Comment on Can Coal-Fired Plants be Re-Powered Today with Stored Energy from Wind and Solar? by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #209 | Watts Up With That?
↧
↧
Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by ristvan
PA, you pose a very complicated question. That peak oil production ( of all types) will occur before 2030 is unquestionable, no matter what others here post out of ignorance. Nat gas (least CO2 forming) is pretty optomistic. Shale TRR 15% versus shale oil maybe 1.5%, and larger shale extents in the gas window. Difficult to estimate a production peak, since past flare gas is an unknown. I am personally optomistic that the world has many decades of abundant shale gas available.. Coal, I have only read the analyses of Patek (U. T Austin) Rutledge (Caltech) and the U. Uppsala team. See no reason to doubt their conclusions about peak production by maybe 2050-2060, but…
However, all this data says sharply rising FF prices in coming decades. First oil, meaning about 70% transport fuels. The present $40/bbl is a Saudi war on US fracked shale oil headfake, IMO. Based on OPEC financing needs, and US shale rig counts and decline curves, I think oil prices will be back near $100/bbl by ye 2016. Is pretty easy to guestimate given sufficient geophysical granularity.
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by Climatologist Breaks the Silence on Global Warming Groupthink |
[…] Transcript via JudithCurry.com: […]
↧
Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Ron Graf
To go ahead and answer my own questions, the first one is yes. Wikipedia puts the RCP8.5 temperature anomaly at 2100 to be <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathways" rel="nofollow">2.6C to 4.8C, with best estimate of 3.7C.</a> The mass consumption article took the liberty of erasing the low end and replacing it with the median to create it's own range. Who'd complain? Right? (Everyone wants to get into the act of helping the planet.)
The IPCC models on volcanoes, according to Ed Hawkins, contributing Author to both IPCC AR5 WG1 & WG2:
<blockquote><a href="http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2015/connecting-projections-real-world/#comment-604322" rel="nofollow">Volcanoes are prescribed to occur at the observed time in simulations of the past and there are no volcanic eruptions in future simulations.</a></blockquote>
So they cool projections down after volcanoes occurs, leaving a pessimistically warm future perpetually forecast.
The last question everyone already knows the answer to. Yes, the models are that far off. Does anyone know how far off UAH and RSS they are? And Radiosondes?
This is all really a skeptic needs to know to make an informed opinion of what is going on, in my opinion. All skews are in one direction.
↧
Comment on Paris: impacts? by PA
What makes sense is MSRs as the grid baseband with the renewable energy treated as a novelty. If the renewable energy is available when you need it , fine. Otherwise let the renewables operators shunt it to ground. There is no reason to pay them for power that isn’t needed.
That would let us save the fossil fuel for other uses.
↧
↧
Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by Hifast
Reblogged this on <a href="https://hifast.wordpress.com/2015/12/14/hiatus-controversy-show-me-the-data/" rel="nofollow">Climate Collections</a>.
↧
Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by timg56
And my wife questions why I am only asking for scotch and cartridges for Christmas.
↧
Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Mark Heslep
“…if described as forecasts using worst-case scenarios.”
Yes, though over time RCP 8.5 is rapidly becoming not just worst-case but impossible.
In the same way that population can not be reduced quickly without calamity, neither can an additional 1.5 billion (above the current 2100 prediction) be quickly brought into existence. Similarly, multiplying global coal output requires time. Multiplying coal output eight fold per RCP 8.5 requires a great deal of time and displacement of other resources such as agriculture, that will also soon become impossible without destroying the other assumptions in the scenario.
↧
Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by HAS
Nick (some way back in the distant past before some drive-by graffiti artists cut and pasted from a paper already referenced in the original post) the scenarios are projections, a product of their assumptions. The assumptions that go into RCP8.5 are not business as usual (and not even claimed as such by its creator) so any time you see someone claiming a RCP8.5 as BAU tell them they are wrong.
