Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 Next
Comments 47501 to 47550:
-
Bob Lacatena at 05:44 AM on 17 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Tom,
The purpose of the project as a whole is explicitly and clearly stated in the opening chapter:
This dissertation addresses three issues related to paleoclimate in an attempt to shed new light on the mechanism and timing of climate and glacier changes in the past.
While the individual chapters may have strayed into other potential conclusions and uses, and while it may have evolved by this point in time to have a different application and to be published as a paper in its own right in Nature, there is no doubt that this was not the original intent, so to complain explicitly about the lack of careful comparison to current temperatures is an erroneous and baseless complaint.
And I did not dispute that elements of the paper did evolve into Marcott et al. Quite to the contrary, I explicitly stated:
And yet, as might be expected, Dr. Marcott chose to build upon his previous work and to take it in a new direction, one relevant to a major issue of the day, anthropogenic climate change.
All of my points still stand, specifically:
- The purpose of the original project, regardless of tangents, was not to evaluate past climate as a benchmark for current climate change, so no complaint can be made about the completeness of the thesis for that purpose.
- It is not only not unexpected, but rather to be expected that Marcott would use this as a foundation for further work, including application directly to current climate change. it would be surprising if he had not done so.
The Watts/McIntyre complaint is a complete and total misdirection, and anyone who falls for it should be ashamed of themselves (for failing to be more skeptical and sensible). Anyone who fell for it should do some introspection about what their own motives and desires might be (i.e. to ascertain the truth, or to arrive at a seeming truth which supports their hoped for outcome).
- The purpose of the original project, regardless of tangents, was not to evaluate past climate as a benchmark for current climate change, so no complaint can be made about the completeness of the thesis for that purpose.
-
DSL at 04:33 AM on 17 March 2013Southern sea ice is increasing
newtja, Corr & Vaughan (2008) does not attempt to assess or quantify the effect of volcanic venting on the Pine Island glacier. The eruption discussed occurred roughly 2k years ago. It's possible that venting is helping the break up of PI glacier, but as you can see from the article above, and from Shepherd et al. (2013), there are greater factors involved. You might also check out Vaughan & Corr (2012). Here are the last lines of their abstract:
"We conclude that ice-shelf basal melting plays a role in determining patterns of surface and basal crevassing. Increased delivery of warm ocean water into the sub-ice shelf cavity may therefore cause not only thinning but also structural weakening of the ice shelf, perhaps, as a prelude to eventual collapse."
-
rugbyguy59 at 04:27 AM on 17 March 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #11
As a Canadian, when I first saw the headline Canada Losing its Seasons I thought "Oh no, another 'kids won't see snow' comment." However the article notes a variety of changes that are already started and changes that are much less weather dependent than "no snow" allusions. Still I'd be naive to think deniers won't (incorrectly) use it.
It all makes me wonder if I shouldn't send the kids north to get established as those who are their first usually benefit the most. Of course that would be based on an orderly migration north. With who knows how many millions making the trek I get the feeling the migration may not be particularly orderly.
-
newtja at 03:57 AM on 17 March 2013Southern sea ice is increasing
How do the explanations in this article correspond to the 2008 paper by Corr and Vaughn in Nature Geoscience about volcanism affecting the Pine Island Glacier?
-
John Mason at 02:17 AM on 17 March 2013Death in Jurassic Park: global warming and ocean anoxia
PS - this paper may be of interest to you: it does concern deeper water facies from the Toarcian:
An open marine record of the Toarcian oceanic anoxic event
Abstract.
