Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 Next
Comments 28651 to 28700:
-
John Hartz at 05:52 AM on 29 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
Moderation Comment:
We are investigating whether or not Superposition and Henchman21 are sockpuppets. Until we complete our investion, please do not repond to any posts made by either Superposition and Henchman21.
Moderator Response:[DB] Henchman21 is confirmed as a sock puppet of SuperPosition. Both user id's have had their posting rights rescinded.
-
Petr Glad at 05:20 AM on 29 June 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #26B
destruction (treating) flue gas emissions and the Future power engineering
http://www.etenergycorp.com/
Global warming, power generation, and pollution
https://sites.google.com/site/environmentalfrompg1/home/apvrvv
Site "scisyhp-physics - PG-1"
https://sites.google.com/site/scisyhpphysicspg1/Moderator Response:[JH] Your post is too cryptic to ascertain why you have posted the links to three separate websites. Please explain the points you want to make in a new post. Thank you.
-
MA Rodger at 02:57 AM on 29 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
Henchman21 @185.
Why do you say the quote(s) do(es)n't "say that variable RE can supply a baseload"? Is the 'RE' being mentioned not variable enough for you? Or is there some part of 'baseload' that you consider isn't supplied by providing "100% renewable elecrticity"? Do explain.
Moderator Response:[JH] We have noted the similarity between Henchm21's postings and those of Superpoition. If there is only one person behind these two user names, the penalty of banishment will be imposed per the SkS Comments Policy. We have zero tolerence for sock puppetry.
-
Henchman21 at 01:49 AM on 29 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
RH.
Happily but I am concerned at the disparity.
IPCC carries many non peer reviewed reports without objection... If Leo Smith MA is wrong then it should be for factual inaccuracy rather than by result. I hope you agree.
Moderator Response:[RH] I highly suggest you read through the commenting policy for this site. As a moderator here I'm asking you to move on from this track of the discussion, not perpetuate it.
-
Henchman21 at 01:34 AM on 29 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
183
Incidentally, your quote does not say that variable RE can supply a baseload.
-
Henchman21 at 01:17 AM on 29 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
MA Roger 183
A master of arts isn't good enough now? Since when?
There's a few people on SKS with MAs who may take exception to that view.
By all means criticise the content but to attack the credentials and the person as a mechanism of slighting the paper should be beneath you.
Moderator Response:[RH] Please accept the fact that the Leo Smith piece is a very weak citation and move on. We trust you can find stronger citations to support your arguments.
-
MA Rodger at 00:50 AM on 29 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
Henchman21 @180 & michael sweet @181.
That Leo Smith thesis has been addressed already up-thread having been introduced by SuperPosition @129. It didn't get a good reception. Indeed, it was introduced elsewhere on SkS back in 2012 but failed even to arrive at this thread. Myself, I don't think Leo Smith, MA. is at all worth citing on this issue.SuperPosition @179.
Spinning reserve operates over a period of minutes. Base load applies to periods of hours. Your confusion does you no credit.
Your objections about paywalls would be taken more seriously if you were attentive to the papers when initially provided.
The abstract of the Elliston et al (2013) paper kicks off with the quote:-Least cost options are presented for supplying the Australian National Electricity Market (NEM) with 100% renewable electricity using wind, photovoltaics, concentrating solar thermal (CST) with storage, hydroelectricity and biofuelled gas turbines.
I would have thought that would satisfy your yearning to answer your question @176 "has anyone got any citations that back up the contention that variable RE generators are baseload supplies?"
If not, perhaps Elliston et al (2012) would do it.This research demonstrates that 100% renewable electricity in the NEM, at the current reliability standard, would have been technically feasible for the year 2010 given some particular renewable energy generation mixes including high levels of variable resources such as wind and solar.
-
Henchman21 at 00:45 AM on 29 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
Michael Sweet 181....... Your wild claims
Calm down. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Please reference all your claims and we can go from there.
Moderator Response:[RH] You're a little late to the conversation. Michael Sweet has already cited his references.
-
michael sweet at 23:08 PM on 28 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
Henchman21,
Your link is to a white paper by Leo Smith who has a MA in electrical sciences. Most of his references are to Wikipedia. It is not peer reviewed, it is just a blog post. In additon, it is dated 2012 and the cost of RE has plummetted since then. At SkS we prefer to have peer reviewed papers.
Can you find peer reviewed material to support your wild claim?
