The fourth and final part of the of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 Fourth Assessment Report has been published. The Summary for Policymakers of the Synthesis Report is available here or direct from the IPCC website.
The IPCC claim at least 90 per cent confidence in flawed computer modelled climate projections and that most of the warming in the past 50 years is due to human activity. Calls will be made for deep, damaging and costly cuts in CO2 emissions by developed nations, further underpinning the suspicion that the UN IPCC is more about wealth redistribution than climate change. The warnings from the likes of Prins and Rayner that the Kyoto Protocol was the wrong policy in the past, and is the wrong policy for the future, will go unheeded. Adaptation to inevitable, natural climate change and the development of secure energy sources is the only cost effective way forward in my view.
The highest solar activity for over 1000 years is already coming to an end and the next 11-year solar cycle is running late. The scene is set for a significant period of global cooling by 2020-30, yet our policymakers heed the false alarm call of continued warming by an IPCC that admits to a ‘low’ or ‘very low’ level of scientific understanding (LOSU) of the link between solar factors and climate.
The UK Government has published a very foolish, unilateral climate change bill which aims to cut the UK’s 2 per cent contribution to global man-made CO2 emissions by 60 per cent. King Canute must be turning in his grave.
Anyway, enough of what I think for now – post your own thoughts or analyses below.
Regards,
Paul Biggs
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Earlier this year this is what Sinclair Davidson and Alex Robson had to say about the IPCC claim of 90 percent confidence in their findings:
“There are legitimate difficulties with the IPCC’s 90 per cent confidence in anthropogenic warming… The IPCC seems to imply that this number results from a scientific process -that it has tested a hypothesis. Indeed, the IPCC tells us its understanding is based “upon large amounts of new and more comprehensive data, more sophisticated analysis of data, improvements in understanding of processes and their simulation in models, and more extensive exploration of uncertainty ranges”. If this is what the IPCC has done, it has very weak evidence. Ninety per cent is the weakest acceptable level of confidence in a hypothesis test. It is not clear from the Summary whether the IPCC has, in fact, undertaken such an analysis.
It is more likely that it has neither a testable model nor data available for external researchers to replicate such a test. In other words, the IPCC’s 90 per cent confidence has emerged from scientists evaluating whether they think their own work is correct.”
http://www.ipa.org.au/files/news_1342.html
And thanks Paul for getting the link to the IPCC summary report with some commentary up so quickly.
There is equally an hysterical IPCC announcement (23 pages) reported here:http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2930589,00.html
Given the IPCC Bali conference, the distinct possibility that the ALP will get political power in a weeks time, so Australia will sign Kyoto leaving the US alone, suggests this whole media hype is being orchestrated.
The classic comment on the link is that Ban Ki Moon wne to see the antarctic ice shelf break up for himself – except that this phenomeon is an indication of a tremendous production of ice on land – it means ice cap growth.
That the science is so badly reported and understood clearly points to humanity heading for another “dark age”, as has happened in the past.
We are going to be living in interesting times methinks.
Paul – here’s where you guys absolutely lose me:
“Calls will be made for deep, damaging and costly cuts in CO2 ” yes well last time I looked most of the places that where involved were democracies – if you start to mess up the economy too much you’ll be voted out of office. People will only put up with so much.
When you say “underpinning the suspicion that the UN IPCC is more about wealth redistribution than climate change” – I mean fair dinkum mate – do really really believe bullshit like that – the UN usually couldn’t organise a chook raffle successfully. “World government …ooooo …. I’m really scared”. “I should have listened to Schiller and Louis …. ooooo…. I’m sorry” Crap.
“flawed computer modelled climate projections ” – just rhetorical bullshit for the cheer squad and blog gimps – of course they’re flawed aren’t they – by definition – but it’s about fit enough for purpose and risk management (which you guys seem to have zero idea about – bazza keeps telling you !!)
LOSU-solar – also means it over-rated. The contrarian case here is really piss poor. Instead of squabbling you guys could have written books on this by now. McIntyre could have reamed out all the solar material and well as Christy’s crap satellite data and made a decent forward contribution instead of spending his time lighting random retro bushfires.
So fair dink – this sort of editorial simply makes pro-AGW types think “oh piss off – what utter negative bottom trawling bulldust” – meanwhile I imagine at your places you’re busy shoving pins in IPCC voodoo dolls galore. “Die IPCC dogs – die !”
Is anybody really going to go without a bloody big plasma TV. And I mean bloody light dimmingly big. I see Harvey Norman has no repayments till 2009 and Clive Peters till 2010 – so I’m off to get mine. I want big enough to see Motty’s ego in full colour on the one panel and fast enough to see Sid do a sleight of hand.
Meanwhile I see Bangladeshis have enjoyed their adaptation to a bit of the ol’ climate variation again – walk in the park. Adapted real well they did. Pissed it in.
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/11/17/bangladesh.cyclone/index.html
Desperately seeking Susan or a decent debate for a change…
Bangladesh’s inability to cope with cyclones has nothing to do with climate Luke, but to their economic system and entrenched subsequent poverty.
Discusssion is how grown ups consider differing perspectives of an issue.
Debate is the process of trying to convince your opponent of the verity of your argument.
As you have failed to do that and have now descended into personal vitriol tells all the readers that not only are you an ungracious loser, but a gullible fool who seems to believe everything the biassed media print.
It’s a political movement Luke, was from the word go in 1991. Some of us haven’t been conned by it.
Conspiracy theories are always worth considering. By and large, the more complex, the more implausible and therefore, the more unlikely they are to be real. (Occam’s razor). My question is, precisely what or whose purpose would be served by “costly cuts in CO2 emissions”?
A simpler and hence more convincing “conspiracy” theory lies in the desire by producers (eg oil, and oil based products and packaging) to deny anything man-made is going on, so that the earth’s resources can continue to be exploited at an increasing rate. The “conspirators” have powerful and ubiquitous accomplices: you and I.
Consumers who would rather continue our unsustainable consumption of “stuff” (think about it: we the wealthy can have anything we want on the planet, any time, any where and in any quantity we wish) – preferably with an untroubled conscience.
Unfortunately, all of the climate change policies suffer from a fatal flaw. They are essentially supply side measures that seek to preserve the idea of growth through consumption, but to do so with less emissions. It is wrong-headed because the quantum of consumption is unsustainable. Look at WWF figures.
Kelvin’s comment is actually saying that it’s Big Oil behind the climate sceptics in their push to demonstrate that the slight global warming being observed isn’t due to burning oil.
The largest privately owned oil company is MobilExxon and it owns 1.08% of the world’s oil reserves. The rest of the privately owned producers increase the number to about 4%
This means 96% of the reserves are controlled by either governments or state-owned oil companies.
As it is the governments that are pushing the climate change position, this fact is quite at odds with the belief that sceptics are being funded by big oil, (which we aren’t by the way but it is a core belief of the greenies).
I don’t agree Kelvin. It seems to me that tightening of the oil belt will lead to artificial shortage, ergo higher price and bigger profit for a commodity which the oil companies hold in abundance.
In addition an address by Peter Odell to the 2006 OPEC INternational Seminar notes that
“Fourth, that oil from non-OECD countries already accounts for almost 80% of world reserves and production, with most of this from state-owned or state controlled exploration and production facilities. Even the remaining four largest multi-national oil corporations already appear unable to secure significant new production rights, except as minority partners in state-run systems. This process is unlikely to be reversed, as all the large oil consuming nations of the developing world view self-sufficiency as a prime objective and will feel assured of this only in the context of nationally owned and operated companies.
Fifth, that in such potentially adverse circumstances for the oil majors, the fact that they have in recent years been pursuing policies which hardly endear them to countries in which expanding demands for energy are of the essence, is not helpful for their survival. The companies are seen as responsible for high prices, leading to high profits, from which extortionate remuneration is paid to their executives and shares are ‘bought-back’ to enhance their stock-markets’ status; whilst they make too little investment in new upstream operations, as they cannot count on a rate of return in excess of 20%.
Sixth, that as with those ‘majors’ that have already failed to survive, so those remaining may well be playing out their last few years. A Chinese bid for Exxon and/or Chevron and/or a Russian bid for Shell and/or BP, backed by funds provided by the wealthy member countries of OPEC will only be a matter of time”.
So it’s the states that control the bulk of the oil reserves that are going to make the motzahs from restricting supply. Add the proposed carbon trading schemes and whatever, and just who is really going to benefit.
Big Oil? what the 4% bit players on the market or the 96% government owned ones.
http://www.gasresources.net/Odell433.09%20-%20(3rd%20OPEC%20International%20Seminar,%20Vienna).pdf
Back to the point, what, exactly, has been the process through which the IPCC has assessed the probability of anthropogenic global warming to be 90%?. If it was done by a proper sequence of steps and assumptions, then what were they and how, exactly, did they add up to 90%?
We all have a right to know, understand and independently verify the results of this process. It is the very essence of transparency and good governance.
Conversely, the withholding of this information is the key indicator of the presence of fraudulent scum and anti-democratic low life.
By their deeds shall ye know them.
Well gee Ian – dat’s a hard one. Maybe you need to RTFM. The problem is Ian is this requires what is called in science “reading”. As opposed to ranting.