6‰) negative excursion in d13Corg that, based on radiolarian biostratigraphy, is a correlative of the lower Toarcian negative CIE known from Pangaean epi-and pericontinental strata. A smaller negative excursion in d13Corg (ca. 2‰) is recognized lower in the studied succession. This excursion may, within the current biostratigraphic resolution, represent the excursion recorded in European epi-continental successions close to the Pliensbachian/Toarcian boundary. These results from the open ocean realm suggest, in conjunction with other previously published datasets, that these Early Jurassic carbon cycle perturbations affected the active global reservoirs of the exchangeable carbon cycle(deep marine, shallow marine, atmospheric).Moderator Response: [RH] Shortened link. -
John Mason at 02:09 AM on 17 March 2013Death in Jurassic Park: global warming and ocean anoxia
@ mlyle - sure: however the authors do state the following:
Evidence of an extinction event has
been reported in western Europe (e.g., [24,33–35]), South
America [36–37], Siberia [38] and northern Africa [39]. Although
definitive cause-effect relationships are not yet established, the
extinction has either been linked to the development of widespread
anoxia [27,37,40–41], or to global warming [32,42].Thus it seems a reasonable point to report upon. I agree that most Toarcian oceanic crust has been recycled, but the widespread occurrence of these black shales suggests something was afoot. Bearing in mind that shelf areas are particularly productive in terms of biodiversity, anoxia in these areas would have a particularly devastating impact.
N and P would be relatively easy to get into the system if widespread terrestrial erosion of soils was going on at the time.
-
DSL at 00:48 AM on 17 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
And has McIntyre or Watts actually asked Marcott about the differences (instead of quite publicly insinuating that Marcott is guilty of some sort of fraud)? Have you addressed this issue with the presumably more "skeptical" Watts and McIntyre, Ray?
-
mlyle at 00:29 AM on 17 March 2013Death in Jurassic Park: global warming and ocean anoxia
You have to be careful to make estimates of global ocean conditions from one locale, especially from the shelf-slope region. I can find basins today that are anoxic, but that doesn't mean the whole ocean is today. The paper puts forward an interesting hypothesis, but needs to show why one might expect this to represent global conditions. Unfortunately, there are few pieces of deep ocean floor preserved to actually test for global anoxia. Also, to get hyperproductivity, the problem is to get N and P into the oceans, not C.
-
Tom Curtis at 00:27 AM on 17 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Ray @36, the graph you mention is not the only one to have altered between thesis and paper in Science. Specifically Fig 1 G (Science; Fig 4.3 C in the thesis) also differs. That figure shows the number of proxies available at different time periods. Most importantly, in the thesis it shows less than 10 proxies extend into the twentieth century. In contrast, in the Science article, shows 20 proxies available at the same time interval. As the same proxies appear to be used in each, this suggests that either Marcott has recieved additional, more recent data for several of the proxies, or that the interpolation using RegEm (as discussed both in paper and thesis) has been more extensively applied.
Regardless of the course, less than ten proxies is a very limited sample for determining global surface temperature and such a small sample is likely to have considerable biases. Therefore, more than doubling the number of available proxies is likely to result in changes in the reconstruction where the proxies are sparce (twentieth century), although adding the same number of proxies will have little effect where the proxies are more extensive (ie, prior to AD 1500).
Failing further evidence to the contrary, this would appear to completely answer the issues raised. You may want to ask yourself why this change in the number of available proxies has not been commented on at WUWT.
-
Tom Curtis at 00:13 AM on 17 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Sphaerica @37, Chapter 4 of the thesis is specifically about the reconstruction of Holocene temperatures, and is analogous the Science paper, and has the same authors as the Science paper. It is also noted that that chapter would be submitted to Nature for publication. It is a reasonable supposition the Science paper is Chapter 4 as modified in the process of publication. That Marcott adresses other issues in other chapters of his thesis is not germaine, and does not rebut the general equivalence of Chapter 4 and the Science paper.
-
DSL at 23:51 PM on 16 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Alas, Poole could've used a more robust representation of "climate change" instead of just equating it with temperature as Luntz does. Climate change somewhat obviously can be changes in temp, general circulation, precipitation, weather patterns, wind, cloud cover, frequency of "extreme" events, etc.
-
MA Rodger at 23:33 PM on 16 March 2013Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Syun-Ichi Akasofu
I examined Akasofu's work last year as he was being used to support denialist argument presented by the GWPF. Was I being rather generous?
-
shoyemore at 19:03 PM on 16 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Ray #36,
Anyone with a feeling for fair play would (I hope) agree that the accusations flung at Marcott over his PhD thesis are shrill and unjust. And also irrelevant.
