Peter Lang,
All true, and we take solace in knowing that they didn’t do worse.
Meanwhile Obama and Hollande rejoice in their bullshit accomplishments.
To quote the great Mosomoso, down with the climatariat.
Comment on Open thread by Mark Silbert
↧
↧
Comment on Scientists & identity-protective cognition by RiHo08
The value of the “consensus” and the science that is proclaimed: consensus, is that it gives me pause and consider the consensus point of view. I usually consider myself to be wrong before preceding. That is my makeup.
It is later, after looking deeper into the subject, considering the statements of people whom I have grown to trust, that I emerge, slightly better informed.
The studies I have done myself are primarily observational; hence, I trust observational information than that obtained by models who at their foundation are conjecture; reported to be helpful, but conjectures none the same.
For observational information, my focus is on the integrity and limits of those observations, which in my experience, those limitations are great.
When observational data is revealed to be “adjusted”, I must rely upon those, like Steve McIntyre who delve into the data more closely than I, and produce
“cautions” which need to be respected.
I’ve never really been a fan of Al Gore and his “the science is settled” meme. I have listened to him, yet I am actually made ill, by his position.
↧
Comment on Can Coal-Fired Plants be Re-Powered Today with Stored Energy from Wind and Solar? by Peter Lang
Weather dependent technologies like wind and solar have little or no part to play in supplying cheap low-emissions electricity. This study analyses the case for the Great Britain electricity grid: http://erpuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ERP-Flex-Man-Full-Report.pdf . Figure 14 shows the CO2 emissions savings and the total system cost per year by adding 5 GW increments of each technology. Hydro (I available, but it isn’t) and nuclear would be the most effective at reducing emissions. Hydro would be the cheapest if it was available. Adding nuclear is by far the cheapest way to achieve large emissions savings. Wind, marine, CCS and pumped hydro are all very expensive and ineffective. The worst of all is to close old nuclear plants; doing so would increase emissions and costs. Their life should be extended if possible.
Pumped hydro is extremely costly and ineffective. Any other type of energy storage would be far more costly.
The least cost option to achieve the same emissions intensity as France, i.e. 40 g/kWh, is with 31 GW of nuclear – see this comment for more on this: http://judithcurry.com/2015/12/02/german-energiewende-modern-miracle-or-major-misstep/#comment-750518
↧
Comment on Can Coal-Fired Plants be Re-Powered Today with Stored Energy from Wind and Solar? by Peter Lang
-1=e^iπ,
The claim was that “The only solution for seasonal storage that is practical today is hydrogen storage”, not pumped hydro.
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by PA
Let’s try one more time. I am only concerned about the surface layer (450 meters or less) so barometric whatever is a DGARA consideration.
Rough numbers (not going to bother to be accurate), 160 W/m2 in, 100 W/m2 out non radiative. 400 W/m2 out IR, 85% of outgoing IR absorbed by surface atmosphere layer. The 15% of outgoing IR in the “holes” in the outgoing absorption goes out and the surface layer of the atmosphere and the surface play handball with the rest of the IR radiation.
If we add enough CO2 to bandspread and reduce the outgoing IR to 14% what happens? The surface has to warm to emit about 430 W/m2 (assuming non-radiative transfer doesn’t change). In the real world the other transfers change and we should end up emitting 410-420 W/m2 (10-20 W/m2 more) from the surface. That is 2-4°C warmer.
That is the global warmer viewpoint and parts of it are quite defensible.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by human1ty1st
JimD hydroelectric is more the 100 years old.
If environmentalism didnt put non-dam provisions on developing world infrastructure funding the might have been some alternatives to the scramble for coal.
↧
Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by timg56
Aletho talks about the “costs” of Chernobyl and Fukishima and asks what is the cost of provinces agriculture. I guess the answer depends on whether you want to use reality or myth.
aletho the cost of Fukishima is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the tsunami. I’ll bet it isn’t any greater than the cost to Japans economy from shutting down all of their nuclear generation. Which might explain why they are starting them up again.
↧
Comment on Open thread by skepticgonewild
physicistdave wrote: “*Those* skeptics did indeed deny that CO2 causes warming.”
There are many skeptic scientists who believe that science has not adequately proven that CO2 causes warming. Gerlich & Tscheuschner being two of them.
I find it amazing that so called scientist are so eager to accept hypotheses because they are popular, have been repeated endlessly ad nauseam, yet have not been thoroughly vetted through the rigorous principles of the scientific method.
