Brangelina thread

By popular request, Brad Keyes is only permitted to post in this thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    There are various projection for nuclear capacity by 2050

    I can believe that.

    They centre around 25%.

    Yup, no problem, I can accept that various projections you’ve looked at centre around 25%.

    The 2010 IEA Nuclear Road Map is a representative non-industry example:

    Ecofys is just as non-industry.

    THIS is where I call “BULLSHIT”. You’re apparently only accepting as “credible positions” as “only those that say we HAVE to have nuclear”.

    The horse goes BEFORE the cart.

  2. #2 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    I believe the German renewables experiment is bordering on disastrous in terms of emissions

    And this is based off it going nuclear free, right? And because of that you’re using it as “proof” that going nuclear free is not credible, right?

    Circular reasoning.

    Germany think they can do it. Scotland, Denmark, others think they can.

    But you “believe” otherwise. Except you’re wrong. You can’t even counter the facts of the huge lag time and great (and overrunning) expense, and instead insist that “all credible projections say that we have to have nuclear”.

    Credible meaning “saying we have to have nuclear”, right?

  3. #3 Brad Keyes
    March 15, 2013

    chek,

    when you produce vapid garbage like this I can only assume you’re hell-bent on giving the refrigeration industry a run for its money:

    The bastion of scientific integrity “Brad” is referring to is Andy “Bishop” Montford.

    Oh my sides. I think I need a lie down.

    Your comment is complete fucking crap.

    Content-free condescension.

    Take a Bex and a long lie down, you walking ozone hole.

    Hey: while you’re horizontal, maybe you could READ ‘Illusion.’

    As BBD says:

    If you research the miserable back history of the Hockey Stick you will find alarmist bias everywhere. If you can bring yourself to read Montford’s book you won’t find an attempt to ‘debunk’ AGW because that’s not what the book is about.

    It’s about science and climate politics, alarmism, fear promotion by the IPCC and the poisonous effects quite small numbers of people can have if they are in the right place at the right time.

    In short, you will find a detailed example of what happens when Schneider’s honest vs effective mindset gets out of control….

    The same proxies turn up again and again in paper after paper and (surprise!) yield broadly the same results.

    Unless you take time to find out about the commonalities behind the mass of mutually-supporting paleo reconstructions you won’t realise just how flimsy that particular consensus actually is.

    This is all detailed in [Montford's] book.

  4. #4 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    Wow

    Ecofys is just as non-industry.

    Ecofys is a *renewables advocacy*. It is not comparable to the IEA in any meaningful way. That you think it is says it all.

    If you really believe the wild end of claims made about renewable potential, then fine. You are entitled to your opinion.

    If you wish to reject the ~25% estimate based on SRREN, fine. You are entitled to your opinion.

    Allow me to be entitled to mine: you are indulging in shouty, strawman rhetoric instead of taking an objective view of the evidence.

  5. #5 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    “Ecofys is a *renewables advocacy*.”

    And IEA is the energy equivalent of the RIAA.

  6. #6 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    “instead of taking an objective view of the evidence.”

    The only evidence YOU have is “I think it is so, as supported by sources that also think the same”.

  7. #7 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    David MaKay is often touted by pro-nukes as an “indepentent voice” and his book touted as “reasoned and informed”.

    But when you point out that his entire screed has been slanted to push nuclear power and belittle and reject renewables (in the Hot Air case, wind), it gets pooh-pooh’d.

    David is pushing an agenda.

    Which for people like you is an acceptable one, therefore overlooked (“because he does say renewables are slightly useful, that’s proof he’s fair-minded!!!”).

    There are several similarities between this and BK’s bullshit. Since he *likes* the rhetoric of McIntyre, he doesn’t SEE the bias. Even when pointed out to him.

  8. #8 Brad Keyes
    March 15, 2013

    BBD,

    Wow’s got you dead to rights here!

    The only evidence YOU have is “I think it is so, as supported by sources that also think the same”.

    Don’t you know anything about reasoning Wow-style, BBD?

    You need to cite sources that contradict you.

    ;-)

  9. #9 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    Sigh.

  10. #10 Brad Keyes
    March 15, 2013

    Tell me about it.

