You can lead a horse to water but I’d rather have coffee.
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by Wagathon
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by David L. Hagen
Chief - Thanks - Do you have the link for that fig/paper?
That ~ $18/MWh (~1.8 c/kWh) is the best I have seen for nuclear. i.e. ~$5/GJ (~0.5c/GJ).
In round numbers, assuming conventional electrolysis at 65% efficiency with <a href="http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb/appendix_a/Lower_and_Higher_Heating_Values_of_Gas_Liquid_and_Solid_Fuels.pdf" rel="nofollow">ORNL's 142.18 GJ/t HHV for hydrogen</a>, we would need about 220 GJ/t of electricity to make hydrogen. At EM2's price for electricity, that suggests about $1,100/ton for the electricity to make hydrogen or $1.1/kg ~ $1.1/gallon of gasoline equivalent (gge). Then add the capital and operating expenses.
That now appears in the realm of engineering possibility to be cost competitive to make hydrogen cheaper than DOE's target of ~ $3.1/kg (gge). cf <a href="http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/production_cost_analysis.html" rel="nofollow">NREL's paper on H2 from wind.</a>
Then combine with CO2 to make liquid fuel etc.
↧
Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by Jim D
Singer graduated from tobacco denial and was openly supported by the oil industry. Seems like an easy target. He also was one of the first AGW deniers as early as 1990 with setting up the thinktanks and criticizing the science mainly because he did not like the policy implications. He was a pioneer.
↧
Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by Jim D
Don M, a large temperature change and weak forcing would lead to less certainty about anthropogenic attribution, of course, but the reverse is the case.
↧
Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by Jim D
I find the skeptical mindset very entertaining. That’s why I am here. It is good to probe what they are thinking with some questions, and this is an especially interesting time as the pause ends, a big El Nino is about due. What will they think of next? Maybe they will give up the ghost on whether warming will happen, and just head on over towards the warmer-is-better argument.
↧
↧
Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by Jim D
Don M, you asked me why Singer, and I gave my opinion.
↧
Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by Chief Hydrologist
‘Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26), leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global mean surface temperatures over the next several decades that could present a significant empirical obstacle to the implementation of policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (27). However, global warming could likewise suddenly and without any ostensive cause accelerate due to internal variability. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, the climate system appears wild, and may continue to hold many surprises if pressed.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.full
Jimmy is having a lend of us. These things are completely unpredictable. I just shrug my shoulders and think probably not. For the same reason that I doubted the permanent Australian drought. Hydrology is a science of stochastic probabilities. This pattern of weak El Nino and strong La Nina has a 20 to 30 year period.
And when you are looking for ENSO influences – it pays to look at monthly data.
↧
Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by Steven Mosher
A post with some philosophy in it would be nice. This one had none.
She fails to make her primary distinction clear. the rest is motherhood and apple pie. ho humm
↧
Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by krmmtoday
The issue of science and ethics has been debated since Sokrates so I don’t see much news here.
It’ actually a bit off topic.
The problems stem from the simple fact that the scientific community is embedded in the normal society which works differently. There it’s just pragmatics. Anything that works for ones purposes works.The art of the possible.
How to construct a “clean” interface that cannot be “hacked” and doesn’t crash or gets hung up at times?
Less debated and less amenable to rigorous argumentation.
Realism isn’t good in inspiring “movements”. In the arts there isn’t much interest in realism.
↧
↧
Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by Mike Flynn
Steven Mosher wants people to write posts to his specifications. Maybe Judith doesn’t really care what Steven Mosher thinks. I don’t know, nor do I care much.
ho humm.
↧
Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by tallbloke
Reblogged this on <a href="https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/05/26/scientific-integrity-versus-ideologically-fueled-research/" rel="nofollow">Tallbloke's Talkshop</a> and commented:
.
.
Judy Curry grasps the nettle of the ideological bias that has skewed climate science.
