Brangelina thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    “Fact – winter anticyclones produce national-scale calms”

    Uh, disproof: We’ve had several anticyclones this winter. We haven’t had zero wind power once.

    You might as well say: “Fact, if nuclear stations blow up, we don’t get any power from them”.

    Anticyclones do not stop winds across the UK from happening.

    FACT.

  2. #2 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    “NO! Wind and solar are not dispatchable.”

    Then Nuclear and coal is not dispatchable.

    “They are not under the direct control of grid engineers.”

    Sizewell B went offline because the engineers wanted an emergency?????

    “The sun goes in at night and there are days of national cloud cover. ”

    And gas runs out and not replenished and there are months of a nuclear power station being unavailable.

    Therefore nuclear and coal are “just as bad” as renewables and you keep asserting these problems of intermittency are solved.

    So they are solved for renewables too.

  3. #3 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    Fact – the Sizewell B produced no power for 6 months.

    FACT – france had to shut down just about all their nuclear power plants during the heatwave in 2003 and produced almost no power.

    Therefore nuclear is not dispatchable.

    But you’ll go all goggle-eyed in your raving disposition against some mythical renewable-only problem and ignore facts that you cannot condone because of your ideology.

  4. #4 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    Fact –nuclear power stations do not produce electricity when they are shut down.

    You just can’t acknowledge that these problems you’re thinking are only with renewable generation are in fact problems with any grid-scale energy production.

    Open your fucking eyes, DBB.

  5. #5 BBD
    March 22, 2013

    Uh, disproof: We’ve had several anticyclones this winter. We haven’t had zero wind power once.

    Oh, but how low did it go? (Zero is a strawman, and you know it!)

    ;-)

  6. #6 BBD
    March 22, 2013

    *All* plant shuts down periodically. Sure. So why are you claiming that this is somehow a killer problem with nuclear plant? Would that be a strawman?

    ;-)

  7. #7 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    2009 shutdown, not 2003.

  8. #8 BBD
    March 22, 2013

    Open your fucking eyes, DBB.

    1/ Calm down. No hysterics

    2/ I am not David B. Benson, so please stop calling me David or DBB.

  9. #9 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    “*All* plant shuts down periodically.”

    So when SizewellB was shut down because of an electrical problem, this is because that’s what the engineers wanted?

    Really?

    Why? Are they manipulating the price of electricity? Trying to scare people off nuclear power? Insane?

    Or are power plants shut down for emergencies?

    And when they’re shut down, they don’t produce power, do they.

  10. #10 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    “(Zero is a strawman, and you know it!)”

    Except it isn’t.

    It’s entirely what you mean when you call wind “intermittent”. Or are you, Bray-like, making up what you mean to whatever is convenient at the time?

    “Fact – winter anticyclones produce national-scale calms”

    Remember?

    Or is your fake-scare supposed to be “Wind power may not be 100%”?

    Well, guess what? Nuclear power isn’t at 100% either.

    If it’s fine for nuclear, it’s fine for renewables.

    If it’s not fine for renewables, it’s not fine for nuclear.

    However, since you NEVER will accept it, this is the evidence for our claims that you are a pro-nuke shill.

  11. #11 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    OK, well trying to use anticyclones as an argument for *anything* is a strawman.

  12. #12 BBD
    March 22, 2013

    Wow, trying to use Sizewell B as a argument for *anything* is a strawman.

  13. #13 BBD
    March 22, 2013

    What about this?

    Clouds don’t make a large difference to the power available from solar.

    It is easy to demonstrate that cloud has a strongly negative effect on SPV output. We will use real data from Germany, accessible here.

    The first day of this month (01/03/2013) was a cloudy day over most of Germany. Pick the calendar from the far right side of the toolbar and click on Friday 01 March. Watch. Peak output for the day was 5.1GW out of a potential 33GW – about 15.5% peak capacity.

  14. #14 BBD
    March 22, 2013

    # 8 is one of the most ludicrous and forced examples of false equivalence I have ever seen.

  15. #15 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    ” Clouds don’t make a large difference to the power available from solar.”

    Yeah. What about it?

    You weren’t talking about total cloud cover under your pen-name of David B Benson.

    It doesn’t make much difference.

  16. #16 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    No, you’ve managed to be by far the most ridiculous thing on this thread, BabyBraD.

    “Oh, nuclear has backup, that’s fine!”.

    “Wind power needs backup, that proves it can’t be used!!!!”.

    Do you ever think when you’re putting stuff down about what you look like to the sane parts of society?

  17. #17 BBD
    March 22, 2013

    OK, well trying to use anticyclones as an argument for *anything* is a strawman.

    Cobblers! It is a proven argument for the necessity of substantial backup for the UK wind fleet. There are periods – sometimes two days and longer – when the UK wind fleet is producing very little electricity because of anticyclonic conditions. So expanding the UK wind fleet means of necessity expanding backup capacity to match.

