Bart, you are dreaming. Short of incredible advances in solar, we are still FAR away from it being a significant part of our energy solution. Wind is looking more and more like a non-starter.
Comment on What are the factors contributing to the reduction in U.S. carbon emissions? by Mark in Toledo
↧
↧
Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by Intellectual Dishonesty « DON AITKIN
[...] you will also find, from time to time, gems that she has found in her search around the Internet. A recent one is about intellectual honesty and dishonesty. It’s worth reading by anyone who is interested about the way we communicate about matters [...]
↧
Comment on What are the factors contributing to the reduction in U.S. carbon emissions? by Bart R
Nice analyses of the components of the oversimplified claims.
Useful, informative, clear and relevant.
Thank you.
↧
Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by BBD
Captain Dallas
I’m still not clear:
- Do you think the atmospheric response to GHG forcing is heating the ocean as opposed to reducing the rate at which it cools?
↧
Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by Jim D
captdallas, so how much of a forcing change would you say a 1000 ppm drop of CO2 has, or let’s say 1280 ppm to 280 ppm? Now we are getting somewhere if we can debate this, because it is so fundamental.
↧
↧
Comment on What are the factors contributing to the reduction in U.S. carbon emissions? by Bart R
Mark in Toledo | April 21, 2013 at 5:19 pm |
In Toledo, sure, solar would be idiotic except for domestic hot water (which in Toledo, it’s cheaper than coal); in Arizona, with only marginal improvements — already in the technology pipeline in the form of hybrid multijunction solar — it’s quite achievable. If you count the cost of pipeline subsidy in the price of tarsand, solar is competitive.
And that ‘non-starter’ wind powers between 10% and 23.5% of several states already, before resort to novel technologies.
Sure, not every new technology will work. But then, not all old technologies remain the best choices either yet remain in use due lobbying by vested interests with sunk costs. This drag on the Market needs to be watched for and pruned away mercilessly, not coddled.
↧
Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by Brandon Shollenberger
simon abingdon, I may have been unclear in the comment you quoted. I was not meaning to say Mann’s degree of intellectual honesty was a range of values. I meant it is a single value taken from a range of values (that spans from positive to negative). That’s in line with what you say.
I think my later comments lay it out more clearly than the first one.
↧
Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by Jim D
captdallas, Spencer’s article seems to have forgotten about upwelling, an important circulation process for colder water to vary in area, which is what is happening in the east Pacific. It is not all mixing, and in fact mixing is quite weak.
↧
Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by donaitkin
Like Brian Blais, I felt that these points should be widely appreciated, and devoted a post to them, mostly on the work of ‘A.robustus’.
↧
↧
Comment on What are the factors contributing to the reduction in U.S. carbon emissions? by markpro3ger
From what I understand it would take the entire state of North Dakota filled with wind turbines just to power New York City. If this is an accurate estimate of its efficacy, we are a long way from wind making any appreciable dent despite the claims you made. Regardless, wind energy is terribly inefficient in many respects and maintenance of turbines (not to mention the manufacturing, transportation and installation) is a big headache. They are cool in SMALL numbers, but if you have ever driven through an area like West Texas where there are Thousands of them, it is amazing that environmentalists give them a second thought. Frankly, they are hideous and arguably worse than the “problem” they are attempting to address.
↧
Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by captdallas 0.8 or less
BBD, Thanks for the PaleoSens link. I skimmed it but will put it on my reading list.
The general problem I have with the paleo estimates is that they are too coarse to be of much use. It would require a seriously kick butt Aqua model to separate the various causes and effects. The main problem is ocean circulation characteristics which are related to the location and shape of the land masses. If the ocean can’t circulate to the polar heat sinks you can get the 14 plus C warmer “surface” temperature at some point near the equator, but you can’t accurately estimate a “global” surface temperature. Since the “fast” feedbacks are fast, “sensitivity” would reach a plateau quickly then approach some near equilibrium that is more dependent on the symmetry of the land/oceans than the atmospheric composition.
