@ATTP (Ken Rice)
Got too boring even for you in that milquetoast groupthink blog you created, huh?
ROFL
Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by David Springer
↧
↧
Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by David Springer
I note you didn’t address your incapacity to describe how feedbacks are defined in engineering terms.
Now you’re just babbling.
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by donaitkin
Judith,
I would have said that there were three overarching issues, the third being the extent to which further warming would be harmful or beneficial, and to where and to whom.
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by Peter Davies
+10
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy edition by Peter Lang
We now have a reasonable estimate of wind turbines’ effectiveness at reducing CO2 emissions in the Australian National Electricity Market (NEM), i.e. 78% effective in 2014. Wind turbines generated 4.5% of the NEM’s electricity and avoided 3.5% of the emissions from electricity.
See Wheatley’s analysis of CO2 savings from wind turbines in the NEM, Submission No. 348 to the ‘Senate Select Committee on wind turbines’: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Wind_Turbines/Wind_Turbines/Submissions
As wind’s proportion increases to about 15% by 2020 to comply with the RET, effectiveness is likely to decrease to around 60% (all else equal). If that is the case, the CO2 abatement costs estimates in the recent RET Review are probably gross underestimates – e.g. the CO2 abatement cost estimates with wind energy would need to be increased by ~67%.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy edition by Peter Lang
+1
An excellent explanation of the real world reality.
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by What are the most controversial points in climate science? | Enjeux énergies et environnement
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by Pooh, Dixie
Food for thought. Many influences to be confirmed, and many magnitudes to be quantified.
Svalgaard, Dr. Leif. “Reconstruction-Solar-EUV-Flux.pdf.” Scientific, September 23, 2014.
http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-Solar-EUV-Flux.pdf
“Conclusions (pg 43)
• We can reconstruct with confidence the solar EUV flux [and its proxy F10.7] back to 1840
• The reconstructed EUV flux confirms the discontinuities in the Sunspot Records reported by Clette et al., 2014
• There is more geomagnetic data earlier than 1840, and it now seems important to acquire and process the earlier data.
• The EUV flux is concordant with the revised Sunspot Number and the Solar Wind Magnetic Flux
• There is no Modern Grand Solar Maximum
• Some of this may still be controversial. Aggressive and serious opposition is welcome”
Note that in Dr. Lean’s graph of TSI, It is GCR and EUV that is highly variable.
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by mosomoso
I’m a denier. For me, coolings, warmings and pauses are entirely typical of climate for the last few thousand years and any present warming or pause is a yawn. Moreover, only an absence of extreme events might be freakish, and possibly not even that. I also think that this position would not have been controversial until very recent times, which is why I don’t feel obliged to prove it. But that’s just me and my denial.
However there is something lukewarmers might achieve. They might advocate for new and efficient electricity grids in the third world so all those billions of people stop burning stuff. Consensus folk might not believe a hard-liner like me if I suggested that billions of people stripping the earth and incinerating what they can might be a bit too carbon intensive – even for me. Hell, you can even park your wind and solar there, since crummy power is better than nothing at all.
No sense having vast reforestation and land stabilisation programs etc if desperate people are going to hack it all up because they can’t boil the soup. And then breed because there’s nothing new on the mud wall tonight.
I live in the middle of an enormous forest region which is re-growing like crazy because nobody needs to strip the land any more. Even with modern tech, nobody could afford to strip the land because there is seldom profit in doing so.
Want to mitigate? Stop being organic like locusts and advance like evolved humans are supposed to do. Stop sustaining…you’re meant to change and change fast. You are people.
↧
↧
Comment on Wind turbines’ CO2 savings and abatement cost by Peter Lang
UPDATE:
We now have a reasonable estimate of wind turbines’ effectiveness at reducing CO2-e emissions in the Australian National Electricity Market (NEM), i.e. 78% effective in 2014. Wind turbines generated 4.5% of the NEM’s electricity and avoided 3.5% of the emissions from electricity.