    It’s really very simple and straightforward – and widely accepted.

  18. #18 BBD
    March 22, 2013

    BabyBraD

    This is not acceptable.

  19. #19 BBD
    March 22, 2013

    You weren’t talking about total cloud cover under your pen-name of David B Benson.

    It doesn’t make much difference.

    I am not David B Benson, so please stop misnomering me like this.

    I have just proved to you, using real data, that cloudy conditions massively reduce the output of SPV. Proved it. So for you to come back with ‘it doesn’t make much difference’ is asinine and dishonest and, frankly, a little bit insane.

    Sort your head out, please.

  20. #20 Olaus Petri
    March 22, 2013

    Wow is the stool sample version of a Loo:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/ipcc-lead-author-calls-lewandowsky-deluded/#more-27768

    The poor sod…;-)

  21. #21 BBD
    March 22, 2013

    # 18

    If you wish to contribute to this discussion, please do. Otherwise, kindly fuck off.

  22. #22 Olaus Petri
    March 22, 2013

    As you were BBD, please carry on. I’m sure you know its even more worse than you thougth. :-)

  23. #23 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    trying to use Sizewell B as a argument for *anything* is a strawman.

    Cobblers! It is a proven argument for the necessity of substantial backup for the UK nuclear fleet.

    There are periods – sometimes two days and longer – when the French nuclear grid is producing very little electricity because of drought conditions. So expanding the UK nuclear fleet means of necessity expanding backup capacity to match.

    It’s really very simple and straightforward – and widely accepted.

  24. #24 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    “So for you to come back with ‘it doesn’t make much difference’ is asinine and dishonest and, frankly, a little bit insane.”

    Really? So when you come back with “trying to use Sizewell B as a argument for *anything* is a strawman.”

    To the response of “So SizewellB is down because the engineers wanted an emergency?” as proof your claim that nuclear stations are only shut down because the engineers want to is complete and utter bogshite, this is, as far as you’re concerned NOT insane?

    You do know that the real nutter is always the least informed of their state, right?

  25. #25 Wow
    March 22, 2013
    BabyBraD

    This is not acceptable.

    So stop acting Bray. It is not acceptable.

    If I’d thought you absolutely incapable of not acting Bray-ish, I’d not bother.

    However, you’re not doing anything to prove that faith in you correct, are you. Doubling down on the bray and repeating his tricks is entirely indicative of the BabyBraD identification.

    Think of it as aversion therapy.

    When you’re less blind by idolatry you’ll be thanking me.

  26. #26 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    Oh, and IIRC, 14 out of the 19 nuclear plants are on the coastline and at risk from coastal erosion and/or flooding.

  27. #27 BBD
    March 22, 2013

    Compare and contrast:

    However, you’re not doing anything to prove that faith in you correct, are you. Doubling down on the bray and repeating his tricks is entirely indicative of the BabyBraD identification.

    With:

    I have just proved to you, using real data, that cloudy conditions massively reduce the output of SPV. Proved it. So for you to come back with ‘it doesn’t make much difference’ is asinine and dishonest and, frankly, a little bit insane.

  28. #28 David B. Benson
    March 23, 2013

    I am not BDD.

  29. #29 David B. Benson
    March 23, 2013

    It is often claimed that introducing variable renewable energy resources such as solar and wind into the electricity network comes with some extra cost penalties, due to “system effects”. These system effects include intermittent electricity access, network congestion, instability, environmental impacts, and security of supply.

    Now a new report from the OECD titled System Effects of Low-Carbon Electricity Systems gives some hard dollar values for these additional imposts. The OECD work focuses on nuclear power, coal, gas, and renewables such as wind and solar. Their conclusion is that grid-level system costs can have significant impacts on the total cost of delivered electricity for some power-generation technologies. from
    http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/03/22/counting-hidden-costs-of-energy/

  30. #30 Brad Keyes
    March 23, 2013

    BBD:

    2/ I am not David B. Benson, so please stop calling me David or DBB.

    DBB:

    I am not BDD.

    Oh don’t worry, guy[s]—we get the message… in stereo.

    Methinks thou dost protest about twice as much as necessary. ;-)

    You[se] really are in perfect sync.

    Remarkable.

    “It’s the tag-team approach to subject matter that dissonates,” to quote resident barstool psychographologist Dr J.

    Will TL, who knows your IP address, weigh in here eventually?

  31. #31 Brad Keyes
    March 23, 2013

    :-)

  32. #32 BBD
    March 23, 2013

    You are not BBD!

  33. #33 chameleon
    March 23, 2013

    Thanks for that link David B.
    Some realistic figures rather than PR sound bites :-)

  34. #34 Brad Keyes
    March 23, 2013

    Now switch to your David B. Benson character, as though you were having a conversation, and back and forth….

  35. #35 David B. Benson
    March 23, 2013

    Oops!

    I am not BBD either.

