Time for more open thread.
In an interesting coincidence, Brian Dunning is here in Sydney to talk at TAM Australia, so I thought it would be interesting to go to the TAM fringe open mic night (tonight!) and talk about, oh, DDT.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Brian Dunning's Skeptoid does an excellent job of debunking pseudoscience, so his podcast on DDT is profoundly disappointing. Dunning claims that DDT use did not have a large impact on bird populations, that elitist environmental groups were killing brown children by blocking DDT use and that DDT…
You may have noticed that there wasn't the usual 3,000 word heapin' helpin' of Insolence this morning. That's because I happened to be away visiting family in Chicago over the weekend and I just didn't have time to come up with anything--and I enjoyed myself too thoroughly to worry overmuch about…
MAJeff started it all. Here I go and set up this blog just so I can lord it over a readership, and the readers starthaving a good time talking to each other, and they seem to have noticed that they are of like minds and find each other to be interesting — perhaps more interesting than the blog…
Tina Rosenberg, who wrote the hopelessly inaccurate article What the World Needs Now Is DDT, is back with more falsehoods about DDT:
The truth is that many malaria victims would be better off if America still had the disease. If malaria still existed in America, we would be attacking it with DDT…
Oh, to be a fly on the wall!!
Please report back!!
BTW, I have poked Dunning's DDT balloon with a few sticks myself at Skepchick.org
That should be fun! I posted this on twitter:
The general lesson from #skeptic fails Re: smoking, climate change, DDT, hybrid cars, etc. Is that you must only use primary refs.
http://twitter.com/Toxicpath/status/7278144016883712
What is the right way to report on this? Or is there a right way? Is the issue DDT or Rachel Carson? Chemical companies or a more general war on the Environmental Movement? Best of luck.
The right way is to not discuss Rachel Carson's or the chemical companies opinion but only use published peer reviewed research.
On Scientific American we have had a larger influx of Denialist than normal. If some of you could swing by and put a word or two in. It would be appreciated.
And I am not sure what to make of this poster who says that Nuclear Power is the only way to go. He claims that new plants are being built at 3bliilion a KwH. And I am like where?
I have not put much time into the alternative energy aspect. I have simply worked at the debunkings.
Thanks #4. When I first read what you wrote I instinctively agreed. But any non-peer reviewed assessment of the primary literature could be portrayed as biased: "Oh, sure you can find a few studies that say anything." So I believe that to some degree being effective requires a fairly direct debunking. Debunkings should be comprehensive and with copious reference to primary literature, but I am leaning toward the idea that you have to show someone else's use (abuse) of the literature is misleading in order to convince anyone that your use of it is faithful.
I also see the throngs of deniers show up in alternative energy, climate and electric/hybrid vehicle forums (like priuschat) and I simply do not know what is the best way to deal with this. Their tactic is to relentlessly quote from denialist or pseudosientific blogs. They seem well organized and tireless.
The best tactic is to explicitly state that you will not engage in conversation unless they find peer reviewed published references for their assertions, and just as relentless hammer this point.
Brilliant! Good luck!
#5: My usual reaction to people like that is "wake me up when you can cite your sources".
> I also see the throngs of deniers show up in alternative energy, climate and electric/hybrid vehicle forums (like priuschat) and I simply do not know what is the best way to deal with this.
If you thought combating ACC denial was tough - wait until the anti-renewable / pro-nuclear monkeys attack! It's the same deal all over again - they have a script of zombie talking points that cannot be killed.
My recommendation: don't get dragged down in to a debate about *estimates* of what it costs and what it can do. Just arm yourself with what is happening in *reality*, e.g.
- Renewables Global Status Report: Renewables accounted for 60% of new power capacity in Europe in 2009; China added 37 GW of renewable power capacity, more than any other country in the world; Globally, nearly 80 GW of renewable capacity was added, including 31 GW of hydro and 48 GW of non-hydro capacity; Solar PV additions reached a record high of 7 GW; 83+ countries have policies to promote renewable power. "Chinaâs wind power capacity surpassed the countryâs installed nuclear capacity in 2009, with just over 13.8 GW added to reach a total of 25.8 GW." http://www.ren21.net/globalstatusreport/g2010.asp
- Total renewable power capacity in China reached 226 GW in 2009 ... This total was more than one quarter of Chinaâs total installed power capacity of 860 GW. ...significantly, during the five-year period 2005â2009, wind power grew thirty-fold, from just 0.8 GW at the end of 2004. China have ~30GW of wind installed, 40% capacity factor = 12GW output, even 30% = 9GW. Assuming 1GW average per nuke reactor, that's 9 or 12 reactors. Also, given the fact that it takes ~10 years to build a nuclear reactor, it really puts the success of renewables in perspective. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/07/renewable-…
- State Lawmakers Do Not Share Congress' Nuclear Love: Shoots 0-8 in State Legislatures During 2010. "Loan Guarantee Fever" in Congress not repeated by states. Kentucky to Arizona, industry lobbyists fail to overturn bans, pass costs on to consumers or get nuclear classified as "renewable energy". http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/its-not-just-vermont--state-law…
Promising,
'the National Ignition Facility in Livermore California, scientists are aiming to build the world's first sustainable fusion reactor by 'creating a miniature star on Earth'.
The resulting release of energy was of a magnitude of 1.3 million mega joules, which was a world record and the peak radiation temperature measure at the core was approximately six million degrees Fahrenheit.
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/ykb
It doesn't produce weapons grade by products so it will probably be shelved.
Here is some interesting breaking news.
Tom Delay, former leader of the US House of Representatives, who once claimed that ["It is arrogance to suggest that man can affect climate change, that no science that supports such a notion"](http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/07/delay-man-is-not-causing-climate-ch…) is now facing a [serious prison sentence for money laundering](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/25/tom-delay-guilty-money-laun…).
China is investing heavily in 1GWe nuclear plants and plans to reach 400GWe capacity by 2050.
[China nuclear power](http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html)
>*The temperatures inside the chamber will be more than 100 million degrees and create pressures more than 100 billion times Earth's atmospheric pressure.*
[Daily Mail](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1329611/2-2bn-superlab-s…)
That is some serious engineering. How can we contain those tempertures and pressures! (I suppose it could be a typo on the order of magnitude, it is the Daily Mail).
I wish them every success, and hope it works a treat.
#10 DavidCOG,
If you are looking for an argument, looks like you have found one.
Let me ask you two questions - are more concerned with your anti-nuclear crusade or mitigating climate change? And the inseparable question of whether you are interested in the realities of energy production rather than what is little more than a propagandistic advocacy of renewables?
Before I say any more, let me make a "preemptive strike" and state I regard AGW as a matter of surpassing importance and I am very much on the left of politics.
Your admonition "don't get dragged down in to a debate about estimates of what it costs and what it can do" is absurd. Any real chance of maintaining a safe climate is utterly dependent on energy economics. Quite simply, if it costs too much and/or doesn't deliver reliable electricity, it's not going to happen on a scale that counts. What you are in effect advocating is to obfuscate the issues that matter most. This is in dramatic contrast with the insistence on the primacy of the science in debate over climate.
I'm only going to touch on a couple of the issues you raised in your post. The first is the admiring terms in which you cite the deployment of 7 GW nameplate PV capacity in the last year. That's equivalent to less than 1 GWe coal or nuclear and quite a bit less in northern Europe where most of that PV has been deployed. I took the trouble of looking at the peak output during November of Germany's 15 GWe nominal PV capacity. In the middle of the day peak output ranged from about 0.8 GW to about 2.5 GW. How many coal fired power plants is that going to shut down? Probably none - not a one.
This would be not so bad if it was not costing an arm and a leg. But it is. Most recent estimate I have seen puts the German cost by 2015 at well in excess of 100 billion euros. Maybe that might be enough to shut a coal plant - though I still doubt it. But it's not going to make a tap of difference to climate. Do we want to affect climate or feel "green"?
Obviously wind is much closer to being economic, but I note that here: http://www.gwec.net/fileadmin/documents/Publications/GWEO%202010%20fina… the Global Wind Energy Council in association with Greenpeace, puts it's most optimistic estimate of wind deployment by 2030 at about 2,400GW. That's about equivalent to 800 GWe of coal or nuclear. China alone projects a generation capacity of 1,500 GWe by 2020. Is this where we really need to be at?