Ask yourself: Do the contents of Marcott's PhD thesis suggest any grounds for the recent paper to be withdrawn or modified in any way? Who will submit a comment to Science based on a difference in the results of the paper and the thesis?
My answers are "No" and "Nobody".
Theses often end up as papers or books, but in this case Marcott was not "working up" his PhD thesis as a paper, based on Sphaerica #37.
I am glad to see the hysteria over Marcott et al is being mostly ignored by good science blogs. Nor has the paper been accepted without reservation among the climate-change blogging community. If anything, it has been greeted with a proper degree of caution, or real scepticism.
-
meher engineer at 18:18 PM on 16 March 2013Death in Jurassic Park: global warming and ocean anoxia
A useful article. A quote that may add to it says, "The oceans act like a sponge to draw down excess carbon dioxide from the air; the gas reacts with seawater to form carbonic acid, which over time is neutralized by fossil carbonate shells on the seafloor. But if CO2 goes into the oceans too quickly, it can deplete the carbonate ions that corals, mollusks and some plankton need for reef and shell-building.
That is what is happening now. In a review of hundreds of paleoceanographic studies, a team of researchers from five countries found evidence for only one period in the last 300 million years when the oceans changed even remotely as fast as today: the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM, some 56 million years ago. In the early 1990s, scientists extracting sediments from the seafloor off Antarctica found a layer of mud from this period wedged between thick deposits of white plankton fossils. In a span of about 5,000 years, they estimated, a mysterious surge of carbon doubled atmospheric concentrations, pushed average global temperatures up by about 6 degrees C, and dramatically changed the ecological landscape." It appeared in an article on "Ocean acidification rate mey be unprecedented" (see: http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2951), that is worth looking at.
Moderator Response: [DB] The source paper for that article can be found here. -
barry1487 at 18:13 PM on 16 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Sorry about the formatting. :(
-
barry1487 at 18:12 PM on 16 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
In fact, perhaps the only individual to actually advocate changing the term from 'global warming' to 'climate change' was Republican political strategist Frank Luntz in a controversial memo advising conservative politicians on communicating about the environment:
It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation.
“Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”. As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.
I've quoted it once before on SkS; According to Stephen Poole in his book Unspeak..."The U.S., Saudi Arabia, and other oil-producing countries lobbied the U.N. in the late 1980s to change the language of early resolutions from 'global warming' to 'climate change' because the latter is vaguer and less frightening, and also because it doesn’t point the finger so directly at the burning of fossil fuels as the cause. While 'climate change' is scientifically correct (because a local climate might get colder rather than hotter), it obscures the fact that such changes will be a result of the rising mean temperature of the planet — i.e., of global warming."
Poole mentions that part of his book at his blog, here (but there he says the talks occurred in the early 1990s). It's also referenced here. If correct, it might be worth mentioning that everyone who tried to change the language was on the 'skeptical' side of the debate.
Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed link html. -
Leto at 16:57 PM on 16 March 2013We're heading into an ice age
Hi there grindup,
I must be having a slow day... Could you spell out the argument for me?
Thanks.
-
grindupBaker at 16:45 PM on 16 March 2013We're heading into an ice age
You've all got this backwards on the planning & ethics front. We developed skills over centuries to know that climate will typically go into a very annoying cold state every few thousand years & found that it can be ameliorated simply by burning old rotted vegetables we've found. Instead of leaving most of them for future humans to regulate their climate for a pleasant life, we greedy pigs are taking the whole lot now when it isn't needed. That's an "intergenerational evil" involving very very old rotted vegetables.
-
dana1981 at 15:58 PM on 16 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Did Ray just criticize this post for 'not showing all the data' because it showed a graph with more data than a previous version in Marcott's PhD thesis? It sounds to me like Ray should be directing these accusations at Wattsy.
-
dana1981 at 15:53 PM on 16 March 2013Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Syun-Ichi Akasofu
Matthew, I think you're being rather generous to Akasofu's prediction, which was one of about 0.03°C surface cooling from 2000 to 2013, whereas we've actuallly seen about 0.07°C surface warming despite a preponderance of La Niña events and increased heat storage in the deeper oceans. Even with nature doing everything it can to help him out, Akasofu still hasn't done very well, off by a tenth of a degree after just 13 years.
