I am always amazed at how many people are quick to report cause and effect when a couple of variables show a correlation.
I was emailed this image, with a note that it represents proof the world is getting warmer!
What can we conclude from this information?
And I am reminded of something evolutionary biologist, Michael Ghiselin, wrote in 1974, that I read in about 1994:
“Man’s brain, like the rest of him, may be looked upon as a bundle of adaptations. But what it is adapted to has never been self-evident. We are anything but a mechanism set up to perceive the truth for its own sake.
Rather, we have evolved a nervous system that acts in the interest of our gonads, and one attuned to the demands of reproductive competition. If fools are more prolific than wise men, then to that degree folly will be favored by selection. And if ignorance aids in obtaining a mate, then men and women will tend to be ignorant.
In order for so imperfect an instrument as a human brain to perceive the world as it really is, a great deal of self discipline must be imposed.”
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“I am always amazed at how many people are quick to report cause and effect when a couple of variables show a correlation”.
Like this, you mean? –> http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/articles81.html
Easy,
we are running out of cotton.
With the greatest respect to all participants, one is reminded of my earlier reflection that this global warming debate is disappearing up our collective backsides. As the illustration clearly demonstrates.
A thread on underwear? Let us hope it goes unnoticed.
There’s a lot of brief comments so far on this thread.
Just bare with me..
I am very sorry teach but you are wrong. Wrong wrong and more wrong.
First we had the Kini and the mini and then the maxi and the backless (but tummy covered).
And now we have all of them therefore the greenies have always been right, it wuz getting hotter and then it was getting cooler and now we are both hotter and colder depending on the day and the argument favored.
Not that I ever noticed how sheilas dress.
And I never thort I’d be agreeing with feral greens on anyfing LOL.
And another fing I find yer cartoons offensive unless you put models in them.
You can all argue as much as you like but there’s no denying there’s a definite trend and that it’s due to man’s influences.
Obviously greenhouse emissions would more readily interact with the atmosphere in later years exacerbating any feedback effects.
The graphic also clearly illustrates that specious arguments have no legs.
Is there an undielying trend here? Or are we just becomming more cheeky?
To be balanced, we should look at the trends in women’s underwear too.
I agree phil, i think the greenhouse skeptic argument is beginning to show a crack.
I was feeling a bit bummed but then I realised Ian’s post was tongue-in-cheek. (That oughta take him down a peg).
Besides, I’ll eat the crotch out of my own undies if Louis apologises or justifies his earlier accusations and anti-AGW science allegations. Reviewing the bun-fights, the bottom line is that Louis and his camp-followers are all flying by the seat of his pants. Enough then, I’m calling their buff!
Phil, There’s no denying that, under Mann’s influence, the IPCC’s consensual position is that the increase in mean temperatures in the past century has been the largest of any century during the last 1000 years.
But in a major work published in 1991 (Crowley & North, Paleoclimatology, Oxford University Press, 339 pp.), two leading paleoclimatologists wrote that ‘There have been significant decadal and centennial-scale climate fluctuations over the last 1000 years’, and that ‘the CHARACTERISTIC TEMPERATURE RANGE OF THESE FLUCTUATIONS IS 1.0-1.5 DEG C, i.e. enough to modulate any uniform CO2 warming trend by the amount observed in the instrumental record’ (p. 254, EMPHASIS added).
One of the co-authors of this work, Professor Gerald North, has now been appointed chairman of a high-level Panel of the National Research Council of the US National Academies which is to conduct a study of “Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 1,000-2,000 Years”. The Canadian critics of the IPCC ‘hockey stick’ icon, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, are among those who have accepted invitations to address the Panel on 2-3 March.
For information on the terms of reference of the NRC study, see http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=521#comment-13221 . Until the Panel reports, perhaps there are grounds for suspending judgment about whose argument is beginning to show a crack.
Deleted 5 posts. There was a crack developing. I broke it off starting here. Let’s not get personal.
Ian – sure rearrange the Titanic’s deck chairs again. So what happens if they find errors in the Hockey Stick? Does that mean AGW is wrong?
I think a statistician you are more interested in the analysis of the proxy data than looking at any of the science of AGW. You seem to have some desperate hope that if there is an error in the PCA analysis of proxies then this means that the whole AGW case is thrown into doubt.
The MBH analysis, right or wrong, is only a tiny part of the evidence for AGW.
Uh-oh. Jennifer got her knickers in a knot after Phil gave economists a giant wedgie.
Ender, The questions you have raised fall within the remit of the US National Research Council study, as the following extract from the terms of reference shows:
“Because the warmth of the late 20th century relative to previous centuries is often cited as evidence of a discernible influence of human activity on global climate (e.g. IPCC 2001), efforts to produce reliable temperature reconstructions are extremely important.
Another science and IPCC debate is about to emerge. Although science should be a solid basis for action, it’s only one aspect of a political and economic picture. Due to concerns over the potential AGW risks of wait-and-see-then-let-the-kids-deal-with-it, there are accelerating investments in renewables, efficiency measures and new markets in numerous countries.
It’s not only AGW concerns that are fueling this trend. It’s also concerns over national security, fuel resource scarcity, high oil prices, doubts about resource and technology substitutability, and various environmental and health concerns about dirty fuels and associated infrastructure. Additionally there is spreading enthusiasm, among technophiles, early-adopters and people who want to be more self-sufficient, for massively distributed, diverse and DIY localised energy supply (to move from an asymmetrical centralised utility model to a more diverse, distributed and innovative commodity model). Eg: witness the number of people who are hacking their hybrid cars and electric vehicle power sources.
Be critical of these trends and the science if you like, but markets are demanding supply. When governments, companies, investors, the public, future scenario planners AND *insurance agents* are collaborating on new markets and new technologies as they are, only a Luddite would refuse to participate. Now that Silicon Valley is revitalising, its venture capitalists are jumping both feet first into renewables and oil substitutes.
We can continue climate research, participate in international agreements and invest in technologies to mitigate (importantly: at the demand end as well as supply) and adapt, all without noticeably affecting the economy in the short-term. In the long-term, it would bolster the resilience of the economy by preparing for an uncertain future. We should be starting a gradual process of economic structural change to cope with uncertainty and the emergence of disruptive technologies and new markets.
This is an opportunity to capitalise on our resourceful engineering and science talents. We’re falling behind the initiatives in Europe and US (despite the official stance of the US, Americans are investing loads and experimenting with energy alternatives).
Note: A multi-disciplinary report “Managing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California,” from California, the 10th largest economy in the world, the 12th largest producer of greenhouse gases “finds that just eight policy strategies can take California halfway to the governor’s 2020 targets, while increasing the Gross State Product by approximately $60 billion and creating more than 20,000 new jobs.
“Our study demonstrates that taking action to reduce global warming emissions in California is good for the California economy,” said Michael Hanemann, UC Berkeley professor of agricultural and resource economics and co-author of the report. “Our research indicates that not only does climate action pay, but early climate action pays more.” “
OK – so we can have bullockies daughters, whores, bum jokes, underwear sniffing up windmills, but not economist/light bulb jokes. I did have a climate joke but thought it a bit sexist. I’ll only tell it if you ask.
And just the day I was going to submit my IPA membership form too. Oh well. Just when we were all becoming such good friends too. Might have to go over to Ender’s blog for a swearing and lightbulb joke fit if he’ll have me. Moving right along then .. ..
Good to see that there’s some further work being done on the paleo record. Hope they haven’t written their conclusions first. Very interesting of course to look at what might be driving our climate and whether an examination of historic forcings over the last 100 years gives us some clue to our current anomalous warmth. So we have:
Thomas.J. Crowley. Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years, Science, 289, 270-277
Recent reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperatures and climate
forcing over the past 1000 years allow the warming of the 20th century to be
placed within a historical context and various mechanisms of climate change
to be tested. Comparisons of observations with simulations from an energy
balance climate model indicate that as much as 41 to 64% of preanthropogenic
( pre-1850) decadal-scale temperature variations was due to changes in solar
irradiance and volcanism. Removal of the forced response from reconstructed
temperature time series yields residuals that show similar variability to those
of control runs of coupled models, thereby lending support to the models value
as estimates of low-frequency variability in the climate system. Removal of all
forcing except greenhouse gases from the ;1000-year time series results in a
residual with a very large late-20th-century warming that closely agrees with
the response predicted from greenhouse gas forcing. The combination of a
unique level of temperature increase in the late 20th century and improved
constraints on the role of natural variability provides further evidence that the
greenhouse effect has already established itself above the level of natural
variability in the climate system. A 21st-century global warming projection far
exceeds the natural variability of the past 1000 years and is greater than the
best estimate of global temperature change for the last interglacial.