    :-)

  36. #36 Brad Keyes
    March 23, 2013

    Smoothly done. Now switch back to your “BBD” hand…

  37. #37 Brad Keyes
    March 23, 2013

    Seriously though—the casual misspelling of your alter ego’s initials was a brilliant touch.

  38. #38 Vince Whirlwind
    March 23, 2013

    It is often claimed that introducing variable renewable energy resources such as solar and wind into the electricity network comes with some extra cost penalties

    So we get to make a decision: do we want “extra cost penalties” in the form of building the relevant number of power-producing installations?
    Or, alternatively, do we want “extra cost penalties” in the form of periodic trillion-dollar GNP-lowering Fukushima-style events?

    Honestly – if the free market decides it can’t insure them, why the fuck should the taxpayer assume the risk?

  39. #39 Brad Keyes
    March 23, 2013

    BabyBraD,

    you do realize you’re commenting on your own comment here, right:

    # 18

    If you wish to contribute to this discussion, please do. Otherwise, kindly fuck off.

    ?

    It’s recursive fury!

    LOL

  40. #40 Vince Whirlwind
    March 23, 2013

    Piss off Brad. The adults are discussing nuclear technologies.

  41. #41 Wow
    March 23, 2013

    Compare and contrast

    trying to use Sizewell B as a argument for *anything* is a strawman.

    With

    ” OK, well trying to use anticyclones as an argument for *anything* is a strawman.

    Cobblers! It is a proven argument for the necessity of substantial backup”

    The removal of sizewell b was not done beause the engineers planned it to come down at that time.

    But, no, you claim cobblers and people just have to accept that even though every downside to renewables exists with nuclear, that it only matters if its a downside to renewables.

    And you STILL want to pretend that what you’ve said is, when used in evidence against you, is “a strawman, and everyone knows it”.

    Tell me, when you claimed that 80GW of wind needed 80GW of backup power and also claimed that “saying zero is a strawman”, is this because

    a) you’re a lying sack of shit
    or
    b) you don’t know that 80 – 80 = 0

    ?

  42. #42 Wow
    March 23, 2013

    “It is often claimed that introducing variable renewable energy resources such as solar and wind into the electricity network comes with some extra cost penalties”

    And idiot deniers like Bray often claims that there is no consensus on AGW.

    Just because deniers often claim that the end of AGW warming is here now, doesn’t make the claim correct.

    When we introduced nuclear, that required a LOT of changes to the grid. The HVDC line to France was one of them. Dinworig was another.

    When a single installation can go out of action in minutes and that one single installation is producing 2GW of power, and any replacement generator takes a few hours to a day to come up to speed, there is a HUGE amount of engineering problems to overcome.

    Hell, the massive rate of change of power in the grid alone when a nuke station goes down caused huge problems.

    But it seems like nuclear engineers thing that they and their fellow engineers are now too dumb to do this again.

    Or is it that they think that engineers can only fix those problems if they’re produced by nuclear power stations and that this renewable stuff is just too complex for them?

    In either case, they are neither being honest nor intelligent, nor complementary about their fellows.

  43. #43 Brad Keyes
    March 23, 2013

    Vortical Vince:

    Piss off Brad. The adults are discussing nuclear technologies.

    Where? You mean, between BBD telling himself to “kindly fuck off” and Wow calling him “a lying sack of shit” who doesn’t “know that 80 – 80 = 0″?

  44. #44 Wow
    March 23, 2013

    And how can variable energy sources be a problem on a grid that has variable load?

  45. #45 chameleon
    March 23, 2013

    Recursive fury!
    :-) :-)
    chuckle.

  46. #46 Wow
    March 23, 2013

    I think he’s pissed off that the thread that was never going anywhere is going there without him…

  47. #47 BBD
    March 23, 2013

    @39 (provisionally)

    You do understand that when your comments come out of moderation en bloc it buggers up the existing comment numbering? Or did we miss that?

  48. #48 BBD
    March 23, 2013

    And how can variable energy sources be a problem on a grid that has variable load?

    Oh. Dear. God.

    Please tell me that this is intended as a joke.

  49. #49 Wow
    March 23, 2013

    Dear god, tell me that you’re just a fuckwit, or do you really not understand?

  50. #50 Wow
    March 23, 2013

    Or is the problem that you really just don’t know why, you’ve been told it is bad to have a variation on one side of the equation and it hasn’t been solved, but we have solved variation if it’s the requirements.

    And you’ve just accepted it without wondering why.

    “Oh noes, the input can vary! Catastrophe! Rivers of Blood! THE APOCALYPSE!!!”.

    Why?

    That what we need varies has been solved by distribution and storage.

    And what we supply varies, but apparently this is unique to wind and solar, for reasons you’ve never been able to explain why, merely assert.

    And no “If all the wind stops, then there’s no wind power” is not a reason you can use because you don’t accept “If all the plants are shut down, then there’s no nuclear power”.