  11. #11 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    Actually, I’ll go further than that. You grossly, offensively mischaracterise David MacKay. I’m willing to bet you haven’t read the book, and you are ranting because you don’t like the fact that a detailed, fact-based analysis demonstrates that renewables alone aren’t going to come close to providing enough energy. I’d stop, *now*, before you make matters any worse.

  12. #12 Brad Keyes
    March 15, 2013

    I’d stop, *now*, before you make matters any worse.

    To Wow that’s not a warning, it’s a dare.

  13. #13 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    David MacKay has a message for you:

    I’m concerned about cutting UK emissions of twaddle – twaddle about sustainable energy. Everyone says getting off fossil fuels is important, and we’re all encouraged to “make a difference,” but many of the things that allegedly make a difference don’t add up.

    Twaddle emissions are high at the moment because people get emotional (for example about wind farms or nuclear power) and no-one talks about numbers. Or if they do mention numbers, they select them to sound
    big, to make an impression, and to score points in arguments, rather than to aid thoughtful discussion.

    This is a straight-talking book about the numbers. The aim is to guide the reader around the claptrap to actions that really make a difference and to policies that add up.

  14. #14 Wow
    March 15, 2013
  15. #15 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    You know, BK does the same thing with McI/Watts/et al that you do with David MaKay here.

  16. #16 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    “David MacKay has a message for you:

    I’m concerned about cutting UK emissions of twaddle – twaddle about sustainable energy.”

    Yup, pretty obvious he has an axe to grind. At least one positive note: he’s biased as much FOR nuclear as AGAINST renewables.

    Some are just AGAINST renewables.

  17. #17 Brad Keyes
    March 15, 2013

    David MacKay has a message for you:

    Eh, it’ll be wasted on Wow.

    I liked it though. Someone needed to say this:

    Twaddle emissions are high at the moment because people get emotional (for example about wind farms or nuclear power) and no-one talks about numbers.

    For example, if we’d adjourned to Romm’s place we’d have to contend with someone called Merrelyn Emery, who’s “arguing” (if that’s the right word) that nuclear power

    could be free and I would still reject it. It is an anti-life technology and a mistake born of human hubris, ignorance and utter disrespect for Earth, ME

    Oh, and:

    Dr Emery is considered a serious climate-change academic and adult in Australia.

    “Lucky country” indeed.

  18. #18 Brad Keyes
    March 15, 2013

    BBD:

    “You [Wow] grossly, offensively mischaracterise David MacKay.”

    You know, it does the same thing with McI/Watts/et al that it does with David MacKay.

  19. #19 Brad Keyes
    March 15, 2013

    Yawn.

    I’ll leave you to it.

    Good luck BBD. You’ll need it.

  20. #20 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    Wow

    You have completely lost the plot. Talk to yourself for a bit.

    FWIW, I’ve met MacKay and you have grossly, offensively mischaracterised him. Your link is clueless btw.

    Moreover, in the case of the brilliant, affable, persuasive, and engaging David Mackay, whose position as a professor at Oxford

    MacKay teaches at Cambridge FFS.

  21. #21 Brad Keyes
    March 15, 2013

    BBD:

    Wow

    You have completely lost the plot. Talk to yourself for a bit.

    I have to deal with him every.

    Fucking.

    Day.

  22. #22 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    Finished reading. Hickey’s weightless, opinionated, number-free ‘critique’ is a beautiful example of you doing exactly what you accuse me of. You have referenced opinion instead of fact.

    And Wow, I really do not appreciate the comparison with BK. You are on very thin ice with that shite.

  23. #23 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    “You have completely lost the plot.”

    There was no plot.

    You’ve only insisted that we have to have nuclear.

    And ignored that we have AT LEAST 10 more years before the “new and safe” designs have been built and run as a commercial size TEST, not an actual commercial product.

    And that having been built, they will HAVE to run for 40 years.

    And that while we’re pouring money and concrete into this, there’s nothing left to put in to renewables.

    Moreover, the industry itself demands a much-higher-than-current *guaranteed* ROI from government coffers or they will not bother.

    Apparently the industry doesn’t think it’s worth it either.

    You, however, do.

    Because you won’t look. Won’t think. Won’t change.

