Science needs philosophers or historians of science the same way birds need ornithologists.
My apologies, I don’t remember the source.
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Curious George
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Horst Graben (@Graben_Horst)
All the smog ends up raining down onto the land, then has a different climate effect. One interesting example of the US cleaning up our smog is an increasing requirement for sulfur in fertilizer. Smog contains organic carbon, vocs and oxides of sulfur and nitrogen. It’s the perfect soup of life, so the effects are not restricted to albedo alone, there are biochemical reactions that can help to destroy snow, ice and permafrost. The key unknown besides natural variation is a more complete understanding man’s climate impact from smog.
The maximum dust concentrations always precede glacial melting. Not only ending glacial maximums, but also preceding Dansgaard–Oeschger events.
↧
Comment on The new climate ‘deniers’ by Canman
Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson looks like the new go to guy for greenies who want all renewables and no nuclear. He’s been cranking out the 100% renewable studies. He has very impressive credentials and worked on the black carbon studies:
http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/
He’s also very charismatic. He looks a little like Jon Hamm on the TV show, Mad Men. He’s in a lot of YouTube videos. He’s been on Letterman. He’s in Bill Nye and Anrold Schwarzenegger’s new video. He was in a TED debate on nuclear that got over 200,000 views. He even persuaded a small portion of the audience:
His studies tend to be rather general and gloss over details such as the difficulties of using hydrogen for transportation. He’s added carbon emissions from future wars into nuclear energy’s carbon foot print. He’s the man who needs to be debunked.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by catweazle666
Curious George: “Jim, I am with you on that one – we need better models. To get them, we must no longer pretend that current models are adequate.”
“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
IPCC Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Third Assessment Report (TAR), Chapter 14 (final para., 14.2.2.2), p774.
↧
Comment on The new climate ‘deniers’ by PA
He seems like one of the guys on infomercials and plays fast and loose with the facts the same way.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by edbarbar
“Here we show that climate sensitivity estimates derived from recent observations must account for the efficacy of each forcing active during the historical period. When we use single-forcing experiments to estimate these efficacies and calculate climate sensitivity from the observed twentieth-century warming, our estimates of both TCR and ECS are revised upwards compared to previous studies, improving the consistency with independent constraints.”
Efficacy: the ability to produce a desired or intended result.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
PA, and the land masses are not linked up now, and we still have ice ages. What we do have in common with then is low CO2 levels.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by ordvic
;-)
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by David L. Hagen
For underground coal gasification see LINC Energy out of Australia
↧
↧
Comment on The new climate ‘deniers’ by Michael Pettengill
Given the nuclear solution requires new reactor designs yet to be built even for demonstration and test purposes, and then the complexities of siting nuclear power plants near the calling water they need while defending them against flood waters makes construction of tested designs take a decade. So, the nuclear solution is two decades away, and then they will risk being more expensive than alternative which will reduce costs in the four decades between now and when new nuclear power plants will still have two decades of debt service on labor costs for building nuclear two to three decades earlier.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
The spike:
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Curious George
cat – maybe IPCC should ban all models, and burn modelers at stake. Maybe all attempts to forecast – pardon me, to project – climate should be banned. Seeing the kind of people devoted to these tasks, maybe the strongest punishment is indicated.
Now the real question is what constitutes a long term. Is it 40 years? 40 months? 40 weeks? 40 days? 40 hours? (The last one is my estimate for CAM5.1).
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
The IPCC sentence is about the difference between weather and climate and leads in to the difference between predictions and projections, but I think those are both poorly understood here. Read further down.
↧
↧
Comment on The new climate ‘deniers’ by Peter Lang
Michael Pettengill,
I disagree with all that France got to 75-80% nuclear over 20 year and has been running at that for about 30 years. Do it is ridiculous to argue it can’t be doensn’t or that we have to wait for new reactor deisigns.
What those who oppose nuclear power cant explain is what viable alternatives are there? What technologies other than nuclear can supply most of the world’s ever growing energy demand virtually indefinitely?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
Last year a Graeme Stephens' paper had profound implications... <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066903/full" rel="nofollow">so here it goes again.</a>
↧
Comment on The new climate ‘deniers’ by Peter Lang
Canman,
Mark Jacobson has been debunked repeatedly. He takes no notice and simply keeps rolling out his nonsense.
↧
Comment on The new climate ‘deniers’ by Mike Flynn
Peter Lang,
I believe the Germans got their fusion reactor – coolly named Stellarator – to keep the reaction going for 0.1 seconds. I’d call that splendiferously amazing!
I wonder how long it will take to get to 1.0 seconds. I live in hope, but I’m not holding my breath while I wait. The future might be interesting.
Cheers.
↧
↧
Comment on The new climate ‘deniers’ by Peter Lang
Richard Tol,
The key concern is that, if nuclear is to be a big part of decarbonization, then the number of plants will be measured in the thousands, rather than hundreds, and they will be in countries that are not nearly as friendly as Russia and not nearly as well-organized as Pakistan.
True that the number of plants will be in the thousands to provide a large proportion of global electricity supply. But so what? Nuclear is still a factor of 600 safer than the main alternative, coal, and still much safer than all other electricity generation technologies (on a fully life cycle basis).
Furthermore, as the roll out accelerates, competition and innovation will improve the technology, reduce costs and improve safety, similar to what has happened with the airline. US passenger-miles have increased by a factor of 19 since 1960 while fatalities per passenger mile have reduced by a factor of 1000 over the same period. Aviation is getting safer everywhere. The same can be expected with nuclear if we get the politicians, bureaucrats and regulators largely out of the way (to a similar extent as they are in regulating aviation – where the need for a proper balance between costs and safety is fully recognised).
↧
Comment on The new climate ‘deniers’ by PA
His points:
1. more carbon dioxide
2. more air pollutants
3. enhances mortality
4. takes longer
5. proliferation
He doesn’t appear to consider the pollution from fabrication in China, he doesn’t seem to consider the water pollution in China. Most of his “CO2 due to nuclear” is due to the delay in construction. Enhances mortality seems to involve use of nuclear weapons.
He defines the wind footprint as where the pole touches the ground and seems to back wind and ignore solar. Further he assumes that the entire vehicle fleet will magically get converted away from gas and credits that to renewable energy.
If we kicked the anti-nukers out of the US most of his already weak case would evaporate.
I don’t see how he ever wins these arguments other than by talking fast and tossing out so much chaff the opposing presenter can’t respond to all the fluff.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by PA
When we use single-forcing experiments to estimate these efficacies and calculate climate sensitivity from the observed twentieth-century warming, our estimates of both TCR and ECS are revised upwards compared to previous studies, improving the consistency with independent constraints.”
So they adjusted just the CO2 on some planet and held everything else constant (single-forcing experiment)…
Which planet did they use and where is the data?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
