My my, weren’t you just waiting to pounce. As always, context is key. The discussion is climate, so weather is noise. You simply can’t look at the weather on a given day and tell anyone how much of it has to do with Anthropogenic Global Warming and how much of it is just weather. Gavins ENSO example is a perfect example of context.
Try to remember, this web site is called RealClimate not RealWeather.
#572 Kevan Hashemi
Actually, you can remove all the temperature stations and the glaciers and Arctic will still melt. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
You refer to Prof Brook’s [edit – quoted comment was removed]
Give evidence of or citations for these “repeated claims”. I am a regular reader of BNC posts and cannot recall anything that would justify your statement.
BTW, Happy holidays to all and thanks for another informative year of climate education.
Dalesays
I think we need some type of an article which focuses on how we got to where we are in the scientific consensus. It would be a narrative that starts out sometime in the eighties when the media first started picking up on AGW. I don’t think most deniers know that the overwhelming majority of scientists during that period of time really couldn’t buy into the theory in its entirety. It’s possible that by showing how the different skeptical scientists were swayed by the research that they did in their particular field of science and how that eventually brought them around. It could show how absurd the denier’s arguments are about a huge conspiracy. I’m betting that if it could be made into a movie drama that would be ideal. You might be able to keep the attention of those who have no interest in science let along AGW.
arch stantonsays
Make that “#598” in my last post…
pete bestsays
A 170 paper peer reviewed scientist speaks on the earths history of co2.
Is it possible to do any scientific experiements that are repeatable around the globe that proves man is responsible for the warming of the planet? WITHOUT using man-made computer models?
I can program a computer to output whatever you want it to
[Response: Oddly enough, I just finished putting a lot of these together for the paleo-component of the set of model runs being done for the next IPCC report. Comments welcome! – gavin]
Nice list. Looking forward to seeing the results.
Steve Fishsays
Comment by Edward Greisch — 24 December 2009 @ 3:27 AM:
For non-specialized searches, check out Scroogle.org and try their Scroogle scraper to avoid advertising and paid for links.
Steve
SecularAnimistsays
Frank Giger wrote: “… The villification of the word “skeptic” sends up a huge red flag to me and others …”
I don’t vilify “skeptics”.
I “vilify” people who are deliberate, corporate-funded liars and falsely claim to be “skeptics”.
I “vilify” megalomaniac cranks who are ignorant of actual climate science but imagine that their crackpot “theories” have overturned scientific understanding that is the hard-won fruit of a century of science, who call their belligerent, arrogant ignorance “skepticism”.
I “vilify” people who slavishly, obediently believe every single bit of idiotic ExxonMobil-funded drivel that Rush Limbaugh is paid to spoon-feed them, and call themselves “skeptics” for doing so.
The real skeptics are the thousands of climate scientists who have spent decades diligently investigating and studying the problem of anthropogenic global warming. We owe our understanding of anthropogenic global warming to their skepticism.
Gavin and the other scientists who moderate this site are real skeptics. They are worthy of the honorable name “skeptic”.
The fossil fuel industry’s bought-and-paid for liars, frauds and cranks, and the gullible dupes who uncritically accept their lies and distortions and pseudoscience because they have bought into the fake, phony, pseudo-ideological party line that any action to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels (and thereby reduce ExxonMobil’s profits) is an attack on “liberty” by a “worldwide conspiracy of liberals”, are NOT “skeptics”. And they have no right to that name.
And it is they, and not the climate scientists, who have brought shame and disrepute on the word “skeptical”.
John E. Pearsonsays
605: Thanks for that. I’ll listen to this repeatedly. Absolutely awesome.
#538, Phil, you might also add the presence of cadence in the ancient ballads, or saga. They acted as a elementary CRC check used in digital communications.
Speaking of the digital world, one has to ask why the software programs, or what ever were, not subject to ISO standards. Having developed software for NASA, DOD, IDA and ARPA, we were REQUIRED to conform to these standards. How is it that some government agencies, where trillions of $’s are at stake, do not follow the same rules?
re #300
WATERLOO, Ont. (Monday, Dec. 21, 2009) – Cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), both already implicated in depleting the Earth’s ozone layer, are also responsible for changes in the global climate, a University of Waterloo scientist reports in a new peer-reviewed paper.
In his paper, Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, shows how CFCs – compounds once widely used as refrigerants – and cosmic rays – energy particles originating in outer space – are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. His paper, derived from observations of satellite, ground-based and balloon measurements as well as an innovative use of an established mechanism, was published online in the prestigious journal Physics Reports.
“My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century,” Lu said. “Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming.”
His conclusions are based on observations that from 1950 up to now, the climate in the Arctic and Antarctic atmospheres has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact.
Frank Gigersays
Dwight, the use of anecdotal examples is the worst sort of red herring and intellectual dishonesty within the discussion – and the public knows it. It breeds skepticism at the core of people’s belief systems.
The vast variations in weather and weather patterns within living memory put a pantina of lie and deception on everything said before and after it.
Having lived in both the extreme north and south of the USA (as well as a stint in the Arabian desert), I’ve seen some pretty odd weather. Snow in June in Montana. Heatwaves in the South, as well as both drought and wet seasons.
The Southeast USA, for example, just ended a three year drought. During the drought, many folks pointed to it as proof of Global Warming. However, when the drought broke this year, their “proof” was undone. Worse, local politicians, when pressed to solve a lack of rainfall they threw their hands up and advised people to pray (as one can’t put a chair in a drought to show that they don’t control the weather). When the rains came, who looked more credible – the activists using a temporary weather cycle to justify a larger climate trend or the local councilman who suggested God would fix it?
New Orleans has been wiped out by Hurricanes three times in recorded history. Blaming Katrina on AGW and using it as a political club shoved me into the political opposition camp pretty firmly.
The NW passage opened in the 1940’s. A one off event? Possibly. When it opened briefly a few years back, however, it was once again pointed to as unprecedented proof of AGW.
For every citation of a specific weather event that “proves” AGW there is one that is similar that happened within modern history that can’t be blamed on AGW. For all the cries of how stupid and ignorant Americans are, we do know how to crack open a history book or talk to our grandparents. Predicting a dust bowl as a result of AGW and saying it is the reason we must cut a large check to the Sudan (and that it will stop it from happening) makes anyone who has seen a newsreel or knows someone who lived through the 1930’s run screaming from the room.
On the energy front, why not use a mix of all sources, including nuclear? Its not a panacea, but is the most effective way of producing carbon neutral electricity. The answer is simple – the objections are based not on price or sustainability, but the underlying and subverted concern over nuclear weapons. Indeed, if it were not for the concern over nuclear weapons we could reprocess spent rods and reuse them, a political impossibility as it would then make nuclear weapons grade materials firmly within legitimate energy generation. Every non-proliferation agreement would be rendered moot.
[Response: It appears to me that your beef is with media coverage and ‘pop’ attributions of specific events to climate change made by people who might not be experts. Attribution is hard – and generally is not done the morning after a storm, or a flood or a drought. I would suggest that you not ascribe the worst excesses of a superficial media culture to the scientists actually doing any of this work. Read the IPCC reports, or the chapter on extreme weather in my book ;-), to get an idea about what the scientists are really saying. That might well improve our credibility in your eyes and give you pointers for who and what to trust in the future. – gavin]
Daniel J. Andrewssays
Gavin, as Arch points out, your link gives my browser a warning too (Firefox). Can you confirm it hasn’t been commandeered by other parties?
[Response: Yes. But I will inform them of the problem. Probably won’t get fixed until the new year. – gavin]
> Edward Greisch says: 24 December 2009 at 3:27 AM
> a Google search, you get “sponsored” links on the right side …
Good reminder, I often forget that many people do see far more ads than I do, thanks. I’ll have to set up a dumb account to use to see that crap.
