Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 Next
Comments 37351 to 37400:
-
Tom Curtis at 22:14 PM on 12 March 2014CO2 lags temperature
Ceddars @435, in answer to your second question, the graph by Scotese that you link to (which is much loved by deniers) is not generated by any proxies. Rather, scotese mapped different rocks known to be formed in particular climate conditions onto maps of the continents in their arrangement at the given time. This provides an approximate measure of the width of various climate zones, which are then equated to a temperature. Thus, Late Carboniferous is shown as having very extensive cold regions at the poles, and is therefore plotted as being cooler than today. In contrast, the Early Carboniferous has no cold zones at the poles, but rather cool temperate zones. Consequently it is mapped as warmer than today, but not very much warmer than today. The Middle Triassic has warm temperate zones at the poles, and is therefore plotted as being much warmer than today, ie, warmer than the Early Carboniferous.
This is a crude measure of temperature, and consequently only resolves (effectively) four climate states - Colder than today, about the same as today, warmer than today, and very much warmer than today. That does not mean temperatures were at precisely 25 C, or 20 C, etc. It only means this method cannot resolve differences in global temperature finer than about 5 C.
What is more, because this method requires mapping "thousands of rock types", it is not even capable of the normal million year plus minimum resolution found in geology. Rather, it resolves in terms of fractions of epochs, ie, 10 to 50 million year intervals. As such it is far inferior to the various proxie based temperature records produced by Dana Royer, both in resolution of temperature, and temporal resolution.
-
Cedders at 21:45 PM on 12 March 2014CO2 lags temperature
Another naive question, please. When I come across contrarian arguments in a policy discussion, I try to check the relevant science; about half the time I come away thinking the situation is even worse than I had before investigating. Here, I knew gas solubility goes down with temperature and Milankovitch cycles are completely different "drivers" from digging up coal from the Carboniferous. So the "lag" argument just reminds me of the worrying feedbacks from more CO2 leaving the oceans (and from changes in polar albedo). I presume the oceanic CO2 feedback is not included in Transient Climate Response figures - but is it generally included in ranges of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity we find in AR5? (I know I could read AR5 more thoroughly myself, but thought it might be a question in other people's minds.)
And possibly related to that: some graphs showing temperature before the Cenozoic (the last 65 million years when temps and CO2 have gradually been falling), suggest global temps are "bistable", with a 25 °C hothouse plateau. Do you know a reason for that or is it an artefact? (Price et al (2013) does not show the plateau.) (And sepculation: If it is a real effect, are we possibly going to tip the world into a situation uninhabiltable by humans but where at least most classes of animals survive?)
Thanks in advance. -
StBarnabas at 19:52 PM on 12 March 2014Climate change and sensitivity: not all Watts are equal
Kevin C @7
many thanks. That makes total sense.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:17 PM on 12 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10B
chriskoz @17, it is not as bad as the raw date suggests. Upgrading the inverter, installing extra capacity if your inverter was less than 5 kW, closing your account, changing tennants, or moving house will all result in loss of eligibility for the 44c rate. Consequently the number of people on the 44c rate will decline over time, with only a minority (probably a small minority) retaining eligebility for the full remaining 14 years. I think the below wholesale feed in tariffs are a far larger impediment, as they essentially require installers of domestic solar power to subisdize other consumers electricity.
-
chriskoz at 12:18 PM on 12 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10B
Tom@16,
Very useful links, thanks.
I note the following from your QLD link:
When will the 44 cent [FiT] rate expire?
Under the Electricity Act 1994, the 44 cent rate is due to expire on 1 July 2028, for those who maintain their eligibility.
That's far worse than NSW's until end of 2016. I wonder how many eligibles for such essentially free lifetime gift of monies are there. As I said before, govs would do far better by terminating those contracts and settling with some lump sum of money, rather than killing the growth of PV industry, as you describe. That's really sad news: the worst imaginable from the GHG emission perspective. I just cannot believe that it happens in such state as QLD, Australia where solar energy potential is the largest in the developed world :(( The only hope is that the storage alternatives become cheaper and the competition from the comunity cooperatives will force the silly govs to quickly change their minds.