-
Jose_X at 15:01 PM on 16 March 2013Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
KR and Tom Curtis, I would guess we are probably in agreement that at least within some mostly linear range and to first approximation that the path of deltas/slugs doesn't matter for CO2 and probably also not for most other greenhouse gases. We also probably agree that, in contrast, moving across certain temperatures (eg, hysteresis points) will cause RF calculations to depend on the details of the path taken.
I have a better understanding of this question and will probably consider it more later on rather than sooner, although feel free to keep tempting me back into the conversation if you have something else to add (fyi and if I appear not to return to this thread, my email is hozelda at the yahoo com). Thanks. -
Bob Lacatena at 13:50 PM on 16 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
36, Ray,
A skeptical person would have found and downloaded the Ph.D. thesis, and attempted to answer the question for himself, before making veiled implications of impropriety and malfeasance, both on the part of Marcott and Dana.
If you had downloaded the thesis here (sorry, it's rather poorly compressed and 63Mb) you would see that the goal of the thesis was to investigate three longstanding questions of paleoclimatology:
- A longstanding question in glaciology is the nature and mechanism of the so- called “Heinrich events” of the last ~60 ka.
- In the field of glacial geology a longstanding question has been the timing of alpine glacial advances during the Holocene.
- In the field of paleoclimatology a question regarding how global temperature varied over the entirety of the Holocene epoch has remained to be answered for some time.
A brief review of those three goals quickly reveals that the purpose of the original thesis was to answer questions related to climate many thousands of years ago. Current temperatures are obviously irrelevant to that goal, so the graph does not extend beyond what was required.
And yet, as might be expected, Dr. Marcott chose to build upon his previous work and to take it in a new direction, one relevant to a major issue of the day, anthropogenic climate change.
Why is this surprising to you, or to anyone?
But... thank you, because you've added another bit of evidence pertaining to Mr. Watts' denial, and his willingness to intentionally mislead readers such as yourself. He took a perfectly innocuous and pedestrian example of the way science is conducted (do one study, earning one's doctorate, and then build on that work later in one's career) and presented it with implications of nefarious impropriety. Of course, he won't come out and actually make his accusations. He just asks innocent questions like "I wonder what accounts for the difference" (much as you did), then lets that hang in the air like a foul stench.
And you and others fall for it hook, line and sinker.
Maybe, next time, you'll trust Watts less and invest some of your own energy into figuring out how he's led you astray.
-
Ray at 11:21 AM on 16 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
As this topic is centred on Anthony Watts I visited his website to "have a look for myself". Interestingly the figure you show from Marcott's Science paper, also shown on Watts' blog but not here, is virtually identical to a figure from Marcott's PhD thesis in all respects for the early periods but not for later periods. Notably reconstructions given as negative in the PhD figure are given as positive in the Science paper and even more notably the uptick at the end seen in the Scince paper is absent in the figure from Marcott's Ph.D. Are there any explanations for these discrepancies of which you are aware? I must say I am rather surprised these differences are not mentioned here given your heading "True skeptics consider all the data" .
-
Matthew L at 10:27 AM on 16 March 2013Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Syun-Ichi Akasofu
Oops! My sincere apologies to Mr Akasofu for spelling his name so comically wrong, twice, in the above post.
-
Riduna at 10:23 AM on 16 March 2013State Department Downplays the Climate Impact of Keystone XL
The question for the US/Canadian governments is: Should we be stimulating and prolonging the use of fossil fuels or should we be making decisions which decisively move away from their use particularly for transport and electricity generation?
The Canadian government has already answered that question in favor of extending the use of fossil fuels, irrespective of (indeed, by deliberately ignoring) the effects on global warming and the likelihood of destabilising and producing a more extreme climate. A case of money now speaks louder than an assured future. Canada wants a warmer climate.
For the US, the question is can it survive with a rapidly warming environment and an increasingly unpredictable and severe climate likely to seriously impair farm output? For most Americans, logic tells them to go electric for transport and step-up the move to renewables. For vested interests in the oil refining, motor and transport industries its “go Keystone” and God help us if we have to invest in new technology.
