Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 Next
Comments 33801 to 33850:
-
michael sweet at 10:32 AM on 7 October 2014How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
Glenn,
Budischak also found solar was cost effective for only about 5% of supply. It strikes me that studies like this become rapidly dated and need to be redone. Budischak was only offering a perspective, one that did not include storage. Arguing that storage makes renewables too expensive is not necessarily true.
For our discussion I think we need to keep our minds open to a variety of options. Price on a lot of strategies is rapidly changing and it is difficult to predict the winners now.
If nuclear can lower their costs with pre-approved designs it might become cost effective.
Until renewables are about 40% of supply on a regular basis it makes little difference, storage is not needed and backup is already built. The change from 40% to 100 percent is where these issues become important. Currently Holland uses the EU grid for renewable backup just as France uses the grid to off load excess nuclear at night.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:03 AM on 7 October 2014Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record
Ashton @12, you represented me as making a claim that implied MGST would increase monotonically. That was not the case, and transparently not the case from what I wrote. You are not pretending that you made no such claim - which quite frankly makes me even more dubious of your honesty.
-
Composer99 at 06:57 AM on 7 October 2014Tackling global warming will improve health, save lives, and save money
FYI the article "breaks" in preview mode at the end of the blockquote and it's messing up all the following articles on the front page.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 06:05 AM on 7 October 2014How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
Michael
Budischak are using lithium batteries as the form of energy storage in their study and data from 2008. In contrast the links above to Isentropic are giving storage costs for that technology 1/4 the costs used by Budischak.
This is a fast moving area and it would be interesting if they repeated their study for differing storage costs. I wonder how sensitive the over-build ratio is to storage costs?
-
Paul D at 05:59 AM on 7 October 2014Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
Non-Scientist@50
I disagree with you. The per capita approach is a good measurement. Taking your example, then a household of 14 people who produce a total CO2 figure that is double of a smaller household (of one) is indeed better and more efficient.
The fact is those 14 people are most likely using fewer resources and use less energy each. If they copied the other household, then they would be producing 7 times as much CO2 (0.5 x 14) as the 14 person household.
CO2 emissions is all about people. It's about how individuals can live whilst minimising their impact.
-
jja at 03:01 AM on 7 October 2014How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
At 400ppm CO2 we will experience increasing temperatures for the next 40 years until we reach equilibrium gloal warming of 1.8C above pre-industrial levels. At this new equilibrium in 2055 the Arctic sea ice will have completely melted and the northern hemisphere will be largely snow and ice free by June 1 each year. This albedo shift will produce a regional warming in the summer of over 8C above current averages.
The IPCC AR5 report does not include this schedule in their analysis with most models projecting sea ice to remain perennial through 2065 and then reaching minimum in mid September. Therefore their models severely underestimate the albedo forcing.
The combined regional warming and albedo-driven warming will produce a massive decomposition of tundra. This carbon cycle feedback is not included in the IPCC models.
Over the next 100 years the CO2 equivalent emissions of arctic permafrost will far exceed the current U.S. cumulative annual CO2 emissions from coal-fired powerplants (about 1 Gt per year). It is likely that total cumulative emissions from permafrost will be 200-500 Gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions.
What then to do if CURRENT atmospheric CO2 levels will bring about 4C of warming by 2100?
we can only survive this coming cataclysm if we start RIGHT now with an "all hands on deck" mentality of total resource mobilization. This means the utilization of ALL potential non-fossil fuel energy sources (as well as transportation) AND the restructure of food production.
Even then, we will be very hard pressed to remove 300 billion tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere over the next 100 years. -
michael sweet at 02:26 AM on 7 October 2014How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
Budischak et al provide data to suggest storage is not economic. They say it is cheapest to overbuild renewables. In their models building three times nameplate provides essentially 100% power. Current hydrostorage plants were built to load balance nuclear power.
Budischak et al do not use grid ties to other power systems or programs to reduce load on days when renewables are forecast to be low. Both those strategies are currently used. Budischak spill the excess power. I expect that a use for excess power can be found.
-
How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
ed leaver - Part of the intermittency solution, as I mentioned before, is more renewable sources. When the generators are spread over multiple weather patterns, intermittency due to weather decreases, and the average production of the grid as a whole moves closer to capacity values (Archer et al 2007). That isn't a 100% solution, of course, there will be some need for supplemental power at times, but the problem isn't as large as generally assumed.
An interesting and fairly recent study, NREL Western Wind and Solar
Integration Study Phase 2, looks at 35% wind/solar penetration in the Western US. They found that cycling of the fossil fuel plants increased costs (maintenance) by $35-$157M, representing an added cost to wind/solar of ~$0.14–0.67 per MWh, but with fuel cost reductions of $28–$29/MWh. This mix also reduced ~30-35% of CO2 emissions, of course.Storage will certainly have an important role to play, but even without storage and use of gas or other generators as fill-ins, large-scale renewable power appears to be a financially feasible option.