The wholesale price report is quite old (2008) although still interesting to look at, esp. the spikes in prices over $4000MWh in summer. I'd like to get my hand on a newer report, from 2013, when every fifth household in OZ got their PV installed, and at the same time we hit the record hot summer nationwide. I know for example that grid penetration of renewables in SA (mainly wind) became very signifficant (perhaps some 30%+?), and the overall demand figures has fallen, condradicting the fossil-fueled "expert predictions", so the production picture looks very different now.
-
renewable guy at 12:11 PM on 12 March 2014The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
Rob and Tom,
Thanks. :)
-
barry1487 at 12:07 PM on 12 March 2014Climate change and sensitivity: not all Watts are equal
Realclimate was down for me last night. It's back online today.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:54 AM on 12 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
Adding to Dana's @43, on at least one occassion when a noted "skeptical" climate scientist did comment at SkS, it became very clear that he was only interested in airing his talking points rather than engaging in genuine discussion. I was not alone in being very frustrated by that. It was frustrating because it meant he did not even respond to questions designed to elucidate his actual views, let alone engage in lines of enquiry that might challenge those views.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:47 AM on 12 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
Russ R @42, I have responded in a more appropriate location.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:46 AM on 12 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Russ R elsewhere, and with apologies to the moderator, you wrote:
"You're arguing against my response to your argument against my response to CBDunkerson's rebuttal to my lampooning of a cartoon that itself lampoons a contextually questionable quotation of a climate scientist from a radio program six months ago.
Is it really worth the effort?"
No! That is the context which sparked the discussion. It is not the basis or the purpose of the discussion.The purpose of the discussion, from my POV is that you claim that the costs to switch to carbon free energy sources is large, and invariably understated. You have introduced Ontario as an example of that, but the actual facts with regard to Ontario show that the opportunity cost of switching to carbon reduced (not quite carbon free as there will still be some gas generation) is low, possibly even negative (ie, a positive benefit); and that they were initially overstated in the formal document presenting the plan.
My question is, are you prepared to acknowledge that fact. Or will you keep evading the fact, thus showing that debating with you is indeed well represented by the cartoon you showed?
With regard to the moderation, when I have issues with it I take it up with the moderators or John Cook in private. Regardless of whether or not I was personally offended, however, the moderators need to take a consistent line that avoids behaviour likely to give offense in all contexts, regardless of whether or not it seems innocuos in a particular context. So, without stating any view as to whether or not I was personally offended, I fully endorse the moderators actions.
Moderator Response:[JH] Rus R's most recent comment constituted a moderation complaint and was therefore deleted.
-
dana1981 at 08:39 AM on 12 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
I think it's fair to say that commenters on SkS can sometimes be a little hostile to commenters of the 'skeptical' persuasion. But to be fair, there are a lot of 'skeptical' commenters who are flat-out trolls (look at the comments on my Guardian posts and how many the moderators are forced to delete for violating the guidelines, for example). As a result, we're conditioned to assume that 'skeptical' commenters are probably trolls, because frankly they usually are (not directed at anyone here, just a general observation).
In any case, Lewis' Climate Audit post was unconvincing. His main argument was that the aerosol forcing is too uncertain to allow the Shindell method to tightly constrain climate sensitivity. Sorry, but that aerosol forcing uncertainty is the same in the Lewis, Otto, etc. studies. So why doesn't Lewis apply that critique to his own papers? This is consistent with my point that Lewis is unwilling to consider the many, significant shortcomings in his own methods, because they yield the result he wants. That's neither skepticism nor good science.
In fact Andrew Dessler and other climate scientists have made this point, that the 'instrumental' method uncertainties are too large to tightly constrain climate sensitivity, because of the uncertain aerosol forcing, among othe reasons. So we're still back to the body of reliable research being consistent with 2 to 4.5°C equilibrium climate sensitivity.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:30 AM on 12 March 2014We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
greg84 @65:
"I was curious when was human industry significant enough to impact climate (roughly)?"
It depends on what you mean by impact.