My second issue is your claim that it takes 10 years to build a nuclear power plant. If you were interested in energy realities rather than pushing your pet technologies, you would be having a careful look at what China is achieving in it's new nuclear build with time frames of 3 - 5 years. With standardized designs and accumulating engineering experience, 3 years from first concrete to criticality is looking like a real possibility.
I might summarise this post as: I am not the slightest bit interested in feel good stories about solar, wind, nuclear or anything else. What I do care about is LCOE cost, build rates, materials requirements, feasibility and cost of grid integration and environmental footprint.
ackers,
its straight from the horses mouth, http://www.tinyurl.com.au/ykv
This paragraph should interest wacko wow.
'In ignition experiments, more energy will be released than the amount of laser energy required to initiate the reaction, a condition known as energy gain. NIF researchers expect to achieve a self-sustaining fusion burn reaction with energy gain within the next two years.'
Stan Mayer was splitting H2O with lasers years ago, his patents are still online.
There is no such thing as 'denialist' or 'denialism' trent1492 #5 - even with a capital 'D'. Look up any main-stream English Dictionary if you don't believe me.
Alarmist is in there however :
Alarminst (n) A person who needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe.
Go figure. Sums it all up perfectly I think. :-)
Do have a nice day now yar heeya.
NIF is interesting stuff, but it has no means of capturing and utilising any excess energy produced. So even if they do achieve net energy gain within 2 years, a fusion power plant is still the proverbial 10 years away.
> 'the National Ignition Facility in Livermore California, scientists are aiming to build the world's first sustainable fusion reactor by 'creating a miniature star on Earth'.
Funnily enough, I guess that this project, unlike the European CERN experiment, won't generate complaints worldwide and a clamour for the US Senate and Government to intervene and stop this before we consume the earth in the fireball at the centre of a new sun...
> Let me ask you two questions - are more concerned with your anti-nuclear crusade or mitigating climate change
Quackers, why only those two questions, both loaded?
1) nuclear isn't mitigating climate change. You still have to build out, taking years, you still have to mine, producing pollution including CO2 and curing concrete (of which you need lots) produces even more CO2.
2) why is it anti-nuclear to claim correctly that nuclear power plants are not the solution?
Here are the reasons why it isn't a solution:
1) lag time too long for a short term solution
2) CO2 production still higher than renewables
3) Now relying on supernova-created fossil fuels, still non renewalble
4) unsafe and untested new designs are hailed as "the solution" despite being untested
5) old designs ineffective as a long term solution
6) still reliant on the resources of other countries for most of the world, a continuation of the lock in strategy
7) only big corporations can play, whose size ensures that the economic process is inefficient
8) we still have renewables which need building out to exploit the resources
9) nuclear is ineffective economically. after 60 years, it still needs cash injections or won't be built, so only a command economy like the old soviet bloc can ensure its roll-out
10) nuclear is still unsafe, as shown by the fact that nobody in the free market will insure them, so governments have to underwrite accidents
#18, Bent can you kindly piss off.
Nobody wants to hear you wibble like a nutter.
Anybody knows how the NIF compares to that ITER thingy they're building in (one of the nicest parts of) France?
#20 Wow
What you have written is almost all plain wrong. I'm going to skip the economics stuff as it's hardly worth replying to, other than to observe that France went nuclear without becoming "like the old soviet bloc" and manages to supply some of the cheapest electricity in Western Europe.
1. Nuclear power has in the past and continues to contribute far more to mitigating climate change than non-hydro renewables. Not by a little bit, but by a huge margin. This is indisputable. If you don't believe me, then go and lookup CO2 emissions per kWh of electricity for whichever countries you choose. eg France ~80 grams/kWh. Denmark over 500 grams/kWh according to Danish Energy Agency and a whopping > 800 grams/kWh according to David MacKay.
2. Building nuclear or wind or CSP or anything requires "curing concrete", mining and smelting iron etc etc. The thing is that wind or CSP require not just a bit more but hugely more materials and land than modern Gen III+ nuclear. See this for some estimates: http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/18/tcase4/ . Nuclear of course needs uranium mining. How about we try to get to the nitty gritty and quantify things for a change rather than wild assertions?
3. The task to decarbonise electricity generation is huge. There is no substantive evidence that solar and wind can be deployed any faster than nuclear. The materials requirements mentioned above for renewables should at least raise an eyebrow - lots of stuff usually means longer to build. We have an existence proof than nuclear can be deployed at good rates in France which did it over a period of about twenty years. Furthermore wind turbines for example have a service life of about twenty years, which means that they will have to be replaced well before any complete decarbonization of electricity is achieved - very possibly more than once.
4. There is enough uranium. A large recent MIT study finds that there is enough uranium even for a "once through" fuel cycle to around the end of the century: http://web.mit.edu/mitei/docs/spotlights/nuclear-fuel-cycle.pdf . Should the price of uranium go up sufficiently there is certain to be an accelerated development of closed fuel cycle technologies - for both uranium and thorium. This will extend the supply of nuclear fuel by a factor of at least 100, which is more than enough to see us through until fusion or something more exotic comes about. FWIW I would like to see closed fuel cycles developed as soon as possible as it produces far less and shorter lived waste.
5. "unsafe and untested new designs". Are you taking about evolutionary Gen III+ reactors (eg EPR or AP1000)? The first of these will be on-line soon, probably first in China. These will be the safest nuclear power stations ever built - by a considerable margin. If you are talking about Gen IV reactors with a closed fuel cycle, then yes more R&D is required, though not as much as you may think. For example there are moves to build a demonstration GE-Hitachi S-PRISM reactor, based on the highly successful IFR program at US Argone National Labs, at Savanah River. Meanwhile the Gen III+ reactors will do a perfectly good job.
The bottom line is that there is more than likely a place for all technologies and in particular nuclear as the core baseload electricity source. And yes, there is baseload demand regardless of "baseload is a myth" myth.
In any case, the developing world is very likely going to drive the deployment of nuclear power - lead by China and India. Quite poor developing countries such as Bangladesh and Vietnam now have agreements with Russia to build nuclear power plants as a major part of their plans to alleviate severe electricity shortages. Following on from the UAEs nuclear program, expect several middle eastern countries to make announcements soon - including Turkey , Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt. This is happening because at least in these parts of the world nuclear is the cheapest and most reliable non-fossil technology available. It's really the only viable option in some cases - trying to throw something like variable wind into an overstretched and unstable grid in somewhere like Bangladesh would be insane.
Some western countries may sit on their hands dithering, but it is not going to stop world wide deployment of nuclear power on an accelerating scale. It would be best to do it as well as possible.
22 toto
A large part of the work of NIF is nuclear weapons research:
https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/missions/national_security/
As far as I am aware ITER is purely for development of fusion generated electricity.
22 Toto:
ITER will use the tokamak design (like has been used in JET and others), the idea being to create stable, sustained fusion in the form of a contained plasma that emits more energy than you put in. The principle behind NIF is to trigger a short, sharp bursts. In principle, you could use this for power generation if you had a train of pellets being zapped one after the other and some means of harvesting the energy, but this is a long, long way off and the most NIF will ever achieve in this department is a proof-of-concept.
> Nuclear power has in the past and continues to contribute far more to mitigating climate change than non-hydro renewables
No it doesn't.
> If you don't believe me, then go and lookup CO2 emissions per kWh of electricity for whichever countries you choose. eg France ~80 grams/kWh....
And how much of the power is from renewables?
You're picking figures that, sans context, make the statement you want, not the statement of fact you proclaim it.
> Building nuclear or wind or CSP or anything requires "curing concrete",
you don't need 100t 747-proof dome of concrete around wind turbines.
> The task to decarbonise electricity generation is huge.
Says nothing about nuclear. Just about how oil/coal/gas is bad.
> There is no substantive evidence that solar and wind can be deployed any faster than nuclear
Uhm, there's the time to build each.
Just as a start.
There's no substantive evidence for it if you decide to ignore the evidence...
> There is enough uranium.
If you have breeders. Which the USA has threatened Iran with invasion for even minor progress towards. If you're going to disallow options to countries you don't like, they aren't options for global change, are they.
> unsafe and untested new designs". Are you taking about evolutionary Gen III+ reactors (eg EPR or AP1000)?
Among others.
And the fact that the FIRST ONE will be put online is exactly my point.
Chernobyl used new techniques but the government cut corners and put operation of the site to lowest bidder. Who didn't understand the safety features or operations.
Boom.
And if it's safe, I take it the government isn't underwriting the insurance, and Lloyds or whoever is paying, yes?