-
Henchman21 at 22:14 PM on 28 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
SuperPosition 179. That is completely correct, to be fair the article does not specify variable RE, however it must be a given that most RE is of the variable variety so at best the strapline is misleading.
There is an excellent explanation of the reasons behind this in Limitations of 'Renewable' Energy by Leo Smith MA (Electrical sciences)
I don't necessarily agree with all (or strength) of the final conclusions but the core text is sound.
-
Daniel Bailey at 21:11 PM on 28 June 2015Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
In order for subaerial volcanoes to warm the ocean, they would have to be erupting on orders of magnitude larger than observed. This also would be affecting the acidification of the ocean, which we know is derived from human FF usages. Per Gerlach 2011:
"To create more than 35 gigatons per year of volcanic CO2 would require that magma across the globe be produced in amounts exceeding 850 cubic kilometers per year, even for magma hypothetically containing 1.5-weight-percent CO2. It is implausible that this much magma production—more than 40 times the annual midocean ridge magma supply—is going unnoticed, on land or beneath the sea. Besides, the release of more than 35 gigatons per year of volcanic CO2 into the ocean would overwhelm the observed acid-buffering capacity of seawater and contradict seawater’s role as a major sink for atmospheric CO2 [Walker, 1983; Khatiwala et al., 2009]. In short, the belief that volcanic CO2exceeds anthropogenic CO2 implies either unbelievable volumes of magma production or unbelievable concentrations of magmatic CO2. These dilemmas and their related problematic implications corroborate the observational evidence that volcanoes emit far less CO2 than human activities.
It is informative to calculate volcanic analogs that elucidate the size of humanity’s carbon footprint by scaling up volcanism to the hypothetical intensity required to generate CO2 emissions at anthropogenic levels. For example, using the 2010 ACM factor of 135 (Figure 1) to scale up features of present-day volcanism, Kilauea volcano scales up to the equivalent of 135 Kilauea volcanoes; scaling up all active subaerial volcanoes evokes a landscape with the equivalent of about 9500 active present-day volcanoes [Siebert et al., 2010]. Similarly, the seafloor mid-ocean ridge system scales up to the equivalent of 135 such systems. Of particular interest, though, is the roughly 4 cubic kilometers per year of current global volcanic magma production [Crisp, 1984], which would scale up to about 540 cubic kilometers per year. This significantly exceeds the estimated average magma output rates of continental flood basalt volcanism [Self, 2010], which range from about 10 to 100 cubic kilometers per year. Thus, annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions may already exceed the annual CO2 emissions of several continental flood basalt eruptions, consistent with the findings of Self et al. [2005]."
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php
Tom Curtis further unpacks this topic very clearly in a comment here.
It's not subaerial volcanoes.
-
MA Rodger at 19:47 PM on 28 June 2015Welcome to Skeptical Science
versuvian7 @1.
I have a response to your third question on a more appropriate thread here.
-
MA Rodger at 19:45 PM on 28 June 2015Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
vesuvian7 @here
An estimate of the heat content of the earth was reported by Dickson & Fanelli (2004) thus:-
It has been estimated that the total heat content of the Earth, reckoned above an assumed average surface temperature of 15 °C, is of the order of 12.6 x 1024 MJ, and that of the crust is of the order of 5.4 x 1021 MJ (Armstead, 1983).
This seems perhaps low to me but the original reference isn't apparent on-line to check. Taking the 12.6e24 figure, I reckon that amount of heat would raise the oceans by 2,100ºC.
Your question about how big a fissure would be required to heat the oceans 1ºF in 100 years is not really answerable. Rather, let's stick with how much rock would need to erupt into the oceans with the heat content equal to the task. (Adding in the fissure size required with your time limit of 100 years would embroil you in some serious modeling and a mass of assumptions, so I wouldn't expect anything sensible on that score.)
If lava has a heat capacity one fifth that of water and arrives at a temperature of, say 1,800 °F, and if the oceans are 360 million sq km and 4km deep, then you'd need 4 million cu km of the stuff which is indeed rather a lot. Krakatoa ejected 25 cu km. Supervolcanoes are classified as those ejecting more than 1,000 cu km (VEI>8) with the largest estimated as "well over 15,000 km³" (see Wiki here). So I reckon that demonstrates that the actual heat coming out from volcanoes has not been a significant player in global climate for billions of years.
The earth's store of internal energy is remarkably constant. The temperature gradient through the crust has even been used in attempts to provide a record of past surface temperature.