William Ruddiman believes (and I believe that he has shown) that absent anthropgenic emissions from land clearing and agriculture, CO2 concentrations would have fallen from a high aroun 8,000 years ago to at least 240 ppmv, or lower. That fall may well have been enough to kick us into a new iceage by now, and would certainly have resulted in LIA conditions being the norm rather than the exception. (Note, the linked paper is the earliest presentation of his hypothesis, which is supported by a number of more recent papers, and by more than just Ruddiman. His theory is, however, not universally accepted among climate scientists.)
From about 1650, coal burning in London was sufficient that there was a selective advantage for dark forms of the Peppered Moth due to soot coating trees. So from then there was an appreciable anthropogenic forcing from black carbon.
More directly related to your question, in 1940, the forcing from CO2 relative to 1832 was 0.47 W/m^2, or 29.4% of the 1.6 W/m^2 in forcing 2008. (The exact figure and percentage will change, depending on your base year. I have used 1832 for convenience as I have a spreadsheet with CO2 concentrations back to 1832.) That is clearly significant, but also not enough to account for the majority of the warming trend from 1900-1940. Deniers like David Evans, however, tend to talk as though it was completely irrelevant. In fact, that forcing is larger than the probable chang in solar forcing over that period. It is, however, likely smaller than the volcanic forcing over that period. The near complete absence of volcanoes from 1910 to 1940 is the probable primary cause of the warming in that period; supplemented by (in order of magnitude) anthropogenic forcing, and solar forcing; with those two combined being approximately of the same magnitude as the volcanic forcing.
The interesting thing is that since 1940, there has not been a pause in volcanism, so that the volcanic forcing has been negative. Likewise, the solar forcing, after peaking in 1950, has declined so that in 2008 it was almost as low as the 1910 minimum. Consequently, while anthropogenic forcings account for only about 25% of the early twentieth century warming (give or take), they account for nearly 100% of the warming from 1900 to 2013.
In a recent poll of climate scientists, 86.76% thought that 50% or more of the warming since 1850 was anthropogenic. Given a distinct, and clearly natural cooling trend from 1850 to 1900, that figure would rise significantly if the start year had been 1900, and to near unanimity for a start year of 1950. The modal (most preferred) value was 80%, with twice as many thinking it was above 80% as thought it was below 50%. Science is not settled by consensus, of course. But scientists hold their opinions for good reasons. Anybody challenging so strong a concensus must show very good reasons to do so. Unfortunately no such good reasons have been presented.
-
Kevin C at 08:28 AM on 12 March 2014Climate change and sensitivity: not all Watts are equal
StBarnabas: In this context, uniform heating means uniform between the northern and southern hemisphere, and says nothing about time variation of the heating. Non-uniform heating involves the same total global heating, but more of it occuring in the southern hemisphere where it has less impact on temperatures.
-
greg84 at 07:40 AM on 12 March 2014We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
"The IPCC blames human emissions of carbon dioxide for the last warming. But by general consensus human emissions of carbon dioxide have only been large enough to be significant since 1940—yet the warming trend was in place for well over a century before that." (David Evans)"
Hello,Is this 1940's thing in dispute? I read through the LIA stuff here, but it only talks about the LIA itself. It is in the "myth" section, but unless I'm missed something, I didn't see anything saying anything otherwise. I was curious when was human industry significant enough to impact climate (roughly)?
Moderator Response:[PS] Please see "It cooled mid-century" section. Climate change is a response to net forcings not just one - aerosols are important as well.
-
Alpinist at 06:36 AM on 12 March 2014Climate change and sensitivity: not all Watts are equal
They've been down all day and it's been noted on Tamino's site as well....aurgh...
-
rwmsrobertw at 06:30 AM on 12 March 2014Climate change and sensitivity: not all Watts are equal
I came here to ask the same question. Bummer - hope they're OK.
-
BaerbelW at 05:48 AM on 12 March 2014Climate change and sensitivity: not all Watts are equal
Re. RealClimate: not sure what's going on but when I try to go to realclimate.org I immediately get a "Forbidden - You don't have permission to access / on this server."