  24. #24 Brad Keyes
    March 15, 2013

    And Wow, I really do not appreciate the comparison with BK. You are on very thin ice with that shite.

    Nor do I appreciate BBD being put in the same league as me, Wow.

  25. #25 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    ” number-free ”

    Uh, OK, I’ll put some numbers to it to the same standard as you do:

    2050, 100% of electricity can be generated from renewables. We have ZERO safe and tested new design nuclear power plants, only prototypes that have overrun by 10 years and looking to go on for 14 year overrun.

    There you go, lots of numbers.

  26. #26 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    “And Wow, I really do not appreciate the comparison with BK.”

    Because it doesn’t show you in good light. One solution would be for you not to act like him and crawl out of your comfort zone.

  27. #27 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    2050, 100% of electricity can be generated from renewables.

    Rubbish. You have already comprehensively demonstrated cluelessness on this topic, so it’s time to leave you to talk to yourself.

  28. #28 Brad Keyes
    March 15, 2013

    Wow,

    this criticism of BBD goes too far:

    Because you won’t look. Won’t think. Won’t change.

    Not for the better, maybe. But his volte-face on climate change proves that an excess of consistency isn’t his problem.

  29. #29 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    ‘Rubbish’ – reference: IPCC SRREN. You are in strong disagreement with the IPCC!

  30. #30 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    ” 2050, 100% of electricity can be generated from renewables.

    Rubbish. ”

    Fine.

    Now I can say to you:

    Finished reading. Your weightless, opinionated, number-free ‘critique’ is a beautiful example of you doing exactly what you accuse me of. You have referenced opinion instead of fact.

  31. #31 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    Go on, tell the world why he picked the % of land used that he did, despite the FACT that the occupied space is so small. Then, when THAT didn’t preclude wind power doing it, reduced it by a factor of four and then after all this predicated cherry picking said “This proves Wind Power cannot do it! THEREFORE WE MUST GO NUCLEAR!!!!”.

  32. #32 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    I referenced the IPCC SRREN.

  33. #33 Brad Keyes
    March 15, 2013

    Did I warn you about Wow’s echolalia?

  34. #34 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    Oh, and used turbine designs that were already obsolete (small) and insisted they would be used for the next 30 years, despite current designs being much more efficient.

    (then go look at the DUKES study, which shows that generation/nameplate is about 60% for nuclear)

  35. #35 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    “I referenced the IPCC SRREN”

    Yeah, you did. So what?

    I referenced several sources with a plan for 100% renewable.

  36. #36 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    Because mainland Britain is small, and mostly owned by people, or inaccessible, or wilderness reserve (we call them National Parks) or otherwise unsuitable for commercial scale wind generation. You haven’t read the text.

    Nowhere does MacKay say ‘we *must* go nuclear. WTF? This is a grotesque misrepresentation. Read the text.

    MacKay’s analysis shows that realistically installable onshore wind doesn’t have the necessary capacity or anything close. So *offshore* wind is invoked to increase UK wind capacity potential. Which happens to be exactly what is being built as we speak.

    This conversation is becoming ever-more bizarre.

  37. #37 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    Oh FFS wow. Large turbines on 400m masts have to be spaced further apart. The capacity factor gain for *onshore* wind isn’t anything like as great as you think.

  38. #38 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    “Because mainland Britain is small”

    Do you know what “percentage” means???

    Why did he pick the %.

  39. #39 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    You’re doing EXACTLY as Bray does.

  40. #40 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    “Oh FFS wow. Large turbines on 400m masts have to be spaced further apart.”

    Do you ALWAYS precede the blindingly fucking obvious with “Oh FFS”?

    Here’s a tip for you, kid: wind turbines go UP, not flat.

    So, if there’s a bigger gap between them, they use up less land.

  41. #41 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    Nowhere does MacKay say ‘we *must* go nuclear

    Yup, exactly like Bray.

    “Where did I ever claim I denied AGW!!!”

  42. #42 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/14/nuclear-power-european-commission-investigation

    reports that ministers and EDF are discussing a minimum or “strike” price for the nuclear-generated electricity of a little under £100 per megawatt hour – nearly double the current market rate. However ministers will be hoping that their regular meetings with EC officials will make it more likely that a full inquiry will be avoided.