-
SuperPosition at 18:50 PM on 28 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
Michael Sweet 177:: Here is a list of over 100 articles that referenced Budichak et al. 2103 (linked above). Many of them will contain the information you claim you want. The first one is Elliston et al 2013 , also linked above, which provides all the information you have asked for.
I'm sorry Michael, but I looked and none of the ones I looked at say what you say they do. All you have done is google something and hoped that, statistically, one of those sites behind a paywall must concur with your view. That is not how it works.
The one you specifically describe, Elliston et al 2013 does not say that or anything like it - perhaps you misread it, do you have a quote in context?
Since you have linked nothing but an outdated Wikipedia article from 2010 and a Der Speigel rag.
You have repeatedly made this claim and ignore the IPCC [144] et al which I posted - what is your problem with the IPCC? The IPCC is a trusted body that works to high standards, if you disagree with them then you should explain why you think that they are wrong. The two Der Speigel articles are also in world press/AP stories - whereas your rebuttal to the news was a RE trade magazine that supports the industry and even then it specifically did not say what you say it does.
❝Load (electrical): The demand for electricity by (thousands to millions)
power users at the same moment aggregated and raised by the losses in
transport and delivery, and to be supplied by the integrated power supply
system....//.... Base load is power continuously demanded over the period.❞A generator that only provides power intermittantly cannot supply the base load unless (a) it is only a minor component of your grid (b) you use spinning reserve (c) you use a method of storage and no grid operator has plans for this.
-
Tristan at 09:05 AM on 28 June 2015Welcome to Skeptical Science
Hi vesuvian and welcome to skeptical science.
Please allow me to be frank: You're not going to be able to figure out 1 and 2 by yourself even with the data (which is pretty easy to find at the GHCN and RSS websites).
If you're keen to learn more about climate science, here is a really good place to start, it contains a good primer on temperature data (incl adjustments and raw data) and adresses heat coming from the earth's interior.
-
John Hartz at 09:00 AM on 28 June 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #26A
@Treesong2: The correct links have been inserted. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
-
Rob Painting at 08:59 AM on 28 June 2015Cracking the mystery of the corrosive ocean
Treesong - true, it's not clear in this post, but my interpretation is that the upper North Atlantic Ocean became denser as a result of surface warming and thus higher evaporation, leaving behind saltier, denser, water in the upper ocean. Eventually, the gradual warming in the deep ocean and the increased salinity (density) in the upper ocean reached a critical point whereupon the surface water began to sink. This denser surface water displaced the corrosive deep water - causing it to spill over the sill into the rest of the ocean.
-
Treesong2 at 08:31 AM on 28 June 2015Cracking the mystery of the corrosive ocean
I don't understand the physics here. Most heat enters the ocean from above, so how can the deep ocean become warmer than the top? Unless the world cools, of course, but in that case I'd expect the oceans to shrink rather than overflow the bathtub. It's not like the isolated north Atlantic could be affected by a La Niña-like circulation.
Does it have something to do with the relative densities of sea water and soda water?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:24 AM on 28 June 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #25B
Knaugle @ 9.
You may benefit from reviewing the SkS detailed presentation regarding Satellite Data here. There is a significant amount of manipulation of information required to produce 'satellite temperature data'. That is basis for suggesting it is like reconstructive surgery. It appears to be far more complex and prone to fault than the required adjustments of surface temperature data. For one thing, the weather balloon data of the upper atmosphere temperatures that can be used to correlate the satellite data manipulations with are rather sparse.
Satellite data may eventually become more reliable. However, the Free Mass Open Online Course (indicated at the top right of the home page), includes a very good presentation explaining why the surface temperature will show warming due to increased CO2 while the higher atmosphere will have less warming as the increased CO2 keeps more heat at the surface.
I hope that helps.
-
Treesong2 at 08:21 AM on 28 June 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #26A
The link in the Alaskan wildfire section is to a Bloomberg piece on attribution of AGW, not to Mooney's article.
-
vesuvian7 at 07:46 AM on 28 June 2015Welcome to Skeptical Science
I'm looking for some links. Hopefully someone here can help me.
1. I'm hearing a lot of fuss about satelite data diverging from other climate data sets. (https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/05/19/how-giss-temperatures-are-diverging-from-rss/) I'm assuming that these are public data sets. Can someone point me to where I could download them? I'm assuming they're a few hundred gigs or so of text when uncompressed?
2. I've also heard that there was a recent change of normalization procedures that deniers are saying increased warming, but this site seems to claim made no difference. Can someone point me to data sets that I can examine and decide? A few pointers of where to start looking would be appreciated too.