-
Bob Loblaw at 05:44 AM on 12 March 2014The Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine is wrong to endorse Keystone XL
Brooks, Tom:
Although it is now a post that is two years old, To Infinity and Beyond (over at Desmogblog.com) links to an interested video produced by Media Matters, indicating how job numbers for Keystone XL have been inflated in the media.
-
Mal Adapted at 05:32 AM on 12 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
If guests don't feel welcome, SkS won't find many guests coming to visit, and it will run the risk of devolving into an echo-chamber of groupthinkers nodding vigorously in agreement with one another while actual debate takes place elsewhere.
For me, SkS is a resource for language and links I can use to counter pseudo-skeptic drivel elsewhere. SkS authors can argue authoritatively, but as with other scientific disciplines, "actual debate" on climate-science issues does take place elsewhere: in the laboratories of working climate scientists, and the journals, conferences, and other professional venues where they expose their work to peer-review. For the most part, scientific controversies are not resolved on blogs open to indistinguished nobodies like me and you.
If you like to debate, Russ, you should consider presenting a paper at, say, the annual AGU meeting. Of course you'll need to be prepared for rigorous peer-review, your peers being the scientists best able to spot the flaws in your work because they know as much or more about your topic than you do. Science at that level isn't for the faint-hearted, though. Scientists can seem "inhospitable" (even "vituperative") when critiquing arguments that aren't well thought out or well supported by evidence. That's a good thing, because if your work can't survive the peer-review snakepit you're most likely fooling yourself. Your feelings may be hurt, but your incorrect ideas won't make it in to the accumulating body of scientific knowledge, which is what really matters:
Science doesn’t work despite scientists being asses. Science works, to at least some extent, because scientists are asses. Bickering and backstabbing are essential elements of the process.
-
StBarnabas at 05:15 AM on 12 March 2014Climate change and sensitivity: not all Watts are equal
@wili
have not been on RealClimate for a week or two. I have tried now without success; the site appears to be down. I'm sure they will be a prime target so hopefull it is just maintanence
-
StBarnabas at 05:06 AM on 12 March 2014Climate change and sensitivity: not all Watts are equal
What uniform heating? i am struggling with the units here. The y axis is fine. Uniform heating to me is a constant input of Watts (dQ/dt =k (J/S)) which into an adiabatic system would prosuce a linear rise. Is this uniform heating d2Q/dt2 =k? A few ODEs might help me understand this a bit better - obviously the models are very complex but a simple state spaace model or equivalent simple ARMA proccess would help my small brain.
-
wili at 05:01 AM on 12 March 2014Climate change and sensitivity: not all Watts are equal
This seems to be the crucial part (from "below the fold"):
" Multiple lines of evidence are now consistent showing that the climate sensitivity is very unlikely to be at the low end of the range. The consequences of climate change are thus likely to be towards the more damaging end of the estimates, unless we take action to quickly reduce our emissions."
OT question: Has anyone else had trouble getting onto RealClimate recently? Are they shut down for maintanance, or under cyber attack?
-
John Hartz at 04:28 AM on 12 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
All: Russ R's most recent comment directed at Tom Curtis was deleted because it was inflamatory and insulting. Russ R may soon be recusing himself from posting on SkS.
-
jja at 03:58 AM on 12 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
Another near-term feedback is the reduction ocean-spray DMS aerosols that will contribute .2-.4C additional warming and the recent model results of decreased low-altitude cloud cover under warming scenarios (additional .2-.5)
It is clear that we have already passed the 2C pre-industrial threshold, even if we halted all emissions today.
-
GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
Russ R. - If you want examples of groupthink and echo chambers, take a look at WUWT, at Climate Audit, at JoNova, Bishop Hill, etc. Where the presentation of facts, of peer-reviewed papers, of statistical significance are all met with jeers, insults, ad hominems, etc. Persisting with facts on those venues tends to result in moderation.
On SkS, by contrast, jeers, insults, ad hominems, and sloganeering are met with facts, peer-reviewed research, and discussion of statistical significance. And commenters persisting in posting nonsense are moderated. Compare and contrast, note the distinction in content. Personally, I prefer fact-based discussions such as the ones here.
Your personal experience seems unhappy - I would point out (IMO) that you reap what you sow.
