Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148626 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on All megawatts are not equal by Steve

$
0
0

It could but there are also some pragmatic considerations…nuclear units have many more automatic trip features than their fossil counterparts – even on the non-nuclear (turbine) side of the plant. But this is good – the emphasis is on nuclear safety, protecting the core. But it also means you have a little more risk of losing the unit when ramping up or down on a nuke. What might be an alarm on a coal burner might trip the turbine on a nuke and if you’re anywhere near full power, a turbine trip results in an automatic SCRAM on the GE plants.

Of course, you can also argue that the larger the unit (regardless of fuel source) the less you want to use it for load following. The load dispatcher really hates to see a large unit go off-line unexpectedly.

PS. Thanks for the article Planning Engineer – very interesting and informative.


Comment on Week in review by A fan of *MORE* discourse

$
0
0

tonyb is gripped by desire  “Would still like to know what you think the sea level will be in 2100 and also the ocean temperature profile?”

FOMD’s Bayesian weight It’s likely (meaning, more than a fifty-fifty chance) that sea-level rise will accelerate in coming decades, with steric expansion (from ocean-heating) contributing substantially to that acceleration.

Question  How likely is this rising/heating climate-change postulate in your view TonyB?

More likely than fifty-fifty? Or less likely?

And what scientific elements enter into your reasoning? Heat-transport theory? Energy-balance analysis? Dynamical modeling? Empirical curve-fitting? All of them? None of them?

The world wonders  why denialists won’t (or can’t?) bring themselves to answer even the simplest Bayesian questions about climate-change, using even the most traditional scientific methods.

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

Comment on Week in review by A fan of *MORE* discourse

Comment on Week in review by PA

$
0
0

A fan of *MORE* discourse | December 22, 2014 at 10:16 am | Reply
tonyb is gripped by desire “Would still like to know what you think the sea level will be in 2100 and also the ocean temperature profile?”

FOMD’s Bayesian weight It’s likely (meaning, more than a fifty-fifty chance) that sea-level rise will accelerate in coming decades, with steric expansion (from ocean-heating) contributing substantially to that acceleration.

Well, the MWP had 6 inch higher sea levels.

Since we are supposed to be as warm as the MWP the correct answer is 6 inches.

If we aren’t as warm the answer will be less.

Comment on Week in review by A fan of *MORE* discourse

$
0
0

Hmmm … it appears that denialist abuse has again fubar’d the threading once again (which is no surprise) … so here’s a reasoned respectful responsible rational Bayesian response to TonyB’s question!

tonyb is gripped by desire  “Would still like to know what you think the sea level will be in 2100 and also the ocean temperature profile?”

FOMD’s Bayesian weight It’s likely that sea-level rise will accelerate in coming decades, and steric expansion (from ocean-heating) will contribute to that acceleration.

How likely is this rising/heating climate-change postulate in your view TonyB?

More likely than fifty-fifty? Or less likely?

The world wonders  why denialists won’t (or can’t?) bring themselves to answer even the simplest Bayesian questions.

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

Comment on Week in review by c1ue

$
0
0

Bayesian analysis has been frequently shown to have all sorts of problems including confirmation bias, positive trend bias, and so forth.
In fact, even Lewandosky has at least one paper talking about this – outside of his denier attack papers:

http://cowles.econ.yale.edu/conferences/2007/cases-rules/griffith2.pdf

In plain English: You’re tossing about big words, but it is all Sound and Fury, signifying nothing.

Comment on Week in review by Stephen Segrest

$
0
0

Have folks forgotten a fundamental Universal Law? If so, I’ll remind everyone: (1) Don’t pull on Superman’s cape; (2) Don’t spit into the wind; (3) Don’t try to pull the mask off the ‘Ol Lone Ranger; and (4) Don’t mess around with Kim!

Comment on Week in review by A fan of *MORE* discourse

$
0
0

Stephen Segrest   “One can be a Christian and a Conservative, etc. and still believe that AGW is happening — one doesn’t have give up their core values and become an Atheist Treehugger or Liberal/Socialist.”

Hmmmm …searched my New Testament for verses teaching that “Corporations are people” …

… didn’t find any such verse.

Did find plenty of Bible justification for Christianity’s immensely strong tradition of socialism

Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you.

Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have rusted, and their rust will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up for treasure for the last days.

Behold, the wages of the labourers who mowed your fields, which you have kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts.

You have lived on the earth in luxury and in pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.

   (James 5:1-6)

The world wonders … at denialism’s obsessive cherry-picking … in science, in economics, and in religion too!

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}


Comment on Week in review by curryja

$
0
0

I’ve just deleted 30 comments, and one person is in moderation.