  51. #51 BBD
    March 23, 2013

    That what we need varies has been solved by distribution and storage.

    No it hasn’t. Not in any grid in any nation on Earth. Once again, you are lying.

    And when are you going to admit that you lied about the huge effect of cloud on SPV output? I’m waiting.

    And what we supply varies, but apparently this is unique to wind and solar, for reasons you’ve never been able to explain why, merely assert.

    I’m having trouble accepting that you are this thick. Surely it’s a joke. A Poe, right?

  52. #52 Wow
    March 23, 2013

    You’re having trouble saying anything, DBB. All you’re doing is making empty statement after empty statement.

    You’re probably TRYING to look all mysterious and wise, i.e. “I’m so smart that this is so obvious a problem I can’t see the need to explain it”. What you ARE coming across as is a pompous clueless git.

    You claim that varying inputs are bad.

    But you don’t know why. Cannot explain what the problem is at all.

  53. #53 Wow
    March 23, 2013
    That what we need varies has been solved by distribution and storage.

    No it hasn’t. Not in any grid in any nation on Earth. Once again, you are lying.

    Wow, talk about idiot!

    OK, I take it you’re not saying that required power is a constant, right?

    So that means what we want out of our grid system varies.

    So therefore you MUST be saying that this problem HASN’T been solved in any grid electrical system in the world at any point in the past.

    So how come we are both using electrically powered computers to post on an electrically powered server?

  54. #54 Wow
    March 23, 2013

    And when are you going to read a fucking thing anyone says even if it isn’t going to mean what you fervently hope it means?

    You’re blathering on about that like Bray blathers on about “Hide the decline”, BabyBraD.

    You weren’t talking about 100% cloud cover when you introduced “because clouds, we can’t use solar” under your pen-name.

  55. #55 Wow
    March 23, 2013

    Unavoidably, when clouds fill the sky, covering the sun, light levels are reduced. But it doesn’t mean that your solar power panel system stops producing power, it’s output will reduce to about half is there is enough light to cast shadows. A thicker cloud blanket in the sky reduces operations even more and by the time heavy clouds show up, solar power panel systems will produce very little power.

    If all of that sounds too demoralizing, take note that effects of clouds on a solar power panel can be surprisingly good as well. It may be unbelievable, but your solar panels output their peak during a cloudy weather type! When the sun shines through a gap between clouds, the solar panels receive both direct sunlight and the light reflected from the clouds. This means more than they can receive on a clear sunny day! And amazingly, your solar power panel system actually outputs 50 percent or more than in direct sunlight conditions on such type of cloudy weather.

    http://www.apxsolar.com/articles/clouds-and-solar-power.htm

  56. #56 Wow
    March 23, 2013

    And remember, the expected cloudiness is already taken into account, which is why some areas already have Solar PV grid parity whilst others are not yet.

    The nuke-lovers probably thought that the cost difference was because the photons were different or something…

  57. #57 BBD
    March 23, 2013

    Okay, Wow, we have reached *that* point.

    Once again, you are accusing me of running a sock. Once again, you indulge in name-calling to which I have specifically objected. Once again, you spew out a torrent of incoherent, nonsensical bollocks instead of actually responding to what I write. And once again, you simply *refuse* to acknowledge major errors when they are unambiguously demonstrated to you. This is collectively disgraceful. You should be profoundly ashamed of yourself, and I suspect the little part of you that *knows* what you have done *is* deeply ashamed.

    As well it might be. I have rarely seen such a grotesque display as the one you have put on here. Despite evidently knowing *absolutely nothing* about energy, you have hurled yourself hysterically into debate and made a sequence of the most astonishing and major errors. Not one of which you subsequently acknowledged when they were pointed out to you. Had you attempted this on a moderated energy blog, you would have been silenced many days ago. It really is that bad.

    Attempting reasoned discussion with a ranting, ill-informed buffoon is a waste of time. As I said, we have reached *that* point.

    If you are capable of sober reflection, now would be a good time to reflect, soberly on what you have done.

  58. #58 Wow
    March 23, 2013

    Okay, Wow, we have reached *that* point.

    Why do you insist on saying nothing all the time? Hell, this one sounds like we’re in a fucking marriage!

    Once again, you indulge in name-calling to which I have specifically objected.

    Sorry, if you can’t take it, don’t deal it, dearie.

    I’ve already told you that I’m describing your capabilities and when it comes to nuclear, you’re as dumb and bigoted as Bray.

    Consider enlightenment as a way out.

    But, no, you’re going all butthurt because you’ve dug yourself deep in the bullshit and are now wondering how to clear a path out.

    That what we need varies has been solved by distribution and storage.

    No it hasn’t. Not in any grid in any nation on Earth. Once again, you are lying.

    Wow, talk about idiot!

    OK, I take it you’re not saying that required power is a constant, right?

    So that means what we want out of our grid system varies.