-
jja at 03:35 AM on 12 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
If we halted all CO2 emissions today, according to the AR5 Frequently Asked Questions 12.3, temperture would continue to rise for "several tenths of a degree" due to sulfate emission reductions.
Then it would take several decades for methane emissions to return to pre-industrial levels.
But we know that the loss of arctic sea ice between 1979 and 2012 has contributed a total of 25% of the total anthropogenic forcing. We also know that this trend will continue through the next several decades.
In addition to the aerosol and albedo feedbacks that will occur during these next few decades, the additional warming will produce carbon cycle feedbacks. These feedbacks are,- The collapse of the Amazon rainforest
- The rapid thaw of arctic permafrost, and
- An additional slowdown of the Meridional Overturing Circulation
All of these factors are not modelled in the AR5 scenario and will produce significant warming over the next several decades.
-
bibasir at 02:00 AM on 12 March 2014A Hack By Any Other Name — Part 4
Fascinating story. I had no idea how much work has been put into the site. I look forward to the next episodes. A book that might be of interest is The Cuckoo's Egg: Tracking a Spy Through the Maze of Computer Espionage by Cliff Stoll
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:36 AM on 12 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
Russ... You may not have been around long enough to have noticed that we've had quite a few more prominent scientists posting here. In particularly contentious cases we assign a single SkS commenter to the discussion as to not overwhelm the guest.
What SkS does not have patience for are those who break the rules that are laid out in the commenting policy. Those get snipped or deleted or banded depending on the severity of the infractions.
And, if you think it's bad here, you might take a day and pose as an advocate for action on climate change on sites like WUWT, JoNova, Curry, or any of the many other lightly or unmoderated "skeptic" sites.
-
Russ R. at 00:49 AM on 12 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
Albatross@30,
"Where is Lewis on this thread? He is undoubtably aware of it, yet he is posting on sites run by extremists and fringe elements."
If I may offer some constructive advice, you might want to scan back through the history of comment threads here at SkS and look objectively at the "hospitality" that has been shown to visitors (by both regulars and moderators).
If guests don't feel welcome, SkS won't find many guests coming to visit, and it will run the risk of devolving into an echo-chamber of groupthinkers nodding vigorously in agreement with one another while actual debate takes place elsewhere.
You can judge for yourself whether or not it's already too late. As it stands today, the only visitors SkS seems to attract are indistinguished nobodies like me.
-
Tom Dayton at 00:18 AM on 12 March 2014The Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine is wrong to endorse Keystone XL
Brooks, your sentiment is correct, but your number is not. Keystone will yield only 35 permanent jobs. Yes, 35. Not 3,500. Not 350. 35. Really. The reason the oil industry likes pipelines is that they are cheap. "Cheap" largely due to the low need for labor. The cheapness is the reason industry wants the pipeline. If industry and Marcia McNutt were correct that the cost of the tar sands oil does not depend on whether it is transported by pipeline or rail/truck, then industry would not be fighting for the pipeline. Instead, the industry's fight for the pipeline is unequivocal evidence that the pipeline will reduce the cost of the oil and therefore speed the production and use of the oil.
-
Brooks Bridges at 23:57 PM on 11 March 2014The Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine is wrong to endorse Keystone XL
I see no comment regarding the benefits to America of this pipeline. From all I've read, the dilbit goes to to our southern ports where it is refined and then sold to the highest bidder - which, with our current oil and gas boom won't be America.
The Congressional Budget office says that besides refineries, there will be 3,200 permanent jobs - a drop in our employment bucket. Given the northern part of the pipelines have already had, I think, 11 spills and the company continues to do nothing to improve pipeline safety, we can look forward to many more spills.
So how does this make any kind of economic sense for America? Canadians and Koch brothers make billions of dollars profit and we get to clean up their spills and the oil goes to other countries.
-
Mighty Drunken at 23:55 PM on 11 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
A statistic I found interesting in regards to this Winter's weather in the UK is the number of times the Thames Barrier, a flood defense, had to be raised.
As this page shows the number of times it has been used has been increasing sharply.
It was closed four times in the 1980s, 35 times in the 1990s, and 135 times since 2000, 50 in the 2013/2014 winter alone.