I see nothing on the right side unless I unblock that stuff.
(Firefox; AdBlock, NoScript, BetterPrivacy, Ghostery, Greasemonkey, Platypus, RefControl, and TACO, now. Think of me as in denial about advertising; it’s a constant effort not to see things I don’t want to.)
(For those leaping to the defense of advertising–anything that has NOT been shoved in my face, I may buy–when I find it by actively searching for something I need. If it’s been pushed, I won’t, on principle.)
594: not only do fuel costs matter, but uranium suffers from a ‘peak uranium’ issue, just like ‘peak oil’. we’re going to hit a maximum uranium mining capacity, just like we’re going to hit a maximum oil pumping capacity. increasing the demand beyond that point will lead to skyrocketing prices, which places a cap on how useful nuclear plants will ever be, and makes the whole idea of using nuclear just kicking the can down the road a little bit (even if the plants themselves could be made for a 10th of the cost and time).
Lamontsays
#532: Thanks BPL. Yeah, its the same physics. The simple non-convective models was beyond what i had the time to do in my undergrad days though. When you look at the full complexity of what gets published in the astrophysics literature to model envelopes the problems are probably similar in complexity. However, I know that a 1-dimensional atmospheric model is going to be beyond what time I have to devote to it now.
And this really is the problem with explaining the science of climate change. There is this notion that anything which can’t be numerically worked out on a cocktail napkin by the average halfway intelligent engineer is suspect as being “too complicated”. However, I’ve used the results of numerical analysis that were ‘too complicated’ to do that analytically and would take a chaper in a book to treat properly (just like radiative balance in an atomsphere with a stratosphere takes a chapter in a book) and I’ve validated that the results of that analysis work. Therefore, *I* trust that scientists can get something complicated right.
There’s this bizzare egalitarianism coming from the right wing in this country where if the average man can’t fully replicate the results of scientists it is too complicated and therefore wrong. If you try to argue that fully explaining radiative balance in climate science simply exceeds in time and mental capacity the average person sitting with a napkin, that means you are being ‘elitist’.
There’s lots of things that I don’t have the time to do, however. And even though I’ve probably got the mathematical chops to handle the physics of climate change, there’s a lot of other math (e.g. advanced general relativity) that i think might just be beyond what i’m capable of — even if i had all the time in the world — that doesn’t make general relativity wrong, though. Gravity still works, even though *I* will never fully understand it.
Douglas Wisesays
re #619 Lamont
Presumably you’ve never heard of fast breeder reactors or don’t believe they will ever be constructed?
Huh? I was trying to show Edward that simple economic laws dictate that the capital costs *do* have a huge impact on energy cost, even if the lifetime of the plant is estimated at 40-60 years. I wasn’t “Trying to nickel and dime the outcome”.
The report that you call comprehensive is only a presentation of the results. Do I have to trust the authors? I’d rather have something with data and calculations so it is transparent and I can learn from it. You don’t happen to have a link to something more substantial?
The other report is very large and will take more time read. A very quick glance didn’t reveal any data or calculations either. But I’ll give it a more thorough look.
It irritates me no end when people try to argue that nuclear power is not economical
So I have noticed :-)
I simply cannot ignore the inevitable effect of construction cost on electricity price. I see one half billion dollars of annual capital cost (interest + depreciation) for 17 billion kWh of electricity. Pretty simple to work out a bottom line kWh cost from those two. Am I being simplistic? If you could show me how it really works, I’ll be happy to listen.
Clearly it is!
I hope you understand that simply saying “it is!” will not convince me. Evidence will.
Critical Thinkersays
@545 – The only Bayesian update here is Ray’s judgement about what constitutes “evidence”. When contemporary memories of things long past match his current beliefs he accepts annecdotal weather-ish ideas and praises folk wisdom, but when they don’t he chastises them. No. No reason to suspect any lurking bias at all! ;-)
I’m still kind of reeling that he doesn’t see how there could be a bias larger than whatever effect he thinks he “measured” which could be incorporated into anyone’s belief system Bayesianly (besides, perhaps his own brain). I mean, was it even a stable report? Did he check back with the same 1991 people in 94? 99? This is so not a way to teach scientific thinking at least as I understand it.
The “journal proxy” as a new T proxy/seasonal shift proxy might be interesting, though personally I would be quite surprised if it were not much, much noisier and confounded than other proxies we have available.
we were around thermal equilibrium near 0.0W/m2 radiative forcing, but now we are around +1.6 W/m2. Doesn’t seem like much until you add up all the meters and ask yourself how much power is that on the surface of the planet?
So, since we have no other plausible explanation for the warming, the ice is melting when it should be relatively stable, and since we know we added all those GHG’s to the atmosphere, the last answer standing is human cause.
SecularAnimistsays
A comment on the nuclear power discussion:
In the context of discussing anthropogenic global warming, the crucial and relevant question about nuclear power is whether it can make a significant contribution to reducing GHG emissions from electricity generation, within the time frame that climate science informs us such reductions are needed in order to (hopefully) avoid the worst outcomes of unmitigated AGW.
And a related question is whether nuclear power is better able to do so than other alternatives to fossil fueled electricity generation, or even — as some nuclear proponents assert over and over again — uniquely able to do so.
In short: is expanding nuclear power an effective means to reduce emissions? Is it more effective than the alternatives? Is it, in fact, a necessary solution, or even THE necessary solution?
I believe that the evidence is abundantly clear that expanding nuclear power is neither an effective nor a necessary solution. There is simply no remotely plausible path of nuclear expansion that can achieve significant GHG emissions within the necessary time frame. Fortunately, there is also no need for expanding nuclear power, because efficiency technology, wind, solar, geothermal and biomass energy can get the job done, far faster and at far lower cost than expanding nuclear power generation.
If nuclear power were an effective and necessary solution, then it would make sense to debate whether we need to deal with the very real, very serious, harms and risks of expanding nuclear power as the price of reducing GHG emissions. Arguably, even the occasional reactor meltdown might be a price worth paying to prevent catastrophic global warming. But nuclear power is neither effective nor necessary, so there is no need to deal with those problems.
My primary concern about nuclear — my opposition to building more nuclear power plants — has relatively little to do with safety concerns. Rather, my concern is that construction of new nuclear power plants will consume resources that would be FAR more cost-effectively invested in efficiency and renewable energy. Thus the “opportunity costs” of investment in new nuclear power hinder, rather than help, the effort to reduce GHG emissions from electricity generation.
Now I will listen to Frank Giger telling me that while I may think that is my reason for opposing new nuclear power plants, the real reason I oppose nuclear power is concern about weapons proliferation (as though that were somehow irrational), and to Edward Greisch telling me that I have been paid by the coal industry to oppose nuclear and support wind and solar. (I guess the coal tycoons also pay me to call for shutting down their entire industry within ten years.)
> PaulinMI says: 24 December 2009 at 12:10 PM
That’s the same press release others have several times already.
Search for a sentence from it to find the other appearances of the same text.
Critical Thinker,
Perhaps I was not clear. I am not saying that any one person’s memories constitute significant evidence of anything. Even the lore from many people is only weak evidence (though it is still evidence). What I am saying is that when you get very similar stories from widely dispersed locations and all of them are consistent with all the other phenological, ice-melting, etc., then it certainly is not consistent with the contention of your ilk that the temperature trends are manufactured. Don’t like anecdotes? Fine. Look at the temperature data. Or the ice-melt data. Or the phenological data (some of which goes back to the 17th century). BUT FOR CHRISSAKE, look at some of the evidence. I hope that is clearer, even to you.
Didactylossays
Anne van der Bom said: “Am I being simplistic?”