    So therefore you MUST be saying that this problem HASN’T been solved in any grid electrical system in the world at any point in the past.

    So how come we are both using electrically powered computers to post on an electrically powered server?

    You’re stuck so deep in the shit, your only chance is to try a “Stop saying I’m covered in shit, it’s demeaning!” distraction.

  59. #59 BBD
    March 23, 2013

    *** NEWSFLASH ***

    Our Bradley has screwed up mightily over at Tara’s blog (where inevitably, he continues to pontificate and boast).

    Our Bradley is not quite the scientific whiz he would have us believe. Look what he did here:

    Emissions (or rather, atmospheric CO2) will obviously rise over 550ppm in all plausible futures […] And that is not even one doubling of the current concentration. So your worldview unambiguously calls ~1K of warming ‘catastrophic.’

    That’s right. Bradley doesn’t understand that the 2x in 2xCO2 in the ECS/2xCO2 estimate refers to the doubling of the pre-industrial level of ~275ppmv CO2 to ~550ppmv.

    Our Bradley is clueless.

    But here he is, condescending to me:

    BBD—I’m not sure you know how logarithms work.

    Perhaps that wasn’t a such a good idea, Brad!

    Pratfall aficionados can see the full clown-and-banana-skin routine here.

  60. #60 Wow
    March 23, 2013

    It’s not that he doesn’t understand, really. He very likely doesn’t, but this isn’t really the issue.

    He does not WANT to understand.

    Grima Orresango (or whatever his name was) did precisely that with his “maths”. He got an answer he liked if he used equations that were in school textbooks. He then used those equations to “prove” AGW sensitivity was low. When told his calculations were incorrect, he’d claim HERE IS THE EQUATION! WHERE IS IT WRONG???

    The problem being not that the equation was wrong, but that he was using an equation to show RATE of warming to give the EQUILIBRIUM of warming.

    He would not understand, though. He’d say “Well, that’s the heating in one second, and therefore it’s 1 second. Times one is the same value”.

    He didn’t care that he didn’t know what the equation meant. He got an answer out from that equation that was what he wanted.

    This is the case with many partially-math-literates on a subject where there are a lot of possible equations and they have a vested interest in seeing the answer they wanted to see.

  61. #61 David B. Benson
    March 23, 2013

    Mind blowing.

  62. #62 BBD
    March 23, 2013

    This is for David B. Benson (who has suffered enough) and bill.

    At least I didn’t do a Basil :-)

  63. #63 bill
    March 23, 2013

    Re Newsflash; that’s really, really embarrassing! Everybody knows that – except, it seems, BoywunderKind!

    There *is* no implied baseline

    Lets all just look back at his efforts on this thread in light of the above, shall we? All the claims of having read the actual literature, for a start?

    Maybe it just all went by in a speed-reading blur? ;-)

    Also, he has shown up over at SkS.

  64. #64 BBD
    March 23, 2013

    With predictable results. I hope this helps Brad appreciate the largess of our genial host.

  65. #65 BBD
    March 23, 2013

    Oops: ‘largesse’

    I know Brad is a picky linguist.

  66. #66 David B. Benson
    March 24, 2013

    Before today I had no idea that it was even possible to have a negative information flow.

    Now I know better. :|

  67. #67 Brad Keyes
    March 24, 2013

    Et tu, David?

    Before today I had no idea that it was even possible to have a negative information flow.

    LOL. Really? Then you obviously, ahem, forgot to consider the major source of information haemorrhage: forgetting.

    For example, you and BBD have both forgotten something you undoubtedly knew at Wow’s age, because they teach it to the brighter high-school kids: how logarithms work. ECS per doubling of CO2 means exactly what it says: every time CO2 doubles, from any value x to any value 2x, you expect to see (on average) a certain rise in global average temps.

    According to http://co2now.org, the latest CO2 reading from Mauna Loa is 396.8 ppm. (The website hilariously asks: “Are you ready for a 400 ppm world?”)

    Let’s say you use an ECS estimate of ~2.5K, which according to BBD is enough to make a 550 ppm* world “catastrophic.”

    Then it follows that an atmospheric CO2 of 550 ppm would be associated with a warming of

    ~2.5K * ln(550 / 396.8) / ln(2) = ~1.178 K

    Hence my true statement (to zero decimal places!) that

    Emissions (or rather, atmospheric CO2) will obviously rise over 550ppm in all plausible futures […] And that is not even one doubling of the current concentration. So your worldview unambiguously calls ~1K of warming ‘catastrophic.’

    And now that I’ve refreshed your memory on how logarithms work, you’ll grasp why

    There *is* no implied baseline.

    To insist, as BBD does, that ECS “refers to” doubling in relation to a specific Amish golden age of 275 ppm is dyscalculic, innumerate, mathematically illiterate, or however you want to euphemise it. It’s as silly as claiming that the half-life of a radioactive material “refers to” how much has decayed since 0:00.00 AM, Jan 1, 1970. Wrong. There *is* no implied baseline.