3. There's been a lot of study of the sun, the oceans, and glaciers. Is anybody aware of a study quantifying the amount of heat contained in the Earth's core? Hypothetically speaking, how big of a fizzure would need to open in the ocean floor to warm the oceans 1 degree farenheit over 100 years? Is there even enough energy in the earth's core to do that? My gut says that someone's thought of this and studied it ad-nauseum. I'm just curious what they found. Can someone point me to their research?
Thank you!
Moderator Response:[Rob P] - The oceans are warming from the top down - see the image below adapted from the IPCC AR5. Granted not a lot of readers understand oceanography, but geothermal heating as a possible cause would require some crazy kind of physics to match the observations - buoyancy considerations for instance.
[TD] In addition to the link One Planet Only Forever gave you regarding satellite data, see climate statistician Tamino's recent post of balloon data, "Desperate for a Pause."
For the "recent change of normalization" see the SkS post "What You Need to Know About the NOAA Global Warming Faux Pause Paper."
-
wili at 06:14 AM on 28 June 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #26A
Good article on the 6 heatwaves hitting the planet, but already a bit out of date: The Pakistan heatwave has now far exceed the "nearly 700 reported in that article; latest reports have over 1200.www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/06/pakistan-heatwave-death-toll-climbs-1200-150627153012878.html
-
John Hartz at 00:34 AM on 28 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
Moderation Comment
Superposition coninues to blatantly violate the SkS Comments Policy's prohibition of excessive repetition. Consequently his/her future comments on this thread will be summarily deleted.
-
michael sweet at 22:02 PM on 27 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
Superposition,
Here is a list of over 100 articles that referenced Budichak et al. 2103 (linked above). Many of them will contain the information you claim you want. The first one is Elliston et al 2013 , also linked above, which provides all the information you have asked for. Since I have posted this information before and you have not read or responded to the information contained in them, why should I expect you to read them now?
Since you have linked nothing but an outdated Wikipedia article from 2010 and a Der Speigel rag, why do you require me to provide peer reviewed data? If you have nothing peer reviewed to contribute to the discusssion you need to stop wasting everyone elses time.
Since you are obviously just a troll I will no longer post any responses to you.
Moderator Response:[RH] Let's try to keep the tone in check. Thx.
-
SuperPosition at 20:28 PM on 27 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
Any attempt to turn this thread into a discussion of nuclear options instead RE issues will be deleted. Posts must be on topic or they will be removed.
Can we agree that we are discussing the myth that largescale Variable RE sources by themselves are compatable with baseload requirements?
If so then pursuant to this, comparisons with genuine baseload suppliers such as low carbon CCS- CCGT/OCGT gas, nuclear, hydro or biofuels are inevitable and have been made elsewhere on this thread without comment from any moderator.
Even fusion has been discussed at length - not a peep. So I don't mean to pester, but is one rule for all really too much to expect?
Back to the subject, has anyone got any citations that back up the contention that variable RE generators are baseload supplies?
Accepting that they would require the addittion of grid storage and grid restructuring, is anyone aware of any costs applied to this - I cannot find a single country with that plan in the pipeline.
If that is the case then surely it should be revisited as an idea, no?
Moderator Response:[DB] Moderation complaints and off-topic snipped.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:25 AM on 27 June 2015Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
Oh, and you're right. It was three years ago, not two! Amazing.
-
KR at 06:14 AM on 27 June 2015Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
Rob Honeycutt - An excellent, and very amusing, point.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:12 AM on 27 June 2015Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
MA Rogers... A tad ironic being that one of the latest conspiracy theories about Cook13 is that Environmental Research Letters was created for the purpose of publishing the 97% Consensus paper.
-
michael sweet at 04:23 AM on 27 June 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #25B
Knaugle,
I think that you have a point. However, I do not think that real scientists can do anything about Spencer and Christy misleading the public. The people in congress who invited them to testify got what they wanted.
Surveys indicate that most people now think that warming is real and a little more than half of people realize that humans are at fault for the increasing temperature. As Alaska burns, California drys up, Pakistan and India drop dead and a new temperature record is set this year more people will realize that AGW really is a problem. Hopefully they will identify the problem and ask for solutions sonner rather than later.
I teach High School. Over the past 8 years I have seen a dramatic decrease in skeptics in my classes. Hopefully we will soon see a dramatic increase in those who insist on action.
-
MA Rodger at 03:40 AM on 27 June 2015Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
Rob Honeycutt @68.
