in the range of a few tenths of a watt per meter squared.
Even a prolonged Solar Minimum is not going to result in a cooling trend on the Earth's surface now, it will only result in a slowing of global warming as long as the positive radiative forcing from carbon dioxide emissions and other human activities greatly exceed the possible negative forcings from Solar Cycles.
And the overall trend in Solar activity is not a decrease in Solar irradiance, it is an increase. The Sun puts out far more energy now than it did say 500 Mya for instance.
Appealing to the Sun to save us as papers like LW17 do seem far more religious to me than scientific.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:56 AM on 18 January 2018Scott Pruitt insincerely asked what's Earth's ideal temperature. Scientists answer
The problem is: Change/Harm/Uncertainty on a global scale being created by rapid alteration of the living environment of this amazing planet by an unsustainable and damaging human activity.
The Real question is: How much damage/trouble are the pursuers of Private Interest (trying to personally benefit from the unsustainable and damaging activity) going to get away with creating?
The debates needs to be: How did we end up in this unsustainable damaging situation? And what changes get the future of humanity out of the damaging unsustainable downward spiral that only looks like progress? Hint - new technological developments may be helpful but are Not the answer.
The likes of Pruitt appear to be deliberately Unhelpful (potentially deliberately harmful, and potentially deliberately harmful is almost criminal)
-
John Hartz at 08:08 AM on 18 January 2018Scott Pruitt insincerely asked what's Earth's ideal temperature. Scientists answer
Recommended supplemental reading:
Climate scientists on Wednesday suggested that they may be able to rule out some of the most dire scenarios of what would happen if greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere were to double.
Unfortunately, the same scientists say the best-case scenarios are also probably unrealistic.
How a doubling of atmospheric greenhouse gases would affect the climate is of tremendous importance, as humans are running out of time to avoid that outcome. With current atmospheric concentrations at 405 parts per million, as opposed to about 280 parts per million before the dawn of the industrial era, the planet is already about halfway there.
Climate scientists say they may be able to rule out the worst-case scenarios — and the best ones by Chris Mooney, Energy & Environment, Jan 17, 2018
-
nigelj at 07:18 AM on 18 January 2018Flaws of Lüdecke & Weiss
Ruddimans ideas are quite compelling. By some estimates we have already released more than enough CO2 to prevent or hugely delay the next ice age. We could still have a colder than normal period, but it only takes a couple of degrees to stop the full advancement of continent sized ice sheets. We don't need to release any more CO2.
I gather the research in the main article deconstructs 200 yeas of solar irradiance data into its component curves and one of these correlates with recent decades of higher temperatures? But even if this is the case, which appears in doubt, a correlation doesn't prove a great deal by itself. Changes in solar activity like this don't appear to have much effect, and the overall recent decadal trend is falling solar activity.
-
nigelj at 06:55 AM on 18 January 2018Scott Pruitt insincerely asked what's Earth's ideal temperature. Scientists answer
Yes its a rate of change problem. An ideal temperature is a strawman. Heatwaves will increase, and we cannot adapt quickly enough biologically, so have to expend energy to adapt, diverted form other pressing priorities, and it will create refugee problems.
But this will not worry people like Scott Pruit. Pruitt sits in his secure, air conditioned office with his millions of dollars, secure from the effects of climate change, and not caring about anyone apart from his immediate circle of people. You cannot reason with people like Pruitt. The fossil fuel industry now runs the American government.
-
william5331 at 05:01 AM on 18 January 2018Flaws of Lüdecke & Weiss
We should be going into the next glaciation, not because of the sun's output but because of the Milankovitch cycle. In fact if you read Ploughs, Plagues and Petroleum by Ruddiman, you see that snow and ice had begun to accumulate in the high lands of Baffin Island. Fortunately our output of green house gas reversed the process. It would have happened a little earlier but ploughing had released enough carbon into the atmosphere to slow the otherwise inevitable slide. The great plagues in the old world and the destruction of the native population in the new world by diseases brought by the Spanish caused a huge recovery of forests which was enough to just tip us over the edge to snow accumulation. Increased industrialization then came to our rescue. It is a shame we are using fossil fuels so extravegantly. If used judicially, we could completely avoid the next glaciation. Instead we may tip ourselves into a very nasty heating scenario, followed by a collapse of our civilization and a rapid draw down of Carbon dioxide as the forests and jungles recover. From a destructive heating we could then slide into the next glaciation.
-
Riduna at 01:52 AM on 18 January 2018The Key To Slowing Global Warming
NorrisM @ 8
How has the South Australian Battery pderformed? This analysis provides the answer.