God help us if they don’t! But they won’t – not willingly, which is why a final decision by Obama is important. Cling to the past – or move to the future?
-
Matthew L at 10:20 AM on 16 March 2013Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Syun-Ichi Akasofu
I think it is quite possible to spot a pattern and project results into the future based on it without knowing that pattern's cause. For example it had long been established that there was a solar sunspot cycle of approximately 11 years long before the physics was known.
Akafosu thinks he has spotted a 60 year cycle in the temperature data but he does not have an explanation. He has simply projected the data forward as if the cycle he has spotted existed. That is a perfectly valid, if rather limited, thing to do. I am sure the early solar astronomers did the same sort of thing and projected pretty accurately even though the science behind the cycle was unknown, and could not have been discovered with the technology available at the time.
Just because a cause is unknown does not mean that it does not exist, and it is unfair to say that if he is right it is just down to luck. He may have spotted a cycle that the current state of climate science has no explanation for.
Out of interest I have (rather crudely) extended his projection to today against the WfT index below. So far his 'luck' is holding out (or maybe he is correct!).
Support for the 60 year cycle idea is also available from plotting the annual rate of change using long term linear regression analysis. The graph linked to below shows 60 and 30 year linear regression curves for the monthly HadCrut4 data. I used that series because it goes back to 1850.
This seems to support a rough 60 year cycle in the rate of change of temperatures, although it does seem to show accelleration in the rate of change over the last century and a half that Akafasu does not mention. I have put each data point at the centre of the 60 years so that the latest figure is plotted as at 1983. Similarly the 30 year curve is offset -15 years. Currently the 60 year linear regression line shows a rate of change equivalent to just over 1c a century. So where will it go from here?
The graph below superimposes the 15 year linear regression line (centred at -7.5 years). This has taken a steep drop down to a rate equating to around 0.4c a century, a rate not seen since the early 1970s. So unless this 15 year line makes a sudden move in an upward direction (quite possible of course!) Akafasu's projection might carry on being closer to the actual temperature line than the IPCC Model Mean.
Personally I think the CO2 warming signature in this data is in the accelleration in the rate of change rather than the absolute rate at any particular point in time. Just a thought!
I agree with you that this is hardly cutting edge science, more an interesting blog post. As you say, the real science would be finding an explanation for a 60 year cycle in global temperatures. Not one for me, the extent of my expertise is fiddling around with numbers in Excel!
Moderator Response: [Sph] Image widths adjusted. -
dana1981 at 10:11 AM on 16 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
shoyeore @34 - it just depends how you define what's an El Niño/La Niña year. My methodology is discussed here.
-
shoyemore at 09:06 AM on 16 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Sorry to be picky but was 2010 an El Nino year? It is described on the chart as neutral.
I see John Nielson-Gammon also has it as ENSO-neutral, but I have seen it described as an El Nino year or maybe El Nino conditions happened for a few months? For example, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Enso-global-temp-anomalies.png
I may use this chart and want to have my rebuttal ready! :)
-
Same Ordinary Fool at 08:45 AM on 16 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Personally, I think it is a mistake to criticize the 'lukewarmer' name and position generally, because we should let the deniers name their own transitional positions...en route to reality. Individually, we can describe Anthony as a 'skeptic lukewarmer' - one who accepts CO2 as a greenhouse gas, but who denies the research and motivation behind every other aspect of climate science.
There is a clear distinction between the two positions. A 'lukewarmer' will on occasion speak out in support of those aspects of climate science he/she agrees with. The 'skeptic lukewarmer' sees himself in singular opposition to the rest of consensus climate science - and will downplay his points of agreement, to keep those not sharing this agreement on his side.
-
Leto at 07:54 AM on 16 March 2013Drost, Karoly, and Braganza Find Human Fingerprints in Global Warming
Kevin @30,
Do you realise your mistake in post #30 now? Putting aside that your objection is based on picking just one model, and misses the big picture, you have the mathematical argument exactly backwards: you are using the wrong confidence interval, as others have pointed out. If you can't see this, further discussion is appropriate.