The appearance of an ebullient Evan Jones to claim (in the present tense) credit for (actually) an almost three-year-old comment may be down to a new outlet appearing for the publication of atmospheric science. It is called The Open Atmospheric Society and according to this web-page the founder is a chap called Anthony Willard Watts which should make papers written by Anthony Willard Watts a lot easier to get published.
http://theoas.org/
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/19/skeptics-found-scientific-society-to-escape-journals-that-keep-out-dissenters/
-
Tom Curtis at 03:31 AM on 27 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Christiana Figueres
Evidently Micawber @3 does not know the meaning of the word "rant".
Nor does he know the role of peer review in science. Peer review is a means whereby published papers are screened by a panel of people with relevant expertise to see that they do not contain any obvious fraud, unphysical assumptions or blunders of analysis. Normally peer reviewers are helpful, and will try to point out ways in which the paper can be improved, but the fact that a paper has been peer reviewed is only an imprimature of those three basic criteria. That means of course, that peer reviewed papers can contain fraud, unphysical assumptions or blunders of analysis but they will not be obvious frauds, unphysical assumptions or blunders. At least, they will not be obvious if the peer reviewed process worked.
Given this low standard of the imprimature of peer review, you have to wonder what it says about a paper when they seek to avoid proper peer review, either by publication in a low impact journal with no history of publication in the field, or as in this case by publication in a "journal" whose business model requires not properly peer reviewing papers as doing so will reduce the number of publication fees recieved. The reasonable assumption is that if a paper is not published with proper peer review, in the author's estimate it would not pass peer review, and hence (at least subconsiously) in the author's estimate it contains fraud or unphysical assumptions or outright blunders of analysis.
And Matthew's 2015 includes blunders applenty. Blunder's such as treating a warming trend dating back only to Oct 2013 as being somehow representative of climate change (ie of change in long term statistical averages), or of treating purely regional temperature anomalies as being indicative of crossing global target temperature levels. Or blunders (at best) such as saying climate models "confuse heat with temperature", or do not include "density temperature-salinity function[s]", "Clausius-Clapeyron evaporation", "vertical tropical cells" or "wind-driven surface currents". Even more astounding as a blunder is the claim that climate studies do not include the "infra-red GHG heat trap", ie, the greenhouse effect.
These examples are just from the abstract alone. I pointed out that Matthew's claims about what was and was not included in climate studies were false without specifically enumerating them. Indeed, while I have expanded on that, I have still not enumerated them as there are plenty more in the body of the paper, some as astonishing as the claim that "Climate studies ... do not include ...[the] infra-red GHG heat trap". But once a paper starts claiming that climate studies ignore the greenhouse effect, do we really need to take it seriously anymore?
Micawber evidently thinks so but the world is too full of crackpot ideas to trouble ourselve wading through them in hopes of finding a gem of wisdom. I don't have enough time to read peer reviewed science as it is. Nobody does! So I am not going to lose that time in the hopes that somebody who accuses climate scientists of ignoring the greenhouse effect may also have said something sensible.
So, when Micawber asks me "What are your qualifications for being so dismissive?", the answer is very simple. I have a brain, and I use it! It would be nice if he did likewise.
Moderator Response:[JH] Please keep it civil!
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:12 AM on 27 June 2015Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
Evan @67... That suggestion for a discussion was made almost two years ago (and made by a commenter, not the original authors of the article). It seems prudent to wait until the paper is actually published and then SkS authors will review the paper again.
-
RickG at 02:01 AM on 27 June 2015Cracking the mystery of the corrosive ocean
With respect to the increase in temperature, would the doubling effect of CO2 be more important than the starting concentration?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:56 AM on 27 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Christiana Figueres
Micawber... One small point here on this comment: "After all, the north Pacific is already widely reported to be +3C which is 50% more than the supposed target limit of +2C. Do you dispute this?"
The 2C limit is a reference to global average temperature. A rise of 2C in the global average would be inclusive of less than 2C near the equator and much more than 2C in the Arctic. Saying that the north Pacific is already +3C has no bearning on the 2C limit (other than its relative contribution to the global average).
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:46 AM on 27 June 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #25B
You could also take a peek at what Dr Carl Mears at RSS says about the differences between surface temps and satellite data.