Your argument is based on what *might* happen. Which is clearly a dubious proposition. My argument is based on history: nuclear power has been economical in the past, is still economical now, and you have advanced no reason why things should change in the future.
All energy investments have to deal with capital costs, and the associated interest payments. Singling out nuclear makes no sense.
Anne van der Bom said: “Evidence will.”
Anne, you have made no effort to provide evidence in support of your argument. If you don’t like the sources I have provided, then feel free to find some more reliable ones.
SecularAnimist said: “My primary concern about nuclear — my opposition to building more nuclear power plants — has relatively little to do with safety concerns.”
Given everything you have already said on the subject, I don’t think you will get far trying to change tack at this late stage. As the source I quoted earlier says, nuclear power should be cost-neutral, so the financial argument just doesn’t get off the ground.
Why don’t you stop hacking away at nuclear and leave it to its own devices? If it’s uneconomical as you claim, then it will die on its own. Since you’re wrong, it will get plenty of private investment and do just fine. You should concentrate on those new energy sources that *do* need a lot of help.
guthriesays
PaulinMI #615- Qing-Bin Lu’s paper is interesting, but his discussion of AGW is wrong and basically flying a kite.
Rather than look at the broader picture, he just says “oh, its been cooling the last few years even when more CO2 is being produced, just as there’s less CFC’s, and hey look the warming since 1950 is the same rate as the increase in CFC’s.” I can’t quite see how he thinks CFC’s have such a massive warming effect, and he dismisses the IPCC’s estimates with a wave of his hand, whilst still acknowledging that CFC’s are greenhouse gases.
I understand the desire of RC moderators to let everybody have his say — no matter how stupid or contentious they may be.
But the signal-to-noise ratio is getting too low. We’re still bombarded with silly claims about a decade of cooling or some cyclic pattern to the instrumental temperature record. People are still saying you can’t get a hockey stick without tree rings. If these incorrect ideas were in any way original, there might be merit in confronting them. But this isn’t just the 20th time we’ve heard the same old fabricated song-n-dance, it’s the two-hundredth — and often from the same old hucksters.
So here’s an idea: if RC wants to continue to entertain anybody’s and everybody’s junk opinion, create regular open threads for exactly that purpose. That’s where folks can argue till they’re blue in the face about the “trend” in the last 6 years’ of temperature data, about the “cycles” in the instrumental record, about the “recovery” of arctic sea ice, and about CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays. I won’t bother reading those threads.
Here’s the part where the moderators have to change their ways: for other threads, if it’s not on-topic and above the “stupid threshold,” hit the “delete” button. Those threads, I’ll read.
June Rsays
RC folks,
As others have said, you all deserve medals for patience and forbearance. I hope that you will continue to focus on the science. You only have so much time you can devote to this blog, so please do what you do best. There are a number of other good sites for discussions of the socioeconomic and political aspects of climate change.
I am sure that you have a lot of “quiet” regular readers such as myself. I am an educated layperson who does not suffer from Dunning-Kruger. I have taken the time to learn the basics, but short of going back to school for several years (too old, too few good neurons left), I am never going to understand many of the technical details of various aspects of the science. But I make the effort to improve my understanding, and I appreciate having the scientists at RC available to explain and provide context for ongoing research. I rely on people with expertise (education…what a concept!) to help me discern good studies from poor ones, what the implications are, and how results fit into the broader picture.
It’s rather frustrating to me that the denialists seem to be showing up with ever greater frequency on the comments threads. I learn a lot from reading thoughtful comments, but there’s getting to be a lot more rubbish to wade through. Maybe a stricter comments policy would help. The willfully ignorant will complain regardless of what you do. They’re not here to learn. Let them go elsewhere.
Regarding current nuclear technology: We have not fully integrated the cost of nuclear waste storage in the future nor have we fully considered the degradation of nuclear waste storage facilities.
If we don’t succeed in 4th gen. nuclear, then we will have other problems amplifying, that we are already concerned about. The cost of attempting to prevent the acquisition and use of nuclear weapons on the black market as governments begin to teeter in say 40 to 50 years.
Nuclear material is rumored to have passed to terrorist organizations in the breakdown of the Soviet Union. Consider the cost of attempting to retrieve or prevent use.
Philippe Chantreausays
Didactylos, I, for one, am not opposed to nuclear but rather to the way it is proposed, especially in the US. Because the initial costs are so massive, nobody with the know-how can actually afford to build a plant. They need public money. However, once built, they all want to operate it as if it was their private business. That’s what’s already being done with a number of coal plants in the US and it’s nonsense. If your business can’t exist in the first place without my money, you have to cut me a (much) better deal than a purely private operation, period. Anything else is rubbish.
Douglas Wisesays
re #625 Secular Animist
Happy Christmas. I think your comments were excellent though I totally disagree with your conclusions. I may be totally wrong but so may you. This is not the site to discuss these matters and, to an extent, we are exploiting a rare open thread. Please defend your position on BraveNewClimate. I am sure that you wouldn’t be ignored. I am a learner in the field of global warming solutions but have been brought to believe that expenditure on renewables wiil detract from expenditure on nuclear power which will be FAR more effective and cost effective in mitigating AGW. I think we are in total agreement over efficiency. I am also pretty convinced that your views are as honestly held as my own. Could we not carry on the debate in an appropriate forum? My mind is not closed but I do need to identify flaws in my my current thinking before changing my opinion. It is only a couple of years since RealClimate and other sites convinced me to change my sceptical views on AGW. Having been converted, I concentrated on studying possible solutions. Rightly or wrongly, my current thinking is that the anti-nuclear stance that you adopt (and those of most other correspondents on this site)represents a serious threat to future civilisation which can only be assured by 4th generation fission power. I am a retired research scientist but only in the biological field. In the fields of AGW and solutions thereto, I am, therefore, a layman. If I am totally misled, please tell me why – with facts rather than assertions.
Ray Ladburysays
A suggestion for a post:
At this point, denialist memes have become so repetitive that you really cold play bingo with them. How about a post citing the common denialist memes, each one numbered, and a quick refutation (with references) thereof. The person posting the meme could be directed to the post and to the relevant number. Maybe you could have a denialist bingo card at the top of the card for those of us at home that want to play along, too.
If this works, maybe we could repeat it with topics that commonly derail threads–beginning with nukes.
Doug Bostromsays
J.Bob:
“Speaking of the digital world, one has to ask why the software programs, or what ever were, not subject to ISO standards…”
Perhaps because for much of the period covering the software in question, the pertinent standards did not exist? Even for relatively richly funded industries it commonly required a decade after inception of applicable standards for certification to be reached. And now that standards do exist, who is going to pay for certifications? It’s not free; ISO has become a deep consultancy trough, a self-appointed, self-perpetuating industry determined to grow like any other. In any case, there are legitimate questions about the utility of ISO adherence. Microsoft’s products are a case in point.
Cool about the idea of cadence as error detection, though!
David Millersays
Didactylos says a in #630:
Your argument is based on what *might* happen. Which is clearly a dubious proposition. My argument is based on history: nuclear power has been economical in the past, is still economical now, and you have advanced no reason why things should change in the future.
In what way do current construction costs not count as a reason why it isn’t cost effective to build new nukes?
All energy investments have to deal with capital costs, and the associated interest payments. Singling out nuclear makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense if that’s what makes it uneconomic. And in talking about cost per delivered KwH for different types of generation it’s included.
Anne van der Bom said: “Evidence will.”
Anne, you have made no effort to provide evidence in support of your argument. If you don’t like the sources I have provided, then feel free to find some more reliable ones.
Current construction costs by Areva don’t count? Bids to Canadian power companies don’t count? What planet do you live on when some online publication of what someone estimates new nuclear power *should* cost count more than what real companies are charging real customers for real power plants?