    Under the proposals, a nuclear power station – the first for a generation – will be built at Hinkley in Somerset, and the government will guarantee a minimum price for the electricity produced for 30-40 years, a deal which could cost customers a billion pounds a year or more.

  43. #43 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    I referenced several sources with a plan for 100% renewable.

    Which are in strong disagreement with the IPCC. When this happens, we usually ignore the other stuff, do we not?

  44. #44 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    And despite claims you read it, you didn’t apparently, else you would have noted this:

    “In “Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air”, Professor MacKay compares an energy demand of 490 GW with his calculated British renewable resource of 450 GW, and comes to the conclusion that Britain cannot power itself from renewables. But in reality, British energy demand is 205 GW. That’s the confirmed 2008 number, from the official Digest of UK Energy Statistics. (see Table 1.1, Final Consumption minus Non-energy use). That’s less than half the demand figure used in the book, when looking at whether his calculated renewable resource is enough. When we compare the renewable resource with the current demand figure, we see that the resource is more than double current energy demand: and that’s before any energy efficiency measures. And that makes a huge difference: by using the real figure for demand, we see that the UK renewable resource is much higher than current energy demand, so Britain could comfortably power itself from its own renewables.”

    But you count this:

    Hickey’s weightless, opinionated, number-free ‘critique’

    Number free???

  45. #45 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    Which are in strong disagreement with the IPCC.

    Nope, it isn’t. Chapter 10. Fig 10.26 includes several “No Nuclear” options.

  46. #46 Brad Keyes
    March 15, 2013

    This conversation is becoming ever-more bizarre.

    Just imagine how great it’ll be in a few hours—I really do have to hit the sack now, but can’t wait to see what kind of psychedelic consensus you two scholars have hammered together by morning!

    I shall sleep soundly, knowing that The Science™ is in the hands of such rational, Skeptical, responsible interpreters.

  47. #47 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    So, if there’s a bigger gap between them, they use up less land.

    Eh? You need to take a breather.

    And wow, your shrill but fact-free rejection of MacKay’s analysis is rather too close to BK’s rejection of ECS etc for comfort. You are projecting like a fire hose.

  48. #48 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    Crank reference. See Patrick Stewart in comments and the blustery non-response from the author.

    Leave it, wow.

  49. #49 Wow
    March 15, 2013
    So, if there’s a bigger gap between them, they use up less land.

    Eh? You need to take a breather.

    Why? Can’t keep up?

    Do you want to actually say something or just blather as if you’re rebutting the statement? That’s another thing Bray does constantly.

  50. #50 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    No, my point is that you have stopped making sense. More space between them = more land use. No?

  51. #51 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    And wow, your shrill but fact-free rejection of MacKay’s analysis

    You keep claiming using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Plenty of fact.

    You just won’t accept it.

  52. #52 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    No, my point is that you have stopped making sense

    No.

    You’ve stopped thinking. It means that any facts that come your way afterward are not understood.

    You need to read, not think with your gut.

  53. #53 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    Crank reference.. See Patrick Stewart in comments

    And therefore since Bray posts here, that proves AGW is false???

    Bullshit.

  54. #54 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    MacKay claims 450TW was needed in 2008. What was needed was 208TW.

    Why did he lie?

    Because he wants to push nuclear and demonise renewable (wind).

  55. #55 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    Sigh. Read Patrick Stewart’s comment to the Energy Numbers article – he nails it exactly. Slow down, go back and read. And I repeat – you clearly have not read MacKay. Nobody who has read MacKay would ever say anything as ridiculous as this:

    Why did he lie?

    Because he wants to push nuclear and demonise renewable (wind).

    You are making a colossal prat out of yourself. Again, I urge you to *stop* now.

  56. #56 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    “You are making a colossal prat out of yourself.”

    Oh, how?

  57. #57 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    The full statement was:

    “MacKay claims 450TW was needed in 2008. What was needed was 208TW.

    Why did he lie?

    Because he wants to push nuclear and demonise renewable (wind).”

    But, like Bray, you snip out for no apparent reason then claim “YOU FOOL!”.

    Stop doing what Bray does.

  58. #58 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    I guess on this subject, “Number free” means “No numbers I will deign to note”, right?