So you’re actually saying our government (that’s the Howard govt “anti-democratically?” appointed science reps) are fraudulent are you. Sign here…..
Unless of course you’re just mouthing off (again).
If the 90% confidence level is based on computer modelling, then it is a sham.
And no, its the nonscientists who dominate the political document referred to at the start of this thread – don’t you read anything Luke?
If the government wants a specific results and throws money on the table, then there are plenty of scientists, (most of whom are lefties in the first place), to do their bidding.
It’s all rather bizarre but a computer model that made a projection that the warming during the last 50 years was due to human causes, isn’t projecting anything of the sort – it’s re-writing history by expensive modelling.
We know what the temperature was during the last 50 years because we measured it. We know what the CO2 did because we measured it.
We do not need a computer model to tell us that. That we do simply points to either AGW being the scam of scams, of that climate science is off the rails and has become trapped into a modelling cul-de-sac.
If people are going to start coming up with conspiracy theories, I’d really appreciate it if we could actually have some evidence to back these claims, rather than repeated assertions that take on the appearance of fact simply because they are made so often.
But hang on Louis – you’ve been telling us we can’t measure global temperature? So which is it Louis.
So let me get this right – the two nations that haven’t signed Kyoto after negotiation and politiced against it big time, have paid their scientists to come up with global warming as a scam have they? These right wing governments have paid their “lefty” scientists to come up with all this physics and modelling in a high level multi-national scam.
Interesting to that one big league Australian climate scientist used to save all his leave to campaign for the Liberal party everty election. That must have also been an elaborate ruse too.
So tell us – are you mental? And how long have been talking utter shit for now?
Once upon a time (actually not all that long ago) I honestly respected Jennifer Marohasy for what she had achieved with this blog, and to a large degree, her point of view (although I disagreed with most of it).
However, this blog seems to be slipping downhill into degenerate stupidity – Yes Paul, of course it’s all due to the sun. How on earth did we miss this, yet you managed to see through it all? Yes Ian – the IPCC are of course hiding all this super-secret information from you. If you really saw what went into the findings it’d be just blindingly obvious it’s a complete sham, so they hide it from people like you. Yes Louis, of course it’s a conspiracy – all the scientists are bribed by the government (who of course are the new world order). Jennifer – scientists evaluating scientists? You are entirely right, this is without precedence – we should demand the IPCC report be independently vetted by the Institute for Public Affairs. Really.
Thomas Moore
I never mentioned the word conspiracy but there is plenty of evidence published to support that.
If it has degenerated into stupidity then I notice that it’s only those of us here to question the AGW litany that you disapprove of. A reasonable conclusion would be that you and your lefty mates degenerated it.
Luke,
you certainly have displayed a typical lefty or progressive understanding of the written word – in which it assumed that what I write is actually not what I mean, tyhat there is a hidden meaning to my public utterances.
Totally wrong Luke, again.
So your conclusions are simply non-sequiturs.
OK Louis – science point of reference number one – can we measure and usefully use a “global temperature”. Yes or no. Are we warming or cooling or don’t know.
Louis
“If the 90% confidence level is based on computer modelling, then it is a sham.”
Maybe you could actually read what you are criticising first.
You know Louis is done like a dinner when he ducks and doesn’t answer. What a loser rock jock. Practising earth scientist my foot.
Far far better not to be a practising idiot however.
SJT, how can any computer model project the past? Which is precisely what they are intimating.
None of the GCM’s have any grounding in physical reality – especially when the assumptions made about the sun are wrong, as well as on precipitation.
But nothing I would point to would convince you or Luke, so there is no point.
And Luke I havn’t ducked away, I am packing up my camping trailer for a remobilisation tomorrow.
So chill out.
He won’t answer. He knows he’s just contradicted himself. And now he’ll do a runner till the next drive by shooting.
Luke,
Simply, No, we cannot measure a global temperature.
Is the earth warming up? Based on qualitative observations that the earth is recovering from the little Ice Age, yes.
Is it natural? Yes,
Can we do anything about it, like stopping it? Emphatically NO.
Louis you said
“If the 90% confidence level is based on computer modelling, then it is a sham.”
So you don’t know what they are referring to, but are just taking a guess based on ‘if’.
Luke there is one other fact that you need to understand.
When Hansen had to rejig his GISS temperature data to compensate for the Y2K adjustment, temperature anomalies showed some fairly signficant changes – 1934 being one of the hottest years when before it wasn’t.
This suggests that this determination of temperature isn’t at all robust. It suggests we are dealing with random data.
Wouldn’t be a hoot if we suddenly realised that the temperatures are actually the temperatures of the measuring thermometers and not the mass of air being measured?
That would be hilarious – but that is what they are doing.
What a hoot.
” However, this blog seems to be slipping downhill into degenerate stupidity ” – Thomas Moore
Paul is ” new” and he has put lots of efforts to find interesting articles for the blog. However, I personally have two wishes for this blog.
1) Not only posting an avalanche of climate posts, actually there exists other interesting issues in the world as well. More mixed material, like Paul’s good posts on kangaroo culling and the badger issue in the UK.
2) The blog shouldn’t have banned Lamna Nasus. Personally I have had REAL trouble with the guy , but he was quite colourful.
OK so we don’t know what the temperature is – is that what you’re saying? Yes or no?
Louis
You are wrong, 1934 was nearly as hot as 1998.
SJT
I correctly read Paul’s sentence which refers to that 90% based on flawed computer models of climate projections but I am sure it will become the Nombre du Jour to establish that we are being blamed for the rise in temperature.
I wonder if John Brignell elevates it to number of the month? Have to wait for month to find out I suppose.
SJT – I did not write hottest, I wrote one of the hottest.
Luke quite correct again. Gee one day you might actually make some progress on this topic.
What a mindless exchange – anyway Louis is always fun.
Anyway http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/11/10/temperature-2007/ reviews the global temperature anomaly nunbers and suggests 2007 will be second “warmest” if you like that sort of thing.
22 posts of completely pointless blather, Luke, SJT. My request remains the same, what was the process under which the IPCC arrived at the 90% confidence estimate?
Never mind the topic shifts etc, as the self designated defender of the IPCC, Luke, do us all the common courtesy of providing the information we seek.
oooooo – sorry I didn’t realise the blog was here as your personal library service (although hey it’s not bad …).
I’m more interested though in your accusation of seemingly accusing our Australian government appointed scientists to the IPCC as fraudulent. The shock seem to be obscuring my ability to address your “requests”.
BTW anyone else think our guys are fraudulent while we’re here?
Ian Mott – You really could have googled this hours ago, if you weren’t so interested in slandering Luke and SJT and perpetuating the “22 posts of completely pointless blather”.
I’ll save you the hassles of looking for the “information we seek” by typing “ipcc confidence % method” into google for you and posting the first link here:
http://hamradio-online.com/commonsense/2007/10/where-does-ipcc-terminology-very-highly.html
Luke – No, I don’t think they are fraudulent. I’m still not sure where Ian Mott’s statement “Conversely, the withholding of this information is the key indicator of the presence of fraudulent scum and anti-democratic low life” came from, either.
The following is a revised paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner:
It describes using sound physics some points I made above, in addition to my consistent assertion that there is no such thing as a atmospheric greenhouse effect.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
No further discusion will be on this – AGW has been totally falsified.
I will be off air till mid December 2007 supervising an exploration drilling program 40 south of Whim Creek, (Google it).
Thomas – yes thanks – very hard for Ian to go near http://www.ipcc.ch/ and look for himself in case he accidentally reads something. Don’t want him getting all sciencey and starting to think do we?
And strange that there is actual a formal guide to authors on the topic. Even more interesting in some of the chapters the authors even dare discuss how they made some calculations. Boy oh boy – I was shocked. Talk about full frontal nudity.
Strange that the IPCC hide all their voluminous texts of secret goings on their web site – all secreted away from public view on page 1. 🙂
Mottsa think he’s the self-appointed defender of the Australian landholder. I’m waiting till next Saturday to see how many seats of power this new force runs too.
What was Ian saying about un-democratic fraudulent scum was it? Or was it perhaps unrepresentative swill.
Louis – You are a self-proclaimed scientist: why are you citing something from a journal with an impact factor of 0.073? The total cites for this journal are 140 – compared to say, Nature, which has 390690 (although I concede this is marginally more valid than citing Energy and Environment as a reliable resource). Irrelevant of the context (which I haven’t read yet), to say that AGW is falsified using one highly questionable citation is nothing short of ridiculous.
ooooo – too much link link Louis – none of this sophistamuckatred Googling now – you won’t read our links so why should we read yours?
Have the Lavoisier society and WMC alumni approved your usage?
OK I peeked – now Louis – you wouldn’t be recommending material that’s not published would you. Norty boy.
I mean the abstract looked like it was written by a primary school kid. Fair dink mate. I think you’re making fun of us now.
And the references seemed to be a tad scant on relevant issues – but woo hoo – AIT is referenced. Big Al would be impressed. I did notice they’re dug up the Wood experiment ROTFL !
Louis
that paper is a joke.
“By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects”
Will be writing up a paper telling us that atoms aren’t really little red balls joined by sticks, as they taught me at high school?