-
curiousd at 20:01 PM on 17 January 2018Science of Climate Change online class starting next week on Coursera
Sometime ago there was a useful set of comments and critiques on Modtran Infrared Light in the Atmosphere. Results obtained by myself and David Archer are published as part of the annual meeting of the American Meteorological Society and may be accessed at the URL
file:///C:/Users/Doug/Downloads/Pease_Extended_Abstract%20Best.pdf
Moderator Response:[JH] Link activated.
-
chriskoz at 17:22 PM on 17 January 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #2
Montecito CA looks to be quite a wealthy neighbourhood. It's more than obvious to anyone famirila with forces behind weather dynamics, that such violent event (1/2 inch of rain in 5 minutes after fires) is unprecedented and AGW has exacerbated its likelyhood severalfolds. Those residents do understand it, for sure. CA lawmakers also likely understand it, largely because they are hit by the event. But sadly, all REP in Congress together with their clown president, don't want to understand it (unless the disaster had hit themselves). I cannot wait until Americans wake up and vote them deniers-in-chief, out.
Selfish human nature delays mitigation, e.g. literally no one in US cares about vulnerability of African nations. But this event shows that even wealthy can be vulnerable (and they have more monetary value to lose), so the experience may increase mitigation efforts in US and around the world, which paradoxically would be a good outcome.
-
bozzza at 16:00 PM on 17 January 2018Study finds that global warming exacerbates refugee crises
Question: is there a causal link between climate change and the attacks on America in 2001, or not?
-
bozzza at 15:52 PM on 17 January 2018On its hundredth birthday in 1959, Edward Teller warned the oil industry about global warming
Oldmanthames, that is the most excellent of excellent points.
The large populated cities are now stuck with a nuclear solution! (So fossil fuels actually gave us nuclear power? NOW THAT is a conspiracy!!)
Moderator Response:[JH] All-caps snipped.
-
bozzza at 15:48 PM on 17 January 2018On its hundredth birthday in 1959, Edward Teller warned the oil industry about global warming
@10, the partys that run for office don’t want tax payer funded election campaigns as it takes away half the campaign material about where the other side got their campaign chest from.
Who would decide that this should be the case?
-
bozzza at 15:45 PM on 17 January 2018On its hundredth birthday in 1959, Edward Teller warned the oil industry about global warming
@9,
Democracy in the real world is a system and all systems breakdown over time.
Only life can put things back together and this is commonly known as ‘continual improvement’.
-
Doug_C at 11:26 AM on 17 January 2018Flaws of Lüdecke & Weiss
Sounds like LW17 is a study in confirmation bias not actual climate research based on actual data.
Sure the Sun moderates climate on Earth, that is not the issue today.
The issue we now all face is the virtually unrestricted release of carbon dioxide - the primary persistent GHG - from fossil fuels.
It is simple to chart the increase in concentration of cardon dioxide in the atmosphere with a clear increase in averge yearly temperature as well as other clear indicators of a warming Earth such as changes in the timing of seasons, loss of global cryosphere, thermal expansion of oceans and more.
And we can directly measure the increase of heat coming from the atmosphere in the spectrum that is absorbed by carbon dioxide, a plain fingerprint of the role that carbon dioxide plays in moderating the Earthès climate. Which is something we've understood with growing confidence since the early 1800s which culminated with a scientist in the late 1800s working out by hand what would happen if you doubled the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.
And who's results are still within the margin of experimental error.
Even without quantum mechnical theory, over a century of data, computer models and highly sensitive instruments that were at best theory in the 1800s, Svante Arrhenius in the 1890s was still doing better science than these guys.
Thanks again Skeptical Science for decoding intentionally generated bad science such as is represented by "work" like this.
As for Bentham Open, how peer-reviewed is a journal that published an article that was generated by computer and submitted to test just how reviewed Benthan Open articles are.
-
John Hartz at 11:15 AM on 17 January 2018Study finds that global warming exacerbates refugee crises
Recommended supplemental reading:
Rising sea swamps island along Bengal coast
Around 1.5 million people will be displaced in the Sundarbans, and the process has started
by Joydeep Gupta, thethirdpole.net, Jan 15, 2018
-
nigelj at 08:16 AM on 17 January 2018The Key To Slowing Global Warming
NorrisM @50
I have had a read of the Hartley article on Curries blog, and also the comments of Peter Lang and Beta Blocker. I have had a quick scan through Peter Langs research article on Nuclear energy and "learning rates".