    Tell you what, instead of CLAIMING that you read Hickey’s post, in the same way Bray CLAIMS to have read Merchants Of Doubt, why don’t you actually READ IT, hmm?

    It is patently obvious you haven’t.

  59. #59 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    And where the fuck is this patrick stewart you keep bleating on about? He’s a great actor, but he doesn’t seem to be posting at the guardian or small-time blogs.

  60. #60 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    Nobody who had read MacKay and noted his made up figures for UK power requirements has NOT asked themselves why he lied about it.

    Those who read the message, not the content, seem to be all adrift about where the lie is, even when pointed out to them.

  61. #61 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    You are becoming extremely tedious (h/t David B Benson).

    Read. Start here:

    Here we’ll reflect on our estimates of consumption and production, compare them with official averages and with other people’s estimates, and discuss how much power renewables could plausibly deliver in a
    country like Britain.

    The questions we’ll address in this chapter are:

    1. Is the size of the red stack roughly correct? What is the average consumption of Britain? We’ll look at the official energy-consumption numbers for Britain and a few other countries.

    2. Have I been unfair to renewables, underestimating their potential? We’ll compare the estimates in the green stack with estimates published by organizations such as the Sustainable Development Commission, the Institution of Electrical Engineers, and the Centre for Alternative Technology.

    3. What happens to the green stack when we take into account social and economic constraints?

    Why not familiarise yourself with the text? It is obvious you’ve never read it.

  62. #62 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    # 43

    You haven’t even read your own reference, have you? Hickey links to Energy Numbers – you quote this above at # 29. RTFR, including comments, and you will answer your own question. But first – # 45.

  63. #63 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    That’s rich. “It is obvious you’ve never read it.” from you?

    Mr “Number-free”? It is to laugh.

    David claims 450TW is needed. Only 205TW is. Does it stack up? Hell no!

    If your assinine assertion that a bigger wind turbine requires more space and negates the per-acre-production, WHY THE HELL DO PEOPLE BUY BIGGER TURBINES????

    You’re a frigging fruitloop, kid.

  64. #64 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    Oh fuck off you tedious windbag.

    Really.

    Fuck right off.

    MacKay is pushing nuclear and you LOVE it. That’s all you’re willing to hear.

  65. #65 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    MacKay makes up a worse-than-worst-case scenario, reduces it by a factor of four, doesn’t explain WHY he picks the numbers and goes “Viola! Wind energy doesn’t do it. Go nuclear, it’s great”.

  66. #66 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    Oh, GW, not TW.

    The factor difference between David’s claim and reality is still the same.

  67. #67 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    RTFR.

  68. #68 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    So lost even the semblance of language, hmmm?

  69. #69 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    Not at all. I’m waiting for you to RTFR (#45) and respond substantively to what you find there.

  70. #70 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    That’s like pointing to WTFUWT and demanding “Respond substantively to what you find there!”.

    You DO know that, using impeccable maths, you can PROVE you never get to work, right? Subtract the weekend (48 hours) from the hours in a week, then subtract the travel to work, then subtract how long you eat, subtract….

    And eventually, you find that over a week, there are no more hours left!

    His red column adds up.

    But it DOESN’T add up to what renewables have to do.

    Do some maths yourself. You know, where you do more than one sum. You’ll find he’s talking shit.

    Well, obviously, YOU won’t because you won’t even try.

  71. #71 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    And the green bar doesn’t add up, because he’s pulling WRONG NUMBERS out of thin air.

    Hell, I could show that the atomisation of all the hydrogen on the planet isn’t enough to power my home if I get to put wrong numbers on the energy budget.

  72. #72 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_Kingdom

    10 exajoules = 2.8×10^12kwh
    60 million people, 365 days in a year.
    128kwh per capita.

  73. #73 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    Remember to drop that figure since ICE is ~20% efficient (less losses getting the petrol to the pump), whilst electric engines are 60%, including losses getting the power to the battery.

  74. #74 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    You are wittering. Read the reference and respond substantively. MacKay revises demand estimates downward throughout his analysis. If you were only to read it, you would see this. The Energy Numbers ‘critique’ (Hickey’s *only* substantive reference) is essentially meaningless noise, very much in the WTFUWT mould.