The problem with throwing out all these spurious Gish-Gallop-style objections is that some readers might find your simplstic 'facts' easier to follow than the actual statistical argument that follows. Some acknowledgement of your errors, or at least further discussion of where you got confused, might be appropriate to show that your post @30 is not simply a trolling exercise.
-
Son of Krypton at 07:15 AM on 16 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Jose@8 & Kevin&14
If you were fans of the graph in DS#10, I might also recommend the paper Foster & Rahmstorf (2011). SkS does an admirable job summing it up hereIn essence, they use a multiple linear regression to isolate the relative contriburtions to the climate from ENSO, volcanism, solar variability and the anthropogenic contribution. It results in a far clearer picture of the anthropogenic effect on climate
-
Son of Krypton at 06:15 AM on 16 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Jose@8 & Kevin&14
If you were fans of the graph in DS#10, I might also recommend the paper Foster & Rahmstorf (2011). SkS does an admirable job summing it up hereIn essence, they use a multiple linear regression to isolate the relative contriburtions to the climate from ENSO, volcanism, solar variability and the anthropogenic contribution. It results in a far clearer picture of the anthropogenic effect on climate
-
dana1981 at 05:58 AM on 16 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Kevin @26:
"is the above quoted argument fair?"
Yep. Watts is arguing that decades of peer-reviewed scientific research is wrong based on blog 'science'. We're showing that comments made in an interview were wrong. It's just sliiiiightly different. If we were using the graphic in question to try and disprove peer-reviewed research, then you would have a point.
-
Composer99 at 05:58 AM on 16 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Kevin:
As far as I am aware neither John Nielson-Gammon nor Skeptical Science are presenting that graph as science of any kind, only as a debunking tool, similar to the Escalator, to use against claims that global warming has 'paused' or 'stalled'.
Can you say the same thing about Watts given what he states?
What I learned is that the government weather service (NOAA) had it right at one time, but they’d dropped their guard, and my recent study (preliminary) shows that not only is the deployment of weather stations faulty in siting them, but that the adjustments designed to solve those issues actually make the problem worse.
-
John Russell at 05:56 AM on 16 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
While Watts—and many of his more 'politically astute' fellow climate conspiricists—has started recently to claim to be a 'lukewarmer', I note that he still gives a platform and tacit encouragement to anyone who wants to attack mainstream climate science. As others have noted, this position seems to go along with a recent acceptance of a climate sensitvity less than 2oC. Although on the surface this can be seen as an advance of sorts, it's a change in position that totally fails to alter the underlying stance that no action should be taken because of the uncertainty/cost/etc.
To use a military analogy; Watts and his co-conspiracy-theorists appear to be dropping armed insurrection and instead taking up a terrorist or 5th columnist approach to their ideological struggle.
-
Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Kevin - Given that Watts unsubmitted work is woefully flawed (as pointed out here and by many others), while the graph in DS#10 is both incredibly simple (just dates and ENSO classifications) and uncontroversial, yes, it is a fair argument. The point here is that Watts' paper is wrong, not that it is unsubmitted.
If that paper had passed peer-review (with actual reviewers, rather than in a journal such as E&E) that would be a point in it's favor - given the fundamental and publicly discussed errors, however, I really don't see that happening.
As to the graph in DS#10, a simple plot of temperatures against ENSO phase, I would point out that it's probably sub-publication in size. And more importantly, that the graph is correct - unless you have some issues with it, in which case you should say so.
-
Kevin8233 at 05:16 AM on 16 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
The "preliminary" paper in question has not even been submitted to a journal, let alone been subjected to the peer-review process, and contains several fundamental flaws which completely undermine the conclusions that Watts asserts in this quote.
In light of the fact that the paper that produced the graph in DS#10 has not been peer review, nor has it been submitted, and in fact is presented on a blog, is the above quoted argument fair?
-
Kevin8233 at 04:11 AM on 16 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
gws,
Thanks for the info. Do you happen to know where I can find the confidence limits for his trends? His blog did not show them, at least not that I found, not even in the comments.