Luke / Louis – Sorry, I thought the link was a citation from the journal Atmospheric and Ocean Physics, I forgot that arxiv is non-peer reviewed, my apologies. Please consider the last post null, apart from the last statement. It’s still ridiculous.
SJT – Try publishing it in Energy and Environment.
Luke – ‘consensus’ is a tool of dictatorship, not democracy. At no time in the UK have we been given a chance to vote on CO2 emissions or the climate bill. All 3 major parties have a similar policy, except the Tories want an 80% cut in emissions rather than 60%.
So, which party do I vote for with respect to climate policy?
Paul – I can see your problem. Solutions: change a party’s policy; new party; local referenda as a wedge? Of course if a majority still says yes you do have a problem.
However, society remains to be tested. I don’t think people will be prepared to be pushed around too much. Technical solutions rather than going back to caves have to be the solution. And the load of responsibility has to be spread – if we don’t agree globally nothing much will happen – so onto adaptation (or not!).
Them confidant computer models, would they be the same that predicted a larger then average hurricane season the last two years?
Or would they be the ones that predicted the UK summer 07 would be a hot drought?
Nope and nope.
Thomas Moore you are a ‘true believer.’ When solar activity rises, so does global temperature.
Take your pick – solar activity is the highest for 11,000, 8,000 or 1000 years. I think anyone looking at a graph of solar activity since the little ice age wouldn’t be surprised that global temperatures have risen markedly. We know there is a correlation but the changes in the sun are amplified by an unknown mechanism – even L&F admit that. The CO2 hypothesis also has divergence problems, but they get glossed over by the IPCC.
The fact remains that solar activity is falling, and will continue to fall, and 1998 still remains the warmest global average temperature in the short instrumental record.
Ann Novek – maybe I do post too many climate articles, but I don’t post everything I am sent.
As for Lamna Nasmus – I’m not prepared to be attacked in the way he attacked me, by an anonymous poster of unknown background when I am upfront about my own name, qualifications and affiliations. All he brought to the blog was ad hom. His attacks continue on his own pathetic, irrelavant blog.
Hi Paul,
Please don’t take any offence of what I posted , I’m grateful that you and Jennifer post my guest posts.
Lamna was one of the reasons why I left Greenpeace, and I do know that he posts ad homs, but sometimes a blog needs a troll , even if it’s very upsetting. I just thought that you’re strong enough to withstand his offensive comments about the Scientific Alliance….
Hi again Paul,
I know that you’re in a leading position on this blog, but for your information I have been told by Pinxie, Luke and Ian that a rough style is an Aussie style in the Parliament as well as on a blog etc.
I have personally been called an idiot etc. on GMO threads, a person who is now my friend wanted to pour beer over my head etc. when he met me , etc. On whaling threads I have even been called for worse thingies, methinks it’s better just to ignore such stuff….
It says over at the Met office website they use the most advanced computer models to make their forecast. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/modeltypes.html
“The computer climate models used for the
majority of the work at the Hadley Centre are
detailed three-dimensional representations of
major components of the climate system. They are
mostly run on the Met Office’s NEC SX-6
supercomputers. We use these models in various
different configurations, which are explained
below.”
They list; Atmospheric 3D general circulation models, (ACGM) coupled to “slab” Ocean, Ocean general circulation models, Carbon cycle models, Atmospheric chemistry models, Coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation models, and Regional circulation models.
Are you sure these aren’t the same computer models used by the IPCC scientists? Because I notice that on the IPCC website for working group 2 it says, “The WG2 Technical Support Unit, which manages the organizational and administrative activities of the Working Group, is at present hosted by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office.”
Maybe they slap those foreigners hands and shoo them away from Hadley computers. No wait it says here the chairman for WG2 is Mr. Martin Parry of the Met office.
Luke, do you care to revise your statement sir?
Ann – I’m not offended, and I am aware of the Aussie style. Lamna is from the UK, I think. I’m not bothered by or interested in comments about the scientific alliance – making me the subject of posts was the problem.
Luke – we are agreed that technical solutions are the answer to real problems – replacing fossil fuels and adaptation to inevitable climate change.
Change a party’s policy; new party; local referenda as a wedge? – not quick or easy, and governments don’t like referenda. The public need to be properly informed, not bombarded with endless one-sided propaganda.
Don’t forget that all that global warming just resulted in the record for Antarctic ice cap size . . . you know, warming causes ice to freeze more.
That the IPCC claims the ability to quantify confidence says a lot about the rigor it brings to quantifying the climate. Do they have doubtometers placed in strategic locations around the office?
I doubt it. They probably quantify confidence using models.
Fred – yep – if you don’t know why you need to get educated.
Schiller makes something up, guesses what might be happening. “They probably”. Schiller we need quantified confidence that you’re not an idiot.
Paul
I would have thought by now that any of the public would have to be unconscious if they didn’t know there were contrarian points of view.
Some might say that despite the quality of science contrarian science involved, sometimes it seems like there are only contrarian points of view.
You guys may have been delicate and subtle but somehow I think you have got your point across – but it hasn’t washed with a fair slab of the populace.
The public are now tuned into what they perceive as considerable global climate change on multiple continents and oceans. Believe it or not I even find myself saying to the more rabid devotees “well you need to be careful as that’s not exactly proven yet or there are decadal influences in there ” etc..
So the media reporting has people believing there is some considerable change and simultaneity of change. They are correlating that change with human industrialisation and agricultural development. And a seeming diminution of the natural world as it is ploughed, paved, dammed and harvested. Most thinking people are now environmentally aware at least..
How do you ever think you’ll get the genie back in the bottle.
James
This blog is a great education for you isn’t it. You’re starting to get it. Of course Hadley do modelling for the IPCC. But you tell me who made what forecasts – NOAA? IPCC? who ? using what? – a link to the advisory would be good and not too much to ask – and what that was based on.
Note that’s not newspaper clipping or op-ed.
Otherwise you’re just making some random comment based on what? So you’re learning that scientists and play blog scientists need to back up (that’s “cite”) evidence for their rampant assertions. Unless you’ve done the work yourself which of course you would indicate.
Also it’s come in spinner if you think seasonal climate forecasting is the same class of problem as climate change simulation. But you haven’t thought that through yet have you. (seriously)
Paul Biggs – Doesn’t your blind faith in solar activity make you a ‘true believer’ too? I don’t understand how after a handful of threads you can brand me a “true believer” (particularly in such a disparaging manner) – is this because I disagreed with you, or others who share a similar viewpoint to you?
As for the statement:
“‘consensus’ is a tool of dictatorship, not democracy”
I won’t deny for a second that the UK is plummeting towards something much more sinister than a dictatorship, but: a democracy by nature is a consensus. If you are part of the 5% that do not believe in climate change (make that 5-49%, the figure is irrelevant), then the other 50% rule by consensus.
You live in a democracy. You can’t change this because it’s inconvenient to your slant on climate change. Be thankful you do, otherwise you wouldn’t have the freedom to make such comments.
Luke it seems to me any computer model could claim confidance if the results wouldn’t be showing up for fifty years.
My confidant computer says there will be perfect weather in 2057. Trust me.
Once again, Luke, the original question was, “what, exactly, has been the process through which the IPCC has assessed the probability of anthropogenic global warming to be 90%?. If it was done by a proper sequence of steps and assumptions, then what were they and how, exactly, did they add up to 90%?
We all have a right to know, understand and independently verify the results of this process. It is the very essence of transparency and good governance.
Conversely, the withholding of this information is the key indicator of the presence of fraudulent scum and anti-democratic low life.”
So where is the accusation,Luke? What I see is a simple statement of the two elements of a principle, ie transparency is good while the absence of it is an indicator of bad.
You then decided, all on your own, that the second part was a specific reference to your departmental mates. Does this mean you know more about their inherent nature than the rest of us?
And Moore’s link to the IPCC is nothing more than an explanation of terminology. It is nothing more specific than a generalised symantic discussion. It most certainly does not tell us who did, or did not do what to arrive at such and such a conclusion.
And as for the text of the link, thank you, because it implicitly supports my case when it says, in the Summary,
“The probability and confidence levels in the Summary for Policymakers are not (in general) statistically derived but are from subjective analysis made by experts in the field. The probability and confidence levels are literally “gut feel” guesses.
(YES FOLKS YOU DID READ THAT CORRECTLY, GUT FEEL GUESSES)
The Delphi Method is a popular method of organizing a feedback process amongst participants with the goal of identifying “consensus” around some of the issues at hand.
The Delphi Method has achieved success in some endeavors, and well known failures. For example, expert panels were used to estimate the risk of Space Shuttles disintegrating, nuclear plant safety, and nuclear waste storage safety and their estimates proved to be disastrously wrong. Some environmental groups attacked those original estimates in part, because they were based on “fallible expert judgment”.
Where consensus is not reached, it is important for panel reports to reflect the full range of perspectives. Without the full range, an incomplete view of the consensus or non-consensus is presented to the world. (Of interest, just five IPCC reviewers made comments on all chapters of the report and just 32 made comments on three or more chapters.)