> The bottom line is that there is more than likely a place for all technologies
Indeed. The first sensible thing you've said.
But you had to go ruin it all, didn't you:
> and in particular nuclear as the core baseload electricity source.
Nope.
Buildout of nuclear is far too long, the payback uncertain and isn't actually reliable enough. France had water shortage problems in a heatwave and had to take many stations offline.
Given that the renewables actually have a BETTER match between load and production, baseload need is reduced (see Crock of the Week, IIRC, you can reduce power load available by 15-30% because peak demand nominative curve matches peak production of renewables).
NONE of which has actually answered the original query:
why did you make up two strawmen positions in the first place?
> There is no such thing as 'denialist' or 'denialism'
So clueless.
Here's a free one, kid.
When you deny, what is the stance of opinion?
Denialist.
When there's a general stance of denial, what is that general stance called?
Denialism.
But I guess you can't expect more from some hick from the bondooks like billy bob here.
PS that's not to say that nuclear has no future, but that the short term solution is NOT to build lots of nuclear power stations but sort out how we're going to do that.
Meanwhile, because we want to reduce coal use, increase renewables to replace fossil fueled power and reduce waste of power.
Reduction is more than 100% free, instantaneous in application and has no pollution.
When the problems of new designs, the political problems that plague nuclear (proliferation) and the product FINALLY safe enough for the free market to insure, build out of nuclear baseload may well be necessary as well as accepted.
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/government/88/8845gov3.html
Chemical & Engineering News
November 8, 2010 DOI:10.1021/CEN110210164212
Perspective
Sustainable Growth Is An Oxymoron
(hat tip to Metafilter)
Interesting research into using particle accelerators to create nuclear reactions for power.
[Italian interview](http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&ad…)
[theoretical background](http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf35.html)
Tim, watch out for big denier hype I hear is coming next week over some new book. " Slaying the Sky Dragon Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory." They claim they have debunked the GHG theory! Jeez, screwballs!
May be worth a read just for the belly laughs.
http://www.amazon.com/Slaying-Sky-Dragon-Greenhouse-ebook/dp/B004DNWJN6…
How'd the open mike DDT session go?
26 Wow,
How can I make this more plain for you. Nuclear generates ~15% of the world's electricity, and about 20% in the US and Europe and has been doing so for decades. Non-hydro renewables generate ~3%. It is plainly obvious that nuclear has contributed and continues to contribute vastly more to reducing CO2 emissions than non-hydro renewables. You are simply in denial if you dispute this.
Some nice charts showing per capita CO2 emissions:
Per Capita CO2 Emissions
Go here to find the electricity generation by fuel for most nations: http://www.iea.org/stats/index.asp
For example France
http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/FRELEC.pdf
Do some comparisons.
31, seems to be another Tim Ball effort according to DeSmogBlog... http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1272
Cross post on the [nuclear price issue](http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/11/14/radioactive-sandpi…).
@Jeff Daly
the 'hockeyschtick' is promoting it already!
Here is an analysis of it.
Even before publication, Slaying the Sky Dragon was destined to be the benchmark for future generations of climate researchers. This is the world's first and only full volume refutation of the greenhouse gas theory of man-made global warming. Nine leading international experts methodically expose how willful fakery and outright incompetence were hidden within the politicized realm of government climatology. Applying a thoughtful and sympathetic writing style, the authors help even the untrained mind to navigate the maze of atmospheric thermodynamics. Step-by-step the reader is shown why the so-called greenhouse effect cannot possibly exist in nature. By deft statistical analysis the cornerstones of climate equations â incorrectly calculated by an incredible factor of three - are exposed then shattered. This volume is a scientific tour de force and the game-changer for international environmental policymakers as well as being a joy to read for hard-pressed taxpayers everywhere.
Tim Ball can be bought to say anything. The list a co-authors is collective of some of the biggest morons out there, including the estimable Oliver K Manuel.
Such gentlemanly comments sill I see from my friends here at deltoid. (#27) :-)
My observation 'still stands' however.
You can put a review of the book here.
http://www.lulu.com/product/ebook/slaying-the-sky-dragon---death-of-the…
The Australian's War on Science has become a civil war!
[An Oz journalist has broken ranks](http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/11/26/the-torture-of-writing-about-climat…), describing attempting to write on climate change there as "torture", self-censoring stories so as to get them published, and that editor Chris Mitchell is "inclined to conspiracy theories".
Chris Mitchell is now [suing everyone who has reported the comments for defamation](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/mitchell-says-posetti-de…) (Imagine what he would say if politicians, especially Green politicians, did the same when his journos report, or rather distort, their comments...)
DavidCOG - "If you thought combating ACC denial was tough - wait until the anti-renewable / pro-nuclear monkeys attack! It's the same deal all over again - they have a script of zombie talking points that cannot be killed."
Right with you there. Try Brave New Climate or the Energy Collective where the pro nuclear crowd have created echo chambers of nuclear. EC is not quite so bad however BNC is dominated by the 'work' of Peter Lang.
Anyway I tend to use load following and the fact that conventional nuclear is baseload only and cannot load follow at all. France is about the only country that runs load following nukes however special modifications are needed for this and the range and ramp rate are still limited. Nuclear still needs peaking plants.
Secondly the imaginary technology works angle pretty well. Most of the fixes for the nuclear problems are with designs that only exist in blueprints like the IFR that Barry Brook pushes with religious fervour. Apparently this wonderful new technology could be rolling out of the factories in 5 years time if only the greenies/socialists/anti-nuclear people would get out of the way and let nuclear save the planet. IF you want a laugh read "Prescription for the Planet" by Tom Blees - didn't stop chuckling the whole way through. This whole book shows how the IFR can save the world despite the the fact the the fuel electrochemical processing has never been done on an industrial scale and must be done in moisture free environment in intense radioactivity. One bit of moisture risks a sodium fire so imagine an aluminium smelter that had the same radioactivity as a spent fuel waste cooling pond that also has to be totally excluded from any moisture or leaks. Anyway apparently this is a piece of cake according to Blees and Brook et-al.
Finally I am against any one technology that will save the world as we know it. Nuclear people are far more guilty of this fallacy than renewables however pro-renewable people are not completely innocent. The many problems we are facing are, in my opinion symptoms, of overshoot and far beyond any one technology no matter how good. I recently read "Limits to Growth - the Thirty Year Update" and it makes a compelling case.
The only solution, again in my opinion, is a restructuring into a steady state economy with no requirement for growth for a healthy and vibrant economy. We must reduce our footprint on the Earth before considering any energy supply.
To my mind renewables fit much better into a zero growth economy and they are my energy system of choice. However many countries have low renewable resources so they will of course choose nuclear power and as far as I am concerned that is better than coal. The imaginary at the moment small nuclear reactors should be better at this.
The point is that we need to reduce the problem first, then fit whatever renewables we can into the remaining energy demand and then if nothing renewable fits consider nuclear power. Again the LFTR if it ever becomes non-imaginary is probably the best non-renewable thing here.
The point is that nuclear is not the savior of the world nor are renewables. The saviors of the world are human beings that need to learn to live with what streams in the windows of our house rather than burning the furniture as we have been doing up till now.
Bill Bob,
Some help that [you requested](http://www.google.com.au/search?q=define%3A+denialist&rls=com.microsoft…).
James [that is](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2953…) a ripper!
Now we watch the oligarchy force come down on the whistleblower.
Edner, Brook has bias (emphasing the pros of nuke and and deemphasising the pros of renewables vice versa with each's weakness) but I wouldn't agree that he has a religious approach. I was influenced by the attention to facts that he uses. Reading Brook shifted my opinion and educated me on several issues. Though the bias (as I described) I found less convincing.
Jakerman - "but I wouldn't agree that he has a religious approach."
No I don't think that he has a religious approach either he just pushes the nuclear bandwagon with a religious type fervour. He has valid, to him, scientific reasons for this promotion of nuclear technology. I just disagree with it as I do not think any technology can save us unless we start saving ourselves with some lifestyle changes.
Again I could be completely wrong and we could grow infinitely on a finite planet however there is a growing (no pun intended) body of evidence to say that the Club of Rome and Limits to Growth may have been closer to the mark than its detractors maintain.
The limits to growth argument is a strong one indeed. But I fear our momentum will carry us into a rhelm of where our choices are scant.
Ideally we could shift our economy to a knowlege and service base that could grow for quite some time. But the faster we consume that seems a direction that has an ever shrinking escape path.