Why don’t you stop hacking away at nuclear and leave it to its own devices? If it’s uneconomical as you claim, then it will die on its own. Since you’re wrong, it will get plenty of private investment and do just fine.
Exactly what do you think is happening now?
My real-world observation is that there are few firms willing to build new nuclear plants and few utilities willing to pay for them, and that no one wants to take the financial risk because we have a 30 year history of major cost overruns in the industry.
Name a single nuke plant that came online in the last 20 years on-time and on-budget. Just one. I’m not aware of any. Maybe I’m just seeing the results of an anti-nuke conspiracy, doubtless funded by the coal industry. OTOH, I’m very aware of plants that are years late and have billions in overruns.
I submit that what’s happening now is what’s been happening in the US for the last 30 years – that construction of new nuclear plants is not economically justifiable to either the utilities or the investors, and that no new plants will be built unless financial incentives are arranged for the taxpayers to take all the risk – insurance and cost overruns included – while the investors realize the profits.
As others have said, 4’th generation nukes sound great, but are a couple of decades away from being deployed. We need to retire a lot of coal stations long before then. Current generation nukes haven’t been cost effective for 30 years, and that’s why they haven’t been built.
dhogazasays
ISO has become a deep consultancy trough, a self-appointed, self-perpetuating industry determined to grow like any other. In any case, there are legitimate questions about the utility of ISO adherence. Microsoft’s products are a case in point.
As is Linux, or PostgreSQL, or Apache, for those who believe that such adherence is necessary for the production of quality software.
i greatly respect your work. I beg to differ in this case. I could be wrong but I still think that mandatory use of real names would help, as I believe that would reduce the noise level due to the recognition factor…
I doubt that the moderators have much time to moderate yet another thread and people still need these things debunked, tedious though it is. I believe that mainly, debunking in ‘this’ thread is most important because of the moderators and their skill and credibility.
So, in a weird way the silly people are helping in the fight. When newbies come in to read the thread, they see that these things have been knocked down in multiple posts.
I also enjoy referring people to this thread because it is habitated by scientists that state their names and positions so everyone can see that they actually work actively in the field. This helps with credibility for those more reasonable that the denialsit ilk. To me its the difference between a straw (man) house like WUWT and here where the foundations of the understanding are built with bricks.
The only Bayesian update here is Ray’s judgement about what constitutes “evidence”. When contemporary memories of things long past match his current beliefs he accepts annecdotal weather-ish ideas and praises folk wisdom, but when they don’t he chastises them. No. No reason to suspect any lurking bias at all! ;-)
… and goes on:
I’m still kind of reeling that he doesn’t see how there could be a bias larger than whatever effect he thinks he “measured” which could be incorporated into anyone’s belief system Bayesianly (besides, perhaps his own brain). I mean, was it even a stable report? Did he check back with the same 1991 people in 94? 99?
Are you saying that Ray Ladbury leaping to conclusions and being all dogmaticky yesterday? Well, why don’t we see what you were responding to…
That’s just it. I wasn’t asking questions. I was enjoying the shade of a mango tree in the nooday sun as I purchased some REALLY GOOD mangos and talked with a delightful old man. He volunteered these observations in 1991, despite having never heard of Jim Hansen. I had similar experiences in East Africa and many other places up to Sri Lanka last month, where several people mentioned changes to monsoons, etc. I do not claim that these experiences represent hard evidence, but it certainly is not consistent with the claims in the denialosphere that the warming is an artifact of the analysis.
He specifically states that he “do[es] not claim these experiences experiences represent hard evidence…” As such, he seems to realize that the annecdotal evidence is just that: annecdotal.
But lets see what he does take to be strong evidence:
Likewise, no one piece of phenological data is evidence of climate change, but taken together they support the proposition that we’ve had significant warming. And a melting glacier is not evidence of global change but melting glaciers GLOBALLY is.
Melting glaciers. Not individual glaciers, but global mass balance.
I do hope that this isn’t the sort of thing you would consider to be annecdotal evidence.
Spaceman Spiffsays
Lamont @620 says:
“And this really is the problem with explaining the science of climate change. There is this notion that anything which can’t be numerically worked out on a cocktail napkin by the average halfway intelligent engineer is suspect as being “too complicated”…
There’s this bizarre egalitarianism coming from the right wing in this country where if the average man can’t fully replicate the results of scientists it is too complicated and therefore wrong. If you try to argue that fully explaining radiative balance in climate science simply exceeds in time and mental capacity the average person sitting with a napkin, that means you are being ‘elitist’.
There’s lots of things that I don’t have the time to do, however. And even though I’ve probably got the mathematical chops to handle the physics of climate change, there’s a lot of other math (e.g. advanced general relativity) that i think might just be beyond what i’m capable of — even if i had all the time in the world — that doesn’t make general relativity wrong, though. Gravity still works, even though *I* will never fully understand it.”
As a practicing research astronomer who is also an avid (lay) consumer of the physics of climate change, similar thoughts have swirled in my head, and I’ve had the notion to put them down in a post. But you beat me to it, and said it very well indeed.
Thanks!
David B. Bensonsays
Ken Rogers (556) — IMO the optimum global temperature is that most conducive to agriculture, including no rise in sea level.
J. Bobsays
#637, Doug, programming standards were well on their way in the 60’s. Do you think you would write software for a significant item without worrying about maintenance, (i.e. ICBM or Shuttle systems & subsystems). The same was developing for software relating to government contracts. Not necessarily to ISO standard now, but concern about accuracy & maintenance. So there was plenty of time to get these CRU software programs up to a higher standards level then recent postings have shown.
Frank Gigersays
Gavin, thanks for your comment! Unfortunately, I was addressing many in this thread (which has been successfully derailed from its intended task) as much as activists in the media.
Um, David, the same companies that build coal fired plants also build nuclear ones!
This is one of my favorite Big Lies on the political front – that energy companies are defined by bright shining lines, when in fact they are busy with fingers in as many pots as they can get. Coal fired plants are the rage simply because they are the cheapest and most effective for the money spent. Nuclear power has a higher buy-in and regulatory oversight, but is actually more effective than coal in the long run – and even if it is more expensive per KwH, has zero GHG emissions.
We’re told that in order to Save The Planet we’ll have to all spend more for energy and sacrifice. Replacing two or three coal fired plants for one nuclear one would seem to be a step in the right direction.
The conspiracy theories about corporations trying to poison the planet for the sake of poisoning the planet are specious, IMHO. If someone were to develop a very cost effective, energy effective way of producing electricity that was cheaper than coal, energy companies would jump on it. If solar and wind cut the mustard, utilities would dive in whole hog in every region of the USA.
Rod Bsays
SecularAnimist, since you define it as you wish, you can then I suppose vilify anybody you so chose without impunity.
Exxon-Mobil pays Rush to espouse his AGW thoughts? You think??
Rod Bsays
Gavin (616), you’re correct, of course, and as you have rightly said before, you are not responsible for any posters here other than maybe the moderators. Beyond that, those other posters pepper RC often with personal anecdotal “proofs” of global warming.
David B. Bensonsays
Ray Ladury — There is another web site with numbered denialist talking points.
Philippe Chantreausays
That’s a big strawman you’re pushing Frank. I am not aware of any theory postulating that companies are poisoning the planet for the sake of poisoning the planet. I am aware, however, of established instances of companies poisoning the planet, or people, for the sake of profit. Lead paint. Tobacco. Spewing of carcinogenic cyclic compounds. Low safety standards. Resistance to regulations. Non compliance with regulations when it is known they won’t be enforced, or weakly enforced. Etc, etc.
#489 simon monckton
My my, weren’t you just waiting to pounce. As always, context is key. The discussion is climate, so weather is noise. You simply can’t look at the weather on a given day and tell anyone how much of it has to do with Anthropogenic Global Warming and how much of it is just weather. Gavins ENSO example is a perfect example of context.