None of these comments question the rise in CO2, changes in earth’s temperature, effects of CO2 on climate, or northern hemisphere warming trends. This was written in an attempt to understand the unusual terminology used in the SPM and to share the apparent explanation for that terminology. It’s based on expert judgment, created from a Delphi Method-like panel. Hopefully later IPCC reports will provide clarity on how the estimates were reached and the justifications for the qualitative selection of probabilities and confidence levels. The important point is that the confidence levels are personal judgments (a.k.a. gut level impressions) and not scientifically derived.
Update: A day later, Dr. Pielke has related comments that echo Dr. Schneider’s comments about the importance of the full range of perspectives appearing in a report based on expert judgment panels.’, ‘”Confident”, “Very confident” and “Very highly confident”
GUT FEEL GUESSES, IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE, NO LESS. Now get back under that rock, Luke, the slime mould is getting lonely.
a gut feeling
a feeling that you are certain is right, even if you cannot explain why. (ie) My gut feeling was that she was lying.
See also: feeling, gut
Cambridge International Dictionary of Idioms © Cambridge University Press 1998
So at the IPCC it involves bringing a number of self selected narcissistic “true believers”, seduced by their new role as “planet saviours” and “climate lords” together to form a closed loop with their heads up each others backsides.
To use the vernacular, these clowns plucked their “estimate” out of their bum.
What next, daily climate reports based on Hansen’s rectal thermometer reading?
“It was a tense morning here at the climate exchange as the markets digested the implications of a 4 point rise in Climate Lord Hansen’s anal reading. There were jitters in Hong Kong, a minor fart in Frankfurt and a full sphincter massage in New York. This is Luke Bowelblitzer for CNN”.
I have a scientific and mathematical background. However, I am growing increasingly dismayed at the current level of politico-scientific debate. Humanities to the rescue…
In the Folio Books Christmas catalogue, I see Barbara Tuchman’s ‘The March of Folly’. She offers an historical perspective on why intelligent people in high positions repeatedly pursue policies which are contrary to their own interests. She ranges from the Trojans pulling that horse inside the walls, to the Vietnam War. Her ideas could well extend to a couple of more recent wars, and the climate debate.
I would be interested in the views of historians on climate. Any historians out there?
That meeting in Bali. Why not do it electronically, instead of hundreds of delegates flying in?
Ian
what is the consensus of the deniers?
Ian
how sure are the deniers that they are right?
An uncertainty estimate for the model-derived aerosol direct RF can be based upon two alternative error analyses:
1) An error propagation analysis using the errors given in the sections on sulphate, fossil fuel BC and organic carbon, biomass burning aerosol, nitrate and anthropogenic mineral dust. Assuming linear additivity of the errors, this results in an overall 90% confidence level uncertainty of 0.4 W m–2.
2) The standard deviation of the aerosol direct RF results in Table 2.6, multiplied by 1.645, suggests a 90% confidence level uncertainty of 0.3 W m–2, or 0.4 W m–2 when mineral dust and nitrate aerosol are accounted for.
Therefore, the results summarised in Table 2.6 and Figure 2.13, together with the estimates of nitrate and mineral dust RF combined with the measurement-based estimates, provide an estimate for the combined aerosol direct RF of –0.50 ± 0.40
W m–2. The progress in both global modelling and measurements of the direct RF of aerosol leads to a medium-low level of scientific understanding (see Section 2.9, Table 2.11).
Is that just a random string of text you posted Luke or did you have a point to make?
As far as the ‘consensus’ of the ‘deniers’ is concerned i think most would say that mankind simply does not understand the climate totally and as such wouldnt know if it was indeed ‘broken’ or how to ‘fix’ it.
Ian
your “Gut feel” was actually a quote from the author of that link, who is not an IPCC scientist but was an individual who was criticising it. At no point has the IPCC used the phrase ‘gut feel’.
The IPCC process is a recognised means of trying to tie together numerous scientific investigations in disparate scientific disciplines. You can’t possibly do that from one team of scientists and one piece of scientific research.
How does the the denier camp collect together what it views as being the ‘no’ case?
SJT
So do you know the mathematical formula used to derive the 90 per cent figure?
Well does anyone know the formula used to derive this figure?
it seems to me that this is one of the most important figures published in human history and frankly guys it sounds a bity arbitrary and made up to me.
But surely I am wrong here and this is indeed a scientifically worked out figure?
Our class clown reveals himself as a sophistic bully boy as usual. Really this has to be one of the great idiotic moments and low points in this feral raconteur’s blog career.
A total misrepresentation of what the IPCC guidelines are and how they have been executed. The random post above is a threshold intelligence test which reveals a particular use certain statistics in an aspect of radiative forcing as AN example. The 4AR is littered with such stuff.
Indeed the IPCC scientists at times express low confidence in certain aspects. Their degree of certainty is expressed as professional domain experts not as recidivist rhetorical ranters or racoon rooters. The IPCC was asked to be given greater clarity to the reader in the 4AR on domain expert opinion.
Some assessments are statistical – some are expert opinion – just as you might receive from an oncologist or Tourette’s specialist in other cases. They are not expert opinion based on rectal withdrawl techniques which is obviously a well known domain knowledge area for some. It is expert opinion based on reviewing a significant body of literature, group debate, review comments, the depth of the science, multiple lines of evidence, ability to model outcomes, experience, and observations.
They may indeed be wrong. But how do we know anything in science is a complex philosophical question. Meanwhile in the real world risks need to assessed. I imagine even our resident pugilist would suggest he was more or less certain about some forest processes than others and very certain about some. Oh delete that – I forgot to adjust for the ego multiplier – he’d be certain about everything.
The IPCC documents even express doubt on certain issues and state such. The experimental problem for climate change is that we don’t have a replicate planet Earth to play with and decades to spend waiting for integration times.
Disbelieve their professional judgement if you must but let’s not be idiotic in our discussion of their confidence assessment techniques which are many and varied unlike our dyslexic amanuensis above.
It would seem to me Luke you are conceeding, albeit is a waffly sort of way, that the 90 per cent figure is indeed a ‘gut feel’.
SJT, there is no official “deniers camp”. That is a label used by climate true believers to describe anyone who might see reasonable room for doubt in any aspect of the IPCC manifesto.
Note, SJT, that the quote you described as “your (my) gut feel” was provided by Moore, apparently in the deluded belief that it supported the IPCC position.
And readers should go back over this thread for a case study in how the weasels avoid having to answer a critical question. Note, for example, the deliberate change of topic and more than 22 posts of prattle.
And note how Luke invented a reason to be offended, on behalf of people who were not named, and not even accused of anything, so he would have an excuse for not answering the question.
And when Luke eventually posts a description of what may appear to be a calculation of certainty, it is a calculation FOR A SINGLE ELEMENT OF RADIATIVE FORCING that is reconciled to the models only, not reality. That is the same models for which the admitted degree of UNCERTAINTY over cloud forcings and feedbacks is VERY HIGH, or they are left out altogether.
In a nutshell, they all want, and need, to believe the level of certainty is 90% so they set about ignoring any factors (and excluding any contributors) that might not assist in justifying that “gut feel”.
What next, Climate Tarot Cards?
And on the balance of this evidence, Luke, I will take my statement of principle a step further and state that this sort of (un)professional milieu is not a place where a person who values integrity highly would be well advised to be associated with.
Nope – do you think an oncologist usually goes on gut feel or expert opinion. Gut feel is intuition when confronted with scant or conflicting evidence – when you are using your experience more than a knowledge base.
And our gut feel as non-domain experts is worth nowhere near as much as experts who have studied phenomena in great detail.
In the final washup how would you arrive at “absolute proof” for any macroscale atmospheric process.
And to top it all off, we are seriously expected to believe that the sum of all doubts, on such major elements as solar radiation and cloud cover, within a context that remains within historical norms is, by elimination, equal to only 10%?
Hey matey boy – we are not hear to soley answer your demands – Who the hell do you think you are? Lord Muck?
You can find all manner of uncertainty measurements and discussions – don’t be a loon and just pick an example. Get off your lazy butt and do some reading. Oh that’s right – I forgot you don’t need to as you know everything.
Yes I agree a person who values integrity highly would be well advised to not be associated with your sort of arrant nonsense.
It’s easier to label our Australian climate scientists as fraudulent isn’t it?
Luke -“In the final washup how would you arrive at “absolute proof” for any macroscale atmospheric process.”
I don’t know – but then i don’t claim to know how the climate works.
It seems to me how you have described it as a case of best guesses and we shouldnt dare challenge these guesses as we are mere mortals.
Thanks for answering politely though.
Look at him go – digging a deeper hole – frothing on in complete ignorance. Rant rant rant rave on.
Paul – thank you – I’m merely saying these are most challenging problems. The global atmosphere is not something you can isolate in a experimental chamber and poke and prod it. Hence the term “Grand Challenge Problem”.
And now we are expected to alter the destiny of human kind on the basis of a punter’s assessment of what an oncologist does in diagnosis. You know absolute jack $hit about an oncological diagnosis, bozo. For a start, they at least take a biopsy to determine whether a lump is a problem or a simple wart. The IPCC would be consulting chooks guts and draining blood from the moment a patient’s temperature hit 38C.
But maybe we could have some gut feel about whether the gateway bridge will hold up? What a bimbo.
