Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by beththeserf

0
0

Oh them clouds. Models jest can’t manage ter accommodate ‘em …
vhttp://www.artnet.com/artists/james-thurber/four-amusing-illustrations-for-charles-kingsleys-3zumN5YYkZ9VIsAsZjaK_Q2


Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by Jacob

0
0

” I see the climate policy dialogue starting to open up”…

WSJ were always skeptic.
I’ll start to believe there is some “opening up” when NYT publishes such an op-ed.

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by A fan of *MORE* discourse

0
0

Rob Ellison claims [dogmatically and wrongly]  “Heat is a macro property and flow is always from the warmer to the cooler.”

Question  How do thermoelectric coolers work?

The world wonders!

Hint  (inverse) temperature is just one of the two thermodynamical potentials in play.

Conclusion  Considerations of energy and temperature are just the bare beginning of thermodynamics.

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

Comment on Open thread by Peter Lang

0
0

It is simply not true.

It is true.

In the EIA tables here dispatchable and non dispatchable are always listed separately – for a good reason! http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm

“A related factor is the capacity value, which depends on both the existing capacity mix and load characteristics in a region. Since load must be balanced on a continuous basis, units whose output can be varied to follow demand (dispatchable technologies) generally have more value to a system than less flexible units (non-dispatchable technologies), or those whose operation is tied to the availability of an intermittent resource. The LCOE values for dispatchable and nondispatchable technologies are listed separately in the tables, because caution should be used when comparing them to one another.”

AETO Report, p24: http://www.bree.gov.au/sites/bree.gov.au/files/files//publications/aeta/australian_energy_technology_assessment.pdf

“Projected LCOE does not necessarily provide a reliable indicator of the relative market value of generation technologies because of differences in the role of technologies in a wholesale electricity market. The value of variable (or intermittent) power plants (such as wind, and solar) will depend upon the extent to which such plants generate electricity during peak periods and the impact these plants have on the reliability of the electricity system. Unlike dispatchable power plants (such as coal, natural gas, biomass, and hydroelectric) – which are reliant on some form of stored energy (e.g. fuels, water storage) – wind and photovoltaic power plants do not, typically, include energy storage.

To cater for sudden, unpredictable, changes in the output of variable power plants, it is necessary to operate responsive, dispatchable power plants (e.g. hydro, open-cycle gas turbines) in a back-up role to maintain the overall reliability of the electricity system. As a result, LCOE by technology is not the only factor considered when deciding what type of electricity generation plant to construct.”

Do you accept the point yet, or is that beyond the capacity of your ego?

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by jacobress

0
0

“coolists demanding extravagant and expensive “solutions” ”

Extravagant and expensive “solutions” that solve NOTHING even if climate sensitivity is as high as the IPCC states.

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by Pierre-Normand

0
0

“You said something that had no context, no meaning and no substance.”

I explained the context in my previous reply but you would rather ignore the context in order to better misrepresent the statement.

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by A fan of *MORE* discourse

0
0

  deplores “[assertions] that have no context, no meaning and no substance.”

The world is trying to help you, Rob Ellison!

And the world is trying to help Judith Curry, too!

Conclusion  Assertions largely devoid of “context, meaning and substance” have been deplorably common this week, both there on Cllmate Etc and in the WSJ too.

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by John Peter

0
0

Interesting that this Lewis & Curry paper reached at TCR close to the original Lintzen & Chow estimates. Just shows you that Lintzen may have been right all the time, but then he knows his “stuff”. I am a great admirer of JC for persisting with trying to do proper science and highlighting the uncertainty prevalent in this field of study.


Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by Jonathan Abbott

0
0

Jim D: Seriously? You start by assuming linear warming from an arbitrarily selected date (why not the start of the current interglacial?) and then arm wave about how ‘most’ people expect the rate of warming to increase further from there?
That isn’t science, that’s a child drawing a straight line on a graph and expecting to be 15 feet tall by the time they’re 21.

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by mosomoso

0
0

There is just a brief period where certain potty notions can be expressed without general ridicule. Really wacko beliefs can be strong but not long.

Even when our local butcher in Carss Park around 1960 was warning us of crazy weather being caused by Sputnik and A-bombs, nobody would have dared to talk of “tackling” climate change or of setting future temperature “targets” to a degree or even fraction of a degree. In a few years time it will again be impossible to give voice to such pottiness.

Right now it’s possible.

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by JamesG

0
0

I’d have thought even you would understand that by ‘best estimate’ they meant the value at the mode of the distribution based only on the method they used – not by any other method.

And if you think paleo data are useful for climate sensitivity then you are in a minority that includes your idol Hansen and almost nobody else. Most foolk involved in sensitivity analyses treat such paleo-derived sensitivities as pure guesswork, having almost zero foundation and little or no backup peer-review.