Speaking of things economic (but no jokes please) I notice that Sir Nick Stern is undertaking a review of climate change and economic impacts.
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/Independent_Reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm
Does it have any relationship to the previous House of Skeptics report.
The executive summary is illuminating:
Climate change is a serious and urgent issue.. There is now an overwhelming body of scientific evidence that human activity is increasing the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and causing warming. We are already seeing significant impacts. There remain uncertainties about the nature and scale of impacts in the longer term, but the most recent science indicates that some of the risks are more serious than had first appeared. The problem is global in its cause and consequences.. .. .. goes on.. .. worth the read.
So we now appear to be joining John Zillman’s assessment of the issue.
http://info.anu.edu.au/Discover_ANU/News_and_Events/_Files/_1205GraduationZillman.asp
And very naughty to all those writing articles about plant methane before reading the fine print. And I told you so.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/m-gw-011806.php
Phil,
The thread went personal, and the economist joke deteriorated into a comment (by someone else) about excreta. … which I really needed to delete.
It is hard to know when to start deleting. The few times I have deleted I tend to delete back to where the thread “turned”.
I am pondering a new set of rules for this blog – but to be honest, I dislike rules.
One thing you may notice, is that I rarely pull derogatory comments about me, am less inclined when a thread has competely deteriorated, but will when those who use ‘made up names’ attack those who use their real names and I get to it before it is too late. This approach (what has been my approach) seems hardly fair does it – not even to me?
Jen – it’s fine. Mock indignation and leg pulling by me. I didn’t see the worst of last night obviously. I can handle it – it’s your blog.
Others may be more sensitive. Those of us who know each other can perhaps handle a more robust exchange and life would be somewhat colourless without Ian’s use of the vernacular. I did like “shonk central”.
Phil, Ender
I left an equation for you guys to ponder and discuss on the value (not) of windmill technology in an earlier post.
I’m just wondering, have you two given it any thought or are you still constructing the windmill in the backyard to light up Perth!
here it is again:
Power produced by a windmill (in Watts) = C (constant) x k (efficiency factor) x (Diameter of the windmill in meters)2 x (Speed of the wind in m/s)3
This formula tells you that at best windmills can only produce 59% of a coal operated generator.
If you can prove this formula wrong, please put yourself up for a Nobel Prize.
If Thinky continues to harrass Louis with strawman points, I guess it’s ok to keep asking these two geniuses if they are able to disprove this formula.
Phil
Did youy like the cartoon;;;;
I won’t ask;;;
Joe, i’m struggling to see how that 59% number comes out of that formula you posted. can you provide some more info? I must be dumb.
Windmills have long been used to pump water from wells, and are now being used to generate electricity on a somewhat wide scale. The most efficient windmills are a little under 50% efficient, and it is physically impossible to exceed 59%. For an excellent windmill (50% efficiency) the power available is given by the following formula:
where the R is the radius of the propeller (1/2 of the diameter), and the v is the wind speed. The symbol means that the power is approximately equal to the value calculated on the right; however, the formula is correct for only the very best wind turbines, and only for moderate wind speeds.
Most wind systems are designed to produce constant power above a certain wind speed. For example, a 200-kW system will produce power according to that formula until the wind speed reaches, say, 14 m/s, after which the wind turbine produces 200 kilowatts for all wind speeds until, say, 25 m/s, after which the machine must be shut down lest it blow apart.
The formula is an overestimate for all but the very best wind turbines. For example, one popular 1-kW unit produces only half as much power as the formula predicts.
http://www.energyadvocate.com/wind.htm
Joe – glad to hear from you. We thought you were gone. When did you get out?
Joe – yes the cartoon was tres humorous – read my post way back.
And I don’t live in Perth. But Ernest and Young have audited Ender’s laundry and we can say categorically that’s he’s impeccable. Louis on the other hand is a dirty linen specialist.
Would you care to categorically and publically state your fullsome support for Louis’s position as la his blog comments? YES?? Pls say yes !
So let’s assume you are right with your 59% – frankly I was told it was 56% – but anyway – so ?? It’s more a matter of cost effectivess e.g. $ per KW amortised over entire life also taking into account greenhouse emissions and death in coal mining accidents, respiratory illnesses etc. And reliability of supply, effectiveness of supplementation etc. What’s your efficiency measure for a coal fired station anyway.
Anyway is anyone twisting your arm to have windpower. And how long have you had this fixation on wind anyway. Tell me the number and I’ll get them to come around and take you back.
Windmills? Early adopters as some sort of visionary? Mr Gates made his pile by letting others make the costly exploratory investment and buying, and improving the technology for use by the early majority.
Ealy adopters ALWAYS pay too much. Early adopter solutions are always loss making ones because they suit the requirements of early adopters. Early adopter solutions to any possible greenhouse problem are likely to be too expensive, loss making and unsuitable for the early and late majorities.
A case in point? Subaru have recently bought Ford’s intellectual property in batteries. Watch and learn.
So when you say ‘efficiency’ are you talking about the amount of kinetic energy in the wind that is converted to electricity?
And what is the maximum efficiency for converting the chemical energy in coal to thermal energy, and to electricity?
Philibuster, You quoted the conclusions of a paper by Crowley (2000) as if this tells us “what might be driving our climate” and gives us “some clue to our current anomalous warmth.” This paper will of course be assessed, together with scores of others, as part of the US National Research Council study. Crowley’s approach seems to me to highly problematic. He says that:
‘The radiative damping term can be adjusted to embrace the standard range of IPCC sensitivities for a doubling of CO2. The EBM is similar to that used in many IPCC assessments (40) and has been validated (39) against both the Wigley-Raper EBM (40) and two different coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation model (GCM) simulations (41). All forcings for the model run were set to an equilibrium sensitivity of 2 deg. C for a doubling of CO2’ (p. 272).
In other words, Crowley’s data was generated by a model that built in an ASSUMPTION about the sensitivity of the climate to increased CO2 concentrations. Then data FROM THAT MODEL was used to test the sensitivity of the climate to CO2. The model was only validated against other models, which were likewise tuned to predetermined sensitivities selected by the modeler.
This seems to me to be begging questions rather than testing hypotheses, but let’s see what the NRC Panel concludes. As the House of Lords Committee said “If there are historical periods of temperature increase, it seems to us it is important to know why these occurred” (para. 23). I hope and believe that the NRC study will subject analyses such as Crowley’s to a more critical examination than did the last IPCC Assessment.
Phil/ Ender
“So let’s assume you are right with your 59% – frankly I was told it was 56% – but anyway – so ?? It’s more a matter of cost effectivess e.g. $ per KW amortised over entire life also taking into account greenhouse emissions and death in coal mining accidents, respiratory illnesses etc. And reliability of supply, effectiveness of supplementation etc. What’s your efficiency measure for a coal fired station anyway.”
Great, Phil.
You have now “redefined” the word efficiency in the context as to how it’s always been understood.
Phil, you and Ender are frigging frauds. You can’t justify your earth shattering technology in any possible way unless you redefine the terms of reference. You’re a joke.
As for answering Louis’ issue. I’m not his keeper. Unlike you I don’t take in the washing. Ask him yourself.
Ian Mott
What’s the difference between windmills and Gates’technology? Microsoft can stand on its hind legs and produce $US2 bllion in cash flow per quarter.
The fraudulant windmill industry would collapse without government subsidies and handouts. Christ, why do we have to continue repeating such basic economic theory over and over and over again.
You can’t argu with laws of physics. Unless yuou can prove that formula wrong windmills won’t work efficiently as we understand the word in the present context.
So how without modelling of the physics will this new inquiry unravel what’s going on. Just saying “oh well things vary for some reason” is hardly breakthrough science nor illuminating.
Ian – seems to me you’ve got a problem. You want more scientific rigour yet you don’t want to know what the drivers are. No amount of statistical analyis of Hockey Sticks or bent sticks will reveal this for you without some climate process understanding.
Comparisons of observations with simulations from an energy
balance climate model indicate that as much as 41 to 64% of preanthropogenic
( pre-1850) decadal-scale temperature variations was due to changes in solar
irradiance and volcanism. We currently don’t have a solar mechanism to explain the warming? Can you think of something else that we should look at ?
What scientific method might you propose given we don’t have a replicate planet Earth to play with? You should equally be worried about errors in the opposite direction in terms of extra CO2 fluxes liberated from the biosphere. If you going to be skeptical – look both ways before crossing the road.
“frigging frauds” – what colourful alliteratiion – why am I a fraud – am I advocating wind power and telling you what to do – do I know you ? so either debate properly or desist you horrid vulgarian and crawl back into the swamp you have recently devolved from.
But, Phil, every time I head to the swamp I see you and Ender jumping in head first.
