Judith -
Josh, you don’t get a serious response from me because you don’t ask serious questions.
Ah. That explains it. And here I thought it was because you have trouble quantifying your certainty and validating your claims.
Comment on The real holes in climate science by Joshua
↧
↧
Comment on The real holes in climate science by Martha
Hello, Rob,
“What’s a “right wing” approach in your opinion”
Characteristically, the value of individualism, little concern for inequality, a survival of the fittest mentality and laissez fair economic views are advanced. And since conservatives in the U.S. are so frequently severely theoretically challenged individuals, I would suggest some recognition that their approach tends to advance one-sided arguments and to be very selective in the presentation of evidence and to have no interest in discussing how politics functions in modern society. Contrast this with progressive values and approach, and you will find that the characteristics are not a difference in degree but a difference in kind: the social priorities related to economic decisions, concerns about democracy, social justice, and equitable distribution of resources comes up more often.
“Is there a list of issues that you evaluate people’s positions on to decide”
The difference is not in the issues raised but rather the interpretation and proposed response to the issues. I made that clear in my previous comment but if you required even more clarity you now have the above.
“can you please identify a single major nation that “deserves” to get funds from the US or the EU because of the issue? Can you explain why you feel that way”
Americans might wish to think about how to use their resources wisely and about polices to support the vulnerable people within the U.S. – namely, people who are poor, and who cannot move away from risks using their own resources or absorb hardship from climate change without social welfare support.
The idea of who is “deserving” is a questionable one, but if you mean who needs help, the needs around assistance and aid are identified by people themselves; and the role for outside help involves a range of policy options that includes not only financial assistance but aid delivery systems that actually boost self-determination.
“Can you explain why you feel that way?”
Basically, I support this kind of crafting of progressive economic and trade policies with a focus on social priorities because these practices tend to promote humanitarianism, equitable distribution of assistance and opportunity, and shared responsibility-taking — which reflects my beliefs and an approach to resources and political power that I value.
↧
Comment on The real holes in climate science by randomengineer
lolwot, the point is that climate scaremongering is today’s bogeyman and you can tell because stuff wholly unrelated to climate mentions it. For all we know, what whacked the clovis culture is a common genetic malady for that group looking for a spot marked X and north amercia provided X. e.g. syphillis was given to europe by the natives on the first voyage of columbus; it was geographically restricted to north america at one time.
That all other possible (and far more probable) mechanisms of clovis culture disappearance are completely ignored and yet climate change — of all possible improbable things — is mentioned tells us that the funding and journal acceptance processes are compromised with today’s “correctness.”
(I’m quite certain that if you were to look you’d find that climate change caused mental problems for the guy who assassinated Archduke Ferdinand. If not, just wait a few months. It will appear.)
Species extinction claims are nothing more than useless additions to the rest of the massive pile of climate claims, many (most?) of which are based solely on statistics and models. This I think is much of the heart of the matter where it concerns skepticism in general. When climate is claimed to be the underlying driver for everything possible (i.e. pick a subject, any subject, and climate is the bogeyman) this is the point where sane people will say “whoa.”
Climate change advocacy *creates* skeptics. If someone tells you something that sounds too good to be true, it probably is. In terms if climate, people are making so many claims that the answer to life the universe and everything is no longer 42, it’s “climate change.” Same mechanism kicks in as “too good to be true.”
↧
Comment on Beyond smoke and mirrors: the middle ground by manacker
Judith Curry
Here is the next installment (the book is getting more factual and interesting)..
In this part of the book, Dr. Richter discusses energy alternates and (in my opinion) moves away from the <em>“smoke and mirrors”</em> of climate change alarmism.
He compares the USA, where <em>“coal and natural gas are used to generate 70% of electricity”</em> with France, where over 70% comes from nuclear power.
[The USA has large reserves of both coal and natural gas; France does not – so this energy split makes sense for the two nations.]
He then lists the four known ways to reduce emissions from electrical power generation:
<blockquote>- improve fuel efficiency
- carbon capture and sequestration
- more efficient use of electrical power
- switch to low- or zero-emission source
</blockquote>
[There is no question that improving efficiency of use or in generation of electrical power inherently makes sense, as this reduces cost and, hence, adds value.]
[Switching from coal to gas or nuclear could be cost neutral or (as Richter points out) could actually lower cost inmany instances, so again makes sense.]