-
John Hartz at 23:35 PM on 6 October 2014Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
[Moderator's Comment]
Please refrain from responding to future comments posted by paul until a Moderator has had time to review them. If his future posts constitute trolling and/or sloganeering, they will be summarily deleted.
-
Yani at 23:31 PM on 6 October 2014How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
For the first time on an industrial scale, hydrogen produced using wind power is being injected into the natural gas grid in Germany. It’s a development that could enhance the value of wind power by making it useful no matter when it is produced.
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Wind-Power-Makes-Hydrogen-for-German-Gas-Grid
Problem solved... gas you can make via wind power and it is being done on a national scale in Germany. -
Non-Scientist at 23:24 PM on 6 October 2014Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
A quibble:
I believe the use of CO2 per capita and the implied good guy/bad guys comparison between more developed/less developed nations introduces a political, not scientific argument, and that such arguments detract, not add to the persuasiveness of the case made here.
It is a bit like comparing my household energy consumption to yours and finding that my family unit carbon footprint is "smaller", where the case is that I have 14 at one address, while your household has none and uses half the energy of mine. Yet I'm four times more efficient by your measure. Now imagine that you are required you to cut your energy use by 75% and perhaps to mail me a check for the savings.
It would be better to stay with the science, but if one can't resist the temptation to make such arguments, then use C02 output per sq km of habitable land.
-
chrisd3 at 22:54 PM on 6 October 2014Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
@paul #14:
predictions that the polar ice caps would be melted by now has not come true
No one predicted this. This claim comes from a blatant and intentional misrepresentation of something Al Gore said in 2007. Neither he nor anyone else said that the polar ice caps (by which you actually mean the Arctic ice cap) would have melted by now.
It's impossible to argue coherently using false "facts" like this.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 22:17 PM on 6 October 2014Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
Paul
"How can we have a discussion when your starting point is that your view is correct and other views are incorrect?"
I think you are misunderstanding what a 'discussion' is when we are talking about the physical world/universe.
It isn't 'view' vs 'view'. It is 'evidence' vs 'evidence'.
You say you have a different view. Fine. But what evidence is that view based on? Why not put up an example of this evidence Paul? Otherwise it is just 'views' at 40 paces which is worthless.
Why not lead with something? A piece of evidence in support of a view.
-
CBDunkerson at 22:09 PM on 6 October 2014Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
paul wrote: "How can we have a discussion when your starting point is that your view is correct and other views are incorrect?"
Not everything is opinion. Some things are factually true or false. For example, you cited the common claim about 'global warming having stopped' being pushed by WUWT and other 'skeptics'. A moderator responded with a graph showing the teeny tiny portion of the warming that claim was based on and the continued massive warming of the rest of the climate system. Ergo, we conclude from the data that global warming has not stopped.
How can we have a discussion? Easy. You either acknowledge that the claim you copied from WUWT was wrong (and maybe consider what that should tell you about that site / 'side' of the 'debate') >or< you come up with some logical defense of the position you have taken (good luck with that one).
That's how discussion works. You took a position. Evidence was provided showing that your position is wrong. In a discussion you would now either accept the evidence or counter it... but you aren't doing that. Instead, you now appear to be seeking excuses to ignore the evidence and/or people presenting it. 'You have already made up your minds. There is no point talking to you.' Yes... we looked at the evidence and made conclusions. That's how logical decision making works. Why are you so desperately trying to avoid doing the same?
"Sks comes across as close minded."
Really? 'cuz you're welcome to provide evidentiary support for your position. You just aren't doing that. Maybe because you don't know of any? Yet, rather than acknowledge that, you are keeping the position and dismissing the evidence to the contrary and the people who provided it. Who exactly is being closed minded here?
-
DSL at 21:54 PM on 6 October 2014Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
Paul, close-mindedness is the refusal to examine your own beliefs in the face of new evidence. You have been presented with new evidence and a variety of questions. You have, so far, refused to respond.
-
paul11176 at 20:51 PM on 6 October 2014Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
So my question to any who care to respond is:
How can we have a discussion when your starting point is that your view is correct and other views are incorrect?
Sks comes across as close minded.
Moderator Response:[JH] The introduction to the SkS Comments Policy reads as follows:
The purpose of the discussion threads is to allow notification and correction of errors in the article, and to permit clarification of related points. Though we believe the only genuine debate on the science of global warming is that which occurs in the scientific literature, we welcome genuine discussion as both an aid to understanding and a means of correcting our inadvertent errors. To facilitate genuine discussion, we have a zero tolerance approach to trolling and sloganeering.
As stated above, "we have a zero tolerance approach to trolling and sloganeering."
If your future posts are in the same vein as the above and your prior post, they will be summarily deleted.
-
paul11176 at 20:40 PM on 6 October 2014Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
Sks is open about its purpose.
"This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? "
That is my starting point. Sks appears convinced that global warming/climate change is upon the world and the mission is to refute views that differ.
Had a debate with a couple of fellas who were not climate scientists who believed the global warming alarmists. Joe says to me that John opined I was a hopeless case and that they ought to move on elsewhere. Joe then says to me "Paul, I told John your smarter than that."