I agree that it is mighty tricky how the thermodynamics interact and we need to make many extremely gross simplifications in the models even to get a useful result, never mind accurate. So comparisons to reality are necessary. Of course we can just go straight to reality and calculate a postulated upper bound feedback directly which is what is described here. The lower bound is of course the no-feedback 1K. So we are rather more tightly constrained than the IPCC would have us believe.

Of course there are always extreme outlier opinions but apparently we are meant to strive for consensus! In this case the skeptics are far closer than Hansen to the mainstream POV.

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by JamesG

0
0

That comment was actually aimed at ‘fan’ below. Alas the indenting seems to be flawed now.

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by tonyb

0
0

jim2

Good question

do the (unknown and/or unproven) dis-benefits of Co2 outweigh the known benefits of co2? Discuss.

tonyb

Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison

0
0

Levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is often cited as a convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies. It represents the per-kilowatthour cost (in real dollars) of building and operating a generating plant over an assumed financial life and duty cycle. Key inputs to calculating LCOE include capital costs, fuel costs, fixed and variable operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, financing costs, and an assumed utilization rate for each plant type.3 The importance of the factors varies among the technologies. For technologies such as solar and wind generation that have no fuel costs and relatively small variable O&M costs, LCOE changes in rough proportion to the estimated capital cost of generation capacity. For technologies with significant fuel cost, both fuel cost and overnight cost estimates significantly affect LCOE. The availability of various incentives, including state or federal tax credits, can also impact the calculation of LCOE. As with any projection, there is uncertainty about all of these factors and their values can vary regionally and across time as technologies evolve and fuel prices change.

It is important to note that, while LCOE is a convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies, actual plant investment decisions are affected by the specific technological and regional characteristics of a project, which involve numerous other factors. The projected utilization rate, which depends on the load shape and the existing resource mix in an area where additional capacity is needed, is one such factor. The existing resource mix in a region can directly impact the economic viability of a new investment through its effect on the economics surrounding the displacement of existing resources. For example, a wind resource that would primarily displace existing natural gas generation will usually have a different economic value than one that would displace existing coal generation. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm

There is really no difference to the passage I quoted earlier – and have repeated here. There are specific loads that are compatible with specific source – and I suggested a few earlier. There are other technologies such as geothermal, landfill gas, biomass and hydro that can be switched with variable sources usefully. It is all a matter of network analysis in the NREL sense.

Do you get it yet?

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by Rob Ellison

0
0

I have probably done too many exams. My initial urge is to tell you to get phucked.


Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by Kneel

0
0

And should Judy have used these, would you now be complaining that her results should not be campared with 5AR because, well, apples and bananas?
Besides, who’s to say what “better” means – it’s clear you feel the named info is “better”. Why?

Comment on Open thread by Peter Lang

0
0

Ellison,

There are specific loads that are compatible with specific source – and I suggested a few earlier. There are other technologies such as geothermal, landfill gas, biomass and hydro that can be switched with variable sources usefully. It is all a matter of network analysis in the NREL sense.

FUD!

Where’s your network analysis? Where are your costs for a mostly renewables versus mostly nuclear or all fossil fuel grid?

Let’s see your hand?

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by Jonathan Abbott

0
0

The op-ed is very nicely written, Judith. Well done.

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by richard verney

0
0

Jonathan Abbott | October 10, 2014 at 3:58 am |

David Appell,
It is clear that the whole point of the Lewis and Curry paper is to examine the evidence selected by the IPCC itself, and see what the sensitivity is using their data and methods. It is not an attempt to define in absolute terms what the sensitivity is.

To argue that Lewis and Curry used the wrong data isn’t to argue that their paper is flawed, it is actually to argue that they should have written a different paper altogether.

Why not go and write that paper yourself?
//////////////////////

This is precisely the point of the Lewis & Curry Paper.

It follows from this, that this paper should have formed part of the summary/conclusion of the IPCC AR5 Report itself. There is no reason why the authors of the report could not have written it, ie., performed the analysis of their own cited data.

No doubt the reason why it did not form part of AR5 was due to the problem with consensus, and consensus led science. For one reason or another (and it is not a scientific reason), they could not reach consensus (at least not in writing who knows what is being said in private behind the scenes) on a more probabalistic narrowing of climate sensitivity.

This will cause problems in the Paris meeting next year, since as long as the ‘pause’ continues there will be more and more papers suggesting lower and lower ranges for climate sensitivity, such that AR5 will be out of date at that meeting, and not representive of the ‘best’ ‘science’ on the important issue of climate sensitivity (and this is the rub given that alarmism is all about high sensitivity, nothing else)..

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by Rob Ellison

0
0

If you really wanted to look at the hyperphysics link you would understand that work is required to reverse the heat flow. It is simply adding energy to a system. The Clausius form of the 2nd law is certainly not violated. Heat flows from a hotter to cooler body – they call it a law of nature. It would be obvious if you were not so pathetically incompetent.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images