Richter agrees that CCS is <em>”something he is skeptical about”</em> (primarily for technical and environmental reasons), but curiously adds <em>”but which has such potential that it is worth a try”</em>.
[In my opinion it inherently does NOT make sense since (in addition to the risks it poses) it only adds cost (not value). In addition (as others have pointed out) the principal new CO2 emitters of the 21st century (China, India, etc,) are very unlikely to pursue this costly route.]
Richter points out that photovoltaic cells <em>”use many toxic gases in fabrication”</em> and concludes that, in his opinion, <em>”coal (or oil) is the worst, wind the best, and nuclear somewhat better than photovoltaic or gas”</em>.
Richter believes in charging<em>”an appropriate price for carbon emissions”</em>. This is simply another way of saying imposing a (direct or indirect) carbon tax. He compares a direct tax with cap and trade.
[A direct or indirect tax is a poor alternate in my opinion as it will not reduce carbon emissions (no tax ever did). Making existing renewable energy alternates appear to be more competitive by simply increasing the cost of fossil-fuel based power generation will again simply add cost – not value. And it will prevent the development of truly competitive renewable technologies.]
Richter states that <em>”efficiency is the first priority”</em> as it is <em>”the cheapest and easiest way”</em>. In fact, it not only costs nothing but saves money.
[Who can disagree that this makes sense?]
In the next chapter, Richter discusses <em>”what might be done to improve energy efficiency in two of three sectors of the US economy: transportation and buildings”</em>
He goes into the history of fuel economy standards in the USA and their impact on gasoline efficiency, as well as the OPEC influence.
He then discusses hybrid and all-electric automobiles, as well as design changes to automobile bodies to decrease weight as well as aerodynamic drag. Switching to diesel engines also increases fuel economy. Other advances will come from improved battery design.
[This is all very good stuff, which has a large potential for reducing oil consumption (with the side benefit of reducing CO2 emissions).]
Richter then discusses alternate fuels: corn ethanol is a poor alternate, as it adds cost, and can only be made to look competitive by massive subsidies. Other bio-fuels (ex. algae) are still in the development stage.
He points out that natural gas as a motor fuel makes sense, with a caveat about long-term availability.
[Current gas reserves would limit this alternate, but the new gigantic shale gas reserves and possible future extraction of methane clathrates could change this.]
Richter also mentions hydrogen, but discards this alternate as it takes more energy than gasoline and <em>”there are some basic science questions that need to be answered before hydrogen can be considered as a large-scale fuel source”</em>.
[Agree 100% - and I would add that there are also serious safety questions that would need to be answered, plus – this alternate only adds cost, not value.]
Richter then switches to building energy efficiency. Existing technologies, such as better insulation, improved windows, more efficient heating systems, etc. can improve this significantly at essentially no added cost.
[These alternates add value and make sense.]
Richter believes that improved efficiency standards and codes can help speed up these improvements.
[This involves more regulation, which might be justified if it really accelerates the process.]
In the next chapter, Richter discusses nuclear energy. He feels that this source will play a major role in moving away from fossil fuels for electrical power generation. He discusses the excellent safety record and states:
<blockquote>France, with 80% of its electricity coming from nuclear reactors that emit no greenhouse gases, should be the poster child of the environmental movement. The country emits less than half the world average of greenhouse gas per unit of GDP.</blockquote>
[It’s even better than that. France has a <em>“carbon efficiency”</em> (GDP per ton of CO2) of $5,500 - only Sweden ($6,100) and Switzerland ($8,000) are higher. The world average is below $1,500. For reference, the EU and Japan are at $3,200, the USA at $2,200, while China and Russia are only at $550, the OPEC nations at around $600 and India at $730.]
Richter discusses the political problems the nuclear industry faces, despite its excellent safety record, and the spent fuel disposal problem. He discusses the Chernobyl accident and the differences in reactor and building design. He concludes:
<blockquote>Radiation from a [nuclear] power plant is not significant compared with what we get all the time from natural sources, and we should stop worrying about it.</blockquote>
[This is good advice, but unfortunately – in a post-Fukushima world – no one is listening to it.]
Richter then discusses the spent fuel disposal problem:
<blockquote>Just as I do not like leaving the global warming problem to my grandchildren, I do not like leaving the nuclear waste problem to them, either</blockquote>
[He discusses various repository alternates but curiously does not include the use of fast breeder reactors using thorium, which have been tested at a prototype level in both France and India, and which would essentially eliminate the spent fuel problem as it is today.]