The message was clear. If I agree I'm smart, if I disagree I'm NOT smart.
I got the message loud and clear.
Moderator Response:[JH] You are now skating on the thin ice of sloganeering which is prohibited by the SkS Comeets Policy. Please read the Comments Policy and adhere to it.
-
KeefeandAmanda at 19:33 PM on 6 October 2014Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
I was an evangelical (I prefer "theologically conservative" instead of "evangelical") Christian for a quarter century of my life. Rather than address Paul's posts against the science, please let me share what has worked for me when dealing with these rejections of science by my former fellow evangelicals - all the defenders of real science here already know what I will share, but I've found this following summary applied as follows to be quite effective:
First, for those who believe in God, all truth is God's truth. To deny any truth - including hard to swallow scientific truth - is to deny the One who is the Truth (Christ called himself the Truth). The most hard to deny form of truth is fact - especially hard data. Always push this. Bury those who reject the science in an ever-increasing mountain of undeniable fact that they can't handle, and demonstrate that the facts they give do not imply what they believe they imply - they are false implications. What follows deals with these false implications:
If they claim that a slowdown in atmospheric warming implies that global warming has stopped, then there are several ways to show this implication false. Simply being on a "flatter" part of a staircase-shaped increasing function does not mean that the function has stopped being an increasing function. Show them a simple function like h(x) = sin(x) + x. Long-term atmospheric warming has been roughly following such a cyclic pattern, every roughly 60 years according to Tung and Chen:
http://www.nature.com/news/atlantic-ocean-key-to-global-warming-pause-1.15755
This means no slowdown in the underlying uptrend trend even for atmospheric warming. Also, point out that in the last calendar year, according to the NOAA, last November, April, May, June, and August were the hottest months in recorded history (since the late 1800s) for their respective months (April this year tied April 2010):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/8
We may see 2014 become the hottest year in recorded history, even though it is not an El Nino year.In addition to the above, do as a commenter did here, point to the oceans and the graph this commenter gave as well as others. Emphasize the "global" in global warming, to show that global warming does not mean merely atmospheric warming. And point out that including the oceans leads to the fact that global warming may actually be accelerating. More evidence for this acceleration is from this paper that came out yesterday:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26317-the-world-is-warming-faster-than-we-thought.html
This shows that the Southern Ocean may have been warming as much as twice as fast as previously thought.When they try to use the increase in Antarctic sea ice as "evidence" that either global warming is not happening or has stopped, I first point out that the total mass of ice (land and sea) is decreasing at an accelerating rate in the Antarctic, and then I *always* hit them with the fact that their hero Judith Curry published a paper in 2010 which essentially tells us that the global warming that occurred and the global warming that will continue has caused and will continue to cause an increase in Antarctic sea ice for the next several decades until that trend finally reverses, still with ever-continuing global warming. Note: She has not retracted her authorship of that paper. See here for quotes from her and her coauthor:
"Resolving the paradox of the Antarctic sea ice"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100816154958.htm
Also, a 2014 paper explored here
http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/02/11/antarctic-sea-ice-volume/
tells us that the amount of decrease in Arctic sea ice volume is roughly an entire order of magnitude of 10 greater than the amount of increase in Antarctic sea ice volume, and that the increase in this latter is roughly half of the increase in the fresh water supply there. I add the corollary fact that they need to know that saltwater freezes at 28 degrees F and freshwater freezes at 32 degrees F.There's more, but this should do for now.
-
Ashton at 18:57 PM on 6 October 2014Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record
My apologies Tom Curtis as I really don't deliberately try to misrepresent your comments to "create a bizarre strawman" and to be honest I don't know what this bizarre strawman is. Nor do I deliberatyely misinterpret what you write. I take your comments at face value and respond accordingly. Apologies again but I don't understand your comment "In particular, had his interpretation been correct, then every year after 2013 would have been warmer than 2002."
I'm not sure why you
-
BojanD at 17:00 PM on 6 October 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #40
Nice cartoon. Now we only have to wait for Russ R. to tell us that snowflakes are not really that big. :)
-
ed leaver at 13:55 PM on 6 October 2014How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
Thanks Paul, Phillippe. I hadn't heard of isoenthalpic storage before; something new each day. Looks considerably more complex than adiabatic CAES, but the relatively low 12-bar pressure does hold certain attraction when siting the units. See how it scales, see how it goes. Good luck, and thanks for the links!.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:04 AM on 6 October 2014Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record
I just wish to note that Ashton (@11) misrepresents my comments to create a bizarre strawman. The comment on which he based the strawman summarized studies, descriptions of several of which were immediately provided. That context immediately demonstrated his "interpretation" of my words was false. In particular, had his interpretation been correct, then every year after 2013 would have been warmer than 2002. Yet I quoted the description of a study saying "getting a year of maximum temperatures hotter than 2002 is 23 times greater than it was in the late 19th century" As in fact no years in the late nineteenth century, or indeed prior to 2002, had maximum temperature as high as 2002 (which was then an Australian record year), the probability of such a year in the late 19th century was of the order of 1% or less indicating a current probability >75% of maximum temperatures less than 2002.