Try to remember, this web site is called RealClimate not RealWeather.
#572 Kevan Hashemi
Actually, you can remove all the temperature stations and the glaciers and Arctic will still melt. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/ross-mckitrick
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/glacier-retreat
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/arctic
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/temperature-records
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/climate-extremes
re #594 Jiminmpls
You refer to Prof Brook’s [edit – quoted comment was removed]
Give evidence of or citations for these “repeated claims”. I am a regular reader of BNC posts and cannot recall anything that would justify your statement.
Gavin, FYI, my security software gives m a warning about your link in # 398: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/unforced-variations/comment-page-12/#comment-151134 “The security certificate presented by this website was not issued by a trusted certificate authority.” ?
BTW, Happy holidays to all and thanks for another informative year of climate education.
I think we need some type of an article which focuses on how we got to where we are in the scientific consensus. It would be a narrative that starts out sometime in the eighties when the media first started picking up on AGW. I don’t think most deniers know that the overwhelming majority of scientists during that period of time really couldn’t buy into the theory in its entirety. It’s possible that by showing how the different skeptical scientists were swayed by the research that they did in their particular field of science and how that eventually brought them around. It could show how absurd the denier’s arguments are about a huge conspiracy. I’m betting that if it could be made into a movie drama that would be ideal. You might be able to keep the attention of those who have no interest in science let along AGW.
Make that “#598” in my last post…
A 170 paper peer reviewed scientist speaks on the earths history of co2.
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
Amazing.
Is it possible to do any scientific experiements that are repeatable around the globe that proves man is responsible for the warming of the planet? WITHOUT using man-made computer models?
I can program a computer to output whatever you want it to
[Response: Oddly enough, I just finished putting a lot of these together for the paleo-component of the set of model runs being done for the next IPCC report. Comments welcome! – gavin]
Nice list. Looking forward to seeing the results.
Comment by Edward Greisch — 24 December 2009 @ 3:27 AM:
For non-specialized searches, check out Scroogle.org and try their Scroogle scraper to avoid advertising and paid for links.
Steve
Frank Giger wrote: “… The villification of the word “skeptic” sends up a huge red flag to me and others …”
I don’t vilify “skeptics”.
I “vilify” people who are deliberate, corporate-funded liars and falsely claim to be “skeptics”.
I “vilify” megalomaniac cranks who are ignorant of actual climate science but imagine that their crackpot “theories” have overturned scientific understanding that is the hard-won fruit of a century of science, who call their belligerent, arrogant ignorance “skepticism”.
I “vilify” people who slavishly, obediently believe every single bit of idiotic ExxonMobil-funded drivel that Rush Limbaugh is paid to spoon-feed them, and call themselves “skeptics” for doing so.
The real skeptics are the thousands of climate scientists who have spent decades diligently investigating and studying the problem of anthropogenic global warming. We owe our understanding of anthropogenic global warming to their skepticism.
Gavin and the other scientists who moderate this site are real skeptics. They are worthy of the honorable name “skeptic”.
The fossil fuel industry’s bought-and-paid for liars, frauds and cranks, and the gullible dupes who uncritically accept their lies and distortions and pseudoscience because they have bought into the fake, phony, pseudo-ideological party line that any action to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels (and thereby reduce ExxonMobil’s profits) is an attack on “liberty” by a “worldwide conspiracy of liberals”, are NOT “skeptics”. And they have no right to that name.
And it is they, and not the climate scientists, who have brought shame and disrepute on the word “skeptical”.
605: Thanks for that. I’ll listen to this repeatedly. Absolutely awesome.
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
Rob @585:
In addition to the time taken to discuss the science from journal papers in the literature, RC provides a lot of links dedicated to helping the non-scientist understand climate science (or attempting to do so, at least).
To get you started, this is an article that addresses your question.
#538, Phil, you might also add the presence of cadence in the ancient ballads, or saga. They acted as a elementary CRC check used in digital communications.
Speaking of the digital world, one has to ask why the software programs, or what ever were, not subject to ISO standards. Having developed software for NASA, DOD, IDA and ARPA, we were REQUIRED to conform to these standards. How is it that some government agencies, where trillions of $’s are at stake, do not follow the same rules?
Considering thunderstorms in Northern Regions http://www.springerlink.com/content/l883761701177w78/ ,
what are the implications of permafrost regions melting, draining, drying, and – burning?
Old climate science such as http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/dlawren/publications/ls.grl.2005.pdf does not really address it. What is new?
re #300
WATERLOO, Ont. (Monday, Dec. 21, 2009) – Cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), both already implicated in depleting the Earth’s ozone layer, are also responsible for changes in the global climate, a University of Waterloo scientist reports in a new peer-reviewed paper.
In his paper, Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, shows how CFCs – compounds once widely used as refrigerants – and cosmic rays – energy particles originating in outer space – are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. His paper, derived from observations of satellite, ground-based and balloon measurements as well as an innovative use of an established mechanism, was published online in the prestigious journal Physics Reports.
“My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century,” Lu said. “Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming.”
His conclusions are based on observations that from 1950 up to now, the climate in the Arctic and Antarctic atmospheres has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact.
Dwight, the use of anecdotal examples is the worst sort of red herring and intellectual dishonesty within the discussion – and the public knows it. It breeds skepticism at the core of people’s belief systems.
The vast variations in weather and weather patterns within living memory put a pantina of lie and deception on everything said before and after it.
Having lived in both the extreme north and south of the USA (as well as a stint in the Arabian desert), I’ve seen some pretty odd weather. Snow in June in Montana. Heatwaves in the South, as well as both drought and wet seasons.
The Southeast USA, for example, just ended a three year drought. During the drought, many folks pointed to it as proof of Global Warming. However, when the drought broke this year, their “proof” was undone. Worse, local politicians, when pressed to solve a lack of rainfall they threw their hands up and advised people to pray (as one can’t put a chair in a drought to show that they don’t control the weather). When the rains came, who looked more credible – the activists using a temporary weather cycle to justify a larger climate trend or the local councilman who suggested God would fix it?
New Orleans has been wiped out by Hurricanes three times in recorded history. Blaming Katrina on AGW and using it as a political club shoved me into the political opposition camp pretty firmly.
The NW passage opened in the 1940’s. A one off event? Possibly. When it opened briefly a few years back, however, it was once again pointed to as unprecedented proof of AGW.
For every citation of a specific weather event that “proves” AGW there is one that is similar that happened within modern history that can’t be blamed on AGW. For all the cries of how stupid and ignorant Americans are, we do know how to crack open a history book or talk to our grandparents. Predicting a dust bowl as a result of AGW and saying it is the reason we must cut a large check to the Sudan (and that it will stop it from happening) makes anyone who has seen a newsreel or knows someone who lived through the 1930’s run screaming from the room.
On the energy front, why not use a mix of all sources, including nuclear? Its not a panacea, but is the most effective way of producing carbon neutral electricity. The answer is simple – the objections are based not on price or sustainability, but the underlying and subverted concern over nuclear weapons. Indeed, if it were not for the concern over nuclear weapons we could reprocess spent rods and reuse them, a political impossibility as it would then make nuclear weapons grade materials firmly within legitimate energy generation. Every non-proliferation agreement would be rendered moot.
[Response: It appears to me that your beef is with media coverage and ‘pop’ attributions of specific events to climate change made by people who might not be experts. Attribution is hard – and generally is not done the morning after a storm, or a flood or a drought. I would suggest that you not ascribe the worst excesses of a superficial media culture to the scientists actually doing any of this work. Read the IPCC reports, or the chapter on extreme weather in my book ;-), to get an idea about what the scientists are really saying. That might well improve our credibility in your eyes and give you pointers for who and what to trust in the future. – gavin]
Gavin, as Arch points out, your link gives my browser a warning too (Firefox). Can you confirm it hasn’t been commandeered by other parties?