So if I apologise for the vulgarian behaviour will you at least address the issues I have?
Sorry again. Please address the issues. And no, you don’t take in Ender washing while he’s up on the mill. I take it back.
Joe
First, I am not Ender.
Second, i didn’t redefine anything, i’m asking you what you mean by efficiency. See the question mark?
I might have interpreted incorrectly, but you seem to be trying to argue that wind power is no good because it has a maximum possible efficiency, or on some other technical ground.
That doesn’t seem right to me, and I’m trying to find out where you are coming from better so that I can attempt to refute whatever point it is you are trying to make.
So far the only thing you’ve said that I’ve been able to understand is that wind energy is more expensive than current coal power. I agree with this point. But unlike you, I don’t think that destroys wind energy as an option.
By the way, the efficiency of converting the energy in coal to electricity is less than 40%.
Steve
By the way, the efficiency of converting the energy in coal to electricity is less than 40%.
And your point is, what exactly?
It has nothing to do with the formula presented above.
Wond power can only produce at about 50% of the a coal fired generator.
Phil,
I think the point Ian is making that while there may be some physics in the models there is also a lot of “by guess and by god” used to massage the results, and then used to confirm the “accuracy” of other models.
I notice David Arfon Jones hasn’t answered my last point on the physics from some time ago.
All of this is important because it’s not sufficient to accept that manmade activity is increasing what would otherwise be the temperature (and I do) but you have to work out what, if anything, you should do about it. And you can’t do that without a reasonably good prediction of the magnitude of the likely increase, and the models aren’t good enough to do that.
Until they are, you will just have to grit your teeth and wait because while every country on the earth might pay lip service to the problems of global warming, none of them is going to have a case to sell on it to the electorates that will make them forgo their airconditioners and electric heaters.
On the last point I was talking to someone involved in selling airconditioners here in Brisbane who said that some people were buying them to keep cool because they knew global warming was going to make things hotter! They all get a vote.
Joe – secondly I also am not Ender – ask him about the efficiency issues.
With any technology it comes down to cost effectiveness and any environmental issues. Efficiency could be very low for any technology but if it were very low in cost you would not care e.g. windmills pumping water in rural Australia.
If CO2 does nothing to the planet’s climate – burn away ! ! ! If one was concerned about global warming and wind energy could supplement a reduction in fossil fuel use in some cost effective manner you would need to reasonably consider it. People have objected on cost, relaibility and scenic amenity issues – but I’m not an expert.
Ender do wish to converse with this abusive dweeb ?
Why are you so worked up about it anyway? Is anyone threatening you with a windmill. Can you not take up basket weaving or whittling?
Joe – I am a bit bemused by your posts. Efficiency is usually only an issue in thermal systems where a fuel is burnt to generate heat and that fuel has to be bought or mined. The best efficiency of a coal fired power station is 36%. A co-gen gas turbine is a lot better at 55% as some of the energy lost in the exhaust of gas turbine is used to boil water to generate more electricity or space heating.
All this does not apply to wind turbines. They are not a thermal system and you do not pay or extract the fuel. The energy source is the sun and the wind is the transfer medium not a fuel source. I am not even sure that you have the equation correct.
This is the correct equation:
“The amount of power available in the wind is determined by the equation w = 1/2 r A v3 where w is power, r is air density, A is the rotor area, and v is the wind speed”
from http://www.energy.iastate.edu/renewable/wind/wem/wem-08_power.html
This is the power available in the wind not anything to do with efficiency.
The efficiency of a Rankine cycle (thermal coal plant) is given in this site.
http://www.taftan.com/thermodynamics/RANKINE.HTM
If you can relate this to the previous equation that you incorrectly posted then perhaps you deserve the Nobel Prize.
I don’t think guess and by god is near it all. They have used an off-the-shelf model and reasonably reproduced the variation. We’re not talking about parmaterising a regression here to fit some set of data.
The radiative physics is well and long known.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
And yep as the heatwaves increase, people will buy air-cons in droves. They already are. I’m not blaming them and I’ll be sitting under one too in extreme heat. But if all China and India do it (as they get hot too) – it will most interesting. A positive feedback loop. Need some better technology and emissions reductions fast
Ian – “Because the warmth of the late 20th century relative to previous centuries is often cited as evidence of a discernible influence of human activity on global climate (e.g. IPCC 2001), efforts to produce reliable temperature reconstructions are extremely important.�”
Then the terms of refernce will produce a witch hunt that will not further the science of atmospheric physics/chemistry one bit. The only people that cite the importance of previous centuries are the contrarians that wish to discredit the idea of AGW.
We emit CO2, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it is building up in the atmosphere. Nowhere in this is a hockey stick or PCA analysis. I am sure that the panel will vindicate MBH98 as all the other studies subsequently have done.
If a windmill is rated at 1000MW then that is its maximum performance or full load operation and is reached usually when wind speeds exceed 15m/s.
In Denmark they have found that the average wind turbines will return is 2,300 hours of full load operation per year; Germany 2,000 hours; Wales, Scotland or Western Ireland ~3,000 hours.
http://www.windpower.org/en/stat/unitsene.htm
Joe, my point in mentioning the efficiency of coal is that your formula refers to the efficiency of wind power, and you are talking about a comparison between wind power and coal power. I’m not sure what point you are trying to make, i’m trying hard to find out.
Since he isn’t forthcoming, here’s my guess: Joe has got efficiency and capacity factor mixed up, and is quoting a formula that has nothing to do with his argument (that wind power has a lower capacity factor than coal), and generally he doesn’t quite know what he is on about.
Joe, capacity factor refers to the amount of time that a generator is outputting at its rated capacity. For a coal power station it is about 60-85% or something. For a good wind farm, it is about 40% – its lower because the wind doesn’t blow all the time. Is this the point you are trying to make?
I don’t understand your points Phil. I didn’t say that I don’t want to know what the drivers are: I do. Are you suggesting that the members of the NRC Panel lack “climate process understanding”? Do you agree with the framers of the Panel’s terms of reference that “efforts to produce reliable temperature reconstructions are extremely important”?
The principal methodologies underlying the reconstructions from proxies of the pre-1850 climate have been strongly criticised (and not only by McIntyre and McKitrick). If the critics are right, the “observations” against which the simulations from an energy balance climate model have been tested are invalid. Accepting for the sake of argument that this particular energy balance climate model IS valid, there’d still be no basis for saying that solar irradiance and volcanism are responsible for 41 to 64% of decadal-scale temperature variations. If these variations have in fact been much larger than the MBH or other reconstructions, the proportions contributed by the factors you mention would be much smaller. So in that case, other factors would have to have been responsible for the bulk of the pre-1850 variations, and those factors couldn’t have included fossil CO2.
I don’t know what leads you to conclude that I’m not worried about extra CO2 fluxes liberated from the biosphere. I haven’t said a word on the subject. What worries me in the present context is that faulty conclusions have been drawn from multi-proxy studies, so I am glad that this issue is to be investigated. Perhaps it is the case that no conclusions about the past climate can be drawn from such studies, or perhaps some reliable observations will emerge but attribution of the causes of past variations will still prove to be impossible. In either case, the world will have to do the best it can with the best information and science that it has.
From my time messing around with boats propeller design is complex and based on known physical laws. Propellers are designed to move a known mass at a known speed. Tugs have much different shaped props than speedboats, relative to each other one is designed to move a large amount of water slowly whilst the other is designed to move a smaller amount of water more quickly (torque vs power).
I am sure the same principles would apply to wind, you would have to choose the wind range most prevalent and design for that maximum output in that range. Naturally winds falling outside that range would result in a loss of performance.
BTW using the Danish experience of 2,000 hours would mean that peak efficiency can only ever be reached 23% of the time.
one comment deleted. let’s try and stay on topic and no more personal stuff.
Ender, I don’t know how you can say that “The only people that cite the importance of previous centuries are the contrarians that wish to discredit the idea of AGW” when the IPCC made the “hockey stick” graph the centrepiece of its promotion of the findings of the Third Assessment Report. Sir John Houghton was photographed in front of a huge blow-up of the chart, and Robert Watson, the Chair of the IPCC, told the UNFCCC that the scientists had found that it was “indisputable” that the last two decades of the millenium were the warmest. That was over five years ago. If stressing the importance of previous centuries discredits the idea of AGW, then the heaviest share of responsibility of this should rest with the IPCC’s leaders.
Yes I know you have not commented on biospheric feedbacks. I was merely adding a note of caution that of course errors may not always go the way we think. Simple point.
And of course with a revised set of proxy data maybe the model may even do better 🙂
So if you don’t think the mechanism for pre 1850 change would be solar irradiance and volcanism – any thoughts what it might be?