As a data scientist, I am among the first to acknowledge that all climate datasets likely contain some errors. However, I have a hard time believing that both the satellite and the surface temperature datasets have errors large enough to account for the model/observation differences. For example, the global trend uncertainty (2-sigma) for the global TLT trend is around 0.03 K/decade (Mears et al. 2011). Even if 0.03 K/decade were added to the best-estimate trend value of 0.123 K/decade, it would still be at the extreme low end of the model trends. A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!). So I don’t think the problem can be explained fully by measurement errors.
[emphasis added]
-
KR at 01:39 AM on 27 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Christiana Figueres
Micawber - I was a little more perturbed by these quite unprofessional statements in the abstract:
"Corporate governance degraded physics teaching in only 60 years. Individual discovery and data collection was lost. [...] Skeptics, politicians, statisticians, those with stakes in the status quo, and established research censors obstructing scientific progress squabble in ignorance while the globe burns."
Seriously? This is a rant. And the questionable physics involved in statements like the following certainly doesn't help:
"All ocean near-surface gyre currents harmonize with sunspot cycles. Net cooling by polar icemelt masks catastrophic exponential ocean warming and icemelt. [...] We use only experimental groundtruth from high quality coastal ocean timeseries data without the imposition of statistical or model re-processing" (emphasis added)
"...double-exponential..." (???)
No, gyres are not harmonized with sunspots, no, coastal only data is insufficient, and no, you cannot avoid statistical evaluation of your data. Double-exponential functions [ A^(bx) ] grow faster than factorials - but there is absolutely no evidence of such rates of growth in climate systems. Nor any physical justification thereof.
This is clearly a heartfelt paper, but given even a quick perusal it fails to meet my personal criteria for statistically meaningful data, for avoidance of scientific howlers, for actual peer review, and overall histrionics.
Beware confirmation bias - even if a paper's conclusions and message resonate with your own, you need to apply appropriate skepticism to the work.
-
knaugle at 00:54 AM on 27 June 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #25B
@Dunkerson and Hunneycutt
I agree with both of you. I am of the opinion that were I to live on the top of Pike's Peak, say 14,000 feet above sea level, I might rely much more on satellite data for my climate opinions, since that is about the mid-point of the lower troposphere. However I live in Virginia, and more like 800 feet altitude. Still, I think you cannot make a "reconstructive surgery" claim because satellite data isn't showing the warming you want, any more than others can make the "urban heat island and filling in the blank spots" claim because surface data is showing more warming than they want to see. In the same sense that the scientific truism that "all models are inaccurate, but many models are useful" is correct, both surface temperature data and satellite data is useful when used properly and with the political bias filtered out. What I have trouble finding is a credible discussion of the limitations of the various data. I can find a LOT of politically biased claims attacking each respective set. That said, I have more respect for what NOAA and NASA say than I do what Spencer and Christy say.
-
knaugle at 00:31 AM on 27 June 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #25B
@Moderator
These are not my assertions. I think you misread what I was saying. Rather I get frustrated at other people claiming these things. I need only read about Dr. Christy's testimony to Sen. Inhofe's committee a while back to suspect he plays fast and loose with the facts when it suits him. I am not wrong in stating there are a lot of people claiming we aren't warming, because satellite data is "relible" and shows no warming for nearly 20 years, and that surface data isn't worth much. I rather doubt that is a bogus assertion on my part. -
Micawber at 00:12 AM on 27 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Christiana Figueres
I see absolutely no physics in the rant of Tom Curtis. He attacks the messenger (the journal) not the message. Could he please enlighten us as to which of the quoted physics is wrong?
"Climate studies confuse heat with temperature, do not include basal icemelt, density temperature-salinity function, Clausius-Clapeyron evaporation exponential skin temperature function, asymmetric brineheat sequestration, solar and tidal pumping, infra-red GHG heat trap, vertical tropical cells, freshwater warm pools; or wind-driven surface currents at 3 percent of windspeed."
The author claims that pan evaporation over land is used instead of the correct Clausius-Clapeyron evaporation at the air-sea interface. He claims that a recent paper using the wrong evaporation shows uniform evaporation night and day at the equator. Is he wrong?
What are your qualifications for being so dismissive? Are you qualified to make such as a sweeping dismissal?
As I understand it, the author used what you call the vanity press because the journals in which he formerly published now charge him to see his own papers That includes Nature, Journal of Geophysical Research and the Quartley Journal of The Royal Meteorologicial Society. Doesn't that make them the predatory press?
I think the point he makes is that this predatory press is not open to people like him with over 50 years experience and a very wide and deep physics background. Richard Smith of Imperial College is referenced as establishing the damage done by unethical predatory science publishing business. As I understand it, ResearchGate was founded to give free open access for genuine researchers without paywalls.