If the energy plutocarcy has its way we will delay action until geoengineering is our only option (with all the added risks).
The open mike on DDT went well, but Brian Dunning was over at the other pub full of skeptics that night, so we did not settle things in the traditional Australian way with a drinking contest.
Jakerman - "The limits to growth argument is a strong one indeed. But I fear our momentum will carry us into a rhelm of where our choices are scant."
I completely agree. The choices to me are change now or ignore the problem and hope it goes away and change will happen anyway however in an uncontrolled way.
I hope we are both wrong.
I'm sorry but as an engineer each time I hear the anti-nuclear, pro-nuclear brigades go at each other's throats I am irresistibly reminded of the coliseum sketch in Month Python and the Life of Brian.
@ender
Pretty much all wrong. Sodium is the coolant in the IFR (and other fast reactors such as the Russian BN-800). IFR fuel is metal encased in cladding and it is these fuel rods and blanket material that are removed for pyroprocessing - not the sodium coolant. The reprocessing separates out the fission products (the waste) from the actinides which are subsequently fabricated into new rods with the addition of makeup material. The sodium coolant stays in the reactor and does not need to be stored with the waste.
You seem to be confusing IFR with molten salt reactors where the fissile and fertile material is dissolved in the coolant.
South Korea has a program to have an industrial scale pyroprocessing plant operating by 2015. A number of other countries are also working on this including Japan.
Here is a 2007 paper from INL on progress in pyroprocessing development: http://www.inl.gov/technicalpublications/Documents/3931942.pdf
This is possibly the most worst remark I have ever seen about the climate problem - no matter how desirable the outcome may be. Not only is there no prospect for this happing in the foreseeable future - there is also no historical precedent. FFS China and India have annual GDP growth of 8-10%. There is virtually no prospect of world population stabilizing, most optimistically, by 2050.
No amount of wishful thinking is going to change this situation. With the possible exception of environmental disaster/energy crunch or other unforeseen catastrophe, there is no prospect of a world wide steady state economy before long after a safe climate is anything other than a distant memory. The disaster scenarios hardly bear thinking about.
Axiom Number 1: Energy demand will continue to grow sharply worldwide for the foreseeable future.
This is at the very core of the climate problem.
quokka - "Pretty much all wrong. Sodium is the coolant in the IFR (and other fast reactors such as the Russian BN-800). IFR fuel is metal encased in cladding and it is these fuel rods and blanket material that are removed for pyroprocessing - not the sodium coolant."
Maybe you should take another look at this:
http://www.ipd.anl.gov/anlpubs/2002/07/43534.pdf
"The pins were removed from the molds, cut to length and placed in stainless-steel cladding that contained sufficient metallic sodium to provide a thermal bond in the gap between the cladding and the pin."
Do you think that it would be safe to remove the cladding in the open air and give it a quick wash with water?
and
"Various mixtures of chloride or fluoride salts have been used, but all must operate in high temperature (450 C and up) and in a dry argon atmosphere."
I never said the coolant was removed however the whole fuel processing center must be dry to avoid moisture causing problems with all the processes that go on.
" Not only is there no prospect for this happing in the foreseeable future - there is also no historical precedent."
Actually there are plenty of historical precedents. The archeological record is littered with civilisations that risen and fallen. We are just one of them. We may think we are special however so did the Romans and this did not prevent their amazing civilisation from falling.
Play with World3 or the equivalent for a while. Even if the IFR is the best thing since sliced bread and works fantastically, eventually the entire output of as many as you can build is spent cleaning up pollution. I can see you can not accept this and wishfully think that we can continue to grow forever with the IFR supplying unlimited energy which will magically create resources for the unlimited world population that unlimited energy would allow. I am not sure how the IFR replaces the topsoil or makes up for the loss of complexity in the soil and subsequent loss of food quality or replaces the fish in the sea etc.
The alternative do not bear thinking about and I am not a doomer. We can progress to a better society or not - the choice is with us. Blindly increasing the energy supply no matter how clean it is will not solve the problem - it may look like it is solving it for a while however nature will bite back sooner or later.
quokka - "Axiom Number 1: Energy demand will continue to grow sharply worldwide for the foreseeable future."
Just a small amendment:
Axiom Number 1: Energy demand will continue to grow sharply worldwide for the foreseeable future until it can't.
Then what???
Jeremy - "I'm sorry but as an engineer each time I hear the anti-nuclear, pro-nuclear brigades go at each other's throats I am irresistibly reminded of the coliseum sketch in Month Python and the Life of Brian."
I am not so much anti "nuclear" any more, I am more anti "nuclear will save the world". Just as much as I would be anti "renewables will save the world"
Nuclear will have a place and it is better than coal however it is not the holy grail that will deliver us from overshoot as many nuclear proponents will try to argue.
Stephen,
Many thanks for the thoughtful posts. In particular, you are correct when you argue that it is folly to argue that we can increase energy supply and consumption forever. This argument, which quokka apparently poses, blindly ignores the effects that ever-increasing consumption are having on the planet's ecological life support systems. I have written about this topic on various threads in Deltoid very many times over the past several years, yet people still come in here promulgating arguments that brazenly ignore human impacts on the natural economy, as if that does not matter in terms of human welfare. I suggest that quokka read up a bit of the empirical literature on the value of supporting ecological services in permitting humans to exist and persist. By now we know that indirect services sustain human civilization in a wide array of ways, and that expansion of the human enterprise as currently defined is reducing the capacity of nature to support man. The crux of the matter is in seeking economic and political solutions to global problems that aim to give everyone on the planet some modicum of dignity and security whilst not further simplifying nature, pushing complex adaptive systems towards and beyond thresholds where they will be unable to support life in a manner that we are used to.
Colleagues in my profession (population ecology) have the massive task of providing concrete evidence that the human assault on nature cannot be sustained. The developed world alone - making up < 20% of the planet's human population - already consumes natural capital beyond the sustainable means of the planet's natural systems. In fact, were one to compile the volumes of evidence already published in dozens of peer-reviewed journals, it would be easy to show that humans and nature are on a collision course. Adopting nucelar energy is not the solution to the equity dilemma nor will it address serious environmental issues of today. It is time that we recognized the need to address the real problem - that is, the scale of the human enterprise - and not only small symptoms of it. Only in that way will we be able to get through the bottleneck that we have created over the past century.
@Jeff Harvey
I do not contest that there are limits to growth and that humans and the rest of life on earth are on a collision course with in all likelihood very nasty consequences. Exactly what the limits are is obviously uncertain, but I 100% agree that a conservative approach is the only sane one. I agree wholeheartedly that population should be stabilized as soon as possible and that GDP and GDP growth are by far not the be all and end all metric of human well being. I also agree that the north/south divide is grossly unjust.
In short, I fully agree that there is every indication that the planet is headed to an environment train smash and that climate problem is not the only major problem.
I have spent a lot of time thinking about the politics and political economy of the environmental problem and come to the conclusion that the environmental movement is simply delusional if it thinks it has political clout to bring about the truly radical changes required for zero growth. Not even close. Maybe in twenty or thirty years if things go badly downhill it may become part of the mainstream agenda - but not now. It's not even clear to me that capitalism could continue in zero growth - history suggests it may not. The fundamental nature of the required changes should not be underestimated. This is not being defeatist, it is a realistic assessment of where we are at.
No matter how undesirable it may be and whether we like it or not, worldwide economic growth is going to continue and energy demand is going to rise for the foreseeable future. If that rising demand is not met with low emissions energy, it WILL be met by burning stuff. And that will be game over for a safe climate. What are we going to do about that?
Well said Stephen, @52
Billy Bob, we aren't your friends.
You aren't ours.
And you're the alarmist. How many times have you proclaimed it all a scam to enter in a new world order for communist greens, or the attempt to send us back to the stone age or all sorts of other doom-and-gloom scenarios?
I guess you get pissed off at the warnings "Cliff edge, rockfall hazard" because they're alarmist...
Jeff Harvey - "In particular, you are correct when you argue that it is folly to argue that we can increase energy supply and consumption forever."
After reading Limits to Growth then this became obvious. I would really appreciate if you can recommend some more reading along these lines for the interested amateur as my knowledge of population dynamics is limited really to this book.
The problem I fear is that humans are so geared to solving short term problems that long term problems take second place. Witness all the solutions to climate change cannot possibly interrupt even a bit the far more important task of making money. Nothing is more sacred that jobs and money - indeed the solutions have to be cast in the light of creating jobs and money before anyone will do anything about them.
quokka - "If that rising demand is not met with low emissions energy, it WILL be met by burning stuff. And that will be game over for a safe climate. What are we going to do about that?"