↧
Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by AK
<blockquote>Basically not publishing anything significant in the field he is criticizing is a red flag.</blockquote>From <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090125045629/http://sepp.org/about%20sepp/bios/singer/cvsfs.html" rel="nofollow">S. FRED SINGER, Ph.D. Professional Background (via Wayback)</a>:<blockquote>MAJOR SCIENTIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS:</blockquote>[...]<blockquote>Design of sensing instruments for MOUSE, including the first instrument for measuring stratospheric ozone (1956), now used in satellites.</blockquote>[...]<blockquote>First calculation of methane increase due to population growth, and its effects on the stratosphere (1971). The theory serves as a paradigm for CFC-stratosphere effects. While developed in connection with the SST controversy, it is now of importance for both greenhouse warming and ozone depletion theories.</blockquote>[...]<blockquote>PUBLICATIONS:</blockquote>[...]<blockquote>Global Effects of Environmental Pollution (Reidel, 1970)</blockquote>[...]<blockquote>Cost-Benefit Analysis in Environmental Decisionmaking (Mitre Corp, 1979)</blockquote>[...]<blockquote>Global Climate Change: Human and Natural Influences (Paragon House, 1989)</blockquote><a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01054575" rel="nofollow">Re-analysis of the nuclear winter phenomenon by S. F. Singer <i>Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics</i> 1988, Volume 38, Issue 4, pp 228-239</a><blockquote>An analysis of the report of the (U.S.) National Academy of Sciences (NAS) on atmospheric effects of a nuclear exchange leads to conclusions that differ from those of the NAS and of the earlier “TTAPS” and “AMBIO” studies. Any cooling of the earth's surface is likely to beshort-lived because of rapid removal of the smoke clouds originating from nuclear burst-initiated fires, andminor because of appreciable green-house effects due to several distinct physical causes. (One of these, neglected in prior analyses, is the infrared absorption from cirrus clouds produced directly by the nuclear bursts.) Taken together, these effects may even induce slight surface warming (“nuclear summer”) instead of cooling (“nuclear winter”). The consequences to atmospheric ozone are similarly ambiguous; depending on the detailed nuclear scenario, the net ozone content may increase-rather than decrease as argued by “TTAPS”. Experiments could settle some uncertainties.</blockquote><a href="http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-010-1729-9_3" rel="nofollow">Environmental Effects of Energy Production</a> by S. Fred Singer <i>The Changing Global Environment</i> 1975, pp 25-44<blockquote>The production and transmission of concentrated amounts of energy are the keystones for our rapid rise in standard of living. The major source of energy comes from fossil fuels, a resource which was accumulated over hundreds of millions of years but which is rapidly being used up: oil and gas in a matter of decades, coal in centuries: a brief episode in human history, but with a profound impact. Hopefully, nuclear breeders and fusion reactors will be developed in good time to supplant fossil fuels.</blockquote><blockquote>We describe here the uses of various forms of energy, historical and future trends, and especially the various environmental effects. Chief among these are the increase in global carbon dioxide and the generation of waste heat. Their effects are judged to be noticeable but not serious at this time.</blockquote>
↧
Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by JCH
The models found that this doubling of extreme El Niño episodes is caused by increased surface warming of the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean because of climate change. This area of the ocean warms faster than the surrounding waters, the researchers found.
But Cai acknowledges those findings stand in contrast.to previous studies that found no solid consensus on how El Niños will change because of global warming.
“The question of how global warming will change the frequency of extreme El Niño events has challenged scientists for more than 20 years,” said study co-author Mike McPhaden of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “This research is the first comprehensive examination of the issue to produce robust and convincing results.”
↧
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by dikranmarsupial
Mike Flynn I gave you some good advice when I wrote:
“well you could try reading the IPCC WG1 report, or look for the many papers that have been published on this subject, or get a book on the carbon cycle (there are good introductory books by David Archer and Tyler Volk – the latter is the more approachable). They aren’t my “hopeful assumptions”, it is the findings of carbon cycle specialists that have been working on this for years.”
If you follow this advice and read up on the subject, you will find that CO2 levels are not going to fall to dangerous levels anytime soon (thousands of years at the very least), for the reasons I gave, and your concerns are entirely groundless.