[Response: Yes. But I will inform them of the problem. Probably won’t get fixed until the new year. – gavin]
> Edward Greisch says: 24 December 2009 at 3:27 AM
> a Google search, you get “sponsored” links on the right side …
Good reminder, I often forget that many people do see far more ads than I do, thanks. I’ll have to set up a dumb account to use to see that crap.
I see nothing on the right side unless I unblock that stuff.
(Firefox; AdBlock, NoScript, BetterPrivacy, Ghostery, Greasemonkey, Platypus, RefControl, and TACO, now. Think of me as in denial about advertising; it’s a constant effort not to see things I don’t want to.)
(For those leaping to the defense of advertising–anything that has NOT been shoved in my face, I may buy–when I find it by actively searching for something I need. If it’s been pushed, I won’t, on principle.)
604: the story is here: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
594: not only do fuel costs matter, but uranium suffers from a ‘peak uranium’ issue, just like ‘peak oil’. we’re going to hit a maximum uranium mining capacity, just like we’re going to hit a maximum oil pumping capacity. increasing the demand beyond that point will lead to skyrocketing prices, which places a cap on how useful nuclear plants will ever be, and makes the whole idea of using nuclear just kicking the can down the road a little bit (even if the plants themselves could be made for a 10th of the cost and time).
#532: Thanks BPL. Yeah, its the same physics. The simple non-convective models was beyond what i had the time to do in my undergrad days though. When you look at the full complexity of what gets published in the astrophysics literature to model envelopes the problems are probably similar in complexity. However, I know that a 1-dimensional atmospheric model is going to be beyond what time I have to devote to it now.
And this really is the problem with explaining the science of climate change. There is this notion that anything which can’t be numerically worked out on a cocktail napkin by the average halfway intelligent engineer is suspect as being “too complicated”. However, I’ve used the results of numerical analysis that were ‘too complicated’ to do that analytically and would take a chaper in a book to treat properly (just like radiative balance in an atomsphere with a stratosphere takes a chapter in a book) and I’ve validated that the results of that analysis work. Therefore, *I* trust that scientists can get something complicated right.
There’s this bizzare egalitarianism coming from the right wing in this country where if the average man can’t fully replicate the results of scientists it is too complicated and therefore wrong. If you try to argue that fully explaining radiative balance in climate science simply exceeds in time and mental capacity the average person sitting with a napkin, that means you are being ‘elitist’.
There’s lots of things that I don’t have the time to do, however. And even though I’ve probably got the mathematical chops to handle the physics of climate change, there’s a lot of other math (e.g. advanced general relativity) that i think might just be beyond what i’m capable of — even if i had all the time in the world — that doesn’t make general relativity wrong, though. Gravity still works, even though *I* will never fully understand it.
re #619 Lamont
Presumably you’ve never heard of fast breeder reactors or don’t believe they will ever be constructed?
Didactylus
24 December 2009 at 8:15 AM
Huh? I was trying to show Edward that simple economic laws dictate that the capital costs *do* have a huge impact on energy cost, even if the lifetime of the plant is estimated at 40-60 years. I wasn’t “Trying to nickel and dime the outcome”.
The report that you call comprehensive is only a presentation of the results. Do I have to trust the authors? I’d rather have something with data and calculations so it is transparent and I can learn from it. You don’t happen to have a link to something more substantial?
The other report is very large and will take more time read. A very quick glance didn’t reveal any data or calculations either. But I’ll give it a more thorough look.
So I have noticed :-)
I simply cannot ignore the inevitable effect of construction cost on electricity price. I see one half billion dollars of annual capital cost (interest + depreciation) for 17 billion kWh of electricity. Pretty simple to work out a bottom line kWh cost from those two. Am I being simplistic? If you could show me how it really works, I’ll be happy to listen.
I hope you understand that simply saying “it is!” will not convince me. Evidence will.
@545 – The only Bayesian update here is Ray’s judgement about what constitutes “evidence”. When contemporary memories of things long past match his current beliefs he accepts annecdotal weather-ish ideas and praises folk wisdom, but when they don’t he chastises them. No. No reason to suspect any lurking bias at all! ;-)
I’m still kind of reeling that he doesn’t see how there could be a bias larger than whatever effect he thinks he “measured” which could be incorporated into anyone’s belief system Bayesianly (besides, perhaps his own brain). I mean, was it even a stable report? Did he check back with the same 1991 people in 94? 99? This is so not a way to teach scientific thinking at least as I understand it.
The “journal proxy” as a new T proxy/seasonal shift proxy might be interesting, though personally I would be quite surprised if it were not much, much noisier and confounded than other proxies we have available.
#607 Bill Teufel
I can see you are worried about computer models
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/models-can-be-wrong
So maybe you should concentrate on the observations.
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images
The glaciers ice mass is lowering globally
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/glacier-retreat
In the natural cycle, pre-industrial
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle
we were around thermal equilibrium near 0.0W/m2 radiative forcing, but now we are around +1.6 W/m2. Doesn’t seem like much until you add up all the meters and ask yourself how much power is that on the surface of the planet?
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/forcing-levels
So, what is warming the planet above pre-industrial temperatures? Especially when we are past peak forcing of the Milankovitch cycles
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/milankovitch-cycles
which should be allowing for a slow entry into the next ice age in about 20k years, or so…
We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, along with CH4, N2O and fluorins
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.html
We know we have increased the levels of these gases in the atmosphere
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html
And the Arctic Ice Volume is dropping at around 10% a year and has a good chance of virtually disappearing in the summer melt season in 7 to 10 years.
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/arctic/20070822_oldice.gif/image_view_fullscreen
So, since we have no other plausible explanation for the warming, the ice is melting when it should be relatively stable, and since we know we added all those GHG’s to the atmosphere, the last answer standing is human cause.
A comment on the nuclear power discussion:
In the context of discussing anthropogenic global warming, the crucial and relevant question about nuclear power is whether it can make a significant contribution to reducing GHG emissions from electricity generation, within the time frame that climate science informs us such reductions are needed in order to (hopefully) avoid the worst outcomes of unmitigated AGW.
And a related question is whether nuclear power is better able to do so than other alternatives to fossil fueled electricity generation, or even — as some nuclear proponents assert over and over again — uniquely able to do so.
In short: is expanding nuclear power an effective means to reduce emissions? Is it more effective than the alternatives? Is it, in fact, a necessary solution, or even THE necessary solution?
I believe that the evidence is abundantly clear that expanding nuclear power is neither an effective nor a necessary solution. There is simply no remotely plausible path of nuclear expansion that can achieve significant GHG emissions within the necessary time frame. Fortunately, there is also no need for expanding nuclear power, because efficiency technology, wind, solar, geothermal and biomass energy can get the job done, far faster and at far lower cost than expanding nuclear power generation.
If nuclear power were an effective and necessary solution, then it would make sense to debate whether we need to deal with the very real, very serious, harms and risks of expanding nuclear power as the price of reducing GHG emissions. Arguably, even the occasional reactor meltdown might be a price worth paying to prevent catastrophic global warming. But nuclear power is neither effective nor necessary, so there is no need to deal with those problems.
My primary concern about nuclear — my opposition to building more nuclear power plants — has relatively little to do with safety concerns. Rather, my concern is that construction of new nuclear power plants will consume resources that would be FAR more cost-effectively invested in efficiency and renewable energy. Thus the “opportunity costs” of investment in new nuclear power hinder, rather than help, the effort to reduce GHG emissions from electricity generation.