    Now, come on:

    - How much energy (kWh/d does MacKay use for the five energy plans? (red stack).

    - Is MacKay’s original estimate of renewable energy (p103; green stack) too high or too low? Clue here.

    This is getting ever-more tedious. You need to read the reference.

  75. #75 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    Yes, I’ve responded substantively.

    His figures are made up.

    Fabricated.

    Wrong.

    And additionally, the bare fact of the matter is it is far too late for playing with nuclear power and we haven’t the time or the money to waste on the boondongle.

    Nuclear power would kill our chances of avoiding the worst of climate change.

  76. #76 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    Total energy use in the UK 128kwh/d/p. Not 195.

    From offshore (shallow sea) wind ALONE can power THREE TIMES our energy requirements.

  77. #77 chek
    March 15, 2013

    I haven’t had the time to read your references yet chaps, but I’d like to throw into the mix (from a position of almost total ignorance I may add) that one of the reasons that Gen 4 reactors seem attractive to me is their ability to consume the waste that’s been accumulated from traditional (weapon-producing) reactors and which will otherwise remain hazardous for hundreds of millennia, whilst not facilitating weapon technology either.

    That ability seems to me a mighty plus point alone. Without that tech, the present alternative seems to be hope that the longevity and integrity of our current storage systems outlive any previous human civilisations by a factor of several thousands

  78. #78 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    Total energy use in the UK 128kwh/d/p. Not 195.

    From offshore (shallow sea) wind ALONE can power THREE TIMES our energy requirements.

    I still cannot follow your argument.

    MacKay uses 125kWh/d in the five energy plans of which 48kWh/d/p is electricity consumption. (Ref.)

    MacKay initially estimates 20kWh/d onshore wind, 16kWh/d shallow offshore and 32kWh/d deep offshore. Big numbers. (Ref.)

    Compare with estimates from other sources (ref as above)

    Onshore wind (kWh/d)
    IEE – 2
    Tyndall – 2.6
    IAG – 2.6
    PIU – 2.5
    CAT – 1

    Shallow *and* deep offshore wind (kWh/d)
    IEE – 6.4
    Tyndall – 4.6
    IAG – 4.6
    PIU – 4.6
    CAT – 21

    ?

  79. #79 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    “That ability seems to me a mighty plus point alone.”

    Problems still abound. Proliferation is still a huge problem, whether it will actually work with enough of the output of previous generations (it doesn’t work like the little Mr Fusion in Back To The Future, you know), and the fact that years late and horrendously over budget, the two test reactors are still years away from getting online.

    Doesn’t matter how good the tech, when it gets built, actually is.

    It’s thinking about grouting the bath when your car is out of control: yes, you’d need to do it if you survive the oncoming truck, but it’s hardly time to be thinking about it at the moment.

  80. #80 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    “MacKay uses 125kWh/d in the five energy plans”

    Really? When you opined “Start here:” you linked to this:

    The red stack in figure 18.1 adds up to 195 kWh per day per person.

    Apparently, all this time you’ve been demanding that I read the shit you point me to, you haven’t bothered reading it yourself…

  81. #81 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    His figure for offshore is an eighth of the actual reserves.

    His calculations only work if you accept them.

    I.e. he’s proven he can add.

  82. #82 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    Apparently, all this time you’ve been demanding that I read the shit you point me to, you haven’t bothered reading it yourself…

    ;-)

    How then could I be so sure you were mistaken? I refer you to # 45 and # 62.

  83. #83 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    @ BK

    Yes, yes, Night of the Living Game Theorists.

  84. #84 David B. Benson
    March 16, 2013

    Brad Keyes — I missed your questions earlier.

    There are no benefits to rapid global warming which are not vastly outweighed by the harm done. In particular, warmer air holds more moisture so when it rains it rains harder; often much harder destroying crops and even washing away soils.

  85. #85 Brad Keyes
    March 16, 2013

    BBD:

    @ BK

    Yes, yes, Night of the Living Game Theorists.

    Not so long ago, I seem to recall your congratulating Wow for his advocacy efforts in manning the thread against the denialist hordes.

    Now do you understand why we laughed so hard?

    Now do you get the joke about Wow being on the Heartland payroll?