Let us then wish the committee well on their deliberations. And when we have their best considered opinions – let us see how the latest modelling technology goes about reproducing the past trends.
That might be true rog about the Danish capacity factor. But Australia has plenty of wind, and a much larger land area. From my knowledge, most of the wind farms being built now in oz are 35-40% capacity factor, with no sign that there is a shortage of good sites.
Ian – “That was over five years ago. If stressing the importance of previous centuries discredits the idea of AGW, then the heaviest share of responsibility of this should rest with the IPCC’s leaders.”
Fine then the leaders of the IPCC where at fault and lets move on. The climate scientists have as you quite rightly claim it was 5 years ago. MBH98 was interesting and confirmed by other studies – climate science has moved on – it is time the skeptics did as well.
Phil, You say that “And of course with a revised set of proxy data maybe the model may even do better.” If you mean that the model might attribute a higher proportion of the variability to the two factors that you identify, I’d suggest that that is extremely unlikely, because as far as I know all of the published criticisms of the “hockey stick” have found that variability has been UNDERSTATED in the shaft of the stick. This was certainly true of the McIntyre & McKitrick reconstruction of MBH series. von Storch found that the variability was more than twice as great as in MBH, and in Cubasch et al the variability in the various simulations was still greater. Do you know of any study that has found decadal variability to be less than in MBH?
In response to your question about the mechanism for pre-1850 change, I’ll quote IPCC, Climate change 2001: The Scientific Basis, s.14.2.2:
‘The climate system is particularly challenging since it is known that components in the system are inherently chaotic; there are feedbacks that could potentially switch sign, and there are central processes that affect the system in a complicated, non-linear manner. These complex, chaotic, non-linear dynamics are an inherent aspect of the climate system. As the IPCC WGI Second Assessment Report (IPCC, 1996) (hereafter SAR) has previously noted,
Ian – “It is essential that the facts about natural variability be established as far as is possible”
So how does hounding MBH further this? The proxy analysis is only a minor part of finding out about natural/anthropogenic variablity.
Ian – there is a fair bit known about CO2 radiative physics which I feel you have dismissed. i.e. it’s not that fanciful an idea.
Your colleague John Zillman previously quoted as an authority by yourself, said as recently as Dec 2005 in his summary of of the state of knowledge (url above) :
” Fourth, given our understanding of the greenhouse effect, it would be very difficult to conceive of a mechanism through which increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere would not lead to higher temperatures at the earth’s surface;
· Fifth, there is absolutely no doubt that both greenhouse gas concentrations and global mean surface temperatures have increased over the past century; that the increase in greenhouse gases is largely, if not solely, due to human influence; and that, while some of the observed warming could be due to natural processes, most of it is almost certainly due to the increased concentrations of greenhouse gases; .. .. ..”
I think you have also dismissed my previous direct measurments of the greenhouse flux by Philipona in Switzerland.
Yes I agree that other proxy studies may yield different answer. Actually given the paucity of southern hemisphere records and records in general – we may never know as well as we would like. Perhaps ultimate truth is not available !
I still reserve judgement on how the latest set of models will go with the absolute best proxy data we can muster.
And you will grind your teeth but realclimate has a reasonable post on “What if the Hockey Stick was wrong”. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=114
Finally, regardless of the absolute amount of the forcing, future reductions in aerosol emissions will be a positive forcing, amplifying the warming effects of increasing greenhouse gases. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=245#more-245
The Phil and Ender show.
Ender, Phil can’t answer a teeny question on those windmills of yours. He seems to conflate inappropriate comparisons avoiding the issues involved.
As you seem to be the windmill king in this coupling would ypou mind answering to the issues I brought up. Speak truth to power, Ender.
Joe – I can’t find a question to answer. Perhaps you could work through this tutorial on wind power and then frame your question.
http://www.windpower.org/composite-85.htm
Joe – no – you have not explained yourself well enough. Are you saying wind generation is not efficient, not reliable, too expensive, unsightly or what?
I’m not avoiding the issue – you’re just talking gooblegook. Perhaps you only know one sentence?
Do you want me to say “yes the number is 58%”.
And why do you want me to answer about Ender’s wind power issues anyway?
I have actually found the source of the 59% figure. It is called Betz’s Law and was discovered in 1919.
This is the proof:
http://www.windpower.org/en/stat/betzpro.htm
I am not sure how this relates to the thermal efficiency of a coal plant.
So. the maximum amount of kinetic energy in the wind that can be converted to mechanical energy in the spinning turbine is 59%. That makes sense – if it was 100% then moving air would go in one side, but would have no kinetic energy left to get out the other side!
But I’m with Ender. Knowing this Law says absolutely nothing about the viability of wind power, nor does it say anything about the performance of wind power compared to coal.
Ender, The purpose of the NRC study is to ‘describe and assess the state of scientific efforts to reconstruct surface temperature records for the Earth over approximately the past 1,000-2,000 years.’ Of course climate is also naturally variable over much longer timescales and this too is a major subject of study. But the focus of the multi-proxy work has been on the past 1000-2000 years. If an attempt by the peak US science body to describe and assess this work can be summarised as ‘hounding Mann further’, perhaps that tells us something about Professor Mann.
Actually Steve McIntyre has emphasised that some of the others engaged in these ‘scientific efforts’ have been worse than Mann in their failure to archive data and their calculated obstruction of those who are trying to reproduce their studies. Professor David Pannell of the University of Western Australia has recently posted on the Climate Audit site some information on the data disclosure requirements imposed and enforced by some of the leading economic journals, which are far more stringent than those of Science, Nature and most of the specialised climate science journals. The NRC study offers the promise of effecting some improvement in this state of affairs.
Phil, I don’t think we’re as far apart as you imply. I haven’t said that radiative physics is a ‘fanciful idea’. But the models nevertheless give VERY different climate projections using the same emissions profiles and they can’t all be right. The huge range of difference in the climate models is then used as a reason for claiming that it doesn’t matter if the socio-economic assumptions used in developing the emissions scenarios are technically unsound because the resulting errors are minor compared with other uncertainties. This is a vicious circle and it’s bad science.
Of the several propositions you quote from John Zillman’s address, I’ve agreed with them all except perhaps the last (about most of the observed increase in the last century being ‘almost certainly’ due to increased concentrations of GHGs) – and even here the difference is only one of emphasis.
I’m not impressed with what realclimate has to say about ‘What if the hockey stick was wrong.’ Roger Pielke jr. asked both McIntyre & McKitrick and Mann and colleagues to address this subject on his Prometheus site. M&M produced excellent responses but Mann and co. declined to participate. The realclimate site doesn’t even provide a link to climateaudit – in my experience, they are extraordinarily defensive and, in my own area of knowledge, poorly informed. (Of course it’s true that further reductions in aerosol emissions will be a positive forcing – their reduction to virtually nil is the main if not the only reason for the increase in temperatures in the scenarios with lower GHG emissions).
Few would object to a comprehensive scientific review, if that’s what the NRC is doing.
Ian Castles, in a nutshell without quoting others, what is your personal position on climate change/AGW? Is it wait and see what the science says? Should we invest in mitigation and adaptation measures meanwhile to be prepared as the good scouts would say?
Hypothetically, if the NRC finds that recent warming could be natural and if the records suggest it’s likely to get hotter quickly, should we invest in adaptation and mitigation? Can we be sure that anthropogenic GHG emissions aren’t forcing?
Steve
Yes it does. It means even if there were optinal winds 100% of the time there is only so much power that can be developed from frigging windmills.
Other than the physics of the thing, the another way to comupute he efficiency is to compare prices.
Ender, would you mid telling us he relative cost of windmill (which is really solar power in disguise) generated elect. compared to coal fired? I’ll help you. It’s about 3 times more expensive coralating exactly with it’s physical inefficiency compared to coal.
As a said windpower is solar power converted to another form of energy. You are far better off putting solar panels in the desert than using windpower because at least solar power deosn’t have to go through the degradation of being converted to wind and then captured by a silly windmill.
Ender?
Joe there are limits on all sources of energy. If you argue that as a secondary source wind is inefficient because it’s second hand solar energy, then coal is hardly going to top the list is it?
Why don’t you provide some efficiency statistics and prices and include your source to justify your comparisons between coal and wind? Otherwise, you just keep making the same-same arguments and sidestepping direct questions and making petty insults to spur people to respond to you – all very troll-like behaviour.
Without backing up or explaining any of your repeatedly repeated repetitions of the same-same-same-same points, you’re just spilling hot air and expecting others to research your empty claims that you don’t even understand properly yourself. Why they waste time doing your thinking for you is beyond me.
>Yes it does. It means even if there were optinal winds 100% of the time there is only so much power that can be developed from frigging windmills.