Comment on Week in review by A fan of *MORE* discourse

$
0
0

More thread unlinking …

Stephen Segrest   “One can be a Christian and a Conservative, etc. and still believe that AGW is happening — one doesn’t have give up their core values and become an Atheist Treehugger or Liberal/Socialist.”

Hmmmm …searched my New Testament for verses teaching that “Corporations are people” …

… didn’t find any such verse.

Did find plenty of Bible justification for Christianity’s immensely strong tradition of socialism

Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you.

Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have rusted, and their rust will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up for treasure for the last days.

Behold, the wages of the labourers who mowed your fields, which you have kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts.

You have lived on the earth in luxury and in pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.

   (James 5:1-6)

The world wonders … at denialism’s obsessive cherry-picking … in science, in economics, and in religion too!

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Billy Ruff'n

$
0
0

Angech, you had me until you said:

“I know that more solar and wind energy and reducing power consumption are all beneficial to humanity in the long run.”

“Beneficial”….. perhaps, but please help me understand how you KNOW that the capital committed to these activities could not have been put to even better use?

Capital invested in solar power can not be invested in developing a vaccine for Ebola. Which is more beneficial to humanity in the long run?

Life would be so much easier without so many uncertainties.

Comment on Week in review by Don Monfort

$
0
0

If you would stand up to the little creeps who are only here to bite your ankles and poke your denier denizens with a sharp stick, you wouldn’t have these problems.

Comment on Week in review by climatereason

$
0
0

Fan

Being an eternal optimist-as distinct from you who always seems to be in the climatic slough of despond-I have this hope that one of these days you will answer one of my straightforward questions in a straight forward manner.

As regards sea level here, once again , is the sea level graphic illustrating the regular ups and downs of the oceans.

https://b24ef414-a-6233b4b2-s-sites.googlegroups.com/a/glaciology.net/grinsted/Home/PDFs/Announcements/gslprojection/PRfig-shadow-smaller.png?attachauth=ANoY7cqxDSsmpfOxZtsFsc0UjmukRtiVhyAUwLWzW3EM1l_O7OykU52cuLBnEJUJAKTsEz8FC96wFrMwOW3_Ho6yC3-jufdngn2Yxt7XGme4FVYFpMzZhxmRkcfaGTAzMAx8rREjhioQkMmlYWYR98mj8c3_c7e4ibdeBlr8C8LoYB4y99UWt40_a2NQPQa1xnRdcHzEwjLhaumQptk7oso54965HeF3LgvjavSNIWvnyUD8X7fPTeeClO_w-eOANxFuwp26mJuSjxsDaQL_rNbUVWirfpREjQ%3D%3D&attredirects=0

Lets make things easy and ask whether you agree with the projections to 2100. To do this you merely need to answer 1) yes or 2) No.

1) Yes
2) No..

If you don’t agree, what do you think the levels will be?

The second part of the question is equally easy, which is to confirm, that in order for the oceans to rise to whatever apocalyptic level you believe will occur by 2100, what will be the temperature profile of the oceans?

I look forward to your straightforward answer

Your ever hopeful English friend

tonyb

Comment on Week in review by climatereason

Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by brent


Comment on Week in review by climatereason

$
0
0

Judith

The denizens need fresh meat regularly or they get restive (not festive)

tonyb

Comment on Week in review by omanuel

$
0
0

Stalin apparently tricked a group of geophysicists into believing they could “save the world from nuclear annihilation” in Oct 1945 by hiding the source of energy that destroyed Hiroshima in Aug 1945!

These geophysicists had little or no understanding of nuclear energy as the Creator, Destroyer and Sustainer of atoms, lives and worlds.

But a year earlier, in 1944, Nobel Laureate Max Planck had described the Force that holds together the whirling electrons in each atom of a steel girder to create the illusion of solid matter:

“There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a FORCE which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together …”

“We must assume behind this force the existence of a CONSCIOUS and INTELLIGENT MIND. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”

http://www.greggbraden.com/resources

These words by Max Planck illustrate how science, religion and spirituality operated before 1945 as separate paths to the basic truths that underlie all constitutional governments and respect for the basic right of humans to self-governance.

Restoration of Max Planck’s respect for religions, science and spirituality is the key to restoration of sanity in today’s troubled society and an end to the global climate debate.

Comment on Week in review by David Wojick

$
0
0

The second half of the comments have certainly taken a turn for the visual, even including comics. Are we getting festive?

Comment on Week in review by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

$
0
0

Yes, but what about the toll on endangered kinds of fish from swimming into those underwater turbines?

Comment on Week in review by Tonyb

$
0
0

Max

If they swim into the wrong plaice and hit the turbines hard they might get a haddock.

Tonyb

Viewing all 148626 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images