Now I will listen to Frank Giger telling me that while I may think that is my reason for opposing new nuclear power plants, the real reason I oppose nuclear power is concern about weapons proliferation (as though that were somehow irrational), and to Edward Greisch telling me that I have been paid by the coal industry to oppose nuclear and support wind and solar. (I guess the coal tycoons also pay me to call for shutting down their entire industry within ten years.)
> PaulinMI says: 24 December 2009 at 12:10 PM
That’s the same press release others have several times already.
Search for a sentence from it to find the other appearances of the same text.
PaulinMI,
24 December 2009 at 12:10 PM
We have a new conspiracy theory!
Critical Thinker,
Perhaps I was not clear. I am not saying that any one person’s memories constitute significant evidence of anything. Even the lore from many people is only weak evidence (though it is still evidence). What I am saying is that when you get very similar stories from widely dispersed locations and all of them are consistent with all the other phenological, ice-melting, etc., then it certainly is not consistent with the contention of your ilk that the temperature trends are manufactured. Don’t like anecdotes? Fine. Look at the temperature data. Or the ice-melt data. Or the phenological data (some of which goes back to the 17th century). BUT FOR CHRISSAKE, look at some of the evidence. I hope that is clearer, even to you.
Anne van der Bom said: “Am I being simplistic?”
Your argument is based on what *might* happen. Which is clearly a dubious proposition. My argument is based on history: nuclear power has been economical in the past, is still economical now, and you have advanced no reason why things should change in the future.
All energy investments have to deal with capital costs, and the associated interest payments. Singling out nuclear makes no sense.
Anne van der Bom said: “Evidence will.”
Anne, you have made no effort to provide evidence in support of your argument. If you don’t like the sources I have provided, then feel free to find some more reliable ones.
SecularAnimist said: “My primary concern about nuclear — my opposition to building more nuclear power plants — has relatively little to do with safety concerns.”
Given everything you have already said on the subject, I don’t think you will get far trying to change tack at this late stage. As the source I quoted earlier says, nuclear power should be cost-neutral, so the financial argument just doesn’t get off the ground.
Why don’t you stop hacking away at nuclear and leave it to its own devices? If it’s uneconomical as you claim, then it will die on its own. Since you’re wrong, it will get plenty of private investment and do just fine. You should concentrate on those new energy sources that *do* need a lot of help.
PaulinMI #615- Qing-Bin Lu’s paper is interesting, but his discussion of AGW is wrong and basically flying a kite.
Rather than look at the broader picture, he just says “oh, its been cooling the last few years even when more CO2 is being produced, just as there’s less CFC’s, and hey look the warming since 1950 is the same rate as the increase in CFC’s.” I can’t quite see how he thinks CFC’s have such a massive warming effect, and he dismisses the IPCC’s estimates with a wave of his hand, whilst still acknowledging that CFC’s are greenhouse gases.
I understand the desire of RC moderators to let everybody have his say — no matter how stupid or contentious they may be.
But the signal-to-noise ratio is getting too low. We’re still bombarded with silly claims about a decade of cooling or some cyclic pattern to the instrumental temperature record. People are still saying you can’t get a hockey stick without tree rings. If these incorrect ideas were in any way original, there might be merit in confronting them. But this isn’t just the 20th time we’ve heard the same old fabricated song-n-dance, it’s the two-hundredth — and often from the same old hucksters.
So here’s an idea: if RC wants to continue to entertain anybody’s and everybody’s junk opinion, create regular open threads for exactly that purpose. That’s where folks can argue till they’re blue in the face about the “trend” in the last 6 years’ of temperature data, about the “cycles” in the instrumental record, about the “recovery” of arctic sea ice, and about CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays. I won’t bother reading those threads.
Here’s the part where the moderators have to change their ways: for other threads, if it’s not on-topic and above the “stupid threshold,” hit the “delete” button. Those threads, I’ll read.
RC folks,
As others have said, you all deserve medals for patience and forbearance. I hope that you will continue to focus on the science. You only have so much time you can devote to this blog, so please do what you do best. There are a number of other good sites for discussions of the socioeconomic and political aspects of climate change.
I am sure that you have a lot of “quiet” regular readers such as myself. I am an educated layperson who does not suffer from Dunning-Kruger. I have taken the time to learn the basics, but short of going back to school for several years (too old, too few good neurons left), I am never going to understand many of the technical details of various aspects of the science. But I make the effort to improve my understanding, and I appreciate having the scientists at RC available to explain and provide context for ongoing research. I rely on people with expertise (education…what a concept!) to help me discern good studies from poor ones, what the implications are, and how results fit into the broader picture.
It’s rather frustrating to me that the denialists seem to be showing up with ever greater frequency on the comments threads. I learn a lot from reading thoughtful comments, but there’s getting to be a lot more rubbish to wade through. Maybe a stricter comments policy would help. The willfully ignorant will complain regardless of what you do. They’re not here to learn. Let them go elsewhere.
We need you now more than ever!
#629 Didactylos
Regarding current nuclear technology: We have not fully integrated the cost of nuclear waste storage in the future nor have we fully considered the degradation of nuclear waste storage facilities.
If we don’t succeed in 4th gen. nuclear, then we will have other problems amplifying, that we are already concerned about. The cost of attempting to prevent the acquisition and use of nuclear weapons on the black market as governments begin to teeter in say 40 to 50 years.
Nuclear material is rumored to have passed to terrorist organizations in the breakdown of the Soviet Union. Consider the cost of attempting to retrieve or prevent use.
Didactylos, I, for one, am not opposed to nuclear but rather to the way it is proposed, especially in the US. Because the initial costs are so massive, nobody with the know-how can actually afford to build a plant. They need public money. However, once built, they all want to operate it as if it was their private business. That’s what’s already being done with a number of coal plants in the US and it’s nonsense. If your business can’t exist in the first place without my money, you have to cut me a (much) better deal than a purely private operation, period. Anything else is rubbish.
re #625 Secular Animist
Happy Christmas. I think your comments were excellent though I totally disagree with your conclusions. I may be totally wrong but so may you. This is not the site to discuss these matters and, to an extent, we are exploiting a rare open thread. Please defend your position on BraveNewClimate. I am sure that you wouldn’t be ignored. I am a learner in the field of global warming solutions but have been brought to believe that expenditure on renewables wiil detract from expenditure on nuclear power which will be FAR more effective and cost effective in mitigating AGW. I think we are in total agreement over efficiency. I am also pretty convinced that your views are as honestly held as my own. Could we not carry on the debate in an appropriate forum? My mind is not closed but I do need to identify flaws in my my current thinking before changing my opinion. It is only a couple of years since RealClimate and other sites convinced me to change my sceptical views on AGW. Having been converted, I concentrated on studying possible solutions. Rightly or wrongly, my current thinking is that the anti-nuclear stance that you adopt (and those of most other correspondents on this site)represents a serious threat to future civilisation which can only be assured by 4th generation fission power. I am a retired research scientist but only in the biological field. In the fields of AGW and solutions thereto, I am, therefore, a layman. If I am totally misled, please tell me why – with facts rather than assertions.
A suggestion for a post:
At this point, denialist memes have become so repetitive that you really cold play bingo with them. How about a post citing the common denialist memes, each one numbered, and a quick refutation (with references) thereof. The person posting the meme could be directed to the post and to the relevant number. Maybe you could have a denialist bingo card at the top of the card for those of us at home that want to play along, too.
If this works, maybe we could repeat it with topics that commonly derail threads–beginning with nukes.