    * Admittedly I missed the fact that BBD had stipulated that “well over” 550 ppm implied catastrophe. What does “well over 550” mean? No idea. It’s impossible to tell what, if anything, BBD is predicting. For the sake of argument let’s assume he made a meaningful, falsifiable prediction about the world as it will be at 550 ppm.

  68. #68 Brad Keyes
    March 24, 2013

    BBD:

    With predictable results. I hope this helps Brad appreciate the largess of our genial host.

    Oh yes, much like a stint in North Korea would help the average Australian to see the generosity and lenience of Gillard’s crackdowns on media speech.

    The SS kiddiez really are insecure little pricks, aren’t they? I’ve already posted a number of comments that violated no site policy only to have them deleted without a moderator comment, as if they never existed. That appears to be their primal response when they can’t get you on a technicality: down the memory hole.

    Lest anyone be in any doubt about the improbity and hypocrisy of the SS moderators, consider this comment, by a grindupBaker:

    @geoffchambers#24 I don’t blame you Geoff. If I was named as 1st to say “Recursive Conspiracist Hypothesis number 4″ in public I’d be mad as hell. And I don’t even have false teeth.

    I wrote that grindupBaker should cut out the ad hominems, citing the comments policy:

    No ad hominem attacks. Personally attacking other users gets us no closer to understanding the science.

    and adding:

    As Philippe points out,

    “everybody should exercise restraint. A common characteristic of internet communications is the rapid loss of respect that people would keep toward each other if they were in presence of each other. All should imagine that they actually talking to a person.”

    The moderators’ reaction?

    False claims of ad hominem snipped.

  69. #69 Brad Keyes
    March 24, 2013

    Jeff Harvey,

    I’ve written some comments to you at Tara’s blog to avoid huge interaction lags. Would be very interested in your thoughts.

    They’ve so far only attracted the attention of puerile palindromes. :-(

  70. #70 Wow
    March 24, 2013

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/mar/22/wholesale-gas-prices-soar-after-pipeline-forced-to-close

    Wholesale gas prices soar in Britain after pipeline is forced to close

    No 10 plays down fears over energy stocks after a pump failure cuts off gas supply from Belgium

  71. #71 Wow
    March 24, 2013

    Yes, if you can’t answer the questions, make out it;s because their name is a palindrome.

    Tell me, do you expect that sort of dribble to work?

  72. #72 BBD
    March 24, 2013

    Bradley

    Let’s say you use an ECS estimate of ~2.5K, which according to BBD is enough to make a 550 ppm* world “catastrophic.”

    This is, of course, a lie. And only one of several.

    If we get ~1.2K warmer, your statements minus some weasel words predict catastrophe.

    This is the third time you have shamelessly misrepresented my *extremely clear* statements. Which I will now repeat. Describing ‘well above’ and ‘well over’ as ‘weasel words’ is as risible as it is desperate.

    ‘CAGW’ is what you get under *conservative* estimates of ECS if emissions increase unabated this century and the atmospheric fraction of CO2 rises well above ~550ppmv.

    And:

    No, BBD said that CAGW is what will happen if emissions rise well over ~550ppmv – even if ECS/2xCO2 is down around the ~2.5C mark. Surely someone as clever as you can understand this?

    So this is a *lie*:

    So your worldview unambiguously calls ~1K of warming ‘catastrophic.’

    This is the *same lie*:

    If we get ~1.2K warmer, your statements minus some weasel words predict catastrophe.

    This is the same lie *again*:

    CAGW is not a Denialist Strawman™—it’s what you yourself implicitly expect in a mere 550ppm (or 1.2K) world.

    No, it isn’t. You are a serial liar. This is contemptible behaviour.

    Perhaps it is an effort to avoid discussing the problem with your position? Let us remind ourselves what that is:

    3. My climate-change position is that there is no evidence that AGW is going to be hugely net-dangerous unless emissions are reduced, and therefore emissions regulation is ‘stupid’.

    And:

    Emissions (or rather, atmospheric CO2) will obviously rise over 550ppm in all plausible futures—don’t pretend this isn’t a shared assumption.

    So, your claim requires that you reject even a conservative estimate for ECS 2x CO2 = ~2.5C – ~3C. We have established that you have no evidential basis for doing this, and you have claimed that you *are not* doing this, but you are.

    So far, anthropogenically forced warming = ~0.7C. We’ve got nearly 2C to go if ECS is as *low* as 2.5C. More if ECS is nearer 3C or over 3C. And *more still* if the atmospheric fraction of CO2 rises above ~550ppmv. The more it exceeds this value, the greater the warming. Hence the need for *emissions controls* to avert potentially catastrophic warming.

    *Denying* this is illogical. And stupid.