This extends to projections based on RCP8.5. If someone tells you any of these are likely then by implication they are saying RCP8.5 is likely, and of course it isn’t. It is designed as an upper bound.
If the scenario doesn’t fit, then don’t wear it.
↧
↧
Comment on Scientists & identity-protective cognition by beththeserf
Say jt, this bumble
by the bureaux
spending lots ‘n
lots of euros
needs a rumble
in the jungle
from imposed-upon,
long-suffering plebbos.
↧
Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by mwgrant
mwgrant wrote:
Parsing out anthropogenic contributions from natural contributions would have to accomplished in each case.
No. This is wrong.
↧
Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Mark Heslep
“RCP8.5 is a legitimate scenario of what happens should we get unlucky.”
The parameters of RCP 8.5 are rapidly falling outside of chance and landing in the impossible, with, for example, global coal output multiplied in 8.5 by ~eight fold.
↧
Comment on Paris: impacts? by knutesea
I find nothing but reasonableness in that proposal.
I mean I have other wishes such as not giving up the opportunity to China, but I’ll take what you offer and tell Santa about the rest.
↧
↧
Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Steven Mosher
Captain.
I’m just quoting.
Of course people misuse things.
↧
Comment on Paris: impacts? by Lord Beaverbrook
There could be a good outcome after all, are we now post climate change?
http://www.thegwpf.com/uk-climate-diplomats-face-axe-after-cop21-paris-summit-2/
↧
Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Editor of the Fabius Maximus website
Steven,
“Of course people misuse things.”
Yes, but sound systems are designed to minimize this — especially when the consequences are so large. That’s true in medicine and engineering — but the misuse of RCP8.5 suggests that these mechanisms are not working well in climate science.
The misrepresentation of RCP8.5 proceeded publication of AR5, and has grown since then as it became the basis for scores of peer-reviewed studies predicting large-scale disasters if we continue as we are (usually explicitly stated to be “business as usual”).
Where were the climate scientists who designed RCP8.5 and why did they not speak up? Where were the climate scientists who read the papers about RCP8.5, who saw that it was not a BAU scenario — and why did they not speak up?
Considering the stakes, the attention paid to public policy decisions about climate, i don’t see how this can be blown off as “people misuse things.” Boys will be boys?
↧
Comment on Paris: impacts? by Pierre-Normand Houle
knutesea, It doesn’t look like any global cooling is imminent on the ground of climate forcings alone. Over the last century, the rate of decrease in Milankovitch forcing has been dwarfed by the rate of increase in greenhouse gas forcing. It doesn’t look like the former is going to dominate again before a few more centuries.
↧
↧
Comment on Paris: impacts? by Peter M Davies
What does MSR stand for? Google wasn’t helpful with that one!
↧
Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Barry Brill
FM Editor
I don’t agree with the view that RCP8.5 is the “worst” case out of a range of possible cases. It is the “extremely unlikely” case.
Both Riahi and Van Vuuren note that the RCPs are designed to “cover the range of forcing levels” in the published literature. That range includes not only every one of the SRES scenarios but also the extreme cases and outliers that were discarded in 1999 by the compilers of SRES.
SRES set out to establish a set of storylines that were “equally possible” and it therefore made sense for users to select a scenario close to the mean. The RCPs, on the other hand, preceded their (incompatible) storylines and cannot be aggregated or averaged. They are not usable until a user first selects the pathway she thinks is most probable.
It can be assumed that the extreme cases that were rejected for SRES were largely those written/commissioned by Greenpeace, WWF and the like, in a quest for alarm rather than accuracy.
It is self-obvious that these extremes were accommodated by 8.5. The storylines to achieve this forcing level rely upon a doubling of methane which could only be explained by major out-gassing from frozen tundra and hydrates – an event which AR5 describes as “extremely unlikely”.
↧
Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Nick Stokes
Tony,
“No, decarbonise is the correct term.”
You can decarbonise electricity generation, as in that report. It means to avoid using fossil fuels. You can’t decarbonise the fuels.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