I regard Ashton's "misinterpretation" to have been deliberate, and another attempt to shift the topic after he had been comprehensively refuted (as he did with regard to BOM adjustments immediately after the initial responses to his having raised it.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 09:01 AM on 6 October 2014How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
We discussed some good energy storage solutions lately, including that of Isentropic PHES technology:
http://www.isentropic.co.uk/our-phes-technology
There are solutions and there will be more if pressures exist to create them.
Moderator Response:[PS] fixed link
-
Paul D at 05:48 AM on 6 October 2014How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
ed leaver
Energy storage isn't so far away and it is probably the biggest expanding market now in energy.
My personal favourite is PHES (pumped heat energy storage) which is cheap, scaleable, practical and uses todays technology. It will be a few years before it is commerical, but it is designed to work at grid level and as such is fit for purpose.
The latest analysis shows it is likely to be as much as 90% efficient and cheaper than pumped hydro electric (30% of the cost). The first grid system is due to be tested on a substation in the UK in the Midlands, 2018.
http://www.eti.co.uk/project/distribution-scale-energy-storage/
-
scaddenp at 05:42 AM on 6 October 2014Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record
Ashton, I was referring to your comment "it may be that those questioning the integrity of the BoM might, just might, not be miisguided conspiracists judging from this paragraph from Lloyd's piece" from here. It would now seem that indeed they are misguided conspiracists wouldnt you agree?
As for Watts, really! I am disappointed that a retired academic can take seriously "findings" at WUWT. CO2 falling as snow in Antarctica? Sks exists to explain what the science actually says in the face of misinformation sites like that. There is no problem at all with peer-reviewed papers that critical of climate theory. Sadly for us, (since who wants AGW to be true) there is a distinct lack of papers that have robust results.
As to having your questions answered, the obvious first step is actually read the IPCC WG1 report which unsurprizingly answers your question. You dont have to agree with its assessment but you can at least use it as an index to the published science on the topic rather relying on blog "scientists" like Tisdale and "Goddard".
-
ed leaver at 23:58 PM on 5 October 2014How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
Paul, I don't think that's what Keithpickering has done at all. He made clear that gas is the current solution to intermittency. And it is: gas is what we currently use. It's all very well to say "The solution is energy storage and probably nuclear energy." And that is true. But only the latter actually exists and has been demonstrated in practice at the required scales. Unless and until energy storage, of what ever combination of technologies, can scale to national grid storage levels, intermittent renewables will continue to be balanced by gas. That's the reality we currently face.
Nothing wrong, and quite a bit right, with demand shifting — as long as one accurately assesses its limitations and doesn't oversell its potential.
Energy storage is a huge problem. Solutions on the required scale do not exist and as far as I know, are yet to be identified. I mentioned the proposed large-scale Utah CAES system which, if used wisely actually could be grid scale on a state level, but again the question is geological availability — can it scale?
What will be the availability of grid-scale electrochemical, fuel cell, and syn gas storage, their capacity and economics? There is a lot of research, but the inherent thermodynamics is not favorable compared with the size of the problem. (Won't stop me from driving an EV or plug-in hybrid, though.)
We also use hydro, but large hydro is pretty much tapped out, and I'm not sure many realize just how small large hydro really is. Hoover Dam was the world's largest concrete structure when completed in 1936. Lake Mead remains this country's largest man-made reservoir. Hoover Dam's 500 MW average output is slightly less than Vermont Yankee's 540 MW lifetime average; Hoover's 1.6 GW peak output is not quite San Onofre's 1.7 GW lifetime average. Small hydro, run-of-river hydro, really is small. Doesn't mean it can't make a contribution, but we musn't expect miracles.
Such is the scale of energy storage compared with the energy density of thermal generation. Wind oversupply is already a problem in some markets, notably Texas and Europe. It needn't be, but it is. Wind oversupply is in fact a big problem for nuclear for the reasons you identify. It is not technical, and there's no inherent reason (other than cost but that varies) not to overbuild wind. No. The wind oversupply problem exists purely as an artifact of the peculiar ways we have choosen to subsidize wind. Its all in our mind.
In principle that can change, but as Ken has alluded, the problem is political: we gotta wanna. We gotta wanna sit down and agree upon our priorities. And if minimization of total carbon emissions at reasonable cost, starting with all the technologies we have today and extending to whatever future combinations we can come up with, isn't right at the top of the list, we're toast.
Somehow, I doubt we're in really large disagreement. Thanks for sharing.
-
steven11184 at 21:40 PM on 5 October 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #40B
RE: "A Change in the Climate"
Yes. Hope. Perhaps the students in the middle of Hong Long at the moment appear to be taking drastic measures to stand for what they believe. Or maybe there aren't enough people that take climate change as seriously as the students in Hong Kong take their issue(s). No matter. The process of dealing with climate change is panning out as expected. The "really big" decisions of life and death seem to have us killing each other.