-
sol6966 at 04:06 AM on 16 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
oops that should be (especially if your not friendly to the USA),
-
sol6966 at 04:02 AM on 16 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
JvD at 17 says
None of them disagree with my assessment, since none of them show how renewables can power the globe. All they do is show that there is enough sun, wind, etc. It saddens me that SS it not able to recognise the difference between that and showing actually *how* renewables can power the globe
What is the difference between your assertion that Nuclear can supply the world's energy needs and those who propose renable energy?
You seem to be suggesting that these reports are only able to identfy a resource without being able to identify the technologys needed to utilise those resources, which is clearly wrong.
All you can do is identify what nuclear resource is avalible and show there is the technology to make use of that resource. You may be able to show that we can dig the uranium up, refine it into useful form, and then convert it into useful energy, of course renewable energy technologies are able to convert those abundant resources without the need to dig anything up or refine anything.
Your favored technology has a number serious draw backs, to access the resourse requires energy intensive & distructive extraction, energy intensive refining, the process of extracting useful energy is too expensive to build without massive government subsidy and are uninsurable (what ever happened to the promise of too cheap to meter), creates long lived polutants that after more than fifty years of use still can not be safely disposed of and can be used to make the most distructive bombs ever created, is not available to everyone (especially if your frendly to the USA), and if something goes wrong hundreds of thousands of people will never be allowed to go home.
On the other hand, renewables are not finite by there nature, the conversion equipment is quickly becoming much cheaper, can be scaled to any size required (nuclear power is not much use to a village in India).
Moderator Response: [d_b] Those will have to serve as the last words on nuclear energy versus everything else on this thread. Further completely redundant and off-topic debate on that tiresome topic will be deleted from this location. Bear in mind also that it's possible another moderator will take a harsher view and retroactively purge the thread. -
gws at 03:53 AM on 16 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Kevin @14
I assume you addressed John Nielsen-Gammon's analysis? If so, AFAIK, it is not published in the peer-reviewed literature but only his blog. He may work on it though and has recently updated it on his blog.
With respect to years analyzed for the trend, John gives the stats. If you have questions, email him.
16 years? What matters is the period, not the number of data points. Fewer than 16 data points can give a significant trend, but it may not be accurate if the period analyzed is too short. In this graph's case they span a longer period though. Aka, you probably misunderstood what you were previously told, namely that one should not analyze short periods for trends because the noise can overwhelm/bias it. However, if the period is long enough, even fewer data points can accurately represent the underlying trend.
-
michael sweet at 03:07 AM on 16 March 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
JvD,
Since you recommended nuclear for global power can you describe how you would secure locations like Siria or Zimbabwe? The fiasco in Fukushima proved that neclear power absolutely requires permanent connection to other power supplies to protect their core and on-site waste storage. How will you protect this access in a war zone?
I, for one, have no problem with wind generators or solar being installed in Syria. If they are damaged the Syrians can build new ones. There are no security issues. How can you imagine powering the entire world, including unstable countries, with nuclear?
You appear to me to claim that energy engineers, like you, are too stupid to develop methods to overcome the problems that renewable energy has. I think these issues can be overcome. For one thing, baseload power, the title of this post, has a lot of daytime energy use transferred into it because fossil fuels cannot provide the energy at a convienent time. While wind might be the same, solar produces its energy during prime daytime energy use hours.
Please list your objections so they can be discussed.
-
Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
JvD - I have replied on an appropriate thread.
-
A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
As a follow-up to JvDs comments:I would have to disagree.
Capacity: There is certainly enough wind/solar energy theoretically available, many multiples of current and projected demand, even if limiting to only otherwise undesireable real estate.
Renewable baseload: Distributed networks can and will have baseload capacity - I believe the reliable baseload for a sufficiently distributed network, with zero energy storage, has been shown to be ~1/3 of average capacity (Archer & Jacobson 2007). Average capacity is IIRC ~15-30% of installed capacity, varying with type/site - by no means perfection, but a predictable fraction.
Reliabilty: Wind/solar at least tend to be multiple components (many windmills, many solar panels) at each site, with the possible exception of concentrated thermal. This means source failures are far less likely than with coal/nuclear boilers, but for the sake of argument we can go with the same site reliability figures as fossil fuels use - and we manage with those now. As to supply variations - weather predictions out a few hours are extremely reliable, providing plenty of time for any needed redistribution or backup to ramp up.