  73. #73 BBD
    March 24, 2013

    Your calculation is confusing you because you have ignored the difference between transient climate response and equilibrium sensitivity. The 0.7C warming experienced so far does not bring the climate system into equilibrium with 395ppmv CO2 – there’s ~0.5C lagged response ‘in the pipeline’ (as they say) – ocean thermal inertia.

  74. #74 Wow
    March 24, 2013

    If 0.7C isn’t a catastrophe already, would Bray The Ignorant like to tell these people they’re making it up?

    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/new-zealand-drought-hurting-farmers-and-economy

  75. #75 Brad Keyes
    March 24, 2013

    So far, anthropogenically forced warming = ~0.7C. We’ve got nearly 2C to go if ECS is as *low* as 2.5C. More if ECS is nearer 3C or over 3C.

    Hang on…. let me see if I understand you, BBD:

    The less AGW has already taken place with the increase from 275 to 397 ppm, the more AGW is going to take place with the increase from 397 to 550 ppm.

    Really?

    Seriously.

    You’re serious about this.

    And you told me you understood logarithms.

  76. #76 chameleon
    March 24, 2013

    Like growing grapes?
    Good grief Wow!
    That is a Terrible article with no scientific basis and about a seasonal drought in NZ.
    NOWHERE othef than in some very weak assertions does this article claim some sort of catastrophe.

  77. #77 David B. Benson
    March 24, 2013

    Equilibrium sensitivity requires restoring to equilibrium. That requires a millennium or so to approach.

  78. #78 BBD
    March 24, 2013

    David B. Benson

    What estimates for ECS and TCR do you find most persuasive? Which projected emissions scenarios/GAT increase by the end of the C21st do you find plausible?

  79. #79 Wow
    March 24, 2013

    Duffer: “Equilibrium sensitivity requires restoring to equilibrium.”

    NO, it doesn’t.

    It is the time-independent solution to a rate equation.

    Before pretending to know something, try and find something about it first, hmm?

  80. #80 Wow
    March 24, 2013

    Duffer: “That requires a millennium or so to approach.”

    So you think that the sensitivity is much much MUCH higher than 3C per doubling!

  81. #81 BBD
    March 24, 2013

    Wow

    David B. Benson is not a duffer.

  82. #82 Wow
    March 24, 2013

    It sounded like him, though.

    my mistake.

  83. #83 Vince Whirlwind
    March 25, 2013

    Wow,

    Wow
    March 24, 2013

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/mar/22/wholesale-gas-prices-soar-after-pipeline-forced-to-close

    Wholesale gas prices soar in Britain after pipeline is forced to close

    No 10 plays down fears over energy stocks after a pump failure cuts off gas supply from Belgium

    Geez, if only gas was as reliable as windpower, which is getting cheaper and cheaper every year…

  84. #84 Vince Whirlwind
    March 25, 2013

    To insist, as BBD does, that ECS “refers to” doubling in relation to a specific Amish golden age of 275 ppm is dyscalculic, innumerate, mathematically illiterate, or however you want to euphemise it. It’s as silly as claiming that the half-life of a radioactive material “refers to” how much has decayed since 0:00.00 AM, Jan 1, 1970. Wrong. There *is* no implied baseline.

    Why is this abject fuckwit still allowed to pollute this blog with his pointless gibberish?

  85. #85 Vince Whirlwind
    March 25, 2013

    Have a look at this graph and tell me if you can figure out what people might be using as their baseline:

    http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/gallery/spo_overview/Slide23?full=1

  86. #86 Vince Whirlwind
    March 25, 2013

    Oops, NOAA are hard to pin down, try this one:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-measurements-uncertainty.htm

    Baseline?

    I reckon my 9-year-old could have figured it out what Brad apparently can’t.

    5 years ago.

  87. #87 David B. Benson
    March 25, 2013

    Charney equilibrium climate sensitivity is the effects of just the so-called fast feedbacks; changes to the cryosphere re not included. The most likely value is in the range 2.4–2.8 K for 2xCO2.

    There are several different notions of transient response. One is the instantaneous doubling of CO2. This gives a fast rise to a knee about 60% of the way to the top and in about 20–30 years; probably climate model dependent. Retto Knutti (with others) has at least one paper about it.

  88. #88 Vince Whirlwind
    March 25, 2013

    David, facts won’t dissuade him from his glib gibberish.

  89. #89 David B. Benson
    March 25, 2013

    BBD asked.

  90. #90 Vince Whirlwind
    March 25, 2013

    Here Brad, I’ve had time to look at NOAA and find their CO2 primer for primary schoolers:
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html

    I reckon you could get a lot out of that, if you only try.

  91. #91 Brad Keyes
    March 25, 2013

    Vince Whirlwind:

    I reckon my 9-year-old could have figured it out what Brad apparently can’t.

    Huh? Did your 9-year-old compose that sentence, too?

    5 years ago.

    At the age of 4, your child (who still can’t compose a proper sentence) knew how logarithms work? Remarkable.