Not true. IT just means that there is only so much wind energy that you can harness, the rest has to stay as wind. And i assure you that the amount of energy in even 10% of the wind dwarfs the energy we need, so that point is not relevant.
Your point about solar power is ridiculous. You are not far better off using solar power in the desert, because soalr is more expensive. That’s why wind power is being installed in Australia and not big desert solar schemes, even though both technologies have access to the same level of govt support.
Thinksy
I think I have given enough evidence that Windmills are a wast of money. Maybe you don’t think so. Big deal.
However you have the odd couple- Ender and Phil- spouting on about things they simply don’t understand. Ender in particular is touting windmills as the answer to our “zero coal needs”.
I think you are putting the cart before the horse regarding this issue. Isn’t me that needs to justify a perfectly good, efficient, effective source of energy. Ender and he buddy need to justify why windmills are more effective and present the numbers.
If you look closely I have already answered you questions.
1. Formula proving ineffectiveness of windpower
2 Windpower being 3 times less efficient than coal
3 recognizing wind as solar energy and doemonstrating windpower is picking up energy at its degraded level.
4. Asking why windpower has to be subsidized and given handouts to survive.
All those issues and nothing from you or Ender and co.
So please don’t accuse me of trolling when Ender is everwhere over the web flapping his wings like chicken little that we’re all going to die.
Please show a sense of fairness. Or you only want taht for yourself and not for people like Loius who was being harrassed on the site.
Realclimate does give significant expositions of different subjects of interest in the climate debate – does anywhere else do an explanation of behind the scenes science like this. No – they’re too busy saying it’s not right.
I think why realclimate doesn’t link to climateaudit is pretty obvious.
While some have to spend all their life criticising the current effort – the scientists need to keep moving forward or we’re never going to get anywhere.
I just got off the floor from laughing. Wind is now evil as it’s “degraded”. Medicate me pls.
Who cares what the efficiency is: it’s $ per KW, reliability and environmental considerations. And if you don’t like it have a Bex and lie down.
Joe has convinced to now campaign FOR wind power. Viva le aero ! Let’s storm parliament and demand a wind generator for every Australian child. Let no child live becalmed.
Joe you’re trolling by making petty remarks to goad people into responding to endlessly repeated same-same arguments that you neither move forward nor justify in terms of either personal experience, business figures or scientific sense or commonsense.
You keep referring to Louis. Those exchanges with Louis were in response to Louis making anti-AGW claims that he didn’t justify and making sweeping offensive remakes against AGW scientists etc. Is that the real reason you keep repeating the same tired old irrelevant, winding wind points? Is this a lame troll attempt to divert attention from Louis? Why else do you keep bringing him up and not others, or not point to the highly inflammatory remarks that Louis made?
Your hot wind posts sidetrack the entire thread and don’t attempt to move the discussion forward. If you were, you would clearly answer the specific questions put to you. Why does it matter if wind power doesn’t achieve an impossible 100% efficiency? Exactly how does this compare to coal and why it the comparison relevant? Why did you keep repeating a post about wind efficiency and equations when you clearly didn’t understand them yourself and needed Ender and Phil to explain them to you? How and why is the point you’re allegedly trying to make in anyway important?
And for a bit of exploration on the matter of wind availability and footprint, can coal plants be stacked vertically? Higher altitude wind generators will be portable and wind is more consistent at high altitudes. This wind power could cost 2 cents per kWh. 1% of the jetstream’s wind power could supply all US electrical demand. Emerging technology, it may not get off the ground:
Now trying to add the links that were denied above:
http://www.skywindpower.com
and http://www.magenn . com and http://www.laddermill . com
C’mon Thinksy, those are just kites, nobody takes them seriously
Ah Thinksy
I’m not trolling, but merely requesting those two lunatics repsond to questions I have asked. I do know the sums involved and if they differ after Ender/Phil reply I will be glad to rebutt, which I sure will be necessary.
The real point is that people like you should stop telling us how to live. I don’t want to pay 1 cent for energy costs than is absolutely necessary. If you do, go ahead and buy green energy from the providers who are only too willing to sell it to you through the grid at a much higher price.
1% of the US jetstream to energize the US is a joke. Just how would you access it? Through windills again?
Let Ender or Phil reply.
rog, like I said, they may not get off the ground 😉 but crazier things have been achieved. Ditto wave power and deep cold ocean water generation, but it’s worth experimenting and the trials themselves could have other benefits and stimulate further inventiveness which is what we need.
Joe you’re trolling for the reasons I wrote above. Hence you now call them “lunatics” – again trying to goad them into replying to your tiresome allegations. With each denial you are only prove beyond any doubt that you’re trolling. You keep failing to explain how or why your weak point is important or relevant.
Joe you say people like us should stop telling you how to live. Instead you should tell people like us to live with coal, not wind power etc? Such righteous, twisted and unfounded accusative posts are typical of trolls. You got it wrong. Reread my long post above: not ME but democratic governance and markets should determine how we live. Markets are demanding renewables, not me! If, however, I am telling you how to live, then being a troll you must go live under a creaking bridge by stagnant water downstream from a coal plant and knaw on raw 3-eyed fish.
POSTED FOR IAN CASTLES, WHO WAS DENIED ACCESS THROUGH THE AUTOMATED SYSTEM BECAUSE OF ‘QUESTIONABLE CONTENT’
Thinksy, Earlier on this thread you quoted a Californian report that found that eight policy strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in that State would increase Gross State Product by $60 billion and create more than 20,000 new jobs. Presumably the authors of this report would advocate these strategies even if it was established with certainty today that climate change is not a problem. If this makes sense anyway, why is there any need to wait and see what science says about AGW/climate change?
You also spoke of ‘concerns over national security, fuel resource scarcity, high oil prices, doubts about resource and technology substitutability, and various environmental and health concerns about dirty fuels and associated infrastructure.’ Would these concerns be diminished in any way if scientists established that GHG emissions were not a problem? Again, the obvious course seems to me to be to do the things that make sense anyway, whatever science says about AGW/global warming.
You also said that there is ‘spreading enthusiasm, among technophiles, early-adopters and people who want to be more self-sufficient, for massively distributed, diverse and DIY localised energy supply (to move from an asymmetrical centralised utility model to a more diverse, distributed and innovative commodity model) Eg: witness the number of people who are hacking their hybrid cars and electric vehicle power sources.’ That’s great, but again I don’t understand why the people you mention need to wait for greater certainty in climate change science. If scientists decided tomorrow that there was no GHG problem, would the desire for self-sufficiency evaporate in rich countries such as Australia?
In the developing countries the case is even clearer. Action to curb air pollution will save lives in the short run as well as diminishing greenhouse emissions. It makes sense whether there’s a climate change problem or not.
The IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios canvasses “revolutionary changes [such as] .. the hydrogen fuel cell car .. that could generate electricity when parked, dispensing entirely the need for centralised power plants and utilities.” Great, but it doesn’t have to be assumed that there is a climate problem for this to happen. Why not produce some projections showing what that would happen to GHG emissions and concentrations in those circumstances, instead of focusing on scary scenarios that assume that the output of electric power stations escalates by an order of magnitude by the end of the century, with most of this power being produced by the burning of fossil fuels?
If global warming was the only problem that the world had to deal with, the emissions scenarios would not be projecting reductions in emissions of sulphate aerosols. This positive forcing could be avoided by discouraging aerosol-reducing investment. No one advocates this, but that’s because it’s obvious in this case that reducing pollution now is to be preferred to reducing the prospective increase in global temperatures.
You asked for my “personal position on climate change/AGW. I’ve already agreed that increased greenhouse concentrations almost certainly increase temperatures at the earth’s surface. Up to a point, the effects are likely to be positive. Given that the plethora of global scenarios project outcomes ranging from inherently manageable to seriously alarming, proposals that would have the effect of reducing GHGs but would not otherwise be considered require a good deal of justification. By contrast, proposals that enhance the capacity to adapt to climate change are likely to be worth while whatever happens to the climate, globally or in particular regions. I find it impossible to answer the question you posed except by reference to specific policy approaches, which will invariably have a range of objectives and consequences in addition to those relating to climate change/AGW.
Ian Castles
…………………….
POSTED FOR IAN CASTLES BY JENNIFER
Joe – am I telling you what energy to buy? No!
Am I telling you to use wind power – No !
So take a hike !
Did I try to discuss the possibilities of wind power as an issue with you – yes. But you’re not interested in doing anything but ranting.
I am debating whether the science of global warming is reasonable (or not).
Ian I’m not in a position to support or refute your presumption that the authors of the multi-disciplinary report ‘Managing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California’ “would advocate these strategies even if it was established with certainty today that climate change is not a problem”. A certain position on climate change such as you hypothesise will not be established today or in the near future.