On cost, Richter states that nuclear power generation can compete with coal-fired plants on a long-term all-in cost basis, although the initial capital investment is somewhat higher. Least competitive are onshore and offshore wind plants, even if the cost for standby generation with natural gas is excluded.
He concludes that
<blockquote>nuclear power is the only large-scale carbon-free system that now can produce this base-load power</blockquote>
[This checks with other estimates I have seen, even without any carbon tax on the coal.]
The proliferation problem is discussed next. This is a <em>”political issue, not a technical one”</em>, according to Richter.
[This limits the use of nuclear power in many of the underdeveloped countries, who have unstable or dictatorial regimes; in order to develop a low-cost energy infrastructure for these nations, new fossil fuel fired plants will be needed.]
Richter concludes with:
<blockquote>There is no silver bullet to slay the climate-change dragon, and neither nuclear energy nor the renewable on their own can solve our greenhouse gas emission problem. What technologies might be available 50 years from now is beyond my vision. We need to get started and, for now, nuclear power provides us with one of the safest, most cost-effective alternates to continuing on our present course. We should be moving vigorously to increase the nuclear energy supply.</blockquote>
This section was factual, rather than loaded with alarming half-truths and sales pitches for immediate action. Most of what Richter proposes (except the carbon tax and CCS) makes sense to me.
There is still a discussion of renewable sources of energy in the next section, but I will cover that plus the overall summary separately in the next post.
Max
↧
Comment on The real holes in climate science by Capt. Dallas
P.E. CANDU has a positive void coefficient. I don’t like that, just me probably.
Thorium still needs U233 or U235 or plutonium to become critical. The issue with processing is cash. Processing out of the cycle produces a revenue stream for the designers which is a big deal for the designers.
↧
↧
Comment on China Rejects Paying EU ETS Carbon Emissions Surcharge by Tom
What’s the rush, with when you are dealing with the stars in red… the nation.
remember: We’ve already paid for this…
WASHINGTON, March 26th, 1996— Kyodo
U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow told People’s Bank of ChinaThe People’s Bank of China (PBC or PBOC) (Simplified Chinese: 中国人民银行; Traditional Chinese:
….. Click the link for more information. Governor Zhou Xiaochuan
This is a Chinese name; the family name is Zhou (周).
Dr Zhou Xiaochuan (Chinese: 周小川; Pinyin: Zhōu Xiǎochuān on Friday that China needs to scrap its dollar-pegged foreign exchange system and float the yuan.
”In the meeting with the central bank governor, Secretary Snow reiterated the U.S. view that the international trading systemThe introduction to this article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter.
Please help [ improve the introduction] to meet Wikipedia’s layout standards. You can discuss the issue on the talk page.
….. Click the link for more information. works best with free trade, free flow of capital and flexible market-based exchange rates,” Treasury Department spokesman Robert Nichols told reporters.
Snow also told Zhou that he will soon appoint a high-level official, who will be stationed at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, to ”help to facilitate China’s transition to a flexible currency regime,” Nichols said.
China has pegged the yuan in a tight range of around 8.28 yuan to the U.S. dollar since 1994. U.S. manufacturers have accused China of keeping the yuan artificially low to provide an unfair competitive edge for its exports.
Snow commended China’s ongoing efforts to modernize its financial markets and urged the Chinese central bank governor to continue the reforms, Nichols said.
————————————————————————————
Remember the EU is not a nation, so it does not matter anymore. Right.
Just like US. The hole globe: ls the deal today. If we would just make minimum wage $100 bucks an hour for 18 year olds in America, just think of the growths that will take taxes someday. If China is still willing to pay our way? When they are done buying up Greece, maybe we will sell our UN World Heritage sites just to float Wall Street, a little longer or until they can do the “Big China” IPO.)
tricky old dragon II
↧
Comment on China Rejects Paying EU ETS Carbon Emissions Surcharge by Robert
<blockquote>Thread by thread the AGW web is unravelling before our eyes <b>with evidence of,</b> for example:</blockquote>
Would you like to provide some citations to the evidence to which you refer? The assertions that follow seem disconnected from reality.