This is interesting stuff. Some quick thoughts, bear in mind I only read the material very quickly.
Peter Lang is clearly a nuclear power fanatic, and makes some rather strange claims about what it can do, for example somehow providing liquid fuels for aircraft. I dont know how thats supposed to work. He is however correct that growth in nuclear power basically stalled in the 1970's, and part of this may have been safety concerns from three mile island, (but then these were real concerns as this came close to a huge disaster). However he is wrong to think safety concerns were the only factor, as Beta Blocker points out.
Lang is also right to point out that S Korea seeem to have had a better "learning curve" on nuclear energy, and essentially lower current construction costs for plant today. Refer a below for global construction costs comparisons for nuclear power in terms of "learning curves".
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516300106
However S korea has had problems with quality control and safety (refer "nuclear power in S Korea" on wikipedia) and is considering canceling all future neclear generation contracts out of safety concerns following the Fukushima disaster as below:
So regardlesss of costs and so called benefits of nuclear power, this safety concern constantly becomes an issue, and public views are strong on it. This is understandable, because when nuclear power does go wrong it does so in dramatic and dangerous fashion.
Beta blocker makes some good points. I think he is right overall, and that poor construction management would be a large factor in the expense of construction costs for nuclear power in America. It's presumably also the main reason for slow construction times that routinely go over estimates. I have done consultany work for the building industry, so I hear where he is coming from. However until the management problem is turned around, generating companies won't want to build nuclear power.
IMO strict safety standards are probably also a factor in costs, but then this is not something that should be compromised.
The bottom line appears to be that nuclear power can be cheap power, but this is hard to achieve in most countries, and the safety worries are a constant concern.
-
nigelj at 06:52 AM on 17 January 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #2
New York prosecutor accuses Exxon of misleading investors on how it accounts for climate change risks:
www.businessinsider.com/exxon-accused-of-misleading-investors-on-climate-change-2017-6?IR=T
American law on securities offerings:
dfi.wa.gov/small-business/role-of-disclosure
"Both federal and state laws require companies conducting a securities offering to tell each potential investor all material information about the company, its principals, and the investment opportunity (including the risks of the investment) that a reasonable person would want to know in order to make an informed investment decision."
"The offer and sale of many goods and services in the United States is governed by the market principle of "caveat emptor," which means "buyer beware.” This principle does not apply to the purchase or sale of securities."
-
nigelj at 06:12 AM on 17 January 2018The Key To Slowing Global Warming
NorrisM @50
Thank's for the reference to the Hartley article and the attached nuclear discussion. I gather this is the article? For anyone interested...
judithcurry.com/2017/12/14/the-cost-of-displacing-fossil-fuels-some-evidence-from-texas/#more-23687
I assume the extensive and possibly frustrating regulation of the nuclear industry is to do with safety. This is not something that I would want to see compromised, or short cuts taken.
I would not place absolute reliance on Hartleys views. They are the views of just one person, and the climate issue has become politicised and people have agendas. People need to read a range of views.
-
nigelj at 05:37 AM on 17 January 2018The Key To Slowing Global Warming
Riduna @47
Yes you are right that reserves of bauxite are larger than for lithium. Scientists estimate 200 - 300 years of bauxite left as below.
www.youaskandy.com/questions-answers/34-ask-andy-1980/8788-are-we-running-out-of-bauxite-.html
Of course aluminium is one of the most common materials in the crust, so these are reserves that can be practically mined at reasonable costs. Aluminium can also be recycled endlessly.
We have plenty of resources for absolutely huge numbers of batteries for cars and devices. However I still think its hard to see batteries being the main way of storing energy for power stations, because of costs and huge size of such instillations.
I agree rooftop solar power and home lithium or aluminium battery packs could well be the way of the future. An acquaintance of mine has just done a full home instillation of solar plus the tesla battery pack, and even now the economics are good. He has a nissan leaf electric car. Centralised power stations may increasingly be a form of backup for decentalised power.
-
NorrisM at 05:09 AM on 17 January 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #2
michael sweet @ 3
As you know, I am a Canadian lawyer so commenting on US law is somewhat problematic. I have already learned that libel laws in the US do not strictly apply as I believe they would in Canada to public figures.
But in Canada, although securities laws relating to offering securities to the public do provide more detailed protection to investors, the laws of misrepresentation do apply to the customers of a corporation. However, the problem often comes down to the "damages" incurred by the customer which are probably, per customer, quite small. That is why "class actions" have been allowed both in Canada and the US. But this is a whole different ball game and I do not think this is the place to get into an analysis of this area of the law.