The problem is that meeting that rising demand even with low emission energy without first restraining growth will simply lead to more demand that the roll-out of low emissions technology no matter how cheap and clean can cope with. We will still burn stuff.
I see you are thinking about the problem and like me have no real solution. Unlimited low emission energy seems like the ideal solution and yes we have to cope with rising demand but can't we also work to reducing that demand to manageable levels rather than just rolling out the that will solve the problem?
I am more in favour of renewables because more pro-renewable people seem to be in favour of powering down to some extent. Most nuclear people I talk to are more that energy will save the world and there is no need to touch our way of life.
I reject most of what I read on BNC simply because the vast majority of people there are in the second category and dismiss renewables and EE&C as greenie whims while only serious people recognise that nuclear is the answer. Barry has written that if you are serious about climate change then you must embrace nuclear power and to deny this is un-scientific.
Sorry this is garbled
Unlimited low emission energy seems like the ideal solution and yes we have to cope with rising demand but can't we also work to reducing that demand to manageable levels rather than just rolling out the that will solve the problem?
Should read
Unlimited low emission energy seems like the ideal solution and yes we have to cope with rising demand but can't we also work to reducing that demand to manageable levels rather than just rolling out the "insert favourite technology here" that will solve the problem?
If, as you presumably believe, nuclear energy is higher in price than carbon-emitting energies,
then in those countries now emitting large amounts of CO2, won't that higher price accomplish the demand limitation you call for?
I notice you acknowledge nuclear energy is better than coal energy but make no acknowledgment of its superiority to natural gas energy.
Is this you?
If those are your words, how might it happen that you would be on a rig?
(How fire can be domesticated)
Dear fire can be domesticated - trying to see if I am a part of the anti nuclear gas conspiracy Mr Adams has dreamt up?
Try looking again at that thread at the EC. You will clearly see why I visit oil rigs.
Ender:
There aren't too many load-following renewable sources (apart from the limited hydro) and they aren't reliable either.
Overlaid files and missing files in FOI2009.zip's yamal/ directory:
http://ijish.livejournal.com/26331.html
Chris - "There aren't too many load-following renewable sources (apart from the limited hydro) and they aren't reliable either."
Solar thermal with storage and gas backup is both load following and 'reliable' if you are using this term instead of despatchable. Geothermal is also both.
Wind is non despatchable like nuclear however when wind is delivering energy it can be curtailed or advanced automatically in response to demand in quite short time intervals.
Again this is not and should no be a contest of energy sources. This is not the question we should be answering really. The fundamental question is can we lower our energy and resource use while maintaining the benefits of our technology.
Jeff Id whines loudly when I point out he's propagating baseless innuendo:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/asd/#comment-40911
http://www.webcitation.org/5uZugl0Vk
I thought you'd like to see this about Richard North staying classy:
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/11/climategate-blogger-richard-nort…
Yes you are indeed my friendy friend Wow. (#56).
Alarmist's are always my friends. :-)
Yes, it's true. The green parasites are communists.
And yes, 'cliff rocks falling' signs are a waste of time and money.
Ender:
Ah yes, gas, the solution to all renewable non-load-following problems. Pity it's expensive and will run out one day. Solar thermal is expensive and always will be.
The only plentiful geothermal is expensive.
But unlike nuclear it can't be relied on.
I'd like to live in an ideal world too. It would be great to have all our electricity come from renewables but not many people and even fewer businesses (which is where most electricity is consumed) will want to pay the big cost of large scale renewable electricity (photovoltaics might have grid parity one day, that's the only possible exception to this). The cost of large scale renewable electricity means it's not going to happen in the forseeable future, especially in a political environment where the climate science denialists have scored major victories.
Doesn't look likely for a long time. Especially when our ideologically-motivated government benefit system is set up to reward high population growth. We got rid of the ideologically-motivated politicians who set most of this up, Howard and Costello, but unfortunately Rudd had a similar motivation. I don't believe Gillard has the same motivation, but she doesn't appear to have much interest in reversing it.
In summary, I think there's very little hope of reducing energy consumption in the next 10 years and very little hope of supplying much of it from renewables. CO2 emissions will keep going strong.
I'm seeking people who know their chops (and climate science literature) better than I do to critique an inactivist-friendly column that appeared in the local paper. Its author needs to see literature references for the critiques where possible, and (IMO) needs the critiques to come from someone other than me.
I've reprinted the column here (link); if you could critique it in the (moderated for quality) comments there, I'd be most grateful.
Spencer Weart's work on the history of climate change
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
and skeptical science
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
And, if more science needed, realclimate.
inactivist rhetoric is almost invariably shallow and you don't really need to know very much about the science to debunk their arguments.
Watch out for someone doing a Monckton, mind. Monckton once asked if anyone on the panel he was part of, discussing climate change, knwe the value for a certain figure to three significant figures.
He stated a number that was WRONG to three sig figs.
But, since he stated he knew it and stated three figures, many people would have bought his idea. If the others on the board had been as venal and open to flat out bare-faced lies as Monckton, they could easily have countered with a different number and not sweated whether it was right, just like he did.
> The only plentiful geothermal is expensive.
Tell Iceland.
> Ah yes, gas, the solution to all renewable non-load-following problems.
It's the solution to coal's problem of hours lead-up and nuclear's days lead-up.
> But unlike nuclear it can't be relied on.
Yes, nuclear can be relied upon not to respond to demand changes.
> not many people and even fewer businesses ... will want to pay the big cost of large scale renewable
They're paying for large-scale non-renewables, with the solid knowledge that they'll be replaced and subject to continual increase in prices, unlike renewables which will reduce in price as any new industry has happen to it.
> > The fundamental question is can we lower our energy and resource use while maintaining the benefits of our technology.
> Doesn't look likely for a long time.
Why?
Because people will demand nuclear and coal power rather than stop wasting energy?
This doesn't seem to be all that much of a problem to me. Why do you make such a big thing about it?
Note that the price of oil has increased fourfold, yet, despite this massive increase in cost, people are managing to deal with it. Yet you insist, despite this evidence, that price increases from moving to renewables will not be managed?
Drop the underwriting of nuclear power, drop the subsidies for fossil fuels. Spend 10% of what is saved on build-out of renewables and the deficit will decrease markedly.
Reduce waste by 50% and you'll be at a Northern European level of comfort.
> If, as you presumably believe, nuclear energy is higher in price than carbon-emitting energies,
No belief needed. It is. It's even more expensive than gas, which is the most expensive fossil fuel for electrical power generation.
And, until the mining and transport industry is zero-carbon, nuclear is not a non-carbon fuel.
We were talking about Australia.
If the load follows the forecast that's not really a problem. Even if it was it pales in significance compared with renewables.
Ha ha. Very funny. I was talking about being relied upon when it is really needed, i.e. at peak demand.
Right,
OK so you're saying that renewables will be cheaper than fossil fuel - one day. I'll just twiddle my thumbs until that happens and watch the CO2 graph keep going up in the mean time.
Why not?
As you deleted and ignored, the main part of the problem in Australia is population growth. As well, industry in Australia doesn't really care where their energy comes from as long as it is as cheap as possible.
The price of petrol took 30 years to increase fourfold in Australia so I wouldn't expect the economic impact to be much different from many other things.
We don't have any in Australia.
Not much of that (subsidies) in Australia either.
That'd be great but unfortunately energy in Australia is too cheap for many people to be bothered going to the trouble of reducing waste.
So I guess I'll just keep twiddling my thumbs and watching the CO2 graph keep rising.
It has been a bad few days for Richard 'Retracted' North. In addition to being picked up for his use of [racial smears](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2959…), he has also failed in both his complaints to the UK Press Complaints Commission:
[Adjudicated - Dr Richard A E North v The Guardian](http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NjgzMg==)
[Adjudicated - Dr Richard A E North v The Sunday Times](http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NjgzMQ==)
"Why not?" is not an answer, Chris.
The EU Average is about half the US average power use. Yet we aren't half as civilised. If anything, the EU is more advanced.
So it's a very simple question which you've managed to avoid answering:
> The fundamental question is can we lower our energy and resource use while maintaining the benefits of our technology.
Aluminium was extremely expensive. The Queen has a ring made of it. Not because they were cheap but because it was so expensive to refine.
Technology comes around and makes it cheap to extract.