↧
Comment on China Rejects Paying EU ETS Carbon Emissions Surcharge by Robert
Andrew,
When denying reality, you might have better luck if you didn’t misspell the first word of your comment.
↧
Comment on China Rejects Paying EU ETS Carbon Emissions Surcharge by Diogenes
I’ll second DonB’s recommendation of Master Resource. The blog is well-written; obviously, it does have a point-of-view that is prominently disclosed.
↧
↧
Comment on China Rejects Paying EU ETS Carbon Emissions Surcharge by P.E.
RoHS is a good example of them shooting themselves in the foot. They managed to get almost all the components certified, because they never used much lead anyway. But with the ROW still willing to accept non-RoHS, the fabricators in China will quote you one price for RoHS, and a cheaper price for non. Bottom line: products headed for the EU are more expensive than the functionally identical products elsewhere. On the one hand, they did get all the parts to conform (at nominal cost). On the other hand, they didn’t for the final product. Fail.
↧
Comment on China Rejects Paying EU ETS Carbon Emissions Surcharge by David L. Hagen
Judith
Re "other energy blogs out there that you recommend."
I recommend <a href="http://theoildrum.com/" / rel="nofollow">TheOilDrum.com</a> as an active blog with experts covering production, costs and future availability of all fuels, Energy Return On Investment etc.
The primary organization focusing on future fuel availability is:
<a href="http://www.peakoil.net/" / rel="nofollow">The Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO),</a> with chapters in numerous countries. See PeakOil.net
<a href="http://www.aspo-usa.com/" / rel="nofollow">ASPO-USA.com</a> and their associated EU and US conferences.
Some individual blogs:
Gail "The Actuary" Tverberg posts at <a href="http://ourfiniteworld.com/" / rel="nofollow">Our Finite World</a>
ROBERT RAPIER <a href="http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/blogs/rsquared/" / rel="nofollow">Consumer Energy Report/R-Squared Energy</a>
Economist/Energy expert <a href="http://weber.ucsd.edu/~jhamilto/" / rel="nofollow">James Hamilton</a> runs <a href="http://www.econbrowser.com/" / rel="nofollow">Econbrowser</a>
↧
Comment on China Rejects Paying EU ETS Carbon Emissions Surcharge by Rob Starkey
Robert
How about the FACT that we now understand that the current GCMs can not accurately predict any future weather related conditions at a level significant to policy making
↧
Comment on China Rejects Paying EU ETS Carbon Emissions Surcharge by Bad Andrew
*Roberta*,
Global Warming is about as real as you are.
Andrew
↧
↧
Comment on China Rejects Paying EU ETS Carbon Emissions Surcharge by P.E.
All this China-love from conservatives is already quite amusing.
Not quite as amusing as watching the left trying to resurrect the white man’s burden.
↧
Comment on China Rejects Paying EU ETS Carbon Emissions Surcharge by Theo Goodwin
The aspirations of bureaucrats who have the job of pushing CO2 taxes are necessarily global because the problem has been defined as global. The behavior of these bureaucrats was predictable and is predictable. They will necessarily threaten our present international arrangements regarding national sovereignty. In brief, these bureaucrats believe that they are justified in taxing the world. To someone who believes in national sovereignty, this bureaucracy is yet another version of Frankenstein’s monster, a radical failure that harms not only innocents but itself and its creator.
The most serious harm that comes from this modern example of the wages of hubris is the harm to democracy. EU bureaucrats are not elected and are subject to no reasonable controls by the people of the sovereign nations that make up the EU or the rest of the world. Today in the US we face similar challenges to democracy from bureaucracies who act beyond the limits set by the Constitution. The administrators of the EPA believe that they have power to create huge tax burdens through their new found ability to regulate CO2. Such actions will necessarily lead to a constitutional crisis in a showdown between the Administration and Congress. The outcome of that showdown will determine the future of democracy in the US. Need I add that no serious thinker would have imagined that bureaucrats could attain the power to shape our democratic form of government and our individual liberties.
↧
Comment on China Rejects Paying EU ETS Carbon Emissions Surcharge by tetragrammaton
re Robert
“like to provide some citations”
– Sea level rise: see the results of your own blogging this morning over at WUWT. Lots of evidence from satellites and experts regarding the continuation of the (approx.) 7 inches per century of sea level rise of the past two centuries. The evidence of shore-dwellers regarding their own tide-gauge levels. (I call this “pier review”.)
