100 years from now they will write that he saved the planet.
That is the bet.
And perhaps ended Western civilization by dickering with non-issues like CO2 while allowing the rise of a genocidal jihadist state in the ME.
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by Lucifer
↧
↧
Comment on We are all confident idiots by John Carter
Physicist Dave doesn’t understand most of what I write, nor does he really want to.
But yet nevertheless he’s an expert on the issue of climate change, as with most skeptics.
↧
Comment on We are all confident idiots by mosomoso
The problem with models – until we can combine monumental commonsense with zettaplop computing power – is not that they are wrong, might be wrong, or have been wrong. The obvious problem with models, when we contemplate the enormity of that flux called climate, is that they HAVE to be wrong.
A dinky toy Ferrari HAS to lose in a Formula 1 race. A model of future climate HAS to be wrong. Your dinky toy might be a great dinky toy, superb in detail and presentation, worthy of many awards, a ground-breaker and masterpiece.
But it’s a dinky.
↧
Comment on We are all confident idiots by Rob Ellison
As far as ocean heat is concerned – Argo shows large variability year to year – the splice to old and whooly inadequate data is dodgy – and differing data treatments result in vastly different results.
The Scripps ‘climatology’ for instance shows a steric (ocean warming) sea level rise of 0.2+/-0.8mm/yr.
It is a bit like the highest carbon dioxide in millions of years meme – they don’t seem to be capable of processing anomalous data.
↧
Comment on We are all confident idiots by Rob Ellison
Stuffed it again – this was meant as the top graph in the comment above.
↧
↧
Comment on We are all confident idiots by Rob Ellison
‘In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.’ TAR 14.2.2.2
Naw – the problem with models is that there are thousands of divergent solutions possible – none of them guaranteed to be right.
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by Fernando Leanme
Jim the analysis you linked is insufficient to allow one to establish the full year operating parameters for that solar power plant. However, I just did a simple calculation using my graphite device and it shows the technology they used is a dead end. Building such a plant is a waste of resources.
If the government is subsidizing ideas like this I may put together a proposal for a geothermal plant. This will allow me to play around drilling very expensive subsidized wells.
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by Skiphil
I don’t know if Daniel describes all progressives but he does describe Michael and Joshua awfully well….
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by David Springer
Joshua | November 16, 2014 at 9:05 pm |
“It’s possible to have views about the politics related to decision-making in the face of uncertainty without labeling hundreds of millions of people with pejoratives”
On an anonymous open blog? Not likely.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by Girma
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by Jim D
PA, you seem to be one of the people who can’t make the distinction between bio CO2 and fossil CO2, as regards the effects on climate. Maybe another skeptic can take you aside and explain it for you before you continue to argue along those lines.
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by Girma
Probability of finding the above 9-leg correlation by chance (0.5^9)x100% = 0.2 %
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by Peter Lang
The world’s largest and most recent solar thermal plant, Ivanpah, http://www.ecc-conference.org/past-conferences/2012/BrightSource_ECC_Presentation_combined.pdf will cost about $19/W of average power delivered:
• Nameplate capacity = 370 MW.
• projected annual generation = 1,000,000 MWh. Therefore average power output is 114 MW (about 1/10th of a new nuclear plant).
• Capacity factor is 31%.
• Cost = US $2.2 billion = $19/Watt average.
• This is 3x the cost of some recent nuclear powerplant builds that most environmentalists have accused of being prohibitively expensive.
• The heliostats used in the project weigh in at 30,000 tonnes. That’s 262 tons of heliostats per MW electric average. That’s just for the heliostats, not even the foundations, not to mention the tower and power block.
• The powerplant area that had to be bulldozed over is 20x larger than a nuclear reactor of equivalent average (real) capacity (twin unit AP1000).
↧
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by Jim D
Maybe you can also evaluate the chance of this correlation, which also uses the full trend in HADCRUT4 unlike yours.
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by Peter Lang
However, I just did a simple calculation using my graphite device and it shows the technology they used is a dead end. Building such a plant is a waste of resources.
Yes. And this explains: http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/ . Renewables are not sustainable. Their ERoEI is too low.
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by Michael
PA | November 17, 2014 at 7:22 pm |
The problem with uncertainty and the precautionary principle is shown by an actual example:
You might slip in the shower,”
Non-slip surfaces.
” you might fall down the stairs”
Handrails, anti-slip surfaces.
“you might have an accident on your way to work.”
Road rules, speed cameras, air-bags, seat-belts, car design, helmets.
“If you apply the precautionary principle to your daily life, you don’t get out of bed in the morning.
The precautionary principle is an absurd way to justify policy.”.
The problem with ‘skepticism’ is shown by this example.
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by Girma
Jim D
The global mean temperature is the accumulation of all the increase in global mean surface temperature during the last 15 solar cycles because the oceans and land are storage of solar heat energy. So since each solar cycle increases the global surface temperature by about 0.12 deg C as shown in the figure below, the total increase would be 15×0.12 = 1.8 deg C. However, the observed increase is only 0.8 deg C because heat is lost to the cold ocean and land below the globe’s surface.
The increase in the accumulated heat in the oceans give the secular global mean temperature trend. As the solubility of gases decrease with increase in temperature, the warming releases CO2 into the atmosphere increasing its concentration.
Even if we completely stop using fossil fuels, the CO2 concentration will increase. It will reduce only with low solar activity like the Maunder Minimum.
Increased Solar Activity => Increase global mean temperature => Increase in CO2 concentration
↧
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by jhprince2014
People say the dumbest, most undignified things, particularly sound-bite mind-numbing statements from politicians
↧
Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by Girma
Jim D
Your graph is correct, but the interpretation is not.
↧
Comment on Week in review by aaron
John, you should apply for a job in the Administration.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