But dont you see that is why many people are skeptical? because it is so complex and that so much ‘proof’ is virtual?
Coupled with, what i have even seen you concede, some of the most amazingly bad journalism ever seen can make a casual observer very skeptical.
Ian
it’s being altered already. How’s the drought going where you live?
Paul Borg
how do you recommend that a problem as complex as AGW be summarised? There are literally hundreds of scientists and research projects that have been conducted. You are welcome to read them all, and see what you think, if you have several years to spare. Otherwise, you will have to rely on the informed opinion of experts, as we all have to do every day of our lives in regards to other areas of science and technology.
I have tried questioning my doctor a few times on medical treatments, and they usually give me the quick, pat brush off. I don’t give in that easily, and pursue the matter, and usually realise that they are going to punish me by giving me all the detail I want, which goes straight over my head, with talk of “ion channels” and other areas of medical technology I have absolutely no idea about. So I go with his orginal idea, “Take this, and see how it goes, it will probably work”.
SJT
“How do you recommend that a problem as complex as AGW be summarised?”
as accurately as possible with as little hyperbole as possible.
“Otherwise, you will have to rely on the informed opinion of experts”
which ones?
“as we all have to do every day of our lives in regards to other areas of science and technology.”
I do understand your point here SJT but we are talking about a massive change unprecedented in history – I, am sure you guiys, want this to be based on more than guesses.
“Take this, and see how it goes, it will probably work”.
hmm…My doctor does acupuncture. Apart from that he is fine. I have no idea wether or not you think sticking pins in someones skin is beneficial however i think you will agree that there is no scientific basis for it.
So Paul – tell me this – have you read the 4AR in detail?
“The IPCC would be consulting chooks guts and draining blood from the moment a patient’s temperature hit 38C.” well actually no – it’s a tad more sophisticated – you’d have to do some reading to find out. But you don’t need to – I keep forgetting.
In this case the global patient has a fever – Quack Quack Doc Ian is sending them home…. she’ll be right… it will just be a rush of blood to the head – I get them all the time he reassures.
Luke, no i havent.
Frankly much of it would be well over my head.
I do understand mathematics though. And I do understand how computer models work and their limitations.
Common sense also tells me there is so much going on in climate that we cannot possible understand it all.
I do not agree with Mr. Biggs either that fluctuations in climate can be traced to solar activity.
My doctor doesn’t do acupuncture, and if he did I would go elsewhere.
The science is all there, Paul Borg. Please, take a few years off from the rest of your life to read it all, then get back to me. There are numerous formulae.
The massive changes are unprecedented in history, which is why the scientists are saying we should be listening to what they are finding out from their research.
It’s not based on guesses at all, it’s based on science. This is the ‘synthesis’ report, the collation and summarisation of all the research. Since I would not have a snowballs hope in hell of understanding a fraction of what they are doing, I am glad they have gone to the trouble to create that report.
SJT
“The science is all there, Paul Borg. Please, take a few years off from the rest of your life to read it all, then get back to me.”
oh does this mean i cannot challenge or comment?
” Since I would not have a snowballs hope in hell of understanding a fraction of what they are doing, I am glad they have gone to the trouble to create that report.”
geeze SJT thats almost religious faith.
I know you dont agree with me but i want more than a computer model before i condemn my kids to an uncertain future with rationed energy.
Frankly i would take the risk thanks.
Paul
religious faith is just that. Accepting something to be true when you know there is no evidence.
There is plenty of evidence out there, and I have tried to read some of it, and talked to a scientist I know who is engaged in research in this area. There is evidence galore, even if I can’t understand a lot of it, and it’s full of formulae.
What’s the matter, you’re kids won’t be happy if they can’t play their Wii on a plasma screen?
As it is, the renewable energy option, combined with intelligent conservation and careful management of our carbon usage, will give us a very comfortable life style. It’s just a matter of being pro-active, rather than just sitting back and waiting for a reactive market to kick in.
And now, after the usual ad homs and slapstick, we get back to same old, “there there, it’s all very complex, don’t you worry about a thing because we’ve done all the thinking you will ever need”, line.
We have been led to believe that all this stuff was based on hard science, yet, when we actually get down to it, there is no defined sequence in a classic probability tree leading to this single number 90%. No, we have a single number, plucked from the bums of our self styled climate lords.
It is as if Christopher Skase and his mates got together and provided a range of profit projections over a number of iterations until they came to the consensus figure that they would put in the prospectus. A prospectus under which all humanity is expected to be compelled to comply with. But in fact, even a convicted fraudster and fugitive from justice like Skase did not have the front to try a scam that breathtaking in it’s contempt for due process.
This bunch of IPCC pond life have not even bothered to allocate even a minor roll for other drivers of change and have not even bothered to differentiate between potential natural and cyclical sources of CO2 (like resurfacing oceanic carbon from past warm periods).
IF THEY DID THIS IN A PROSPECTUS THEY WOULD ALL BE IN JAIL.
But readers should also recognise that Luke’s primary aim on this trail now, is to bury the truth in cheap shots and minor asides.
BUT THERE IS NO ESCAPING THE FACT THAT THE 90% CERTAINTY NUMBER IS ENTIRELY DERIVED FROM THE GUT FEEL OF A SELF SELECTED GROUP, WITHOUT EVEN THE MOST MINIMAL FORMAL SUBSTANTIATION.
Ian
worry all you want. The simple fact of the matter is that science is such a broad and complex area that no single person can understand it all. That’s a fact of life. If you want to be that person, please go ahead and give it a try.
The IPCC is not issuing a prospectus. “Gut Feel” was not the phrase used by the IPCC.
Ian
there are mountains of scientific studies on global warming. I have absolutely no idea where you get “WITHOUT EVEN THE MOST MINIMAL FORMAL SUBSTANTIATION” from.
SJT
As it is, the renewable energy option, combined with intelligent conservation and careful management of our carbon usage, will give us a very comfortable life style. It’s just a matter of being pro-active, rather than just sitting back and waiting for a reactive market to kick in.”
having worked for years in a company involved in ‘renewable energy’ I personally conclude we are well away from town scale RE
We just can’t do it SJT
I am all for throwing money at the development – heck it means i line my own pocket.
But your side of the argument suffers because of economics. We really have to consider as an alternative, even if the dire predictions are true, continuing as we are untill such technologies are ready to take the place of fossil fuels.
Tell me where I am wrong.
A new noun phrase has crept in, which may signal a modification in the views of “dat” resident clown, as in …”Meanwhile I see Bangladeshis have enjoyed their adaptation to a bit of the ol’ climate variation again…”.
Change means a different form or version of something (New Oxford) while “variation” is a difference in condition, amount, or level, within certain limits.
Paul Borg – “having worked for years in a company involved in ‘renewable energy’ I personally conclude we are well away from town scale RE”
Well that is usually a dead giveaway that you actually know nothing.
I can just as easily say having worked for years in the computer industry I can personally say that there will never be personal computers. In fact the world market for computers will only be five.
RE is the fastest growing segment of world energy at the moment and you conclude that we are well away from town scale RE – brilliant!!!
well maybe i know ‘nothing’ as you assert Ender however the proof is in the facts.
There is no town scale solar or wind power power plants…anywhere.
“Fastest growing”???
by what measure? Or is that gut feel?
I am buying ‘green’ electricity for only a small premium over the price of non renewable. I know it’s a bit of a fiddle on the part of the power company to an extent, but it means that investment will grow in renewables and that people can pay for it without getting sweat up.
As it is, todays Herald Sun has a story about rising power prices due to the drought. For some strange reason, people assume that not changing will save them money. Not changing is going to cost us at least as much and probably a lot more.
Look at Mottsa’s previous cess pit of a post. What’s the difference between Mottsa and a computer. You only have to punch the data into a computer once.
“This bunch of IPCC pond life have not even bothered to allocate even a minor roll for other drivers of change and have not even bothered to differentiate between potential natural and cyclical sources of CO2 (like resurfacing oceanic carbon from past warm periods).” WRONG – wot a tosser! P.S. U mean role.
“IF THEY DID THIS IN A PROSPECTUS THEY WOULD ALL BE IN JAIL.” ooooo ooooo bunkum – all you can see is Safe Harbour statements especially from shonky foresters – someone should be in jail for libel but then we’d miss the opportunity do him slowly.
“BUT THERE IS NO ESCAPING THE FACT THAT THE 90% CERTAINTY NUMBER IS ENTIRELY DERIVED FROM THE GUT FEEL OF A SELF SELECTED GROUP, WITHOUT EVEN THE MOST MINIMAL FORMAL SUBSTANTIATION.”
WILL YOU STOP SHOUTING !!!
I mean are you mental ? Wasn’t self-selected – was govt appointed domain experts. No substantion – jeez only about 6 inches of report. (Which you don’t need to read as you know what’s in it by telepathy). Really you are a bit of a drip aren’t you. But don’t stop – it’s not every day someone makes a complete boof of themselves and keeps going.
It’s amazing how quickly a misrepresentation can spread out on the internet.
The IPCC has never used the term “Gut Feel”. That was a comment on the part of the blog owner, who put it in quotes for some god knows why reason.