-
Paul Pukite at 22:49 PM on 11 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
I do not understand how Lewis is given any deference. The fact that 6 years of data results in his analysis dropping the TCR that much can not be right. Nature does not change abruptly like that. A CO2 model of natural availablity that uses SOI, volcanic aerosols, LOD, and TSI, and other natural cyclical terms can predict 50 years of rising temperature including the fluctuations, based on a training interval that only goes to 1960.
I suggest to keep on confronting Lewis. He obviously doesn't like to be called on his cherry-picking work:"WebHubTelescope needs to check his facts. "
http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2014/gwpf/#comment-104601
-
Tom Dayton at 22:23 PM on 11 March 2014The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
renewable guy: See also Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag.
-
Tom Curtis at 22:02 PM on 11 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10B
Chriskoz @14, in Qld, there is a 44 c per kWh feed in tariff for those who installed their solar panels prior to a change of regulation under the new (coallition) government. There is a 8 c per kWh feed in tariff for other domestic solar generators, which will expire on July 1st. After July 1st, the 44 cent feed in tariff will remain in effect for those eligible, but the 8 cent rate will cease to exist. Instead domestic producers will need to "negotiate" a feed in tariff with their retail supplier. As in all cases where very small suppliers attempt to negotiate with large retailers, that will supress the feed in tariff well below the whole sale rate of supply from other sources. IMO, it is a rather transparent attempt by the coallition government to kill renewable supply from domestic producers. It would be hard to argue otherwise given that:
- The 2008 wholesale spot price for electricity in Qld averaged 8.8 cents per kWh;
- The 2012/2013 retail price in Qld was 25 cent per kWh; and
- The new regime is predicted to reduce retail prices, presumably by reducing the feed in tariff (first link).
All this from a government that is increasing coal production with indecent haste.
Under most circumstances, I am very proud to be a Queenslander, but Campbell Newman is making that very difficult at the moment (and don't get me started on his introduction of guilt by association, punishment by secret tribunal, and winding back of the seperation of powers and the rule of law).
-
chriskoz at 20:55 PM on 11 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10B
Tom@14,
I wonder what's the current status of feed-in in QLD. What's the mandated FiT for early adopters and how long are their contracts lasting?
In NSW, the FiT by previous govs (labor) were as incredibly high as $600MWh. They are mandated until end of 2016, creating the classic perverse incentives you describe. New govs (libs in 2011 I believe) immediately ceased the contracts so such overpriced FiT (because the industry was burning out on overdrive) and they even wanted to retospectively scrape the existing contracts: a very bold move, illegal IMO. But they met with the rage of contractees, so did not succeed. So, we need to wait for more than until the perversive FiT expire. I understand that the early adopters are elligible for the generous subsidies. But in 6this case it would be much better for the environment if those investors settled with the govs for some lump sum of money in exchange for scraping the perversive incentives. I've heard for example, that by turning on a 2kW AC unit on top of your peak-hour demand, you create ~$7000 cost for the retailer who must upgrade the network and bid the appropriate evergy amount at the extremal price, usually from gas-powered supplier to satisfy the demand. This situation could be perhaps remedied by a solid peak-demand charges. But instead, the retailers are recouping their losses by increasing fixed charges.
Meanwhile, the true FiT for post-2011 home investors was mandated by the govs at $77MWh minimum, which was barely above the coal-fired baseload wholesale price of ~$50MWh. That was before carbon tax. For some reason, after CTax last year, the minimum FiT dropped to $66MWh, contrary to my expectations, so perhaps it is already at or below baseload wholesale price + CTax. And guess what: my retailer (Energy Austratia) pays me the exact minimum, not a cent more.
As you see, lot of scenarios in energy market are swayed by politics and private greed of all players involved. There is very little actions/policies with the top goal of reducing GHG emissions in mind. Rather, the whole energy buiseness model does work in opposite direction.
-
Rob Painting at 16:49 PM on 11 March 2014The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
renewable guy - See this post by Chris Colose: Milankovitch Cycles.