Let's hope the fighting over climate change doesn't contribute to the killing. Should it be a matter of faith?
-
michael sweet at 21:19 PM on 5 October 2014Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record
Kevin,
In a more intuative way can we say that the Theory of Global warming is supported by the occurance of a record hottest year every 5-10 years. The hypothesis of cooling is contradicted by the fact that 2006-2009 and 2011-2012 were warmer that all years before 1998. Everyone here was alive well before 1998 so every year is warmer than when we were all born. When you consider the fact that weather has a lot of random variation (a fact that every five year old knows from personal experience), we do not expect every year to be record hot.
According to Tom's link at 9 we now expect a year comparable to the record hot year every six years (!!!). With continuing heating those years will be likely to exceed the record hot year. Tom's graph also shows the USA having three record or near record years in the past ten years, consistent with the Australian projections. Global records have occured in 1998, 2005, 2010 and are looking strong for this year. Since we are emitting more and more CO2 those will be hotter and hotter. Pray that politicians recognize the issue sooner rather than later.
-
Ashton at 21:17 PM on 5 October 2014Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record
scaddenp Nowhere in my original post did I refer to scientists but to the way Australian politicians and the Australian media spin climate change. However, I do accept that my phrase "virtually everything" was inaccurate and that being so, I appreciate why you commented as you did.
No, I certainly don't think scientists are politically motivated although it would be a brave person who said none of them are. As a retired university academic who conducted research for many years, I am paid by the federal government and also by government granting bodies such as the ARC. No scientist that I know would falsify results for any reason at all, let alone "just to please their paymaster". But every, well virtually every, utterance from a scientist about the climate is spun by the media and even by blogs. This site publishes findings that support anthropogenic climate change/global warming but is critical of scientists that do not. An example is your question "So Ashton, given this from BoM on Rutherglen, what do you thoughts on Marohasy and LLoyd now?"
As I'm not sure to which particular comments from Dr Marohasy and Mr Lloyd you refer, I'm not really able to answer your question constructively. And on the sceptic or if you prefer, denier, side, Watts Up With That publishes findings that do not support anthropogenic climate change/global warming and is critical of scientists that do. A prime eample of this being the way Dr Michael Mann is referred to on that site.
And because I'd really like to know the answer, why, given that human CO2 emissions are relentlessly increasing, were global temperatures in 2006 to 2009 and 2011 and 2012 cooler than those temperatures in both 2005 and 2010. Is the answer that this is due to natural phenomena and if so what were these phenomena?
Moderator Response: -
scaddenp at 19:15 PM on 5 October 2014Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record
"virtually everything about climate change/global warming in Australia is now politically motivated so why should the BoM be exempt from it?"
Politicians are politically motivated but scientists? This is pure projection. Are you seriously claiming that BoM scientists are tampering with the record for some dark political purpose? This is conspiracy ideation.
I do contract science for my government where the paymasters fervently hope that the money spent will lead to new prosperity. Do you seriously think that this means me and my colleagues would falsify results to please our paymaster? Such a scheme would be pointless because reality wins. Ditto for climate science.
It is absolutely absurd that there is political shennigans over reality and cause of climate change. The political divide should be over different approaches to dealing with that reality. Instead we have people denying that reality instead because the only solutions on offer dont fit their ideology. They should be thinking of something that does fit instead of this stupid attack on scientists.
So Ashton, given this from BoM on Rutherglen, what do you thoughts on Marohasy and LLoyd now?
-
Kevin C at 18:02 PM on 5 October 2014Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record
Your post was indeed posted, and mine was written in reply to it. While I was writing my reply your was deleted by a moderator.
-
Ashton at 17:39 PM on 5 October 2014Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record
A short time ago I put up a post, or at least I thought I did but admittedly didn't check thoroughly. It may have been removed by the moderator for any one of a number of reasons but I'm not sure it was. In any event what I posted referred to Tom Curtis's statement "It is pointing out that specific studies showed that Australia was very hot in 2013 because of global warming." I suggested that according to that argument global temperatures in 2006 -2009 were cooler than 2005 and in 2011 and 2012 were cooler than 2010 because of global cooling. To me that seems a perfectly reasonable conclusion based on the argument advanced by Tom Curtis. Of course I realise this isn't the case but it is a logical follow on from Tom Curtis's statement. I don't think this post is offensive or off topic but then I'm not the moderator so if it is deemed to be so then my apologies to all especially Tom Curtis.
-
Kevin C at 17:01 PM on 5 October 2014Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record
This is not a simple concept, because it involves thinking in terms of distributions of probabilities, rather than in terms of logical propositions. This is an alien way of thinking for all of us.
Roughly speaking the conceptual problem is that it involves 'thinking in parallel' - holding and weighing many hypotheses against the data at the same time. This involves what are historically called 'inverse probabilities' which are particularly confusing.
So the concepts are hard. But I'll take a shot at explaining the application here:
- One year of extreme global temperatures is not proof of global warming.
- One year of extreme local temperatures is not proof of global warming.
- However, both of these do provide information of a form.