There are no town scale plants is right. The Howard government has sat on it’s hands for ten years, while actively aiding the coal industry to the tune of many millions of dollars. Only now at the end of his reign is something being done about it in a country that is perfect for solar power.
What I would like to know is, what is the state of the research on climateaudit?
Is someone going to get together with all the wise heads there and tell us what they have agreed is the state of their research into many aspects of global warming science, what they think is right and wrong in the denier side, and what they think the outlook is for the next century or so? Because I don’t see how they can at the moment, because it seems you arent’ allowed to do that sort of thing.
SJT – i don’t think Steve McIntyre has expressed an opinion, he just asked for an exposition of how 2xCO2 = 2.5C – a question that remains unanswered.
On the climate reconstruction front – Ababneh has lawyers, and there is a 2000-year reconstruction from Loehle currently being ‘audited.’
You need to be careful of what constitutes “green energy”, in NSW they were burning woodchips at Redbank. Chip is a renewable. 1 tonne coal has same energy as 25 tonnes woodchip so figure out those costs.
“gut feel” = Schneider
“..It is certainly true that “science‚” itself strives for objective empirical information to test theory and models. But at the same time “science for policy‚” must be recognized as a different enterprise than “science‚” itself, since science for policy (e.g., Ravetz, 1986) involves being responsive to policymakers” needs for expert judgment at a particular time, given the information currently available, even if those judgments involve a considerable degree of subjectivity.”
Funny, I don’t see the phrase “Gut Feel” there. He is talking about taking science, which is always imperfect, and applying to real world policy. Moving from the objective to the subjective.
Paul – “There is no town scale solar or wind power power plants…anywhere.”
How about Esperance? 15% of the town’s generating capacity is in 2 wind farms and it generates on average 22% of the annual demand. One or two more wind farms and a vanadium battery and it could go a lot more.
What a classic rearguard action by Flukeldinho. He claims that the body of AR4 constitutes the ‘substantiation’ of the 90% certainty figure. But that is no more scientific than asking people to rank a novel between 1 and 10 after reading. It is entirely subjective.
What best practice analysis would do is to provide a transparent sequence of determinations that are capable of explaining why the resulting level of claimed certainty is 90% rather than 75% or 60%.
It is no different to the question asked by Steve McIntyre, ie how did you obtain that figure?
In this case we know that they just plucked it out of their bum. Or maybe they stuck a big bag of hooch in the middle of the table and said, “hey guys, we need a stronger estimate of certainty, so pass the bong”.
But the way Luke and SJT are carrying on one almost expects them to come out with something like “climate science is infinite, like God, and it cannot be explained logically”. The cop-out of the eco-plodders.
Note their eagerness to bury the truth under a pile of bull$hit posts.
Im reading about coverups. Where main line climate guys are talking about the need to make the MWP disappear in order to make this AGW thing fly with the public.
You know I live in Calif. This is the state where the ancient bristlecones grow. Two mountains over from the White Mountain bristlecones there is another mountain made completely of obsidian. There was a volcano there that blew it’s top sometime around 1350 AD. In the catyclism a whole grove of pines of various type were blown down and buried. The wood was preserved by the volcanic debre such that usable cores could be extracted to recreate the climate from that time.
These are not cores from a rare tree that only grows in specific microclimes must be below a certain temperature for the tree to survive. These trees from the Medieval Warm Period are common today and grow in a wide range of the Sierra. Hot cold doesn’t matter.
The ghost tree cores show a MWP that was an average of 3.2 C degrees warmer then today. These ghost trees were growing at altitudes which don’t support these same species today.
Maybe if it gets to be a little warmer they will return to the MWP treeline, but not today.
Wiktionary says;
Subjective
– Pertaining to subjects as opposed to objects (A subject is one who perceives or is aware; an object is the thing perceived or the thing that the subject is aware of.)
– Formed, as in opinions, based upon subjective feelings or intuition, not upon observation or reasoning, which can be influenced by preconception; coming more from within the observer rather than from observations of the external environment.
– Resulting from or pertaining to personal mindsets or experience, arising from perceptive mental conditions within the brain and not necessarily from external stimuli.
– Lacking in reality or substance.
– As used by Carl Jung the innate worldview orientation of the introverted personality types.
– (philosophy) and (psychology) Experienced by a person mentally and not directly verifiable by others
Ender a town scale power plant is one that can power a major town – without the need for 85 per cent of that power coming from another fossil fuels. As i said the proof remains in the facts.
With due respect SJT drought is common in Australia. Always was and will always be.
“With due respect SJT drought is common in Australia. Always was and will always be.”
That’s why scientists measure these things, to understand if patterns are changing. So we can go beyond just saying “things just happen”. That attitude went out with the dark ages, we now try to understand what is happening and why.
Paul – “Ender a town scale power plant is one that can power a major town – without the need for 85 per cent of that power coming from another fossil fuels. As i said the proof remains in the facts.”
It is powering a major town. At times Esperance derives up to 65% of its demand from the wind. Are you trying to say that it is technically impossible for Esperance to build say 2 more wind farms and boost it share to 80% or so?
James – “Where main line climate guys are talking about the need to make the MWP disappear in order to make this AGW thing fly with the public.”
Whether the MWP exists or not is irrelevant to the current debate. The MWP whatever it’s extent and its severity was in independent event.
The current warming has a completely different cause and just because the MWP happened does not mean that current warming has the same cause as the MWP.
There is no conspiracy to remove the MWP as all climate scientists are aware of science enough to cope with the fact that warming events happen for different reasons. The only people that cannot get their heads around this concept are the skeptics such as yourself.
Chrisgo – A new noun phrase has crept in, which may signal a modification in the views of “dat” resident clown, as in …”Meanwhile I see Bangladeshis have enjoyed their adaptation to a bit of the ol’ climate variation again…”.
errrr … NO – considerable climate variability is a natural feature of the planet Earth – within an existing climate – El Ninos, La Ninas, a number of decadal oscillations all exist and move things around (within limits).
Climate change is when you have a significant external driver (solar, volcanism, CO2) moving that “climate” to another mean state. And conversely when you have climate change these inbuilt natural wobbles still all probably go on to some extent. SO – trends look wobbly – not straight lines !
Ergo I was not saying the cyclone in question was due to AGW !
Ender “It is powering a major town. At times Esperance derives up to 65% of its demand from the wind. Are you trying to say that it is technically impossible for Esperance to build say 2 more wind farms and boost it share to 80% or so?”
YesI am saying it would be impossible for Esperence to rely on wind for its power if they expect reliable power. The proof is in the facts.
SJT “That’s why scientists measure these things, to understand if patterns are changing. So we can go beyond just saying “things just happen”. That attitude went out with the dark ages, we now try to understand what is happening and why.”
oakey doak.
But the fact remains that drought is common in Australia – has been for recorded history and proxy history. And my rebuttal was to your implication that the drought is caused by fossil fuels and can therefor be overcome by switching to renewable energy.
“Where main line climate guys are talking about the need to make the MWP disappear in order to make this AGW thing fly with the public. ” …. errr what’s the reference for this James – your bum perhaps?
Mottsa hasn’t noticed that many things in the 4AR don’t get anywhere near 90%. You can best practice (= accountant gibberish) as much as you like but as to whether a piece of science or a scientific hypothesis is correct requires the value judgement of domain experts. You can’t statistically test for it.
So you’re talking crap and carrying on like an accountant. The 4AR sets out in great detail all the arguments but lazy bum is too important to sit down and read that exhaustive analysis (which includes many side statistical bits).
Noun: expert
1. A person with special knowledge or ability who performs skilfully
Adjective: expert
1. Having or showing knowledge and skill and aptitude
2. Of or relating to or requiring special knowledge to be understood
Noun: objective
1. The goal intended to be attained (and which is believed to be attainable)
2. The lens or system of lenses in a telescope or microscope that is nearest the object being viewed
Adjective: objective
1. Undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena
2. Serving as or indicating the object of a verb or of certain prepositions and used for certain other purposes
3. Emphasizing or expressing things as perceived without distortion of personal feelings, insertion of fictional matter, or interpretation
4. Belonging to immediate experience of actual things or events
[WordWeb.info]
Paul Borg – “YesI am saying it would be impossible for Esperence to rely on wind for its power if they expect reliable power. The proof is in the facts.”
Why? With suitable storage there is no reason why a town like Esperance could not be 100% renewable? And why should they expect to? If they only had a nuclear reactor then they could no more expect to rely solely on that than they could wind turbines, as nuclear cannot do peaking power so it would need the gas turbine backup as well. Also both gas and nukes need periodic maintenance so they need backup for these times as well.
Show me one major town where there is a sole means electricity generation. Only very isolated areas have sole power generation methods and they are always peaking plants like diesel or gas turbine. You can also ask them how reliable they are.
There is no requirement for anywhere to solely rely on wind or solar or indeed any one electricity source. We only need to reduce fossil fuel to less than 30% which is easily doable.
Ender
“Why? With suitable storage there is no reason why a town like Esperance could not be 100% renewable? ”
Therein lies our problem Ender
We cannot yet effectively store energy on such a required scale. If we could then we wouldnt even be having this debate. But alas we can’t – that is your ‘why’.