Another example where technology changed things.
The one-piece coke can is cheaper and easier to make, wasting less energy because technology changed fabrication methods available that made a change in the production possible.
Another example of how technology has changed the need for power.
LED lights are more efficient than incandescents.
HPSV (high pressure sodium vapour) lights are more effective than incandescents or LPSV.
But you think it is not going to happen why?
Because you have a pet project.
> > Drop the underwriting of nuclear power,
> We don't have any in Australia.
And it's [more expensive](http://ezinearticles.com/?Nuclear-Power-for-Australia?&id=374453)
But, since you only have one and it's not commercial scale, I suppose it's easy not to have a problem getting insurers. Nothing to insure.
> > drop the subsidies for fossil fuels.
> Not much of that (subsidies) in Australia either.
Except all the tax breaks, lobbying on their behalf and so on..?
Yes, burning coal is much cheaper. Australia has no substantial plan to change that. Those CO2 emissions will keep going strong for a long, long time.
OK, they do give a lot of subsidy for coal-burning electricity to Aluminium producers. I'd love for this to end but no government that wants any chance of surviving the following election will ever do this.
OK, I agree there will be progress. In that case all we have to do is relax, let the new technologies take care of the problem and in due course there won't be too much CO2 emissions. Problem solved.
Wow (@ [#74](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2963…))
>"But you think it is not going to happen why?"
>"Because you have a pet project."
Care to be less cryptic? You imply that you know something about Chris that the rest of us don't. Could you elaborate what you mean?
> Care to be less cryptic?
Chris likes nuclear, so any change that doesn't end in more of it is given a reason to be untenable.
Did I use too many syllables?
> OK, I agree there will be progress. In that case all we have to do is relax, let the new technologies take care...
Funny this coming from someone who insists that new nuclear technologies are the solution to the problem...
Reduction is a 100% guarantee success to reduce costs and emissions and has a zero lag time. This is our first and best option.
Renewables are far cheaper to roll out, quicker to realise the ROI and are far, far safer and will only get cheaper. This is our second option.
Nuclear requires untested tech and subsidy to be competitive, despite 60 years of development with government grants and worldwide rollout. This is the option to take when technology has been tested and we still need more power that renewables cannot manage to fulfil.
But as I said, it's odd that someone who insists that the technology of nuclear power will solve the problems whines that I'm saying we should let technology solve our problems and that's unreasonable.
I guess you don't read your posts either, Chris.
> Those CO2 emissions will keep going strong for a long, long time.
Or, you know, you could waste less electricity, use all that hot, sunshine-drenched desert to produce solar, all that antarctic cold water for heat pump energy and not use either coal or radioactives.
Plus, where do you look to get your information about the future? Do you ask Mystic Meg? Read Tea Leaves?
If coal is not dug up nor uranium used, people will use less electricity because there will be less electricity to use.
Since you can't go out and refine your own uranium nor mine your own coal seam, all it requires is a ban on mining for these and they won't be sources of energy.
Since people can't build their own electric nuclear power stations, the government merely has to not subsidise or ignore the risks of nuclear power and the free market will run away from it like frightened chipmunks. This one has the advantage that the government doesn't actually have to do anything, the market will do it to itself, and the government can stay out completely.
Wow,
As usual your style spills into the snide and the bullying.
Your solution of 'let us just use less energy' seems to me to be both naive and unworkable. Unless you can find a bunch of politicians with a majority in parliament to pass the legistation, and willing to suicide polytically in order to do the right thing, it will remain a utopian dream. They have a hard enough time admitting that a carbon tax will raise the price of power (which is the whole bloody point!).
While we're at it, why not change mining law in Australia so that a person who owns the rights to a coal resource (or another mineral) does not automatically lose them if they don't mine it within a short period? Once you have a carbon trading scheme and coal becomes as valuable by remaining in the ground as it does out of it, you can sell offsets by competing directly for the carbon resource that shall not be mined and burnt. This competition and increased demand will also act to increase the price of coal and encourage lazy power companies to do some serious investing in renewables.
> As usual your style spills into the snide and the bullying.
As usual, play the man, not the ball.
> Your solution of 'let us just use less energy' seems to me to be both naive and unworkable.
Yes, Chris repeats the same tired old canard all the time.
Both of you are completely and utterly wrong.
> Unless you can find a bunch of politicians with a majority in parliament to pass the legistation, and willing to suicide polytically in order to do the right thing
When did use of power become a mandate under law? I don't remember being told I have to use electricity in the last set of laws passed...
Here's an idea: don't waste power.
It will save you money unless you're getting paid to use it.
"Use less" is one of the reasons why I favour fairly wide installation of domestic PV. When people can reduce their bills considerably many will go the extra to get the costs as small as possible. My mum's neighbours are already involved in a bragging competition for who's got the smallest power bill since they all (190 of them) had solar panels installed on their units. The first bills started coming in last week - the current winner is $10 a month.
(Mum's installation was delayed and she's got slightly more installed. I think she's holding her fire, until she can wave an even smaller bill under everyone's noses.)
Extend this approach into streets, suburbs and families and the idea of reducing use will soon become a badge of honour rather than the sign of a motheaten wallet. And the people who can afford PV out of their own pockets are likely to be higher users of airconditioning and the like, so bigger reductions for bigger users.
>When did use of power become a mandate under law? I don't remember being told I have to use electricity in the last set of laws passed...
>Here's an idea: don't waste power.
Yes, you know that and I know that. Yet people continue to use more power when they get told to use less. Our local council has gone as far as paying people to replace their wood stoves (where we burnt wood we grew ourselves in 25 acres of bush, and replanted every tree we cut) with electrical heat pumps. At least our power is hydroelectrical.
Where did I say this?
OK, in that case just sit back and relax, let it happen and we have nothing to worry about. You keep missing the point that this is not going to happen to the extent needed by itself.
Far cheaper than coal? I don't think so.
They had better get cheaper if there is to be any chance of getting cheaper than coal. BTW, doesn't look likely except for photovoltaics.
Fine, as long as government and business are financially rational then you have nothing to worry about.
But as I said, it's odd that someone who insists that the technology of nuclear power will solve the problems
Where did I say that?
So will it? The point is that renewables are not going to replace coal-burning if left to their own devices because, barring photovoltaics, they will remain more expensive than coal for a long time. Even photovoltaics are yet to be cheaper than coal-burning in the vast majority of places. Renewables are not going to replace most coal-burning without substantial subsidies, and there are no genuine plans for those substantial subsidies.
You don't read them carefully.
Conspiracy time: when I Google "Deltoid" it no longer comes up on the first page at all. I have to google "Deltoid blog" but even that delivers me to a year old post and not the main page.
That's great if you can get someone else to pay most of the cost. Unfortunately, ad hoc subsidy schemes are usually not much more than token gestures and are unlikely to ever have a great deal of effect, especially considering that households are only directly responsible for 20% of electricity consumption. None of these ad hoc subsidy schemes are ever likely to make a big difference.
> That's great if you can get someone else to pay most of the cost.
You're misreading adelady.
With PV the "game" is that, because of feed-in tarrifs, you can actually reduce your bill to nil by reducing use.
This is not saying that you need PV to use less, because you can use less by
a) not installing PV
b) not using the clothes dryer
which saves money, not cost money.
But, with something you can get a FIT with, you can find not only do you reduce your bill by using less, you use less of the power from that local source (PV being the easiest to install for electricity generation in a residence) which gives you money back.
Not just the difference, but DOUBLE the difference!
So, no using less doesn't require you find someone else to pay.
PS you need to pay more for nuclear in Australia, yet you don't seem to be averse to people having to pay extra for THAT, why so leery of doing so with renewables?
Oh, sorry, forgot: you have a pet project here.
> > Renewables are far cheaper to roll out,
> Far cheaper than coal? I don't think so.
Just because you don't think doesn't make coal cheaper.
Don't you know how much it costs and how long it takes to build a coal powered station, during which you cannot generate electricity and therefore the investment is losing the ROI of 10%+ you'd get investing elsewhere?
Add to that the fact that coal is a dead-end technology (literally so), even if mitigation doesn't happen.
Why do you INSIST in scaring people by promoting the false dichotomy that anything that isn't nuclear must be coal?
Oh, sorry, forgot again, you have a pet project here.
> They had better get cheaper if there is to be any chance of getting cheaper than coal.
Nope, not at all true. As time goes on, if coal isn't phased out, demand will push the prices up. Since there's thousands of times more renewable energy available than any currently legitimate population of earth could want, demand is not a problem.