In your first three paragraphs, you’re of the opinion that the “the people (I) mention need to wait for greater certainty in climate change science”. I don’t see how you formed that impression. Perhaps you misread my comment?
I was saying that we can argue the finer points of the climate change science and the distinguished words of the venerable so-and-so in the convened high-level meeting of the lord lardy dahs until we’re blue in the face, but mitigation and adaption activities are accelerating regardless and potentially disruptive technologies are being developed. The reasons are manifold: due to perceptions of AGW, false or no, and due to a variety of factors as you quoted. This represents market opportunities and threats in equal measures depending on the scale and nature of our response. It is reasonable to respond to these market opportunities and risks other than AGW. You agree it seems, and support adaptive efforts which is well and good.
The cluster of risks as listed in my comment above feature a degree of complementarity. That is, activities to address one risk can also serve to address others. Opportunities to simultaneously make money and prepare for uncertainty and make our economic structure more resilient. To kill several birds with the one stone if you like.
I sought to introduce this wider perspective into the narrow arguments here. AGW is but one motivating factor for the activities that the contrarians seek to arrest. Even if doubt is shed upon the climate change science or the activities of the IPCC or other relevant bodies, or even if AGW could be completely disproven with absolute certainty, this does not mean that the entire broad class of activities which may address climate change, among other risks, are without merit. They have multiple benefits. When presenting arguments that support a contrarian position, it’s disingenious not to make this important point explicit.
Thinksy – following on from that – millions are now affected by El Nino worldwide. The droughts and floods we have now from climate variability within the existing system.
http://iri.columbia.edu/climate/ENSO/ is an example of a “non-climate change” climate effort aimed at providing long lead/seasonal forecasts of drought. A research area worthy of support also.
Hmmm. And you guys got to here from a picture of undies on a clothes line? Google “Howler Monkeys”.
Thinksy, I don’t think I’ve misread your comment – you’ve misread mine. If the 8 strategies this Californian report is advocating is good for business and good for jobs, it is not necesssary to establish “a certain position on climate change”, which as you rightly say won’t be established today or in the near future: California can just do them. I didn’t say the people you mentioned needed to wait for greater certainty in climate change science before being more self sufficient etc.: I said that I DIDN”T understand why they needed to wait for greater certainty. I agree with you that “if AGW could be completely disproven with absolute certainty, this does not mean that the entire broad class of activities which may address climate change, among other risks, are without merit” – that’s precisely my point and I thought that I did make it explicit. I don’t know what these activities are that ‘contrarians’ are trying to arrest, or who are the people that you are describing as ‘contrarian’ – certainly I’m not ‘seeking to arrest’ any proposals that have multiple benefits.
You asked me not to quote anyone else, so I didn’t. But on another thread of Jennifer’s blog I’ve already pointed to, and said I agreed with, the proposals for ‘focused adaptation’ made by Dr. Indur Goklany of the US Department of the Interior to the House of Lords Committee. Dr Indur Goklany lists many actions that will have multiple benefits. The point of his approach is to recognise that the things that help to solve today’s problems with greater certainty will also increase the ability to deal with tomorrow’s problems, whether they are caused by climate change or other factors. Phil gives an example of this: measures to counter the effects of climate variability such as El Nino not only bring immediate benefits but also build up capacity to deal with the impact of global climate change, whatever that may prove to be.
Phil, The reason why realclimate doesn’t link to climateaudit is indeed pretty obvious. Have a look at what Steve McIntyre said yesterday about papers published by Mann and Jones in 2003 and 2004, at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=522#comments . Are these papers by Mann and Jones examples of scientists “moving forward”? Maybe there are answers to the devastating criticisms that McIntyre makes of these two papers (he’s previously made many more), but I’ve got no idea what they are. By contrast the people on Climate Audit try to engage the realclimate crowd on their site, though they’re usually censored as soon as they start asking any serious questions.
Climate change and the Great Barrier Reef. There was an interesting media release yesterday by the Federal Minister responsible for tourism that challenged the hype about the Great Barrier Reef being affected by climate change. It seems he is at odds with Senator Ian Campbell’s (Minister Env and Heritage) view. Perhaps though the Minister for tourism does not have a lobby group of scientists to bend his ear. Its interesting to see how the Reef scientists from Uni Queensland and that GBRMPA seem to be almost relishing how corals are bleaching – they keep saying how there are all the indicators that this year will be the worst on record etc BUT tourist operators on the Great Barrier Reef are not seeing the same thing. PERHAPS the coral bleaching is not as bad as the scientists seem to want it to be. PERHAPS its in the interests of these scientists and the GBRMPA to make a big deal out of coral bleaching to prove their relevance. Perhaps we, and Minister Campbell, are getting fed a distorted view of climate change’s affect on the GBR due to scientists promoting a “crisis of science” to make to get more funding, promote their green and / or left agendas????? I think there needs to be more balance shown to this issue by the people at that GBRMPA and Minister Campbell before they lose all credibility and get carried away with the climate change science circus!!!!!
I think ability to use forecasts at weather scales (0-7 days; intra-seasonal – Madden-Julian oscillation; seasonal and annual levels – El Nino, and longer periods (Pacific, Atlantic decadal oscillations) may actually be part of the kit bag of tricks to adapt to climate change.
But then of course we’ll open up the debate on probabilistic forecasts vs deterministic and the ability of users to understand what they’re dealing with. i.e. you’re deluded if you think anyone ever has a 100% accurate meteorological forecast.
Thinksy
In 1988 Hansen made an incendiary statement to the US senate” that we were headed to catastrophic global warming from emitting CO2.
I suggest you check the historical record.
In any case that statement was an untruth.
As for the reference to the notion that repeating a little lie often enough results it ultimately being accepted as fact, the author of that advertising technique is a well known historical fact.
So I retract nothing.
On the Reef issue – are we talking in general/overall or do we have scientists and tour operators looking at different spots. Do tour operators do surveys? It’s a big reef!
I wouldn’t be too cynical about bleaching – you ain’t seen nothing yet in that warming so far is only modest compared to where we’re going. What do you want scientists to do – not measure impacts? Then someone would say “why hasn’t someone done something – no monitoring”. Can’t win. Perhaps they should monitor and not tell us until it’s stuffed. How much is the Reef worth as a tourism asset to Queensland?
Ian – can’t speak for climateaudit – but opinion seems to suggest that the level of polarisation and distrust is so high that maybe some mediation or over the top via the inquiry above is needed. Both sides have made dirty tricks comments. In terms of “devastating” – I seen “devastating” before amount to not much. Most of us are giddy with the claim and counter-claim. But anyway – such a pity that this issue is so hot. The inquiry is needed as long as it’s fair dinkum.
Louis – you are a socialist nazi.
In any case the literature may be resolving the issue with something for everyone.
Science 10 February 2006:
Vol. 311. no. 5762, pp. 841 – 844
DOI: 10.1126/science.1120514
The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years
Timothy J. Osborn* and Keith R. Briffa
Periods of widespread warmth or cold are identified by positive or negative deviations that are synchronous across a number of temperature-sensitive proxy records drawn from the Northern Hemisphere. The most significant and longest duration feature during the last 1200 years is the geographical extent of warmth in the middle to late 20th century. Positive anomalies during 890 to 1170 and negative anomalies during 1580 to 1850 are consistent with the concepts of a Medieval Warm Period and a Little Ice Age, but comparison with instrumental temperatures shows the spatial extent of recent warmth to be of greater significance than that during the medieval period.
Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK.
Philosophical, The publication of this paper by Osborn & Briffa as if it is new work reflects poorly on ‘Science’ and its reviewers. See the discussion on Climate Audit at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=523#comments
Phil, Thanks, and I agree with your comment that it is a pity that the issue is so hot. There are two big, testable differences between Climate Audit and Real Climate. The first is that Climate Audit provides a link to a list of other sites and includes realclimate in the list. Real Climate provides a list of links to other sites but DOESN’T include a link to Climate Audit.
The second is that all of Steve McIntyre’s data and methodology, even for his working papers are put into the public domain so that anybody can check and reproduce his calculations, point out errors, etc. But getting to the data and methodology of Mann, Bradley, Jones & the rest is like drawing teeth – they seem to want to restrict access to those who are members of the club.
Purple there is a link between warmer sea surface temperatures and coral bleaching but the exact relationship or cause of bleaching is not clearly understood. During Summer, GBR corals live within 1 to 2°C of their upper thermal limit so they’re vulnerable to further temperature increases. It’s more complicated than simple indicators of increased water temperatures. Thermal epicentres, genetic responses and diseases appear to affect bleaching.