Fossil fuel power plants dont work on a scale to whatever wind is available hour to hour. That is just not possible. and wid is notoriously unreliable so the grid must be supplemented by a proper power station. Yes there may well be times – on windy days, where the wind power is generating 65 per cent of requirement. However that is unreliable and could drop at any time.
And that is why there is not a single town scale power sytem on earth that relies on wind as the primary source of power.
Paul
You’re just shooting the messenger. Careful use of fossil fuels will help out a lot, indiscriminate use of them is going to cause a lot more problems than not being able to watch a monster plasma screen.
SJT
Who am I shooting?
I am merely addressing the points raised in this thread – so far I beleive without hyperbole or insult common here.
“”indiscriminate use of them is going to cause a lot more problems than not being able to watch a monster plasma screen.””
Repeating your point of view does not make for a compelling argument. I already know your position on this issue.
My question put to you is that (assuming dire predictions about AGW are true) given no real alternative we must progress as we are until such a time as RE technology can deliver the goods.
The alternative is energy rationing, unreliable power or unaffordable power.
Each of which spells economic retardation on a global scale.
I cannot see where I am wrong
Nothing Luke says can hide the fact that the use of the 90% number clearly implies that it has been derived by some defined mathematical sequence. But it obviously has not and this, in itself, is dishonest.
Luke would also have us believe that the need to meet prevailing standards of practice in reporting matters of great importance is some minor peculiarity of the accounting profession that so-called “peak science” has no obligation to meet as well due to some innate augustness.
Nothing could do more to highlight his status as a lance corporal of industry than his ignorance of the importance of data integrity and properly maintained audit trails. If he had any sort of significant personal stake in any sort of practical field or venture, be it medicine, engineering, finance, geology, chemistry, agriculture etc, he would have taken this on-board as a core value.
So when we, the people who are expected to invest our lives in this ‘glamour stock’ called climate change, we have every right to ask, “how come the certainty number is 90% rather than 75% or 55%?
And it is clear that no-one at the IPCC, nor those at CSIRO, and certainly not our own little band of green blog-nazis, is able to explain why?
Paul Borg – you’re not wrong.
We can make close to a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions by converting existing coal fired plants to nuclear in the next ten to fifteen years.
That’s an economically affordable reduction using existing tecnology well beyond what either side of politics is prepared to committ to.
And it won’t happen because of irrational, unscientific superstition.
You do have to wonder how serious a threat AGW really is when nuclear can’t even be discussed in an election campaign.
Point taken Jim.
However the real problem (if we are to beleive the dire predictions about AGW) is China, India and the developing world.
I am unsure of the viability of nuclear versus coal both in terms of economic realities and political realities.
Agreed again Paul – but we’re told that per capita we’re the highest emitters and we should lead by example etc.
The answer for developing nations might well be nuclear as well – the Chinese pebble reactors look pretty promising.
As to the economics – I’m definitely NOT an expert but it seems clear that the capital costs of reactors means nuclear will be more expensive but still affordable.
The political costs are huge however.
My prediction is that the public will “wear” nuclear when the situation is so unquestionably dire that they have to.
If the doomsayers are right , it might be well after we’ve reached this much hyped “tipping point”.
Paul – “Therein lies our problem Ender
We cannot yet effectively store energy on such a required scale. If we could then we wouldnt even be having this debate. But alas we can’t – that is your ‘why’.”
Wind farms are already installing such storage systems.
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=47956
“Fossil fuel power plants dont work on a scale to whatever wind is available hour to hour. That is just not possible. and wid is notoriously unreliable so the grid must be supplemented by a proper power station. Yes there may well be times – on windy days, where the wind power is generating 65 per cent of requirement. However that is unreliable and could drop at any time.’
The example of the wind/gas plant at Esperance disproves this. The wind farms and the gas turbine talk to each other and the gas plant, not being baseload, vary it’s output minute to minute.
Wind is not actually that unreliable – with accurate weather prediction becoming more common the wind is very predictable. The only reason that there is no town powered solely by renewables is that fossil fuel at the moment is cheap, even subsidised, and the environmental effects can be externalised so it is much cheaper to use fossil fuels.
OK breaking news – just for Ian the IPCC are now introducing new categories from lowest to highest of science certainty:
Huh – what’s AGW, clueless (Louis LOSU), crap, bit dodgy, some issues, pretty sure, certain, bloody certain, friggin certain, as sure as night follows day.
Of course they have been there before and someone said – is friggin certain about 90% sure like??
Could you put a number scale on it. ARGH !
Jim – “We can make close to a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions by converting existing coal fired plants to nuclear in the next ten to fifteen years.
That’s an economically affordable reduction using existing tecnology well beyond what either side of politics is prepared to committ to.”
We could do it even faster and cheaper if we replaced them with renewables that have none of the problems of nuclear.
Quite apart from the fact that we would have to buy the reactors from overseas we would also have to buy the fuel there as well. You are willing to place our energy security into someone else’s hands?
There are problems right down to a shortage of skilled workers:
http://www.nei.org/keyissues/newnuclearplants/factsheets/initiativestargetloomingshortageofskilledworkers/
Imagine trying to find personnel to build the required 25 nuclear reactors in 10 or 15 years and the rates that you would be paying them as well as competing for the special materials that reactors need on the very tight global market.
Nuclear is not even close to being economical.
No Ender – wanting it to be doesn’t change the facts.
There is currently in existence no alternative to fossil fuel to meet our current and future energy needs EXCEPT nuclear.
Maybe renewable research holds the answer in the future; maybe economically viable power storage problems can be solved, maybe we can get to 60 or 70% solar efficiency, maybe hot rocks will solve it.
Maybe,maybe,maybe.
But if we’re serious about applying the precautionary principle and serious about the threat AGW poses then we have to be serious about short to medium term solutions.
I’m not against research into renewables – we probably only have about 100 years of nuclear fuel available anyway – but if we face potential catastrophe such as you , Luke and SJT suggest then we can’t put our faith in feel good solutions and hope.
And please – how does buying reactors or reactor designs from OS threaten our energy security?
We trade all sorts of things with foreigners – nothing to fear there.
Yes there are skill shortages in all areas these days even researchers in renewables.
Nuclear isn’t economical in comparison with coal I grant you but we know it’s costs and benfits as opposed to some yet to be discovered alternative sometime in the future.
“NO – considerable climate variability is a natural feature of the planet Earth – within an existing climate…Climate change is when you have a significant external driver (solar, volcanism, CO2) moving that “climate” to another mean state…” Posted by: Luke at November 20, 2007 09:16 AM
I don’t understand the distiction. When was the Earth in a constant “mean” state, independent of “external drivers”?
Meanwhile, here’s a sane assessment of ‘AR4’ and ‘The Science’:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4096/
Ender
“Wind farms are already installing such storage systems.
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=47956“
This piece refers to a 2MW for a mere 2 hours
modern power stations require at an absolute minimum 50 MW (more likely above 200MW) for a small one….continuously.
Were you joking? I cannot beleive that you beleive that we are capable of town scale power storage. No one is claiming they can and for a good reason. The technology just does not exist.
“”The example of the wind/gas plant at Esperance disproves this. The wind farms and the gas turbine talk to each other and the gas plant, not being baseload, vary it’s output minute to minute.””
Do you honestly beleive this?? Or are you just pulling my leg?
A power plant is not capable of varying with the wind minute by minute even if you could predict wind strength minute by minute.
And esperance gets the vast majority of its power from fossil fuels.
Please lets stick to facts.
Those facts are we do not have the technology to run town scale power off RE technology. It hasnt been done yet – not even close.
“There is currently in existence no alternative to fossil fuel to meet our current and future energy needs EXCEPT nuclear.”
The cheapest watt is the one you don’t use. Energy conservation is a vital part of the equation, as is charging the real price energy costs us. At the moment, cost shifting is going insane, as “JIT” is carried to absurd lengths. The company I work for supplied products to a car manufacturer once a week, in a big truck load. Now they are ordered daily, and delivered every few hours. What is that about? The cost of road transport is heavily subsidised at present, with trucks paying nothing like the real cost of damage they do to the roads.
Chrisgo – err “mean states”
As for Spiked – what a load of bilge
“What the IPCC reports actually talk about are the more prosaic problems of water supply, agricultural production, disease, extreme weather events and flooding: all of these are already-existing problems, and all of them are potentially resolvable through relatively simple societal and technological developments.”
Yea sure.
ROTFL
Paul – “Were you joking? I cannot beleive that you beleive that we are capable of town scale power storage. No one is claiming they can and for a good reason. The technology just does not exist.”
What even if the demand is 2MW you still need 50MW? This is the size it is because they designed it this way. Vanadium flow batteries can be virtually any size however for most situations this is enough.
“Do you honestly beleive this?? Or are you just pulling my leg?
A power plant is not capable of varying with the wind minute by minute even if you could predict wind strength minute by minute.”
Really are you this ignorant? Gas turbines are able to vary their output minute to minute. Have you never landed in a jet airliner and heard the engines throttling as the pilots land the plane. In this case the pilots talk to the FADEC that controls the engines. In Esperance a company called PowerCon installed control similar to these:
“The new power station encompasses seven 320kW LLD generators (one of which Verve are conducting tests by operating with bio-diesel), the Main Distribution Board and the SMS system which controls automatic operation of the station, including control of 2 x 600kW Enercon E40 Wind Turbines, one of which is new.”