Today for example; the land that is not thermally isolated tends to amplify all forcing. Now that the fast amplifications are out of the way, there will be a slowing of the impact of all forcing. About 0.6 to 1.6C , though I am pretty sure that it is closer to 0.8 because of the “average” ocean temperature of today’s oceans. If the “average” ocean temperature were 2 C lower, “sensitivity” would be 2 C higher. That “average” though depends on the ocean mixing efficiency.
↧
Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by Howard
Pokerguy: Nice answer. “Self-Evident” You are venturing into Wagathon territory. I appreciate the heads up.
↧
Comment on AMS Statement on Climate Change by toritostore.info
Very nice post. I just stumbled upon your weblog and wished to say that I have truly enjoyed browsing your blog posts.
After all I’ll be subscribing to your rss feed and I hope you write again very soon!
↧
↧
Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by Howard
Thanks, Max. I’m glad someone has succinctly placed Wags Bush worship in proper context.
↧
Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by David Young
I of course agree with the assertion that we need to be more self monitoring on this issue of intellectual honesty. I would recommend Walter Kaufman’s Critique of Religion and Philosophy and Faith of a Heretic as a profound exposition of the subject. These works seem to still be in print even though in an era of “communication” being confused with science and post modernism they are quite out of fashion. And that is troubling in other fields as well. Kaufman would be incomprehensible to a whole generation brought up on cultural self-loathing.
My particular viewpoint is that honesty can only really happen through robust and open debate, helped by a robust and constant critique of prevailing opinions. And that issue is what brought me to climate science in the first place. I found a lot more technical content than I expected on fundamental science (thanks Judith and Chief) but also a field that compares in its public faces not too favorably with what I would have expected and with surprising gaps in its technical tools.
↧
Comment on What are the factors contributing to the reduction in U.S. carbon emissions? by Philip Haddad
Biofuels are carbon neutral, just as humans and animals are. The carbon that they contribute was obtained by utilizing crops which removed the same amount of CO2.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by manacker
Max_OK
I’m not “keeping score”, Okie.
But you are in denial of the current pause when you say 3 out of 4 records show warming.
Of the five records reported in WoodforTrees, three show cooling and two show warming.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend
The mean trend of all five is -0.01C per decade.
Check the data. (Read ‘em and weep.)
Max_CH
↧
↧
Comment on 10 signs of intellectual honesty by manacker
Jim D
(message apparently got lost so am re-typing)
You point out:
the skeptical spectrum, just from their science views:
Grade A: allow for positive feedback, sensitivity in the range 1-2 C per doubling, but don’t allow for IPCC range 2-4.5 C per doubling
This group has apparently emerged as a result of
a) the current “pause” despite unabated human GHG emissions
b) the failure of IPCC forecasts of 0.2C (or 0.225C) warming per decade
c) the many recent (partly) observation-based studies pointing to a 2xCO2 ECS of around ½ the earlier IPCC estimates, which were based on model predictions
You give this group a “grade A”. (So would I, since I am a member of this group. Duh!)
There is also the group in the non-skeptical (or “believer”) spectrum who:
sticks with the previous high model-predicted ECS estimates of 2-4.5 C per doubling by ignoring or rationalizing away the new observation-based studies and current warming pause
Are you in this group?
Max
↧
Comment on Do scientific assessments need to be consensual to be authoritative? by k scott denison
Doc, couldn’t agree more. I work for a large medical devices company who would benefit from the idea that screening is cost effective.
This is one of the areas that FDA and other regulators are very focused on, making false claims about the value of screening.
What FOMD seems to overlook is the real cost – both monetary and human – of false positives and the downstream, unneeded medical procedures they create. Some of those procedures have measurable mortality rates associated with them. So those false positives not only add to the cost of healthcare, but they may result in deaths.
↧
Comment on Do scientific assessments need to be consensual to be authoritative? by maksimovich
FMOD first pillar9transport) is a broken ruin,at best,.his reference to primitive equations is the proof that the problem is little understood.
Problem 1 There is no theory of statistical mechanics in far from equilibrium systems for transport solutions.
Problem 2.In harmonic oscillators the classical laws do not hold eg Fourier.
Problem 3 In (an)Harmonic oscillators you cannot even guess the direction of heat transport as transport is strange Eg Eckmann.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