If regular, prolonged warming exceeds the thermal tolerance of corals, the diversity of corals may be reduced to species that are more resistant (typically chunkier, less attractive species) or corals will form new symbiotic relationships with zooxanthellae which can photosynthesize at higher temperatures – adversely affecting the composition and location of coral. Spawning may be less successful and some reefs may become dominated by macroalgae. We don’t know if the adaptive ability of corals and zooxanthellae will keep pace with environmental changes.
There’s also emerging evidence that bleaching is caused by microbial pathogens to which heat stress makes corals more vulnerable. Further research is needed to determine whether bleaching episodes are caused by thermal stress alone or localized infections. If infections, scientists need to research possibilities to interfere with the transmission of diseases.
An additional poorly understood complication comes from CO2 absorption which weakens coral skeletons and reduces reef-building.
To date, over 70% of bleached corals have recovered, but this could be hampered if there are more frequent, intense or prolonged warming events, particularly given that it takes up to 5 years for corals to reach reproductive age. Much more research is needed to understand the role of these various factors in coral bleaching and recovery.
Socialists are Nazis, Phil.
Ian – very disappointing analysis by Climateaudit (and very hasty too for such a detailed paper !!) – alas in their haste to put the boot in they have missed the entire point.
Which is why they don’t link. But I think most Googlers won’t be too upset. I’m sure they can find all manner of things.
Methinks CA doth protest too much !
Yes Rog – but if Lous can make wild unsubtantiated allegations – I thought I might try it too. Why let facts intrude in discussions with Louis – he doesn’t bother so why should we?
OK Joe – I just thought about it – the Howler Monkey chorus concept is very funny – now where’s our daily serve of insults.
Ian you say you do not know what activities the contrarians are trying to arrest or who the contrarians are. The AGW contrarians are well aware who you are as your weighty arguments support them and are employed by them without your protest. Your arguments support the contrarians’ denial that AGW can be proven or the IPCC trusted; or that any activities should be undertaken in the near future to address climate change, be it natural or anthropogenic; or that any activities should be undertaken other than those particular technological investments such as geosequestration and cleaner coal that keep incumbent corporate interests happy. The AGW/climate change contrarians were also keen to see the Kyoto Protocol derailed. This achievement has been supported by your arguments which help to undermine the credibility of the IPCC and the Kyoto Protocol regardless of the fact that the highly technical arguments did not amount to a rebuttal of any substance. I’ve read your comments and some of the papers you recommended but they didn’t provide a strong justification for rejecting the Kyoto Protocol, nor substantiate a claim that observing the KP would have taken us backwards by a decade. They recommended a somewhat modified approach – more sophisticated instruments, the loosening of commitments, and the inclusion of LDCs – all matters which could have been arranged as a second stage whilst completing an initial stage of observing the spirit of the Kyoto Protocol.
If you agree that we should proceed with a class of activities which may address climate change, among other risks, then starting with the Kyoto Protocol could have stimulated investments and research, initiated gradual structural change and the development of new markets. Instead now we’ve earned international suspicion, we’re maintaining our status as one of the highest GHG contributers, we’re cutting back on support for renewables, and still subsidising fossil fuels (possibly up to $8.9bn pa), all while embarking on an indefinite plan with a less democratic agenda heavily influenced by corporations who will benefit and who give kindly to needy governments approaching election time.
Your outward position seems to fall somewhere between do-nothing-while-we-wait-and-see-what-happens and wait-until-we-have-the-science-and-the-policy-is-perfect which just so happens to bolster the do-nothing interference tactics of the AGW contrarians.
Joe – normally my policy is not to feed trolls however you seem to be in a class of your own. The combination of ignorance and belligerance is quite unique.
So here is what you said:
“If you look closely I have already answered you questions.
1. Formula proving ineffectiveness of windpower
2 Windpower being 3 times less efficient than coal
3 recognizing wind as solar energy and doemonstrating windpower is picking up energy at its degraded level.
4. Asking why windpower has to be subsidized and given handouts to survive.
All those issues and nothing from you or Ender and co.”
1. The ‘formula’ you quoted is the incorrect version of the wind power equation that determines that amount of energy in the wind. The correct proof of how much of this energy can be extracted by a wind turbine is call Betz’s Law and is well known.
2. Wind power cannot be compared to wind in the way that you are doing. If you are talking thermal efficiency then you would have to compare a coal furnace with the suns fusion reactor which is plainly ridiculous. Coal powered electricity can be calculated from the Rankine cycle here http://www.taftan.com/thermodynamics/RANKINE.HTM and after 300 years of development the best steam turbine with the most modern materials tops out at 45%. So even if you could compare wind an coal, wind is clearly more efficient not 3 times less as you claim.
If you think I am making it up then look at this:
“Steam turbines convert steam pressure energy into blade velocity energy as the steam passes through the blades. Additionally, steam turbines can be used to reduce steam pressure for process steam through either a backpressure steam turbine or through extraction at one of the stages of the steam turbine. Two main types of steam turbines are used for central station (condensing turbine) or distributed (backpressure, non-condensing turbine) generation. Modern large condensing steam turbine plants have efficiencies approaching 40-45%; however, efficiencies of smaller backpressure turbines can range from 15-35%. There are several types of steam turbines including;”
from http://www.deforum.org/steam-engines.htm
3. wind is solar energy as you state however the wind blows when the sun does not shine leading to a combination of both having a greater capacity factor. Wind is comparable to coal in cost now and wind turbines are cheaper to make than solar thermal or solar PV plants.
If you look at this article the cost os wind even without subsidies is 4c to 6c per kWh. Coal is 4.8c to 5.5c. Coal is likely to get more expensive as gasification is demanded to capture CO2. Coal is a source of toxic emissions like mercury and SO2 and coal operators do not pay for the increased health problems resulting from the emissions of coal.
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2005/mar/mar29c_05.html
4. Windpower and solar like any new startup is not cost competitive until economies of scale kick in. Coal has been around for 300 years and is a mature technolgy with a large knowledge base. Wind is now becoming like this due to subsidies getting it over the initial period. Also wind is capital intensive and needs different depreciation schedules to level the cost with coal – most cost comparision still use the same depreciation and amortisation routines as coal and gas which biases the cost toward fossil fuels.
I think that I have answered you questions comprehensivly and completely so unless you have something sustantial to say with references and research to back you up then perhaps you should direct this sort of posting to Tim Blair’s site where your sort of ignorant posting is welcomed and encouraged.
BTW I do not advocate zero coal at all – you did not read this:
http://stevegloor.typepad.com/sgloor/2006/01/50_000_years_of.html
This might be fun:
“THE GREENHOUSE MAFIA” – 4 CORNERS MONDAY 13 FEBRUARY 2006
Four Corners returns for 2006 with a whistleblower and revelations of a powerful insiders’ club – “The Greenhouse Mafia” – 8.30pm Monday 13 February ABC TV.
“Having found out what I’ve found out, I find it impossible to continue with a clear conscience without speaking out” – whistleblower interviewed by Four Corners.
Are Australians getting the whole truth on global warming?
Not according to evidence given to Four Corners, which returns with disturbing allegations about the power wielded by industry lobbyists, the self- proclaimed greenhouse “mafia”.
A whistleblower steps forward with claims that industry representatives have burrowed deep inside the federal bureaucracy in a successful bid to hijack greenhouse policy.
“Their influence over greenhouse policy in Australia is extraordinary,” he observes.
Four Corners also examines separate claims that the public is being denied full information about strategies to combat global warming.
Australians do know that last year was the hottest on record. They also know that carbon emissions are forecast to bring more heatwaves, storms, droughts, bushfires and diseases. This revealing report will help Australians understand what they are not being told.
Reporter-producer Janine Cohen investigates “The Greenhouse Mafia” – Four Corners, 8.30pm Monday 13 February, ABC TV.
This program will be repeated about 11 pm Wednesday 15 February; also on the ABC2 digital channel at 7pm and 9.15pm Wednesday.
Four Corners
Phil,
I am a socialist Nazi?
Another example of messenger shooting, though calling one a socialist NAZI suggests that one’s interlocutors don’t understand the meaning of the acronym NAZI.
It’s German for “National Socialist Workers Party”.
But er no, Phil, your ad hominem is quite wrong and I’ll leave there.
Yes but you don’t deal in facts Louis – so it’s logically irrelevant.
The directed ad hominems directed at me indicate but one indisputable fact – unable to refute scientific argument, climate alarmists descend to personal abuse.
This abuse becomes especially vile when it is done behind the veil of a noms de plume.
Obviously our masked climate terrorists have much to fear if they adopt these cowardly tactics.
I guess that about wraps it up for Joe then. Ender our work on this planet is complete.
“Masked climate terrorists” – where would be without our daily source of merriment and mirth.