Really, don’t just read blogs, get a good book and find out the basics. The first IPCC report is very readable, I got my copy second hand via amazon for only a couple of pounds; it provides a good way of finding out what the basic issues are.
↧
Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by JCH
<a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n2/full/nclimate2100.html" rel="nofollow">Increasing frequency of extreme El Niño events due to greenhouse warming</a>
↧
Comment on The method of multiple working hypotheses by philsalmon
Salvatore
I agree with the general drift of your overview of the climate system.
The stability of earth’s climate over at least the last half billion years (history of multicellular life) is remarkable and makes it clear that there are negative feedbacks operating on a wide range of timescales. I agree that it is the oceans and the THC both where climate “memory” resides and where the processing of climate and climate forcing history take place. The end result, as you nicely describe, is a kind of “le plus ca change, le plus c’est la meme chose”. (“The more it changes, the more it stays the same.”) There is always change – slow and fast, but in the final analysis and longest timescales, there is attraction toward a very limited set of quite narrow temperature ranges.
↧
Comment on Did human-caused climate change lead to war in Syria? by ulriclyons
CH:
“I said that the Nile flows were influenced by the AMO and ENSO – and it is still the case. The context was drought in Syria.”
A 7yr cycle in the Nile has little to do with a ~69yr AMO envelope, so that is not a good reference, and the context that we were debating when you mentioned Nile flow rates was in fact Sahel rainfall.
I first addressed the AMO influence on Sahel rainfall here, as I already knew that it has a greater influence than ENSO.
CH:
“The Sahel is adjacent to countries bordering the southern Mediterranean coast. The hydrological influences are similar.”
The Sahel is sub-Saharan. The Mediterranean coast has the opposite rainfall pattern to the Sahel for most seasons.
↧
↧
Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by craigm350
Reblogged this on <a href="https://craigm350.wordpress.com/2015/05/26/scientific-integrity-versus-ideologically-fueled-research/" rel="nofollow">CraigM350</a>.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Mike Flynn
dikranmarsupial,
I hope you are not referring to Tyler Volk’s “CO2 Rising”, by any chance? If so, surely you jest! A reliable source of information?
As to David Archer, which particular publication are you referring to? On which page would you advise I find answers to the questions you decline to answer?
If you happen to be referring to “The Global Carbon Cycle”, might I suggest you reread it, and mentally strip out all the unsubstantiated assertions, the scientifically vague or inaccurate statements, and then reaffirm your belief in its usefulness.
I am perplexed that you paid money for any of the IPCC publications. I believe I have read them all, in their entirety, and obtained all of them as free downloads, from the IPCC, as I recollect.
In any case, it is patently obvious that the IPCC publications are riddled with assumptions, unverifiable assertions, poorly supported ideas, model outputs masquerading as fact, and so on.
Anybody who cannot see this may be biased to a dangerous extent, and ignoring reality to their ultimate peril.
So thanks for nothing. You may choose to believe that the globe is warming due to CO2 in the atmosphere. You may also choose to believe that the luminiferous ether is necessary to enable EMR to transport energy, if you wish. I believe neither.
The GHE does not exist. Unlike the Seebeck Effect, the Peltier Effect, or even the Mpemba Effect, the supposed greenhouse effect cannot be demonstrated, measured, or be shown to have even the slightest resemblance to anything to do with a greenhouse.
At best, it could more aptly be renamed the No Effect Effect – which properly describes the phenomenon.
I’ll leave you alone. If you don’t know an answer to a question, your reputation might even be enhanced if you simply say you don’t know. I can’t speak for others, though. They will no doubt render their own judgements.
↧
Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by rhhardin
Climate science isn’t a science and so seems to have all these people problems.
It’s not that they’re doing science wrong. The field as a whole doesn’t constitute a science in the first place.
Compare what geophysical science papers used to look like sea waves.
What was his motivation? Curiosity.
There’s no tie-in to a huge field covering the Earth. He didn’t need to be careful about any of these climate science concerns to be doing science.
He simply noticed something they couldn’t predict — “that’s curious” — and accounted for it.
There still is the Earth as a whole but there was not a science of studying it and still isn’t.
Only pieces work as science. No whole.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