- Evaluating information of this form of information is rather difficult. It is an area of active research.
- There are two questions which can be meaningfully asked: "How much more extreme was this event due to global warming", and "How much more probable was this event due to global warming".
- Readfearn reviews 5 recent articles on this kind of analysis concerning the 2013 temperatures in Australia.
-
ubrew12 at 14:56 PM on 5 October 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #40B
'Merkel adviser' link doesn't work at the topmost summary, but works further down in the article. Possibly the tail trips it up (#ixzz3F8FexKt6)
Moderator Response:[BW] - link corrected. Thanks for the heads-up!
-
sauerj at 13:41 PM on 5 October 2014Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
On a Positive Note: A Powerful Way to Harness the Power of Christians in Effectively Reserving AGW: Thanks to a recent 350.org petition drive, it became immediately obvious to me that getting the vatican fully on board would have tremendous beneficial impact. Its time for the catholic church to put its money, time & energy where its mouth is (the gospel of Jesus Christ). The all-out attack (such as the following points), if well coordinated and planned out would greatly help grease the grass-roots movement. Sks and 350.org (et al) need to take this to the highest level of activism. I plan to write to my local bishop the same message.
1) Pope Francis issues encyclical on climate change and man's global responsibility to care for future generations.
2) Vatican divests from FF's and strongly requests all the worlds catholic dioceses to do the same.
3) Vatican develops plan to become FF free by year 20XX. And, requests catholic dioceses to track parish, school & hospital carbon footprint, and develop plans to reduce usage and stick to their plans.
4) Vatican sponsors a blue-ribbon panel of scientists, policy leaders and climate knowledgable clergy to issue global strategical recomendations on how the catholic church can best make meaningful and effective long-term impacts on mitigating and reversing the sorry trend of AGW.
5) Vatican holds inter-faith conference with representatives from all religions to be part of the above blue-ribbon panel as well as to request equal efforts by all represented religions to do the same on their own accord.
6) Pope Francis announces the 'Year of the God's Creation' with expectation that dioceses hold seminars, novenas, special liturgical prayers for the sake of the world's future generations.
7) Pope Francis gives constant focus on this effort (don't let up), calling for all catholics to pray, pray, pray for positive changes to take place. That the world should come to acknowledge its greed. And, come to rely on God's grace and pray to repent. God will listen, and swords will fall. Slow but sure the fiber of holy life within our societies will start to rebuild and move toward the right direction. It is amazing what the power of prayer, over deep time, can do to instill God's goodness, grace and bring about holy, peaceful, healthy & sustainable living.
Probably many other things could be done such as getting the youth involved. A all-out attack like this would have a major impact on the 1.5 billion catholics; such a message would start to drive a wedge into many a thick skull thru-out the world. The message has to stay completely neutral politically, otherwise its no longer God at work (think MLK, not the moral majority). If Pope Francis and the whole church magisterium really got on board (as it should do, so to be true to the gospel of Jesus Christ), then the above would have an amazing impact.
Join me in praying at the foot of the cross, that God speaks to Pope Francis and his immediate staff, and that they have the strength and inspiration to do the right thing.
Today (Oct.4) is St. Francis feast day (patron saint of the environment). Never a better time to start praying.
-
Tom Curtis at 07:57 AM on 5 October 2014Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record
Ashton, as you bring it up, the contiguous United States' hottest year was 2012, with 1934 only ranking fourth:
More importantly, as we don't want to cherry pick, the world's hottest year was 2010, with no year prior to 1979 warmer than any year after 1996 :
Back on topic, your response shows categorically that you have rather missed the point. The article is not simply claiming that "Australia was very hot in 2013, therefore global warming is true". It is pointing out that specific studies showed that Australia was very hot in 2013 because of global warming. To quote one example:
"In one group, they included the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere being added at the rates they are now. In another group of models, they left out the human contribution.
They found that on average, the computer models with current levels of carbon dioxide managed to reproduce the temperatures comparable to that scorching year of 2013 every six years.
For the computer models without the added greenhouse gas emissions, they got a year as hot as 2013 only once in more than 12,000 years."
Quoting further:
"Another study found that the risk of Australia experiencing more heat waves had now tripled when compared with an atmosphere without the added greenhouse gases."
And another:
"The study found that the risk of Australia getting a year of maximum temperatures hotter than 2002 is 23 times greater than it was in the late 19th century. There was an at least seven-fold increase in the risk of Australia getting a combination of extreme heat and drought occurring at the same time."
The article above is about all the various studies, and one indeed was a straight forward attribution study. That single study (mentioned in just two sentences) can be interpreted as being about evidence that global warming is not only occuring, but is man made. But being personally at risk of the sevenfold increase of a combination of extreme heat and drought (as an Australian), so far as I am concerned the article is really about impacts.
We know that global warming is happenning and is anthropogenic. The Australian year of 2013 shows us that that has more than unpleasant consequences.
-
Ashton at 04:00 AM on 5 October 2014Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record
Tom Curtis Globally, the science (according to NOAA http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13), says 2013 was the fourth hottest year since records began in 1880. Is the fact that 2013 was the hottest year in Australia really of any global significance or just of interest to Australians?