  92. #92 Brad Keyes
    March 25, 2013

    “Dr” J:

    One of my colleagues who has persisted in reading the Brangelina thread, in the face of repeated admonitions to the contrary, emailed this to me this morning:

    Sure. A “colleague”. Wink wink.

    It seems that as a mathematician, Brad Keyes makes a cunning linguist. Keyes needs to understand that there is a baseline. Sensitivity refers to the temperature response to every doubling of of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere starting at 275* ppm.

    *Sigh.* If it’s logarithmic then it doesn’t matter whether you “start” from 275, 397, 550, 1100, 2200, 4400, 8800, or any other past or future atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    What part of every doubling” don’t you understand, Dr J? The word “every”? That’s the bit that you find confusing, isn’t it?

    Keyes’ equation:

    ~2.5 K * ln(550 / 396.8) / ln(2) = ~1.178 K

    is nonsense, no more than meaningless mathematical Thimblerig.

    LOL.

    It’s meaningless to you, no doubt.

    To a smart 13 year old (or even to Vince’s 4-year-old spawn, for that matter) it’s instantly recognisable as the solution to a trivial mathematical problem:

    If the temperature response to every doubling of atmospheric CO2 is 2.5° Celsius, what will the temperature response to an increase in atmospheric CO2 from 396.8 ppm to 550 ppm be?

    If your, ahem, “colleague” knows a better way to the answer than by getting the log-base-2 of (550 ÷ 396.8) and multiplying it by 2.5° Celsius, tell your “colleague” to stop being a lurker and start interacting. Tell me the solution, Bernard… I mean, “Bernard’s colleague.”

    I’m all ears.

    If equilibrium climate sensitivity results in a 2.5° Celsius increase in in temperature per doubling, subsequent operations with divisors and further logarithms will not alter this fact.

    That’s why “this fact” is treated as a constant (2.5 K) in my formula, beefwit.

  93. #93 Brad Keyes
    March 25, 2013

    David:

    Equilibrium sensitivity requires restoring to equilibrium. That requires a millennium or so to approach.

    Sure—but if we don’t act now, how can we ever look our great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren in the face?

  94. #94 BBD
    March 25, 2013

    # 85 (at least for now) David B. Benson

    Agreed. Thanks for clarifying. I generally quote the ECS range as “~2.5K – ~3K” but I’d never *quibble* over this ;-)

    Not so sure about a ~1ka lag to fast feedback equilibrium – but it all gets blurred into the full ‘Earth System Response’ with altered cryosphere etc.

  95. #95 Brad Keyes
    March 25, 2013

    The runt of Lothar grunts a backhanded compliment:

    The longer Keyes goes on the less intelligent and informed he looks.

    But then expresses concern:

    I’m not entirely sure that’s the effect he was going for.

    Aww.

    Dear, sweet Loather, instead of worrying about me why don’t you tell us your answer to the Year 7 Kidz Maths Olympiad Challenge:

    If the temperature response to every doubling of atmospheric CO2 were 2.5° Celsius, what would the temperature response to an increase in atmospheric CO2 from 396.8 ppm to 550 ppm be?

    :-)

  96. #96 BBD
    March 25, 2013

    Why is this abject fuckwit still allowed to pollute this blog with his pointless gibberish?

    Damned if I know, Vince.

  97. #97 Lionel A
    March 25, 2013

    Oh! My!

    Brad sure played it well at SkS did he not.

    His slippery playing with language is straight from a ‘Law & Order’ episode and not from considerations of science and was recognised as such. Good to see somebody else stood up for Steve Schneider, although I missed the actual posts I get the drift – more or less what we saw here.

    Here is some more schooling for Brad: Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast – Lectures, a copy of the book would help him too.

  98. #98 David B. Benson
    March 25, 2013

    BBD — Over one millennium of simulated time was required in a run of GISS’s GCM.

  99. #99 Brad Keyes
    March 25, 2013

    Lionel:

    Good to see somebody else stood up for Steve Schneider, although I missed the actual posts I get the drift – more or less what we saw here.

    Why would missing the posts be a problem? That’s not how the internet works. Surely you can read posts whose initial appearance you didn’t witness “live.” It’s just a matter of scrolling up (back in time) from the end of the thread and reading the written record of the posting—which persists in time—isn’t it?

    Oh.

    I see.

    The alleged posts are nowhere to be found, are they? The supposedly dishonest question I asked—”where have I referred to Stephen Schneider’s ethics?”—is nowhere to be found, is it? Welcome to SS, the Orwellian Hall of Mirrors where non-existent posts can be used to convict you of dishonesty, error, science denial, tax evasion, beef disparagement, greyhound substitution and/or arson.

  100. #100 BBD
    March 25, 2013

    David B. Benson

    Thanks. Given this result, do you think discussion of TCR should concentrate more on land surface trends and projections rather than GAT?

Current ye@r *