Again, why do you insist that we must use coal?
Oops, forgot again. Pet project.
> > But as I said, it's odd that someone who insists that the technology of nuclear power will solve the problems
> Where did I say that?
Yes, you don't read your own posts.
Whenever you say that it's the fourth generation that will solve the problems of lack of uranium, dangers of nuclear and all that tosh you keep spouting when you're not pushing coal.
> Yet people continue to use more power when they get told to use less.
Well, there's funny.
When there's a recession and money tight, people use less electricity.
When petrol prices rise, people use less.
When people get the chance to use less, they use less.
Why else does Europe use 1/2 the power per capita the US does, or 1/3 what Canada does?
Because people given the chance will use less.
But people like you offer the ones who don't want to change their profligate lifestyle the mesmerising prospect that nuclear power will come to the rescue (cf the "technology will save us" that Chris hates when it comes to it not saving nuclear power at the same time), therefore they don't have to change.
Why do people not use less?
Because of you and people like you, MFS.
No, you're misreading adelady. Other people get to subsidize the solar cells on installation or by subsidizing the power they produce.
I don't have a clothes dryer.
When are you going to get this straight. I have absolutely no interest in nuclear electricity IF it is more expensive than renewables. If it is indeed true that nuclear electricity is more expensive than renewables then why are there so many statements about nuclear energy that are just plain wrong? What have these people making wrong statements about nuclear energy got to fear when they should have nothing to fear because it is putatively more expensive?
> Other people get to subsidize the solar cells on installation or by subsidizing the power they produce.
Ah continued misreading there from Chris. Just as well I'm sitting down, else I'd faint in shock.
Try reading.
Using less doesn't require PV. Using less requires using less which is 150% free, maybe more.
But the game adelady's mum and friends are playing isn't merely use less, but to have a lower bill than anyone else.
Someone who uses no power will have a bill of nil.
Someone who uses less power than installed PV to their home will have a bill of negative.
Which one "wins" the game.
Funny how you don't care about subsidising the cost of nuclear, by the way.
But you have a propoganda to support, don't you.
> I have absolutely no interest in nuclear electricity IF it is more expensive than renewables.
This is already true.
Yet, somehow, you're still supporting nuclear.
OK, maybe it's not nuclear you're supporting but coal.
> What have these people making wrong statements about nuclear energy got to fear when they should have nothing to fear because it is putatively more expensive?
Because people like you insist that it's nuclear or coal.
Here are costs from the US on [generation costs](http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-200-2007-011/CEC-200-2007…)
Advanced Nuclear 67
Wind power 60
And from a European study, the figures are:
Nuclear Energy 107.0 â 124.0
Wind Energy Onshore 49.7 â 96.1
Though you can't fit a suitable sized wind turbine on top of your house, so for electricity generation, you're looking at PV, but if you only want to reduce your power needs, heating the water from solar power is much more cost effective.
You can still use low-flow or non power shower and reduce your hot water needs which may mean you have a surfeit of hot water you don't want.
[John](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2968…):
I've noticed exactly the same thing. In the past when I've used a new computer I usually typed in "delt" and it was enough to give a link, in the first 10 returns, to Tim's front page. Nice and quick, when there's no bookmark. Now the front page is nowhere to be found, even with "deltoid blog".
The same thing happened with scroogle.org a few months ago, but their reason for disappearing scroogle is a bit more obvious!
> why are there so many statements about nuclear energy that are just plain wrong?
Got any?
Wow,
#89:
>"Oh, sorry, forgot: you have a pet project here."
#90:
>"Oh, sorry, forgot again, you have a pet project here."
#91:
>"Why do people not use less?"
>"Because of you and people like you, MFS."
#93:
>"But you have a propoganda to support, don't you."
#94:
>"Because people like you insist that it's nuclear or coal."
I put it to you that either your comprehension skills are woeful, or that you have fallen sooo far down the conspiracy black hole that you confabulate every time you read a post, and assign secret agendas to any post that disagrees with yours. You're a moron, Wow, and a snide, aggressive moron at that. By personifying the luddite greenie stereotype, you give environmentalism a bad name.
In www.helencaldicott.com/chapter3.pdf she talks about nuclear fuel fabrication workers being exposed to radon gas. This is just garbage in any significant sense because the radon gas is released when the Uranium ore is mined and ground up. Any further generation of radon gas by the Uranium in human timescales is completely insignificant. Some people claim that nuclear power stations will increase background radiation when in actual fact if they replace coal-burning stations then they will reduce background radiation compared with those coal-burning stations.
But of course those facts don't need to be mentioned anyway because renewables are cheaper than nuclear, aren't they?
If I understand Chris O'Neill correctly, people who mine Uranium ore and people who process Uranium ore are not "fuel fabrication workers", therefore it's OK to expose them to breathable radiation hazards.
I gather he suggests that nuclear is cheaper than renewables.
Perhaps, so we can make an honest comparison, he can give us a balance sheet showing the full costs of both industraies including non-subsidised insurance; projected costs for the entire fuel cycle including permanent safe disposal of waste; and decommissioning costs?
On the other hand, perhaps Chris O'Neill can't give us any such thing, since the nuclear industry is very careful for its balance sheet to be incomplete, and dishonest.
Monsanto needs to destroy [GMO sugarbeets](http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B00Y520101201)
Good article in the SMH from Ian Lowe:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/climate-change-clock-winds-down-20101203…
Don't know about 2 degrees warming triggering runaway effects, but generally good stuff. Typical ignorance though in the comments section.
Hmmm... [Things haven't cooled down](http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s3083916.htm).
Surprise, surprise.
I might be late on this - [Google Earth Engine](http://earthengine.googlelabs.com/#intro) - but it looks great.
>Google.org, the philanthropic arm of Google, debuted its shiny new tool at the COP 16 climate conference in Cancun today. It's a database that will help scientists and conservationists track and analyze changes in Earth's environment, and hopefully slow deforestation.
>The satellite imagery tool, called Google Earth Engine, takes advantage of Google's large-scale "cloud" computing infrastructure to build a powerful database out of the thousands of satellite photographs from the past 25 years, many of which have never been analyzed. It will be available online for use by scientists, independent researchers and nations
>Google plans on "donating 10 million CPU-hours a year over the next two years on the Google Earth Engine platform," to aid the effort to combat global warming by slowing deforestation.
Vince Whirlwind:
Where did I say that? You're just attempting a goal-post shift.
Where did I say that? You have a penchant for putting words in people's mouth.
Continued hypocrisy from wow.
Exactly. Paying for PV is an expensive and silly way of providing motivation for using less.
burnie @ 123, there was only one true statement in that whole article !
'But the prospect of a new global warming treaty still seems a long way off.' ( if ever )
......'Cancún climate change summit: Japan refuses to extend Kyoto protocol'
Would you like a few links to new record breaking cold weather events ?
and...um.... ewe better check your sea level stick, ewe might need to move it down the beach a bit.
the methane in here is a bigger problem than CO2
Chris, if you are really that dumb, please find the nearest kindergarden and check yourself in.
Sunblot,
You are back to your feeble attempt to correlate short-term weather events with climate. I was waiting for you to show up with this crap. If two play the same game, we see that three times as many warm weather records have been broken since 2000 than cold weather records. You lose.
And what about record warmth in the east Canadian Arctic right now? Or in in the Mediterranean and southern Black Sea Region? Or temperatures that are way above normal in eastern Asia? What irks me is that when I responded to your posts about cold spells in Europe last year with data showing record warmth over Canada, you went ballistic, accusing me of lies, saying that the warmth was due to an El Nino event, and then, most incredulously of all, claiming that I was mistaking weather for climate!!!! All I was doing was copying you but in reverse, to show how innane it is to try and downplay the longer term warming trend with some localized short-term weather stats.
And then you come back here again, popping up with pure and utter bilge about cold weather in Europe as some kind of evidence downplaying warming. Man, you are one hypocritical dude.
#104: Where did I say that? You're just attempting a goal-post shift.
No, you say it here:
> > > why are there so many statements about nuclear energy that are just plain wrong?
> > Got any?
> In www.helencaldicott.com/chapter3.pdf she talks about nuclear fuel fabrication workers being exposed to radon gas.
Where apparently you seem to think that fuel fabrication workers being exposed to a dangerous environment is "just plain wrong".
Which you then go on to "explain" why it's wrong, but only continue to convince yourself because your explanation is garbage.