This is what Skeptical Science had to say about the hottest year in the USA
(http://www.skepticalscience.com/1934-hottest-year-on-record.htm)
"Climate change skeptics like to point to 1934 in the U.S. as proof that recent hot years are not unusual. However, this is another example of "cherry-picking" a single fact that supports a claim, while ignoring the rest of the data. Globally, the ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998, with 2005 and 2010 as the hottest.
The fact that there were hot years in some parts of the world in the past is not an argument against climate change. There will always be regional temperature variations as well as variations from year to year."
These comments seem to apply equally to the claim "2013 was Australia's hottest year" Is that claim just "cherry picking a single fact that supports global warming? If not, why not?
Moderator Response:[Rob P] - A cherry-pick is where one deliberately chooses a a small piece of evidence that is completely at odds with the full body of evidence. It is a logical fallacy.
Australia experiencing its hottest year ever recorded in 2013 is consistent with the full body of evidence - the Earth is warming in a global, but not uniform, manner. The contiguous USA experiencing its warmest year ever recorded in 2012 is also consistent with the full body of evidence.
Hope this helps.
-
John Hartz at 02:41 AM on 5 October 2014Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
An interesting sidebar to the OP and comment thread can be found at:
Readers’ Experiences with Creationist Education by Dana Hunter, Scientific American, Oct 2, 2014
-
Paul D at 02:17 AM on 5 October 2014How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
keithpickering@1 "The problem with wind (and solar, for that matter) has always been how to back it up when the wind dies. Currently that's almost entirely gas, making wind a crypto-fossil energy source."
Your analysis is incorrect or incomplete. You have included your solution in the analysis which is a poor start. If you do a correct assessment then the problem is variation in output of renewables, where the output may sometimes be greater than demand or at other times less than demand.
OK now that we understand the problem then the solution must fill in those gaps when output doesn't meet demand and when we have to much output.
The solution is energy storage and probably nuclear energy. Nuclear energy can't handle variation very well, France has to export it's electricity to cope with that like of flexibility. Energy storage is the real solution for filling the gaps.
But also intelligent demand management can make a significant contribution. To often it is assumed that generation capacity should meet demand, but with modern technology it is possible to alter demand without sacrificing any degradation in the use of technology. It's called smart grid. -
Tom Curtis at 01:13 AM on 5 October 2014Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record
Any interested readers should reread Ashton's responce to me. It will demonstrate conclusively that:
1) He is not here because of concerns about science;
2) He is merely tarnishing the name of scientists because he does not like the science; and
3) He has nothing substantive to add to the discussion.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 01:00 AM on 5 October 2014Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record
Ashton, you're not making a convincing case but in fact reinforcing Tom's arguments. Politicians are politically motivated. I had no doubt about that. People have mistaken perceptions about the state of climate change, and the consequences of mitigation policies. No doubt there either. A certain current of thought has managed to load the word "tax" with the same emotional charge that the word "devil" enjoyed for centuries. Politicians working against this current of thought have to navigate the public opinion landscape created by the skilled mind manipulators employed by that current of thought.
You do not show that scientists currently working in the field are politically motivated. You seem to add to the idea that the attacks on the BoM are politically motivated. You say nothing about the data. You confirm that any negative perception of the BoM is new thing caused by politically motivated attacks from people who seem to intentionally mislead the public or have no clue about what the subject. The rest of your post is about details in Australian political games and steer far enough from the OP to attract moderation.
-
Ashton at 00:30 AM on 5 October 2014Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record
KevinC please read what I actually wrote. I did not express a personal opinion on the BoM readings but commented on the opinions of others. In fact I specifically noted that I thought the criticism of the BoM was likely to be ill founded.
Tom Curtis: virtually everything about climate change/global warming in Australia is now politically motivated so why should the BoM be exempt from it? Did you think Rudd and Milne and Gillard were not politically motivated? Rudd rapidly backed away from the "the greatest moral challenge etc" when opinion polls showed it to be politically damaging in the 2010 election year. Was this "positive policy" on climate change? The Green's sided with the LNP in the Senate to defeat the CPRS. Positive policy? Julia Gillard total backflip on the ETS was solely to gain support of the Greens to prop up her government. That was positive policy but for purely opportunistic political reasons as just prior to the election Gillard had said "There will be no tax on carbon etc" a promise entirely devoid of positive policy on climate change. With examples such as these is it any wonder that Abbott is politically motivated also? It would be more remarkable if he wasn't. Many of those who think something must be done about climate change seem entirely oblivious to the fact that, despite protest marches and general angst in the chatteratti, a significant minority of Australians do not want action as it will, at least the perception is that it will, increase the cost of their power. After all Abbott came to power with a thumping win on a policy that he would axe Gillard's ETS. A policy he has successfully implemented. And outside Australia the problems with global actions on climate change are fairly well summed up in The Diplomat (http://thediplomat.com/2014/09/chinas-climate-change-paradox/)
-
Trevor_S at 23:31 PM on 4 October 2014Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
@Paul D at 16 If you don't want government to be involved in CO2 emissions reduction, then you need to present alternatives that would produce the equivalent outcome of substantial CO2 emissions reduction.