But whenever you claim "misrepresentation" you are first presented with proving that there was in fact a misrepresentation even before you get to the issue of damages. I have not really followed the Exxon story as to what they said to the public and what they had in internal memos.
-
NorrisM at 04:59 AM on 17 January 2018The Key To Slowing Global Warming
michael sweet @ 49 and nigelj
I actually just came back on this site to reread the Arcus article on Xcel Energy before I post a question to Hartley on the Curry website (in between having to do some real work) so this helps as well.
However, for a fascinating discussion of the problems of nuclear power in the US related to cost overruns, I highly recommend that you and Nigelj read the comments of Beta Blocker on the blog following the Hartley article. He has 35 years experience in building nuclear power in the US and describes what has gone wrong with the projects in Georgia and South Carolina (I think I have the right states). Another blogger on that site, Peter Lang, suggests that new nuclear power could be installed for 10% of the costs of the projected $25 Billion one of them will cost to complete if government regulations were to be reduced. Beta Blocker blows this guy completely out of the water. I am not sure where Beta Blocker is on whether nuclear power makes any sense now. I would have to go back and reread his comments. But anyone who has the slightest interest in nuclear power should read what Beta Blocker has to say. For this reason alone, I am glad that Curry posted the Hartley article (you will see I am not using the term "paper"). I think the bloggers use the term "essay".
Unfortunately much of the blog on Hartley goes off onto a discussion of nuclear power. I want to get Hartley's views but I am also going to see if Beta Blocker will comment on the Abbott papers.
Moderator Response:[DB] Mr Lang had a history here of unsupported assertions and sloganeering, when he chose to participate here. The Burden of Proof was onerous for him in this, a moderated forum.
-
william5331 at 04:18 AM on 17 January 2018Study finds that global warming exacerbates refugee crises
It must be difficult to separate the influence of climate change from the influence of the destabilization of Eastern countries by incessant wars, more often than not caused by America. For instance, how do you evaluate the situation in Yemin with regard to refugees. America is fighting a proxi war there, using the Saudis. It is a very hot dry region but how has the exodus of refugees changed since the beginning of that war. The war in Iraq led to the formation of ISIS as the Americans in their wisdom forbade anyone who had been a baathist from participating in the government. Since even to be a dog catcher, you had to belong to the party, this eliminated anyone of tallent and sent them into the arms of radicalism. How do you separate climate change refugees from war refugees. Incidentally, the so called Conservation Agriculture (see Montgomery, Growing a Revolution) would go a long way to mitigating the effects of greater floods and stronger droughts as it stores water in the soil when it is available for use during the dry.
-
michael sweet at 22:03 PM on 16 January 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #2
Norrism
I am interested in yyour opiion as a lawyer.
My understandinng is that if Exxon lies to their customers and the general public they are allowed to say whatever they want because of freedom of speech.
If they lie to their stockholders about how AGW affects their market value that is fraud and they can be legally punished.
It seems to me that the basic rule is you can lie to fool customers and hurt the public but you cannot lie to investors about their money.
What do you think?
-
michael sweet at 21:57 PM on 16 January 2018The Key To Slowing Global Warming
Norrism,
I read a little more of the Hartley paper. He chooses a wind only model for renewable energy. Then he finds that an enormous amount of storage is needed. This is a deliberate choice to maximize the amount of storage, and cost needed for renewable energy. I have referred you to at least 8 renewable models. Show me one that uses wind only with no solar power. Honest people search for the lowest cost solution, not the highest cost one. Since Texas has great solar resources the only reason not to use solar is to make renewable energy more expensive.
Wind and solar complement each other. There tends to be more wind at night and more solar during the day. Solar is also more consistent in the summer while wind is better in the winter. By using only wind Hartley requires much more storage to supply all energy. If he used a model of half wind and half solar he would dramaticaly reduce storage and the cost of renewable energy.
This is a deliberare choice I am surprised that you doubt Jacobson's detailed model where he counts all the generators needed in every state while you accept a contrived model like Hartley which details nothing. Hartley has ignored all the research on renewable energy to make his predetermined conclusion.
Hartely knows that his model is absurd, that is why he does not submit it for peer review. His blog was written for deniers to use on the web, no serious person would consider it. It is written in a scientific style to fool the uninformed. It speaks volumes that Curry posted it on her site. She has no excuse for posting such contrived garbage.