↧
Comment on Can Coal-Fired Plants be Re-Powered Today with Stored Energy from Wind and Solar? by PA
Huh? DS your own link says that hydrogen storage is 25% efficient.
That effectively competes with nothing. Only nothing is less efficient than hydrogen storage. Since nothing is much cheaper, hydrogen storage must be attractively priced to find wide acceptance.
Hydro storage may be 80+ percent efficient and competes with batteries for efficiency but has a lower cost than batteries and you don’t have to replace the pumped storage every five years.
Claiming that hydrogen storage is an effective seasonal storage solution depends on your definition of effective and solution.
↧
↧
Comment on Scientists & identity-protective cognition by popesclimatetheory
+++++++++++++++++++
↧
Comment on Can Coal-Fired Plants be Re-Powered Today with Stored Energy from Wind and Solar? by Peter Lang
Ordvic,
Fair comment. I am just frustrated because thei ssame sort of emiotionally and ideologically driven nonsense has been going fdor 30 years. It’s massively retarding progress because people spend most of their time reading cr@p and not focusing on genuine, cost effective solutions.
↧
Comment on Scientists & identity-protective cognition by popesclimatetheory
Yes, earth is spinning faster, impossible with rising sea levels.
↧
Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by edbarbar
First, Kudos to Judith for standing up to an emotional attack. Fortunately, free speech is still allowed in the US, though given the attacks on it that might not last, what, with RICO coming down on skeptics, and the pain of the “judicial” process coming down on Mark Steyn.
To all those who feel Climate Science is real, happening, and caused by humans, imagine a world in which people like Judith and Mark Steyn are not allowed to have their voice. Imagine a world in which the unthinking Markey’s can take their ire and really put the screws on you, using one tool or the other. Oh, it is innocuous when they are on your side, first making you a pariah, then disallowing you to publish, more is using RICO to threaten you, and finally coming for you in hoodies in the middle of the night because you expressed an opinion the President wants to suppress at the time. Meanwhile, you are giving them power, and that power is absolute, and can be used indiscriminately.
Power is not your friend, and blows with the populace wind. Be careful who you give it to.
↧
↧
Comment on Scientists & identity-protective cognition by Ron Graf
Johua: “Much of the other work grounds the dynamics and mechanisms as seen with climate change into larger context – by showing similar patterns of association between identity and views on science (and notably not levels of understanding of science) in areas such as gun control, nuclear energy, and the theory of evolution.”
Positions are based on conclusions,
conclusions are based on reasoning,
reasoning is influenced by emotions, especially reasoning that is based on extremely complex mesh of assumptions, or whose results affect invested beliefs. When you have both logic becomes a self-directed outcome.
The stronger the reasoned conclusion impacts an individual’s paradigm investment, the higher the emotional resistance (bias).
If a desired outcome cannot be directed by skewed logic then the assumptions will be attacked. Assumptions presented by one with a different belief paradigm will tend to be given impossible-to-pass vetting tests. This is how debate can go on seemingly endlessly even if it looks to be productive. In order not to submit to losing an emotional investment an individuals defenses may even resort to challenging what the definition of “is” is.
Although gun control, nuclear energy, and the theory of evolution are completely separate issues they tend to be divided by political party identity. This would likely come about by the party’s messengers being inherently trusted its affiliates and, conversely, whose facts or assumptions would be rejected by the other party affiliates simply on suspicion. Even accepting food of knowledge from the wrong hand open’s one up to the logical requirement to consider that there may be other valid knowledge held on other issues, related otherwise only by party stance.
Gun control is a constitutional (in USA) issue as well as one of cultural heritage. Those who are rural NRA members likely have no inherent emotional bias for or against nuclear power except to be trusting of those affiliated with support for it and the opposite feeling for those against.
Evolution is a totally different animal that IMO is only a debate to those emotionally invested in traditional Biblical doctrine, a shrinking demographic. The interest in the topic by its opponents is based on the attempt to discredit the topic of choice being debated by those perceived as being on the “other party.” This tactic is not exclusively used by one side; its just quasi-logical way to dismiss the opponent without addressing the logic or validity of the argument at hand.
If ones logical conclusions on their top twelve issues of interest conform 100% with one party one must think of the statistical chances of all those views being held without influence of bias.
↧
Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by timg56
I was going to point out eli’s little hop by where he lays a string of rabbet pellets, but TE, trapped, skinned and roasted the little rodent before I had a chance.
Stick to Chem 101 Professor Halprin.