That can automatically vary the output of the gas turbines in response to the wind.
“And esperance gets the vast majority of its power from fossil fuels.”
Only because the wind turbines are 15% of the installed capacity. In Albany:
http://www.pcorp.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=68&Itemid=158
“Commissioned in July 2001, the 22MW wind farm supplies the City of Albany with about 77 million units of electricity each year, enough to supply about 15,000 average homes, or up to 75% pf Albany’s electricity needs. The green energy produced by the wind farm displaces 77,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions annually from traditional power generation.”
and sometimes exports energy to the SWIS. Still think that there are no town size renewable projects?
SJT
“The cheapest watt is the one you don’t use. Energy conservation is a vital part of the equation”
energy use is paramount to mankinds development and continued prosperity.
At least though you seem honest enough to concede that to meet the targets of the various plans out there we would need to either ration, or make energy far more expensive as a dissensentive to use it.
Ender
“”Still think that there are no town size renewable projects?””
Why did you feel the need to rewrite my point of view? Is your position so weak you need to make a straw man to attack?
“”Gas turbines are able to vary their output minute to minute. That can automatically vary the output of the gas turbines in response to the wind.””
If this is the case you will have no problem posting a source to back your claim.
Paul – “Why did you feel the need to rewrite my point of view? Is your position so weak you need to make a straw man to attack?”
Did you write this?
“well maybe i know ‘nothing’ as you assert Ender however the proof is in the facts.
There is no town scale solar or wind power power plants…anywhere.
“Fastest growing”???
by what measure? Or is that gut feel?
Posted by: Paul Borg at November 19, 2007 07:06 PM”
Or was that another Paul Borg? Show me where I have rewritten your point of view.
“If this is the case you will have no problem posting a source to back your claim.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine#Gas_turbines_for_electrical_power_production
“Simple cycle gas turbines in the power industry require smaller capital investment than either coal or nuclear power plants and can be scaled to generate small or large amounts of power. Also, the actual construction process can take as little as several weeks to a few months, compared to years for base load power plants. Their other main advantage is the ability to be turned on and off within minutes, supplying power during peak demand. Since they are less efficient than combined cycle plants, they are usually used as peaking power plants, which operate anywhere from several hours per day to a couple dozen hours per year, depending on the electricity demand and the generating capacity of the region.”
and:
http://www.daws.com.au/pdf/Esperance_Case_Study.pdf
“The Esperance power system is presently one of the largest wind/diesel systems in the world. It is expected that the new gas turbine power station will be operating in 2004, making the Esperance power system a unique wind/gas turbine system. In this arrangement the wind farms will be controlled by the Master Controller to maximise production whilst maintaining sufficient load on the gas turbines to avoid reverse power operation and maintain system reliability.”
and:
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/btc/apps/Restructuring/WindPower1997.pdf
“Wind/Gas Hybrid projects – A wind project and a gas project could be operated jointly to take
account of the best features of each with the gas-fired generation providing the rapid response
required for control and wind extending the energy and possibly the capacity (Cadogan et al. 1992).
Generation technologies other than gas, such as hydro, might be used if the economic and physical
match is attractive. The hybrid might utilize dynamic scheduling to synchronize output if the projects
were not co-located.”
You replaced the phrase ‘town scale power plants’ with ‘renewable projects’.
And you still have failed to produce any source backing your minute by minute regulation of FF plant at Esperence claim.
You have failed tyo do this for a simple reason.
You were wrong.
SJT should start by turning off his PC.
Paul, Ender does this all the time. He has a brain that is capable of turning 15% of installed capacity into “towns scale” (whatever that means) on the basis of a temporary supply of “up to 75% of Albany’s electricity needs” (ie delivering 75% of the power being used in the lowest demand period). That is, when the remaining 85% of installed baseload capacity is recovering only 5.88% of overheads to deliver the remaining 25% of off-peak supply.
To him, numbers do not need to actually add up. They are mere symbols, of variable value, that can be employed at will to form any sequence that gives an appearance of logical, additive, form.
It is particularly so with matters nuclear. And beware, one must never, ever, make any causal link between this condition and the empirically recorded consequences of substance abuse.
Sorry Ian
‘Town scale’ is my phrase – an attempt to describe a power station cpable of supplying a major population base with power.
And yes Ender is certainly interesting – here is his ‘proof’ that gas power can regulate minute by minute to wind strength
“”maximise production whilst maintaining sufficient load on the gas turbines to avoid reverse power operation and maintain system reliability.””
I have a feeling he didnt even read it.
Paul – “And yes Ender is certainly interesting – here is his ‘proof’ that gas power can regulate minute by minute to wind strength
“”maximise production whilst maintaining sufficient load on the gas turbines to avoid reverse power operation and maintain system reliability.”””
So what do you suppose that controlling the generators to maintain sufficient load means. Do you actually have any idea of electricity or how it is generated. Do you need something that specifically says “minute by minute” control.
Esperance used to have diesels that were connected using advanced controllers with communications from the wind farms. Controlling the load is electricity speak for varying the output. As demand is very dynamic especially in an isolated grid such as Esperance it does vary on short timescales hence the need for initially diesel controllers and now this control has been extended to the gas turbine.
http://www.daws.com.au/projects/Esperance.html
“The wind farm includes a control system based on a Master Controller, which talks directly with the gas turbine control system to manage the wind farm output. Due to the distance of the wind farms from the power station, the system incorporates sophisticated high reliability communications equipment using digital radio modems and fibre optic within the wind farms.”
Finally found the link I was looking for. If the gas turbine could not vary in time with the wind there would be no point connecting it.
Be careful who you call wrong and just a suggestion do as I do and ignore Mott the arsehole – he just might go away if enough people don’t talk. The blog will be less polluted without him.
sigh…So far in this thread Ender you are the only who is insulting me so please don’t try to emlist me into your fueds.
“”Do you need something that specifically says “minute by minute” control.””
As that is your claim yes or words to that effect.
You havent – in fact you posted a source that confirms there is sufficient load on the gas turbines to maintain reliability.
In other words the FF plant is running on over need to supplement the unreliable wind farm in case it drops out.
Paul – “In other words the FF plant is running on over need to supplement the unreliable wind farm in case it drops out.”
I am not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse or just you really do not understand the fundamental concepts of electricity. So you have accepted that the gas turbine can be connected to the wind farm and vary with the output of the wind and the implied assumption is that the wind can gust on a minute by minute basis therefore the gas turbine must be able to vary on this timescale to be worth being connected to the wind farm.
In a classic bait and switch you now are insisting that this means that the wind farm is unreliable. A single renewable source in a single location like Esperance will be at the mercy of current winds and the FF generation will need to interact with the wind to ensure reliable supply which is exactly what happens. In this way the maximum reduction in gas consumption is achieved which is the objective of the wind/gas system at Esperance.
You make blanket statement such as the one you made that “There is no town scale solar or wind power power plants…anywhere.” and then are surprised that anyone would challenge you with examples of towns that derive a significant proportion of their electricity from renewable resources. To my mind your blanket statement did not imply that a town scale solar or wind power plant would have to be 100% renewable.
If you had stated that there are “no towns 100% supplied with renewables” then I would have agreed with you as there are none. I would have added however that even in a renewable future there will possibly never be any towns 100% supplied with renewable power as any future energy will include a mix of energy supplies including fossil fuels.
Ender
“the implied assumption is that the wind can gust on a minute by minute basis ”
This is because wind strength changes on a minuteby minute basis.
You whole argument is now based on lies..I will leave you to it.
Cheerio
Paul – “You whole argument is now based on lies..I will leave you to it.”
Sure – you leave not one iota better educated than when you started.
Why not read some of the really interesting documents at the NEMMCO and then try again sometime.
http://www.nemmco.com.au/
http://www.nemmco.com.au/nemgeneral/NEM_general.htm#Publications
It is the perfect place for you to actually read some accurate info for a change.
Enders logic – cream puff plus beer divided by Hansen’s rectal temperature equals global temperature response to CO2. Makes sense, not to me, but it makes sense to him. And I guess thats all that counts.
As is Lil’s practice, Tamino gets wielded like an axe, whenever the understanding is shaky…
For example, “Anyway http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/11/10/temperature-2007/ reviews the global temperature anomaly nunbers and suggests 2007 will be second “warmest” if you like that sort of thing.” has been swung more than once on these threads.
We’ll find out soon just how good Tamino and his disciples are … or perhaps it will be just meteorological calendar misunderstanding?
Ladies and gentlemen, the betting queues are open: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L27734670.htm
Hey, Lukefish! You’ve linked us to Tamino, on a couple of threads re: this 2007 temp ranking. Would you wanna bet on 2007’s rank based on Tamino thread?
Remember “http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/11/10/temperature-2007/ reviews the global temperature anomaly nunbers and suggests 2007 will be second “warmest” if you like that sort of thing…”
You can have spots #1 & #2, and I’ll take the rest… Tamino’s disciple’s are chanting, “use the force, er’ Luke!”