-
NorrisM at 16:14 PM on 16 January 2018The Key To Slowing Global Warming
michael sweet @ 38
I have to agree that the Hartley article puts up a straw man in the form of pumped storage but he clearly acknowledges what he is doing. In the first part of the article Hartley notes that he decided to use pumped storage costs as a measurement of storage costs because it was the only viable one given the much higher costs of battery storage. See bottom page 11. He later acknowledges that there are a "limited number of sites ... suitable for storage" at page 17.
I think why he provided the estimate in note 18 on page 23 that a carbon tax of $10/tonne is equal to a tax on natural gas of $0.53/MMBTU is to make the point that natural gas is cheaper even with, say, a $30 Carbon tax which would only equate to $1.59/MMBTU. Pumped storage does not really come into his model unless the assumption is made that you completely exclude natural gas from consideration.
But if the Xcel Energy quotes are correct which shows wind alone at around $0.018/kWh, then his Table 4 is incorrect in that wind does not even come into the picture in combination with natural gas in Table 4 even when natural gas prices are assumed to be 4.5 times the present price.
I think I might contribute a comment on the Curry website asking this question as to why some mix of wind and natural gas is not considered given the quotes for wind alone referenced in the Xcel Energy article by Christopher Arcus.
-
NorrisM at 15:12 PM on 16 January 2018Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
Bob Loblaw @ 37
Thanks. I have saved the instructions for next time so hopefully no pictures required. :)
-
Riduna at 14:26 PM on 16 January 2018The Key To Slowing Global Warming
Nigelj
"Reserves of lithium are probably larger than we realise" . . . . . Yes, and the largest deposits appear to be in Australia!
That said, it is fair to note that aluminium is far from a scarce product and what little has leaked out indicates that it could offer far higher storage than lithium. Research in this area is being kept very hush-hush, as are other alternatives such as zinc-air or flow batteries.
It seems likely that within a decade most households will have access to batteries which enable them to be 24/7 self-sufficient in electricity generated by roof-mounted solar panels. Grid scale generators would then be meeting the needs of the business and public sectors and heavy industries/transport, with continuity of supply provided by pumped hydro and battery storage.
Where do you think the future lies?
-
ubrew12 at 14:04 PM on 16 January 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #2
Exxon has been yelling "No Fire!" in a crowded theater (with no exits) that is, in fact, on fire. Therefore, I claim the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater that is not, in fact, on fire.
-
John Hartz at 13:55 PM on 16 January 2018The Key To Slowing Global Warming
Suggested supplemental reading...
German power sector: coal and nuclear down, renewables up in 2017 by Graig Morris, Energy Transition-The Global Energiewende, Jan 11, 2018
-
John Hartz at 13:53 PM on 16 January 2018The Key To Slowing Global Warming
Riduna:
Lots of scanning and speed reading.
-
Riduna at 13:47 PM on 16 January 2018The Key To Slowing Global Warming
michael sweet
This article from ANU scholars may be of interest. It refers to 22,000 mostly coastal sites suitable for development of pumped hydro. At present only 7 sites have been surveyed in detail and, so far, only 3 (Spencer Gulf, South Australia, Snowy 2, New South Wales and at Kidston, Queensland ) approved for and being developed.
-
wili at 13:31 PM on 16 January 2018Study finds that global warming exacerbates refugee crises
See for example: iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa00e
-
wili at 13:03 PM on 16 January 2018Study finds that global warming exacerbates refugee crises
Good points, nigel, especially about night time temperatures, and we all know that GW effects those most strongly. I also wonder if in some places the humidity levels are also exacerbating the problems with mere livability.
-
Bob Loblaw at 12:52 PM on 16 January 2018Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
NorrisM:
You need to linkify the link within the comment box before submitting. Otherwise it is just more text.
Type in some text (either the link itself, or text you want displayed in place of the link). Select it with the mouse. Click on the "Insert" tab above the comment box. In the new set of pictures that appears as menu choices, click on the one that looks like a chain link or infinity symbol. A dialog box opens up. Put the link/URL into the text box labelled Link URL. Click on "insert".
If you haven't already selected some text before opening the link dialog box, it will have two text boxes to fill. One for the text you want displayed, one for the actual link. You will need to put something in both boxes. Then "insert".
If this doesn't make it clear, I will try to create some pictures.
-
Riduna at 12:01 PM on 16 January 2018The Key To Slowing Global Warming
John!
How do you find these things?
Nice to see Queensland still leads the way with number of installations (parochial gloat!) though domestic battery uptake has been a bit slow. Many consumers are waiting for an improvement on the Tesla II offering and I don’t think they will have much longer to wait
Total capacity of domestic rooftop installations in Australia now exceeds 6 GW.
Prev 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 Next