↧
Comment on Scientists & identity-protective cognition by PA
The “science is settled” is a bad metaphor.
If you aren’t part of the solution you are part of the precipitate. And global warmers are claiming to be part of the precipitate.
↧
Comment on Scientists & identity-protective cognition by Ron Graf
I will not argue, but concur. In my first visit to Climate Etc I immediately recognized the discipline associated with devotion to scientific ethics by Dr. Curry. It was the subject of my first comment; the dichotomy of behavior and egos of Mann vs. Curry. A scientist must assume themselves not to be immune to bias and thus must constantly and cautiously test assumptions.
↧
↧
Comment on Scientists & identity-protective cognition by Michael Cox
Many good comments here, but PA pointed out that a high percentage of papers these days belong in the “Journal of Irreproducable Results”, and, of course, the OP is about bias influence. Why am I pointing this out? Because the difference in the standard of proof in the hard vs. soft sciences is a yawning chasm.
Thus far, for example, General relativity just IS. It predicts, people verify, and it delivers at many sigma. You can’t argue it seriously. There is one open prediction, gravitational waves. Who is betting money that GR fails at this point? Quantum mechanics also delivers, to many sigma, results you can’t argue with. Anyone can do the experiments, and they get the same results. Materials science (cutting edge chemistry meets physics) delivers your interwebs every day, petabytes per day. Petabytes. Per day. Soon will be Exabytes. 10^18 bytes.
Physicists & chemists still test these theories & results, because, like Newtonian Mechanics, we will find where they end, and then the next theory will incorporate and expand them.
Medical science, climate science, psychological science, economics and others are “soft” science because they address hugely non-linear fields where the current levels or standards of proof are very low. That’s not to say they shouldn’t be worked upon, but it is to say that one must evaluate their predictive power with their uncertainties. Uncertainties levels in these fields are those which would not be taken seriously in Chemistry or Physics, except, possibly, at the bleeding edge – think “Dark matter”, “Dark Energy”, “Vacuum Catastrophy” etc. – basically where we know nothing except that there is a problem…
How many climate science papers come with solid disclosure of their uncertainties? Go look. Occasionally I see some error bars, rarely, a treatment of instrumental uncertainties. Many appear disingenuous. Some are obviously misleading. The reality is that if you understand the uncertainties involved, you would not even contemplate making decisions based upon them, other than which study to undertake next. Certainly, not something with public policy implications. “Gun Science”? Give me a break! And I’m from Texas! I like guns! It isn’t science! Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
When the surface temp record, the satellite temp record, and model predictions are completely contradictory, the honest “scientific” analysis is “we don’t know”. We don’t know warming, cooling or stasis. Variations are within total uncertainty. We don’t know what really causes warming or cooling, except in the broadest, most trivial senses. No one likes that answer. It’s not career building, consensus building, or tribe building to say “we don’t know”. But that’s reality today. We don’t know. Forget your bias, look at the errors, and admit we don’t know. Wait another century… Solar variation is interesting, looks like a grand minimum might happen… PDO, AMO, cooling possibly, interesting… Not science wrt climate yet, but interesting…
↧
Comment on Reactions on the Senate hearing by PA
Well, Dr. Titley was recently in charge of NOAA so he pretty much a true believer
The “Scientists & identity-protective cognition” would suggest he is hopeless biased.
Now let’s get to his statements.
1. satellite is in fact not measuring temperature
Well, the processing for the surface data is about as complicated as the satellite processing. Perhaps the surface data isn’t measuring temperature either. Further – the surface is homogenized – apparently on the assumption it is milk. If the surface temperatures are actually stew, homogenizing them will give a greyish brown gruel.
2. he is actually averaging parts of the atmosphere that we know are cooling
The claim that if it averages to zero it is actually warming is quite bold.
3. Then he takes this very, very specific 18 years. He is very much on message with his 18 years.
It looks like Cruz will be on message for 20 years in 2017. How long before the very specific doesn’t matter? A very very specific 30 years? A very very specific 40 years? When is enough, enough?
4. If we were just having natural ups and downs this where a down would be. So why didn’t we get a down.
Current climate trend isn’t a lot different than the leading edge of the MWP. The rising edge of the MWP (850 AD) didn’t have a lot of down to it.
Where does this misbegotten claim that cooling would be expected come from? It is historically unjustified and irrational.
↧
Comment on Scientists & identity-protective cognition by Ron Graf
But if it leads to more environmental awareness and better resource management then its justified anyway. Right? (says my wife).
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