International availability: Not often discussed, but certainly an issue. While the US (for example) doesn't have this problem, the UK (small, cloudy, high latitude, high energy use) is probably not going to be able to supply their energy needs with renewables located in the UK - but rather importing from perhaps Northern Africa or other locations. But that's the nature of the world today - some countries are energy exporters, some are energy importers. Particulars will change, but we are dealing with that situation now.
-
Composer99 at 01:23 AM on 16 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Inquiry to JvD on thread suggested by michael sweet.
-
Composer99 at 01:23 AM on 16 March 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
JvD states on a recent thread:
"As someone who is familiar with the field, you must know there are many peer reviewed studies that disagree with your assessment that renewables cannot be used to power the entire globe." [comment by michael sweet]
Yes I have read probably all of them. None of them disagree with my assessment, since none of them show how renewables can power the globe. All they do is show that there is enough sun, wind, etc. It saddens me that [SkS] it not able to recognise the difference between that and showing actually *how* renewables can power the globe, which is what is demanded in a scientific discussion. IPCC does not do this. Greenpeace does not do this. WWF does not do this. They make a mockery of serious efforts to move to low-carbon economy. This kind of denial is similar to climate change denial and just as damaging to the effort to save the planet for human welfare. I repeat my call for an overhaul of the treatment of this important subject on SS. Dr. Ted Trainer has clearly shown the problem and [SkS] should take it from there. I can't do more than that.
JvD: Could you provide some specifics on this? Perhaps refer to a few of these papers and explaining why they support your view?
After all, the authorship of the reports you are criticizing will very likely include people whose cumulative professional experience will be greater than yours. On what basis is your view superior to theirs?
-
dana1981 at 01:11 AM on 16 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Joris, most of the discussions on SkS (not SS) about renewable energy have included the point that we need to reduce consumption by increasing efficiency. As for moving to 100% renewable energy, I don't agree with you (this can be achieved by connecting a large network of various different types of renewable energy - solar PV, wind, solar thermal, geothermal, etc.), but it's a moot point for several decades anyway, and not relevant to this blog post.
-
Philip64 at 01:04 AM on 16 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
An outstanding dissection of Watts's arguments. The claim to be a 'lukewarmist' is the most transparent fiction imaginable, designed, I suspect, only to draw in gullible 'undecideds'.
What also come across is the extraordinary shallowness of his ideas, and the increasing reliance on selective data . In that sense he is the essential climate skeptic.
-
JvD at 00:52 AM on 16 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
"As someone who is familiar with the field, you must know there are many peer reviewed studies that disagree with your assessment that renewables cannot be used to power the entire globe."
Yes I have read probably all of them. None of them disagree with my assessment, since none of them show how renewables can power the globe. All they do is show that there is enough sun, wind, etc. It saddens me that SS it not able to recognise the difference between that and showing actually *how* renewables can power the globe, which is what is demanded in a scientific discussion. IPCC does not do this. Greenpeace does not do this. WWF does not do this. They make a mockery of serious efforts to move to low-carbon economy. This kind of denial is similar to climate change denial and just as damaging to the effort to save the planet for human welfare. I repeat my call for an overhaul of the treatment of this important subject on SS. Dr. Ted Trainer has clearly shown the problem and SS should take it from there. I can't do more than that.
Best regards,
Joris
-
michael sweet at 00:05 AM on 16 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
JvD,
Renewabel energy has been discussed repeatedly on SkS. Frankly, I used to be in favor of Nuclear, but the people supporting that position here have not made a good case and I no longer support nuclear. Where I live in Florida, the local power company has wasted $1.5 billon US dollars planning a nuclear plant (they have not broken ground yet and never will) and has a second plant that has sustained irrepairable damage during maintenance worth $5-10 billion. Nuclear is simply not economic in the USA. As someone who is familiar with the field, you must know there are many peer reviewed studies that disagree with your assessment that renewables cannot be used to power the entire globe.
If you want to continue this discussion find a suitable thread, perhaps this one, nuclear always goes on forever.
Prev 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 Next