Vile – yet you can spray all greens as nazis. Read you own blog words. A daily treasure trove of blatant lies. What was – “hand grenades randomly thrown into the blogosphere”. Isn’t that what terrorists do?
Louis said “calling one a socialist NAZI suggests that one’s interlocutors don’t understand the meaning of the acronym NAZI.”
That’s fine talk coming from the same person who made an argument about ‘secular religions’.
After reading Ender’s post on turbine efficiencies and stuff I went googling down a somewhat nostalgic path after info from familiar manufacturers Stal and Brown Boveri.
I came across this testimonial to a great turbine engineer Carl Richard Sonderberg 1895-1979.
“For more than 30 years he was a consultant to ASEA’s turbine company STAL on technical matters”
http://stills.nap.edu/html/biomems/csoderberg.html
Let’s note here how we struggled in post war engineering scaling up to the big machines and power plants with their complex loadings and stresses that one can so easily gloss over today. I suggest too; we got Vestas nacelles here after a similar struggle.
Windpower and solar like any new startup is not cost competitive until economies of scale kick in.
Really? Why is that, Ender. Define how it could be made to work through economies of scale while not requiring handouts and subsidies?
Coal has been around for 300 years and is a mature technolgy with a large knowledge base.
So what if it is mature industry. What has got to do with the price of energy if it is cheaper than a windmill?
Wind is now becoming like this due to subsidies getting it over the initial period.
Probably the biggest bullshit non sentence in the entire thing. What the hell are you trying to say? What initial period. Windmills have been around since the early 80’s. We have enough reserach to know it doesn’t work. The onl;y person who doesn’t is you and your little monkey.
Also wind is capital intensive and needs different depreciation schedules to level the cost with coal – most cost comparision still use the same depreciation and amortisation routines as coal and gas which biases the cost toward fossil fuels.
Oh your trying to tell me that the lefe span or a coal generator to a windmill has a different life span and repair schedule. Sure it does. That doesn’t mean we can’;t compare output and price ratios to different ways of extract energy.
Your argument is a sham. Windmills have been around for 25 years. During that time firms would have converted if they were cheaper and they haven’t because the entire industry is a faud.
Joe – as you are adding nothing to the discussion beside boast and bluster I will not be replying anymore. You had your chance.
OK – good thanks for that Joe. OK so you disagree. We guessed that. You don’t wish to discuss just argue. We understand your position.
Now take a hike.
Thinksy, The claim that ‘the Kyoto Protocol is so badly constructed that it has set back the search for sensible and effective policy responses by at least a decade’ wasn’t made by me: it was made by one of the world’s leading experts on the subject, Australia’s Warwick McKibbin. In his book co-authored with Peter Wilcoxen, published by the Brookings Institution in 2002 with a highly complimentary Foreword by the President of Brookings, Warwick & Peter wrote that:
‘At most, [the Kyoto Protocol] will end up a paper tiger: an agreement that looks strong on the surface but has no viable mechanism for enforcement and does little or nothing to control emissions. It will never be more than that because the fundamental principle on which it is based – setting ‘targets and timetables’ for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions – is economically flawed and politically realistic.”
To my mind this judgment, backed up as it was by a detailed analysis both of the theoretical flaws and of the practical problems of implementation of Kyoto, carries more weight than the unsupported opinion of an anonymous contributor to a blogsite.
I take your reference to ‘the distinguished words of the venerable so-and-so in the convened high-level meeting of the lord lardy dah’ to be a tilt at the House of Lords Committee of Economic Affairs, and at me for quoting from their recent Report. I make no apology for my use of this report and I think your remark is a cheap shot. In a submission to the Stern Review, my co-author David Henderson and three other leading British economists have written of the Lords Committee Report:
‘It is a striking fact that a group of eminent, experienced and responsible persons, drawn from a national legislative body and spanning the political spectrum, with the help of an internationally recognised expert adviser and after taking and weighing expert evidence, has published a carefully considered and unanimous report on ‘economic aspects of climate change’ in which, among other things, the work and role of [the IPCC] are put in serious question.’
In their Report, this Committee said that they considered that David Henderson and I were right to mount our critique, that we had ‘helped to generate a valuable literature that calls into question a whole series of issues relating to the IPCC SRES, not just the issue of MER versus PPP’, and that they considered that we had performed a valuable public service.
Thank you for letting me know of your contrary opinion that our ‘highly technical arguments did not amount to a rebuttal of any substance’. I’ll begin to take notice if you identify yourself and explain why you think your opinion should be preferred to the unanimous view of the all-party Committee.
Sorry, ‘politically realistic’ at end of second para. should of course be ‘politically unrealistic’.
>I notice David Arfon Jones hasn’t answered my last point on the physics from some time ago.
Graham, you need to repost you “point” as it has slipped my mind. I often have trouble finding the time to look at this blog.
BTW nice paper in Science today – http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5762/841 . It would seem the Hockey Stick “debate” is fast going the same way as the MSU “debate”.
David
Ian I was genuinely interested in your arguments (many of which I read several times) and the papers that you quoted. I realise now Ian that the thrust of your arguments is to delay interminably any concrete actions to address climate change/AGW. You rest squarely with the contrarians who deny that global warming is occurring and/or deny that anything ought to be done. You do so without objection I note.
You quote extensively and effusively from numerous scientific, political and policy sources – referring to such papers is an extremely valuable contribution when used to expand an argument and support your points, but is a subterfuge when done in lieu of making clear statements yourself. Using this clever tactic you’re able dodge all direct questions and attempts to pinpoint your precise position, and insist that others read all sources provided and furnish an equivalent response before responding, meanwhile facilitating a situation where nothing is done about climate change other than circular discussions and meetings until the science is perfect and the policy beyond reproof, ie when pigs fly and the poles have shifted.
The science may well remain highly contested and uncertain far beyond a point where significantly adverse climate change impacts are occurring. Due to feedback loops, the earlier we attempt to mitigate warming the more success we’re likely to have. Considering the potential risks, it’s not prudent to delay indefinitely under the ruse that an impossibly idealistic scientific and policy situation could be achieved. As mentioned in an earlier thread, Australia’s economic case against the Kyoto Protocol estimated only the potential costs and ignored the benefits, and overestimated the costs (when estimated costs of reducing carbon emissions were mapped in similar ways by a team at Stanford uni, they found that Australia’s estimates were double the estimates of other nations).
I contend that although the Kyoto Protocol had some flaws, observing it would have kickstarted mitigation activities and created a basis on which to introduce improvements to the mechanism and the instruments, whereas railroading it may have delayed our ability to reach an effective international agreement to address global warming by a decade or more. However, my opinion carries no weight, as you have clearly stated, because I am nothing more and nothing less than an interested citizen so I guess I should return to reading the daily papers and watching soapies on TV instead.
I can identify myself but as a non-expert I can’t convince you that my opinion is worth consideration. All I offer is an active interest. By contrast you have impeccable credentials and an influential network – a basis on which to grandstand. Therefore ignore my opinions and prefer those instead of your learned colleagues. I only hope that you will condescend to bear in mind that I, and many others like me, have a vested interest as a member of the public and the right to question and ask that specific actions be urgently taken to address the potential risks of global warming.
In return for dismissing my views Ian, I will take note of your views only if and when you discover the honest ability to state your position and your desired outcome clearly and concisely in straightforward terms without hiding behind the frilly layered petticoats of voluminous references, quotes and pompous posturing.
Thinksys,
What do you understand a secular religion to be?
An oxymoron. You?
Thinksy,
I addressed it to Thinksys, not you, or are you as two minds on this ?
Thinkys
Thanks your explanation about the science needed for climate change and reef was informative and make sense. In fact the best and emotive free explanation I have seen for a while. What worries me is that scientists and GBRMPA will only communicate such information in sensationalised sound bite ways and always doing so to promote themselves. I find it galling to see how tax payer funded bodies like GBRMPA and most scientists who function using tax payer funded grants (some may not I admit that) spend so little time trying to work in partnership with people whose lives and communities might be (and have been) affected by decisions made using science.
Purple, yes unfortunately there’s no escaping political agendas. For all my opinion is worth, I agree that local communities should actively participate and receive objective facts. I believe they would be generally interested in supporting the health of the GBR – for its beauty and diversity, and also because its regional value is over (approx?) $1.3 million per yr. I can only hazard a guess that some scientific bodies are feeling a bit defensive (at risk?) in recent times.
Purple – there are regional bodies that are supposed to interface with research agencies. Are these regional bodies doing their job ? – you tell me – are you in contact with local representatives. I would also think that if you wanted to directly talk with a specific scientist at AIMS that they would definitely give you some time in their hectic schedules. I’d be most disappointed if they did not.
Correction: GBR direct value to the region should have read approx $1,300 million.