J.Bob:
“Speaking of the digital world, one has to ask why the software programs, or what ever were, not subject to ISO standards…”
Perhaps because for much of the period covering the software in question, the pertinent standards did not exist? Even for relatively richly funded industries it commonly required a decade after inception of applicable standards for certification to be reached. And now that standards do exist, who is going to pay for certifications? It’s not free; ISO has become a deep consultancy trough, a self-appointed, self-perpetuating industry determined to grow like any other. In any case, there are legitimate questions about the utility of ISO adherence. Microsoft’s products are a case in point.
Cool about the idea of cadence as error detection, though!
Didactylos says a in #630:
Your argument is based on what *might* happen. Which is clearly a dubious proposition. My argument is based on history: nuclear power has been economical in the past, is still economical now, and you have advanced no reason why things should change in the future.
In what way do current construction costs not count as a reason why it isn’t cost effective to build new nukes?
All energy investments have to deal with capital costs, and the associated interest payments. Singling out nuclear makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense if that’s what makes it uneconomic. And in talking about cost per delivered KwH for different types of generation it’s included.
Anne van der Bom said: “Evidence will.”
Anne, you have made no effort to provide evidence in support of your argument. If you don’t like the sources I have provided, then feel free to find some more reliable ones.
Current construction costs by Areva don’t count? Bids to Canadian power companies don’t count? What planet do you live on when some online publication of what someone estimates new nuclear power *should* cost count more than what real companies are charging real customers for real power plants?
Why don’t you stop hacking away at nuclear and leave it to its own devices? If it’s uneconomical as you claim, then it will die on its own. Since you’re wrong, it will get plenty of private investment and do just fine.
Exactly what do you think is happening now?
My real-world observation is that there are few firms willing to build new nuclear plants and few utilities willing to pay for them, and that no one wants to take the financial risk because we have a 30 year history of major cost overruns in the industry.
Name a single nuke plant that came online in the last 20 years on-time and on-budget. Just one. I’m not aware of any. Maybe I’m just seeing the results of an anti-nuke conspiracy, doubtless funded by the coal industry. OTOH, I’m very aware of plants that are years late and have billions in overruns.
I submit that what’s happening now is what’s been happening in the US for the last 30 years – that construction of new nuclear plants is not economically justifiable to either the utilities or the investors, and that no new plants will be built unless financial incentives are arranged for the taxpayers to take all the risk – insurance and cost overruns included – while the investors realize the profits.
As others have said, 4’th generation nukes sound great, but are a couple of decades away from being deployed. We need to retire a lot of coal stations long before then. Current generation nukes haven’t been cost effective for 30 years, and that’s why they haven’t been built.
As is Linux, or PostgreSQL, or Apache, for those who believe that such adherence is necessary for the production of quality software.
#631 tamino
i greatly respect your work. I beg to differ in this case. I could be wrong but I still think that mandatory use of real names would help, as I believe that would reduce the noise level due to the recognition factor…
I doubt that the moderators have much time to moderate yet another thread and people still need these things debunked, tedious though it is. I believe that mainly, debunking in ‘this’ thread is most important because of the moderators and their skill and credibility.
So, in a weird way the silly people are helping in the fight. When newbies come in to read the thread, they see that these things have been knocked down in multiple posts.
I also enjoy referring people to this thread because it is habitated by scientists that state their names and positions so everyone can see that they actually work actively in the field. This helps with credibility for those more reasonable that the denialsit ilk. To me its the difference between a straw (man) house like WUWT and here where the foundations of the understanding are built with bricks.
#636 Ray Ladbury
I like that idea!!!
In 623 Critical Thinker states:
… and goes on:
Are you saying that Ray Ladbury leaping to conclusions and being all dogmaticky yesterday? Well, why don’t we see what you were responding to…
Ray Ladbury wrote in 545:
He specifically states that he “do[es] not claim these experiences experiences represent hard evidence…” As such, he seems to realize that the annecdotal evidence is just that: annecdotal.
But lets see what he does take to be strong evidence:
Melting glaciers. Not individual glaciers, but global mass balance.
For example:
Greenland
http://i33.tinypic.com/9km9sy.png
Antarctica
http://i36.tinypic.com/2d2aadz.png
… from:
Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet decay, continued
October 13, 2009
http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/greenland-and-antarctic-ice-sheet-decay-continued/
… and:
Global Glacier Thickness Change
http://nsidc.org/sotc/images/glacier_thickness.gif
… from:
State of the Cryosphere: Glaciers
http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html
I do hope that this isn’t the sort of thing you would consider to be annecdotal evidence.
Lamont @620 says:
“And this really is the problem with explaining the science of climate change. There is this notion that anything which can’t be numerically worked out on a cocktail napkin by the average halfway intelligent engineer is suspect as being “too complicated”…
There’s this bizarre egalitarianism coming from the right wing in this country where if the average man can’t fully replicate the results of scientists it is too complicated and therefore wrong. If you try to argue that fully explaining radiative balance in climate science simply exceeds in time and mental capacity the average person sitting with a napkin, that means you are being ‘elitist’.
There’s lots of things that I don’t have the time to do, however. And even though I’ve probably got the mathematical chops to handle the physics of climate change, there’s a lot of other math (e.g. advanced general relativity) that i think might just be beyond what i’m capable of — even if i had all the time in the world — that doesn’t make general relativity wrong, though. Gravity still works, even though *I* will never fully understand it.”
As a practicing research astronomer who is also an avid (lay) consumer of the physics of climate change, similar thoughts have swirled in my head, and I’ve had the notion to put them down in a post. But you beat me to it, and said it very well indeed.
Thanks!
Ken Rogers (556) — IMO the optimum global temperature is that most conducive to agriculture, including no rise in sea level.
#637, Doug, programming standards were well on their way in the 60’s. Do you think you would write software for a significant item without worrying about maintenance, (i.e. ICBM or Shuttle systems & subsystems). The same was developing for software relating to government contracts. Not necessarily to ISO standard now, but concern about accuracy & maintenance. So there was plenty of time to get these CRU software programs up to a higher standards level then recent postings have shown.
Gavin, thanks for your comment! Unfortunately, I was addressing many in this thread (which has been successfully derailed from its intended task) as much as activists in the media.
Um, David, the same companies that build coal fired plants also build nuclear ones!
This is one of my favorite Big Lies on the political front – that energy companies are defined by bright shining lines, when in fact they are busy with fingers in as many pots as they can get. Coal fired plants are the rage simply because they are the cheapest and most effective for the money spent. Nuclear power has a higher buy-in and regulatory oversight, but is actually more effective than coal in the long run – and even if it is more expensive per KwH, has zero GHG emissions.
We’re told that in order to Save The Planet we’ll have to all spend more for energy and sacrifice. Replacing two or three coal fired plants for one nuclear one would seem to be a step in the right direction.
The conspiracy theories about corporations trying to poison the planet for the sake of poisoning the planet are specious, IMHO. If someone were to develop a very cost effective, energy effective way of producing electricity that was cheaper than coal, energy companies would jump on it. If solar and wind cut the mustard, utilities would dive in whole hog in every region of the USA.
SecularAnimist, since you define it as you wish, you can then I suppose vilify anybody you so chose without impunity.
Exxon-Mobil pays Rush to espouse his AGW thoughts? You think??
Gavin (616), you’re correct, of course, and as you have rightly said before, you are not responsible for any posters here other than maybe the moderators. Beyond that, those other posters pepper RC often with personal anecdotal “proofs” of global warming.
Ray Ladury — There is another web site with numbered denialist talking points.
That’s a big strawman you’re pushing Frank. I am not aware of any theory postulating that companies are poisoning the planet for the sake of poisoning the planet. I am aware, however, of established instances of companies poisoning the planet, or people, for the sake of profit. Lead paint. Tobacco. Spewing of carcinogenic cyclic compounds. Low safety standards. Resistance to regulations. Non compliance with regulations when it is known they won’t be enforced, or weakly enforced. Etc, etc.