– No out-of-the-ordinary temperature rise: Temperature fluctuations for the last thirteen years bear no statistical relationship to measured CO2 rise. Likewise 30-year periods of warming (and lack of warming) in the 20th century now seen to be unrelated, apparently, to CO2 concentration. And hockey stick purporting to show no MWP and no LIA, clearly discredited.
– Undermining of “forcing” assumptions in GCMs: No empirical evidence produced to date to prove the “water vapor” component of alleged CO2-induced warming. Plausible theories from CERN and elsewhere regarding cloud albedo issues which could produce the opposite effect on CO2 increases. Projections of these models over the past twenty years have been even less skillful than Dr. Gray’s now-abandoned attempts to predict next year’s hurricanes.
Want more evidence? You’re in the right place to find it!
↧
Comment on China Rejects Paying EU ETS Carbon Emissions Surcharge by P.E.
This isn’t an airspace issue; it’s a landing/takeoff rights issue. If it were an airspace issue, the tax would only apply in the airspace, not all the way from the other end.
Maybe Max can confirm this, but I believe that this wouldn’t apply to a flight from Beijing to Zurich.
In any event, this is begging for retaliation; if the Euros can do this, what’s to prevent the Chinese (and the ROW) from imposing a retaliatory tax of their own, effective all the way to London or Frankfurt?
↧
↧
Comment on China Rejects Paying EU ETS Carbon Emissions Surcharge by Jacob
“Developing alternatives for oil seems to be far too difficult and slow.”
Distracting us and wasting money with silly projects like windmills doesn’t help a bit in developing alternatives for oil. A lot of money is simply flushed down the drain becuase of the CAGW hysteria (which is distinct from the peak-oil hysteria).
↧
Comment on China Rejects Paying EU ETS Carbon Emissions Surcharge by Pekka Pirilä
P.E.
I have been following closely energy developments since 1980. Based on that I have little trust in claims that rapid changes are possible, when big investors get interested. If no solutions exist, they don’t miraculously appear, when investors get interested.
Referring to another comment in this thread, nobody with any understanding of these issues thinks that the shortage will appear suddenly one morning, but that’s not required for the buildup of major problems. The problems may worsen within years, solving them may take decades. Perhaps the ratio of time scales in not ten, but three to five is likely and bad enough.
↧
Comment on Error cascade by Steve Garcia
What is brought to mind from this is Pavlov and his dog, on a dog pound scale. Armed and Dangerous says this
…error cascades are all too common where science meets public policy
Cannot one see the obvious? Where there is policy, there are governmental monies. Where there are governmental monies, how can an academic with his career ahead of him or her not salivate at the prospects of all but unlimited money? I am reminded of so many dogs who will eat till they get ill, if enough food is put in front of them. Pavlov ad infinitum et absurdum?
Is there a need to go into the subject further? There is only the need to discard the myth of the ivory tower as a place of non-interest as to where the next meal (think grant money) might coming from. We only need to thin of academics as normal human beings, instead of angelic discoverers.
With governmental monies, instead of a single morsel with its signal light, there is a conveyor belt possible, not to mention so many more morsels right as the first light is lit. A comparison night be a kid on Christmas morning before the tree with its piles and piles of presents. But we are talking of visions of a possible never-ending Christmas tree – the proverbial money tree.
What academic with his career ahead of him has the will to stand before the money conveyor belt and turn away?
Even those whose papers’ findings disagree with global warming manage to put in the text somewhere some assertion that “this is not to insinuate that global warming is not happening; we all know it is.” Or “It is not yet clear how this is to be understood in an ever warming climate due to man’s CO2 emissions.” Armed and Dangerous points out that this is “preference falsification, the act of misrepresenting one’s desires or beliefs under perceived social pressures.”
In the review * on “Private Truths, Public Lies: The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification”, is this assessment:
A common effect of preference falsification is the preservation of widely disliked structures. Another is the conferment of an aura of stability on structures vulnerable to sudden collapse. When the support of a policy, tradition, or regime is largely contrived, a minor event may activate a bandwagon that generates massive yet unanticipated change.
A more concise summary of the global warming “largely contrived” “structure” could hardly be possible. Can anyone say “Climategate”? A “minor event” which activated “a bandwagon” of “massive yet unanticipated change.” And it happened just at the moment (Copenhagen) when the aura of stability was to be carved into stone.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