-
renewable guy at 16:14 PM on 11 March 2014The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
I remember an article in SKS where it was stated that the orbital forcing did not explain the warming coming up out of the last ice age. It (orbital forcing) supposedly would only explain about 10% of the warming. The rest would be positive feedbacks I assume. Loss of albedo and co2 coming up out of the oceans. I would like some help getting to that article that explains just that ratio. It helps to emphasize that a small nudge of the climate can make a much bigger response.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:15 PM on 11 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10B
scaddenp @13, absolutely agree about the need for whole sale pricing of domestically generated electricity sold back into the grid. Indeed, more than retail pricing (mandated in some Australian jurisdictions) has the perverse effect of providing a maximum incentive for the domestic user to minimize use in the daytime when they are generating power on site, and maximizing use at night when there is minimal renewable supply. That is, it maximizes inefficiency in using solar power, and minimizes the emmisions reduction from the extra generation.
The only caveate I would place on the whole sale pricing is that renewable and non-renewably sourced energy are differently priced when sold to the consumer. At least in Queensland, you can pay a premium to have a significant proportion, or 100% at a higher premium, of your energy from carbon free sources. The "sell back" price of domestically generated solar electricity should also reflect that premium. That could be accomplished by the sell back price matching the average whole sale price of renewable power, rather than the average price of power in general.
-
citizenschallenge at 14:00 PM on 11 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
It amazes me how much people enjoy focusing on splitting hair, all so they can avoid evaluating the full scope of evidence... Well, setting up of impossible expectations doesn't do much for learning either.
In any event, thank you SkepticalScience.com for your stream of valuable information, stuff that we can actually learn from.
And thank you for your Reposting Policy, I'm honored to be able to Repost such an excellent article at my little effort.
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/03/gwpf-misleading-public_10.html
-
Albatross at 13:40 PM on 11 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
Hi jwhite @31,
My gripe was not with your or the brevity of your post :) Rather Lewis's inexperience, background and who he chooses to associate with.
Thanks for notifying us about his CA post. Someone at SkS will have a look.
-
scaddenp at 13:30 PM on 11 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10B
A "wind the clock back" meter could only make sense if you were buying the power from the generator, not the supplier. This is essentially saying that you want the sell back to the retailer at the same price as you bought it, whereas the retailer is buying from wholesaler at much lower price. What business could do that? It is only realistic that you sell electricity back at the average price from other generators. Some of the buy-back prices offered in NZ look very generous to me. Really realistic would be that you only get paid for your electricity what the current wholemarket price is. Now sometimes, in a dry winter, that could be really high, but often when there isnt much solar then to generate.
While obviously the price difference includes profit for the retailers which could do with some scrutiny but it also includes the balancing act of giving consumers fixed prices while market price changes every 5 minutes, regulatory costs, line costs etc. There is a reluctance by government to lump those costs into a per-household "line charge" no matter how realistic because this amounts to a penalty for low-power users, stuck with high line charges and low usage costs. The current line charge is fraction of the real cost. There are going to have be a lot of solar generators harping about the difference before the government would reconsider the political cost of such a change.
Generating companies building peaking power plants are generally divorced from electricity retailers. They are building them because they see they can make money at times of high demand. Increased micro-scale solar generation doesnt really threaten this opportunity at the moment.
-
scaddenp at 13:06 PM on 11 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10B
[PS] Put the links in properly and there will be no complaints.
-
jwhite100 at 12:57 PM on 11 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
I apologize for my post being so brief, but I don't have the technical background to make an informed comment on Lewis's post. I was hoping someone here would be able to do that. That's why I brought it to your attention. I respect and very much appreciate this site.
-
william5331 at 12:39 PM on 11 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10B
Chriskoz@7
A good start would be net metering - ie. a single meter which turns backwards when your generation exceeds your power use. However, we must not try to deprive the power company of their profit. After all they maintain the grid which eliminates the need to have your own expensive batteries which must be replaced from time to time. A fair, transparent way would be to have a line charge but we must be careful here. The line charge should be the same for the user and the user/generator or the power company will gerimander the fee so that is still won't be worthwhile to install solar panels. Then the government could stop taxing solar in all sorts of ways. After the moderators comments, I don't want to 'advertize' my own blog but if you go to it under @6, there are a couple of blogs about how the German government, much lauded, taxes the small solar power installer 7 ways to sunday. (do you have this expression). The technology is adequate although it has some way to go and the price is right. It should be well worthwhile for everyone with, say, 2.5 or more daily peak hours, averaged through the year, to profitably put solar panels on the roof. There are benefits to the power companies too. Once we have smart meters which allow demand balancing rather than the present supply balancing, having a lot of solar, financed by the small customer, eliminates the need for the power company to invest in an expensive, seldom used power plant for peak shaving.