We have had Government doing something about emissions reductions for more than 20 years and emissions have not only increased, the rate of increase has accelerated. I posit that it is now impossible for Governments to present effective solutions.
As Kevin Anderson argues, we have 15 years, assuming 2c is still the political target. A higher target, which will inevietably have to be the "solution" offered by Governments, would be disasterous.
The only substantive reductions that can be made in time are demand side via enforced penury. No democratic Government will allow that as public policy, which is I suspect exactly what paul was really worried about. Therefore the future is imposssible.
-
DSL at 22:43 PM on 4 October 2014Climate sensitivity is low
Well-quoted, Earthling. I, too, am "skeptical" of John Christy's ability to know what the climate is doing and why.
-
michael sweet at 21:53 PM on 4 October 2014CO2 is not a pollutant
Earthling,
CO2 is poisoness to animals and (especially) marine life at low concentrations. Past mass extinctions have been caused by high CO2 levels. Calling anything that causes mass extinctions a fertilizer is ludicrous.
-
Earthling at 20:57 PM on 4 October 2014Climate sensitivity is low
"There are some of us who remain so humbled by the task of measuring and understanding the extraordinarily complex climate system that we are skeptical of our ability to know what it is doing and why." Dr John R Christy
-
Tom Curtis at 20:32 PM on 4 October 2014Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record
Ashton @1, the Bureau of Meteorology is under scrutiny because:
1) A purported scientist claimed one BOM adjustemt which eliminated a falling trend cannot have been correct because a nearby station had a similar trend half a decade later. (I live in the area. I can tell you it does not take five odd years for weather to move the less than 100 miles from the one station to the other.)
2) Another purported scientist claimed that a station move claimed to have occurred by BOM cannot have happened because he periodically visited the general location thirty years after the apparent site move and therefore knew that no such site move had occurred. He mentioned that he worked there. He did not mention the timing. (In my opinion that makes him a deliberate liar on this matter.)
3) A purported journalist who is always quick of the bat with a pro "skeptic" story, but leaves coverage of mainstream science to other journalists in his paper, reported the above in breathless tones while failing (or not reporting) the salient facts about timing, and declining to report when the BOM published online the proof of the station move referred to in (2).
4) A political hack closely associated with the current Prime Minister who is a known climate change denier with no scientific qualifications (or understanding from what he writes).
In other words, the scrutiny of the BOM is entirely politically motivated by people who do not like the possibility of positive policy on climate change. Its purported basis has zero scientific merit.
-
Paul D at 19:21 PM on 4 October 2014Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
paul@18 "As for believing the "greenhouse effect" theory I cant really say I do or don't."
Why do you use the word belief?
In order to understand a subject you need to learn the subject, at that point it would be meaningless to use the word belief in relation to the subject.
You also contradict a previous paragraph/comment because you suggested you had enough knowledge to change parameters in a climate model. How can you claim to be able to tweak software parameters in a climate model yet not understand the greenhouse effect?Basically paul there are a lot of holes in your writing. As an 'ex-Chistrian' I still believe honesty and facts are impotant, I would like to think the same is true for a practicing Christian.
-
Paul D at 19:09 PM on 4 October 2014Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
paul@18 "Politics using scare tactics to openly advance agendas that have everything to do with money and nothing to do with saving the planet have effectively ruined any and all good faith in the sciences. Many people like me simply do not believe the climate change agenda."
Your writing is full of agenda paul. Yet you accuse others of having an agenda.
paul@18 "It really irritates me to see blogs like this wanting to win the hearts and minds of Christians by telling them their religion is make believe."
That statement is based on your personal opinion, not politics or religion. You have a personal belief which polarises your view about the subject. It has been clearly stated here that a large number of Christians disagree with your POV. How do you know that you are correct? What right do you have to assume that your God agrees with you when the same God also agrees with your opponents?
The reality is that there is far more agreement about the science than there is agreement about political ideology or intepretations of biblical texts within the factions of Christianity.
What you are doing is just expressing your interpretations of politics and religion and then superimposing them on science. It is you that is imposing an agenda on science.
-
Paul D at 18:54 PM on 4 October 2014Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
paul@18
"Since Im not a scientist...
...DSL, some models have been proven faulty. Some models are tweaked by omitting some of the numbers. For example, I could show you a warming or cooling trend by cherry picking the years the planet warms or cools and Im not even a scientist."Actually based on that one comment it would seem that could not do that. So why claim that you could? On top of that you are challenging a group of people that could!
Having been brought up as a Christian and having actually practiced it for many years, one of the fundemental aspects of it that I learnt was to be truthful. Hence to claim in one instance that you are no scientist and then later to state that you have enough knowledge of the models and subject to tweak a parameter, suggests you don't understand the religion you claim to defend.
Prev 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 Next