I'm puzzled as to why the claim that the author did not publish after 30 years should have any relevance. Perhaps he retired. Does it mean he forgot all he knew? Just what is the meaning of this rant? It is certainly not scientific discussion.
Scientific method depends on verification of theories by experimental evidence. The paper uses centuries of daily data. Where is your evidence to the contrary?
Please would you post which physics is wrong in the above quote together with the experimental verification field data.SkepticalScience has always attacked people who make claims but cannot substantiate them. There are far too many armchair critics and far too few who actually go into the field and get real data. If you cannot do that then take it seriously. What have you to lose?
After all, the north Pacific is already widely reported to be +3C which is 50% more than the supposed target limit of +2C. Do you dispute this?
Please let readers look into the claims in the paper. The author says that well-founded trends suggest it will be +4C by 2016.
What if he is right and you are wrong? You'll soon find out who was fiddling while Rome burns as the author suggests.
It would be better if it were sooner rather than later. Please let us know the secure physical basis for dismissing the findings of this paper. I hope you can do this. If not we really do have a serious crisis.Moderator Response:[JH] The angry and argumentative tone of your comment is not welcome here. Please do not use it into your future posts.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
knaugle at 00:10 AM on 27 June 2015Cracking the mystery of the corrosive ocean
What is missing here is both the starting CO2 concentration and how much it increased in the <10,000 year time frame. I suppose I can look it up in other sources, but still....
-
John Hartz at 00:01 AM on 27 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
@SuperPosition:
Your most recent comemnt was deleted becuase it constituted a moderation complant which is forbidden by the SkS Comments Policy.
Given your repeated violations of SkS Comments Policy, you are on the cusp of relinquishing your privilege of posting comments on SkS.
-
ranyl at 23:00 PM on 26 June 2015Cracking the mystery of the corrosive ocean
Thank Alvin interesting and worrying clearly.
Some thoughts,
There was no ice on the planet in the PETM before the CO2 injection, having no ice will ~half the equilibirium climate sensitivity compared to today; as we have ice melting.
GEOLOGIC CONSTRAINTS ON THE GLACIAL AMPLIFICATION OF PHANEROZOIC CLIMATE SENSITIVITY
JEFFREY PARK* and DANA L. ROYER**
[American Journal of Science, Vol. 311, January, 2011, P. 1–26, DOI 10.2475/01.2011.01],
The PETM also had a mucher higher starting CO2 ppm, therefore in terms of actual change in heating forcing the addition of CO2 then has much less of an effective than now. We are starting at a very low CO2 level in comparison to then and thereforein terms of doubling a 7000-10,000Gt means alot more, and therefore much larger effective heating forcing will result for the same addition of a specific CO2 amount.
Therefore to compare in terms heating disturbance rate therefore, although a 10x faster actual CO2 injection than nature has ever managed is concerning, the above factors will influence things in a way to make it even faster than the 10x, al least 20x due to the ice albedo effect and more again due to lower starting CO2.
Food for thought.
However also possible reassuring that the 5C CO2 induced temperature rise didn't produce the deep sea die off without the addition of the corrosive water, which shouldn't occur this time...is that right?
-
Evan Jones at 20:55 PM on 26 June 2015Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
I'd posit that someone here, who may have some conection to Anthony, invite him to *politely* discuss Dana and Kevin's analysis, in the SkS spirit.
That'll be me. Fire away.
-
chriskoz at 13:42 PM on 26 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
Xulonn@81,
number of people - even in the U.S. - who are killed in floods [These are] people in their cars trying to drive on flooded streets and roads [...] If they cannot see such obvious dangers, how do we expect them to see the much less apparent dangers of AGW/CC
That's a very good observation. Concerning AGW/CC, it applies to politicians who usually look no further than next election cycle, whereas AGW mitigation they need to legislate requires much longer inter-generational timescale. Humans in general are incredibly short-sighted, even blatantly silly when not vividely threatened but rather inconvenienced by invisible threat. Like real boiling frogs. But that anecdote is not true. Hopefully, it also turns out not true for boiling humans and something like this encyclical or next more dire warnings prompt them to jump out while they can.
-
John Hartz at 11:59 AM on 26 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
Moderation Comment:
Despite repeated warnings about engaging in excessive repitition, SuperPosition continues to drone on. His/her most recent comment was therefore deleted.
Please do not respond to his comments. Doing so just gives him/her an excuse to regurtitate his prior statements.