  86. #86 Brad Keyes
    March 16, 2013

    David:

    Brad Keyes — I missed your questions earlier.

    No worries, thanks for getting back to me.

    There are no benefits to rapid global warming which are not vastly outweighed by the harm done.

    My question was not about the theoreticohypothetical effects of “rapid global warming,” but those of the AGW we’ve had so far.

    Also, my question was not about what (IYHO) outweighs what, but about the gross / raw benefits that have accrued so far.

    I can’t agree that they were “vastly outweighed by the harm” unless I know what they were.

  87. #87 chameleon
    March 16, 2013

    BBD?
    No, you toe-rag. TL is accusing *you* of using a sock. And so are the rest of us. Stop pretending that you do not understand the obvious. You look bad enough already.
    ???
    Are you now accusing me of being BradK and commenting under Chameleon?
    And who are ‘the rest of us’?
    Wow and Bill and Chek?
    The accusation was clearly made at the bottom of my question to the moderator/s that I used a ‘sock’ and that is why my comments have been held up in moderation.
    Bill and chek have both clearly accused me of same and want an explanation from me.
    You appear to be the one who claims you know what’s going on re my comments.
    Please point me to the comment/s that you claim are ‘sock’ comments from me.

  88. #88 Brad Keyes
    March 16, 2013

    David:

    In particular, warmer air holds more moisture so when it rains it rains harder; often much harder destroying crops and even washing away soils.

    The first thing I notice about the logical structure of this claim is that, if it’s true, it’s true no matter how fast or slow AGW is.

    This compels the question: are we…

    a) …at the best possible temperature now? In which case, was It a providential deity Who so arranged the universe?

    b) …already too warm? In which case, how far back in time does the climate need to shift to return to the ideal temperature? What was the best year on record for air wetness / rainfall softness / crop rain-resistance / dirt rain-resilience?

    c) …still below the optimal temperature? In which case, how much AGW do you recommend?

  89. #89 Brad Keyes
    March 16, 2013

    BBD:

    “I referenced several sources with a plan for 100% renewable.”

    Which are in strong disagreement with the IPCC. When this happens, we usually ignore the other stuff, do we not?

    Duh. It’s hardly a secret that the alarmist movement depends on ignoring evidence that doesn’t fit the narrative.

    Still, it’s refreshing to see you blurt this out so guilelessly and unapologetically.

  90. #90 Brad Keyes
    March 16, 2013

    BBD:

    @ BK

    Yes, yes, Night of the Living Game Theorists.

    Hehe. ;-)

    All right, BBD, now that we’ve shared some laughs at Wow’s expense you can keep making nice to me if you really want to—it’s certainly preferable to your usual abrasive polemicism—but it’ll only take you so far. We can be as chummy as you like, I’m still not about to forget that you’ve accused me, and accused everyone else of accusing me, of using a sock-puppet.

    Either justify your delusion or lose it.

  91. #91 chameleon
    March 16, 2013

    David B? @#84?
    Your answer implies that there is such a thing as a climate utopia.
    While I heartily wish that was true, can you at least clarify what you would consider a ‘benchmark’ for acceptable and/or harmless global average temperature?
    BTW your earlier link re solar panels and the associated logistics has sparked a fiery debate between BBD and Wow.
    It does indeed advocate nuclear energy and it also outlines the future conundrum re energy that BBD seems to have grasped but Wow and to a lesser extent Bill seems to have missed.
    If you feel inclined, I would be interested in you furthering your perspective on the practical applications of planning for future energy requirements

  92. #92 chameleon
    March 16, 2013

    Moderator/s,
    please restore my ability to comment in synch at the deltoid blog.
    I have not and have no intention of using ‘socks’.

  93. #93 Brad Keyes
    March 16, 2013

    BBD,

    here’s another credal contradiction of yours that’s been bugging me.

    Remember how you went through that scientific integrity phase a couple of years ago?

    One of the facts you explained (rather well) was

    the point about the Hockey Stick. Which is that it was created by Mann, Bradley and Hughes using very carefully cherry-picked proxies and a methodology custom-built to provide the ‘right’ result: a hockey stick.