See Wheatley’s analysis of CO2-e savings from wind turbines in the NEM, Submission No. 348 to the ‘Senate Select Committee on wind turbines’: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Wind_Turbines/Wind_Turbines/Submissions
As wind’s proportion increases to about 15% by 2020 to comply with the Renewable Energy Target (RET), CO2 abatement effectiveness is likely to decrease to around 60% (all else equal). If that is the case, the CO2 abatement costs estimates in the recent RET Review are probably gross underestimates – e.g. the CO2-e abatement cost estimates with wind energy would need to be increased by ~67%.
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by Pooh, Dixie
Lean, Dr. Judith. “Solar Spectrum, Variability, and Atmospheric Absorption.” Scientific. NASA – Science@NASA, April 6, 2011. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/sunbathing/sunspectrum.htm
“Note definition as integral over entire spectrum.
Note concession that extreme UV and x-ray variation > 1%.
If these are absorbed by atmosphere, what happens to their energy?
This image, courtesy of Dr. Judith Lean at the US Naval Research Laboratory, shows the spectrum of solar radiation from 10 to 100,000 nm (dark blue), its variability between Solar Maximum and Solar Minimum (green) and the relative transparency of Earth’s atmosphere at sea level (light blue). At wavelengths shorter than about 300 nm, there is a relatively large variation in the Sun’s extreme UV and x-ray output (greater than 1%), but the Earth’s atmosphere is nearly opaque at those wavelengths. For Earth-dwelling beach-goers there is no significant difference between Solar Max and solar minimum.”
Note step-wise spectral irradiance below 10^2 nm. Sparse data?
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by genghiscunn
“the heart break of psoriasis” Hey, that’s a bit strong, having widespread psoriasis from age 16 was not good, but (later), I never met a girl put off by it. It’s mostly been an inconvenience, something which needed regular treatment. And, 57 years later, it’s had a restrained few years, almost in remission recently. Everything changes.
Faustino
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by George Klein
Here is something that may be helpful and could be added (or did I miss it? – If so, please provide link.):
Normalize ALL climate forcing factors to a single scale and see how they compare.
That might tell us what to focus on.
George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
↧
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by Peter Davies
The FAR list of the IPCC in 1990 does provide many good discussion points that have as yet not been adequately explored due to its infiltration policitisation by ideologists.
The most controversial aspects of climate science related to AGW should IMO cover the issue of using global parameters for policy purposes when climate is essentially a regional phenomenon with specific risks pertaining to each of those regions.
The greatest challenge to the dominant view of AGW is the lack of sufficient reliable data, both spacial and temporal that would be needed to determine the domain population PDF’s required to provide better estimates of the error bounds of current climate projections used for policy purposes.
Significant progress in our understanding of the climate system would seem to hinge on researchers taking a more meteorological approach in the study of regional climate trends and the improvement of shorter term weather forecasting would be most helpful for vulnerable communities to adapt to climate change affecting their regions.
Finally, research efforts in climate science to date have fixated on CO2 levels as the main cause of AGW, to the exclusion of many promising areas of research, such as the cause and effect of changes in clouds, wind and ocean currents on our climate.
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by Richard Tol (@RichardTol)
Judy: I take exception to your definition of “climate science” as the “natural science of the climate system”.
Other, equally controversial points include:
– how serious are the impacts of climate change?
– how important is climate change relative to other changes?
– how serious are the impacts of climate policy?
– how to design a climate policy that is effective, cost-effective and equitable?
– how to trade-off the impacts of climate change against the impacts of climate policy?
↧
Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | I World New
↧
Comment on Pope Francis, climate change, and morality by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | I World New
↧
↧
Comment on What should renewables pay for grid service? by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | I World New
↧
Comment on Puzzle in the Atlantic by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | I World New
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by Philip Lee
Can you claim that there is an understanding of AGW absent a reliable and validated model that can make useful predictions 1, 5, and 10 years into the future?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