-
Albatross at 12:25 PM on 11 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
jwhite @28,
It is a pity that Lewis chooses to keep airing his view and opinions at locations (such as the GWPF and CA) that habitually attack climate scientists and routinely try and undermine climate science by distorting the facts and data. Where is Lewis on this thread? He is undoubtably aware of it, yet he is posting on sites run by extremists and fringe elements. Him doing so does not bode well for his judgement being unbiased.
His biases aside, I doubt very much that Lewis (a retired finacier) has the depth of knowledge, understanding and experience to speak to a complex issue such as this. Just as I would lack the same when speaking to models used to predict the financial markets-- you do not see climate scientists trying to argue that the economists and financeers methods are incorrect. But for some reason every contrarian out there feels that climate science is fair game and that they somehow know better. -
One Planet Only Forever at 12:10 PM on 11 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
I enjoyed reading the thorough presentation of information that Lewis, Crok, Currie, Annan, Henderson, McKitrick, Montford, and Loehle would have had access to. It was very informative.
If they were genuinely interested in improving the understanding of what is going on they would not be trying to get away with pushing out the glaringly inadequately investigated and justified information they have presented.
Any media that gave their 'report' an iota of attention without a little basic fact-checking needs to be on an "Unreliable Sources" list. An honest and balanced media report would make reference to the report and its authors and include evidence of the clear inadequacy of their report.
The gullibility of many in the current population, willing to accept whatever suits their deluded interest based on their experience immersed in the unsustainable and damaging mass-consumption socioeconomic systems, certainly makes attempts to best inform the general population about the unacceptability of how they want to 'enjoy their life' a battle, but it is worth fighting. As the unjustifiable claims become more glaringly incredulous, more and more people are will realize how easily impressed they had allowed themselves to become.
People addicted to the unsustainable and damaging artificial industrial chemical-filled mass-consumption socioeconomic system need to admit to the harmful nature of their addiction. Then the changes to a better sustainable life can begin.
-
Miguelito at 11:26 AM on 11 March 2014The Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine is wrong to endorse Keystone XL
There is already about 650,000 barrels per day of rail-loading capacity for oil in western Canada. That's scheduled to grow to over 1,000,000 barrels per day by the end of this year. The additional cost of shipping by rail doesn't mean much either because the supply costs for Alberta bitumen are actually pretty competetive compared to world prices (contrary to what's typically perceived, Alberta bitumen is no longer a marginally economic source of hydrocarbons, but a relatively low cost one, competetive with alot of U.S. tight oi). In other words, making it ship by rail isn't going to change its economics very much.
So, that bitumen is going to get to market via pipe or rail as long as there is a market asking for it. Kill demand, either through a carbon tax or much stricter emissions regs, and you'll do a far better job at solving your carbon problem rather than picking on one particular source of supply.
I haven't even gotten into America's "carbon bomb" of its own, tight oil, whose resource potential might be up there with bitumen's.
-
jwhite100 at 09:52 AM on 11 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
Lewis has a response to the Shindell paper here:
Moderator Response:[RH] This runs very close to the "no link only posts" rule. Please try to incluce some discussion of the issue when posting links.
-
scaddenp at 09:39 AM on 11 March 2014There is no consensus
Realist308 - this article is showing that the statement "that there is no scientific consensus" is false. You are entitled to believe that all those scientists could be wrong but I wonder whether you have same opinion on all those scientific theories on which there is a consensus? If your Dr tells you have x disease and the scientific consensus is that you need Y to save your life, do you go with the consensus or the crank who tells you it can fixed with magnets?
Prev 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 Next