Thank you.
-
SuperPosition at 11:04 AM on 26 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
[RH] Can we assume your reference to "denialists" is not in reference to those who deny AGW? Your meaning is not exactly clear in this comment.
I'm sorry Rob I don't know what the current colective noun for AGW deniers is, but yes.
It is a sort of stubborn ignorance and pseudo science where belief and consparacy theories trumps rational thought. Do we only see this in AGW denial? No.
Rob, you and I have discussed this at length and you already know my thoughts on the lobbyists from WWF, GreenPeace, FoE,Sierra Club, green Party (all 70 of them internationally and the 55 Green MEPs in the European parliament being against CCS and/or Nuclear.
If SkS is prepared to fight pseudoscience and misguided belief whenn it affects the future of the planet then how can it not attack the irrationalism and anti-science of the other argument as well?
par exemplar
Moderator Response:[PS] This is a site devoted to debunking climate myths. There are other places more appropriate to discussing other anti-science issues. What next? evolution, AIDS, antivaxxers? This is not the place for another round pro/anti nuclear debates. Take it to Brave New Climate.
Any attempt to turn this thread into a discussion of nuclear options instead RE issues will be deleted. Posts must be on topic or they will be removed.
Further note: This thread is about a specific myth. It is not a place to discuss RE or alternatives in general. Enough.
-
baeb at 10:36 AM on 26 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
Of course, population needs to be curbed and the Pope's willful blindness to the issue makes huge amounts of trouble across the globe. But if, as seems likely, 20% of world population are presently consuming 80% of the resources and most likely causing the warming--not to mention past pollution that is still up there--, they are the ones that are truley over-populated. Resource control (which is the opposite of consumerism)--not exactly population control is the main need. The disconnect between the labor of production--the sweat if you will--and consumption by the planet's priviledged is what needs to end quickly.
-
Evan Jones at 09:44 AM on 26 June 2015Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
You'll be seeing the real thing soon enough. It has been a long hard slog with many corrections.
Here we offer preliminary constructive criticism, noting some issues we have identified with the paper in its current form, which we suggest the authors address prior to submittal to a journal.
We appreiate the criticisms here. Some of them are quite valid. We will be providing answers on the homogenization issue. TOBS, station moves, and MMTS conversion are now fully addressed. Data is fully anomalized (though we show both sets).
We will, of course, provide documentation showing all comparison. For example, you can compare Class 1\2 stations raw (+MMTS adjustment) with fully adjusted Class 1\2 data (or with any other set or subset, either raw+MMTS or fully adjusted.
If anyone has any questions at this point, i will be happy to answer them. -
MA Rodger at 08:22 AM on 26 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
SuperPosition @170.
You seem to be repeating your comment @139. I don't consider it in any way "ingenious" to do this, but I have to ask you what the devil you mean by:-
"The fact is that alternative technologies (ie alternative to variable RE like solar and wind) exist now that do the job faster, not require grid restructuring or storage and do the job just as well."
Moderator Response:[PS] This discussion is rapidly veering offtopic. Please stick to the topic of the thread.
-
SuperPosition at 07:36 AM on 26 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
Michael Sweet 165:: When you are hostile to RE and make repeated false, unsupported claims you should expect others to be hostile to your pet solution.
I'm certainly not hostile to RE and I'm sorry if you actually thought that ...
Variable RE has its place - but do I think it is pancea? No. It has it's place in the mix which at risk of being lambasted for repetition, is something outlined in the DDPP already linked to you with others.
The thing I'm hostile to Micheal, is the bias, inflexibility, antiscientific scaremonguering and boorishness that you see most commonly, but not exclusively, amongst denialists.
I'm pro a solution to AGW - which I hope you agree with me is the actual issue. If you can also agree that the best solution to AGW/ACC is the one that is most efficient in purpose, time and cost (and therefore the one most likely to work) then I don't see a problem.
As it stands today, I see a danger that with so many people emotionally invested in variable RE (to the exclusion of other technologies) backed by powerful lobbying groups then we are at risk of demanding that the policy makers act ineffectually, ignore the science and only do what the focus groupsm say to keep on being elected.... whilst the planet loses all its ice.
I genuinely believe that is a risk.
I strongly urge you to read the DDPP link plus the links to IPCC and all the links on cost, safety and CO2 which I put up earlier.
Moderator Response:[RH] Can we assume your reference to "denialists" is not in reference to those who deny AGW? Your meaning is not exactly clear in this comment.
Prev 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 Next