    It is the reasons for which this was done that must be examined. The blatant promotion of an alarmist paper by absolutely everyone up to and including the IPCC in the TAR is unforgivable.

    I reiterate that I agree this doesn’t ‘falsify’ AGW. Obviously. But it reveals the lengths some are prepared to go to to promote ‘their’ hypothetical take on the consequences of AGW.

    This is not correct scientific practice.

    So far so good.

    But if you know the IPCC’s actions were unforgivable, what excuse can you possibly have not only to forgive them but to suddenly start trusting their authority to the exclusion of everyone who disagrees with them? How can you possibly place such credulity in an institution you yourself were telling us, only 2 years ago, could not to be forgiven for its actions:

    Which are in strong disagreement with the IPCC. When this happens, we usually ignore the other stuff, do we not?

    This is borderline-type thinking. Are your principles really so shallow, labile and amnestic, BBD? Your loyalty to science?

    Please don’t insult me with a cliché like, “research changes POV.”

    Thank you. I’m aware of that.

    I know it does. On certain things. On contingent topics; matters of nature, matters of climate, and so on.

    But this is not one of those topics. The truth of this:

    This [conduct by the IPCC et al.] is not correct scientific practice.

    does not depend on any empirical or experimental finding. It doesn’t matter how warm it is today; it doesn’t even matter what our planet’s ECS turns out to be: no amount of “research” would have “changed” your “POV” if you’d grokked how science works.

    It was a statement of principle.

    A principle you apparently hold all too cheap.

    :-(

  94. #94 Brad Keyes
    March 16, 2013

    PS: If you insist on knowing, and still haven’t guessed, why I have so little interest in your trivial pursuit questions about ECS it’s because climate science per se bores the Christ out of me. I don’t mean to denigrate your hobby, and I’m sure it’s a fascinating discipline in its own special way. (Well, maybe.) And one needs to be at least minimally conversant in it just to argue about the Climate Wars. But my real interest here is in science itself.

  95. #95 Vince Whirlwind
    March 16, 2013

    Brad asks,

    When you’ve got a minute, Vince, would you please tell us how you think science works? Close your eyes, imagine a bunch of “science” occurring and describe what you visualise.

    Well, we’re talking about Anthony Watts here, so in this “reality” of yours, science goes like this:
    – get a TV weatherman
    – get an internet blog and fill it with cranks
    – get the TV weatherman to post utter nonsense to the blog full of cranks on a daily basis

    Of course, in *my* reality, science is somewhat different, involving as it does some actual scientific research.

  96. #96 Vince Whirlwind
    March 16, 2013

    Oh, and some actual scientists.

  97. #97 Vince Whirlwind
    March 16, 2013

    I started trying to compile a list of all the actual science that Brad has admitted he has avoided reading, but then I realised it would be much quicker to simply list everything hs has read:

    – Naomi Oreskes, “Merchants of Doubt”,
    end of list

    (although his claim to have read it arrived so soon after his initial admission that he hadn’t that we’ve pretty much agreed he probably got at most 25% comprehension from it.)

  98. #98 Brad Keyes
    March 16, 2013

    Vince,

    clearly you’re stinging from my gentle jibes about your scientific naïveté, but still—what the God are you crapping on about here:

    (although his claim to have read it arrived so soon after his initial admission that he hadn’t that we’ve pretty much agreed he probably got at most 25% comprehension from it.)

    I read it years ago, doofus.

  99. #99 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    it would be much quicker to simply list everything hs has read:

    – Naomi Oreskes, “Merchants of Doubt”,

    Actually he hasn’t read that either.

    a) claims in four hours: not possible
    b) no knowledge of its contents

    Bray *may* have skimmed it, more likely read up mined quotes off his favourite crank blogs.

  100. #100 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    How then could I be so sure you were mistaken?

    Uh, because you claim he said the power needs of the UK population was 125kwh/p/d when the VERY FIRST SENTENCE you link to says, and I quote:

    The red stack in figure 18.1 adds up to 195 kWh per day per person.

    You know, when you say one thing and the thing it says is something different, that’s not ME being wrong.

    On nuclear you’re as in denial and as clueless in every word you pronounce as Bray.

    I had thought we should move this to the Open Thread, but your antics are so Bray-like they really DO deserve to be here.