More F-ing Stupidity:
> I put it to you that either your comprehension skills are woeful
I put it to you you are blinkered.
Chris states categorically he won't push nuclear if it's more expensive than renewables, yet wind is 1/2 the cost and still he's pushing it.
He ignores any possible problem if it pushes a nuclear agenda but complains if those problems pertain to any form of renewable.
Get your cranial-rectal inversion problem sorted out.
There's no need to get upset jeff, the alarmist predictions are failing, you should be happy.
This is a common theme in a few countries now, http://www.tinyurl.com.au/yym
*the alarmist predictions are failing*
I guess that is why 2010 is set to be the warmest on record by quite some margin.
Go away, Sunspot, and take your alter ego with you.
Where am I doing that?
Where am I doing that?
Where do I do that?
From sunspot's 'proof':
> But Estrada says that the report has significantly underestimated the overall costs of climate change for the Mexican economy.
(emphasis mine)
Conclusion: sunspot is still a denialist idiot.
the warmest year eh !
start here,
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/
and stop telling tales, you were blaming AGW for the northward retreat of Canada's critters when in fact the problem was the El Nino.
I'm going to hit the fart sack now, and listen to the rain on the roof that BOM said was a thing of the past.
Your brain was obviously in neutral or reverse where I wrote these words:
"Any further generation of radon gas by the Uranium in human timescales is completely insignificant" means the Uranium metal or oxide fabricated into fuel rods does NOT release any significant amount of Radon. What Caldicott says about Radon here is virtually completely wrong. Why can't you understand that?
If you think I'm dumb for pointing out Caldicott's mistake then you're a complete moron.
Sunblot,
So how do you explain the significantly higher number of record high than low temepratures set over the past decade? And the fact that 2010 is, even using satellite data on Spencer's blog, #1? A: you can't.
You still do not get my point about the past Canadian winter. That is, and let it sink in: IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DERIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON SHORT-TERM EVENTS. In other words, Canada's winter may have been an outlier that had nothing to do with AGW, but the same is true of the many innane links you post up here selectively showing that certain places are experiencing short periods of cold weather. We need at least 20-30 years to draw meaningful correlations for largely deterministic systems, and these trends do show significant warming.
The reason I used the Canadian example was to illustrate your hypocrisy with respect to the weather vs. climate debate. To be honest, I get sick of you popping up here with new anonymous links, often to anti-environmental groups, web sites or other right wing media sources, with articles showing that its cold and snowy somewhere at the moment and that this is somehow 'proof' that climate warming is not happening. If you want to be taken seriously here (although I think its far too late in the game now for that to happen) then I would give up this futile exercise.
[Foulspot](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2972…).
Except that your claim is rendered false by the simple fact that [the most recent decade is warmer that the previous one, which was warmer than the one before that, which was in its turn warmer than the decade before it](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1970/to:2010/plot/gistemp…).
So, [the ABC piece](http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s3083916.htm) demonstrably contains more than one true statement, and your post contains at least one false one. Shall we continue to examine both and keep a running score, or will you simply admit that you were speaking crap and that you are trying to "hide the incline"?
And where, pray tel, did BOM say that weather (la nina in this instance) was a thing of the past or are you just an idiot?
Those figures reflect the differing tax treatment/subsidy of the two different types of generation. Different treatments and different people come up with different relative costs. And these costs are in systems where renewables only make up a small fraction of generation. Systems that had to get all their energy from renewables would spend far more on storage. No wonder people with an ideological motivation have to invent misinformation about nuclear energy when they know that renewables aren't necessarily cheaper than nuclear.
> Those figures reflect the differing tax treatment/subsidy of the two different types of generation.
Which is 14% for nuclear 0% for wind.
> And these costs are in systems where renewables only make up a small fraction of generation.
Therefore not able to gain cost cuts from the economy of scale.
It's also technology that hasn't had 60 years of government help like nuclear.
And, yes, diffierent studies show different figures.
All show wind cheaper than nuclear.
So, since you
> have absolutely no interest in nuclear electricity IF it is more expensive than renewables.
you'll stop being interested now?
Here's one from the citation made above:
Here's another person who thinks that nuclear power plant waste=nuclear weapons. If Australia had a nuclear power plant and wanted nuclear weapons then the last thing it would do is make those weapons from nuclear power plant waste. If it wanted nuclear weapons it would run its reactor specifically to produce weapons-grade plutonium (which it can already do with its existing reactor, albeit slowly). It's theoretically possible to make a fission bomb with reactor-grade plutonium but it would be extremely technically difficult and far easier just to set up a reactor to make better grade plutonium which is indeed what fission bomb-making countries normally do. This is the fear with Iran and, of course, is what North Korea has already done. Making weapons-grade plutonium is not particularly technically difficult.
Also:
As if that would make one iota of difference to North Korea.
I'm just waiting for that 1 GW wind turbine. BTW, you won't get much more economy of scale generating 100% of supply than generating 20% of supply. Somewhat overwhelmed by storage cost.
I'm sure we can wait another 60 years.
Sure, if you say so.
Wow:
>>"Those figures reflect the differing tax treatment/subsidy of the two different types of generation."
>"Which is 14% for nuclear 0% for wind."
Where? Not in my country, or the one where this blog is hosted, where there is no commercial nuclear power, and all renewable energy investment is subsidised through tax breaks and direct government co-investment, as it ought if the governemt is serious about renewables.
The Australian Government currently spends 3% of its total energy subsidies on renewables (or AU$326, according to the not-so-reliable [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_Australia)). Renewables constitute 5% of power generation in Australia. That is not a bad subsidy in comparison to nuclear (no commercial production in Australia, and thus no subsidy), but there is still the ridiculous situation where they subsidise fossil fuel energy production even more.
Your statement is thus untrue. Whether it's so by motive of propaganda or narrow-mindedness (whatever your country is which subsidises 14% of nuclear and 0% of wind, it is not the whole world), I will not speculate.
I saw this and couldn't help but think of it as the perfect gift for all my old friends at Deltoid. Merry Christmas!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDsGdLU2KOU
[That](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2975…) was meant to be AU$326 million, not AU$326.
WHAT CLIMATOLOGISTS NEED TO DO
The GCMs need to be revamped. They need to have the primary thermodynamic loop restored. This is the chain of dynamic events from solar radiation, through the shading and reflection of clouds responding to temperature changes, absorption primarily in the ocean, and the transport and exchanges of heat and gases by which the oceans create and regulate the earthâs climate and atmosphere. The models need to reflect the mechanisms which make the earthâs climate not vulnerable, but stable.
The CO2 concentration is a response to the proxy temperature in the Vostok ice core data, not a cause. This does not contradict that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it does contradict the conjecture that the presence of a greenhouse gas has any destabilizing effect on global climate. Other forces overwhelm the conjecture of a runaway greenhouse effect. The concentration of CO2 is dynamic, controlled by the solubility pump. Global temperature is controlled first by the primary thermodynamic loop.
The Vostok data support an entirely new model. Atmospheric CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. Fires, volcanoes, and now man deposit CO2 into the atmosphere, but those effects are transient. What exists in steady state is CO2 perpetually pumped into the atmosphere by the oceans. Atmospheric CO2 is a dynamic stream, from the warm ocean and back into the cool ocean.
Public policy represented by the Kyoto Accords and the efforts to reduce CO2 emissions should be scrapped as wasteful, unjustified, and futile.
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html#IV_D
Spotty, I stopped fact checking your links after about the 10th time you posted complete bogus junk. I'm not going to fact your latest copy paste spam either. I suggest you start your education [here](http://www.skepticalscience.com/).
[Spots said: rocketscientistsjournal](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2977…)
... which is presumably the sister publication to brainsurgeonsquarterly, the mags for, like, rilly smart peeples fer shure.
More CRU cyber-attack opinionation: I theorize that the attacker had intended for McIntyre to use the pilfered CRU data to continue hammering on the Briffa/Yamal tree ring issue, but McIntyre didn't take the hint and events took a different turn.
http://ijish.livejournal.com/27631.html
Hi fellers!
What's new? Have any of the Believers recanted yet? Do they all STILL believe in Global Warming? It's sodding cold in England. Still. Miss you loads!
'rilly smart peeples fer shure'
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.
Monday, 20 March 2000
'rilly smart peeples fer shure'
The Met Office, using data generated by a £33million supercomputer, claims Britain can stop worrying about a big freeze this year because we could be in for a milder winter than in past years.
Thursday October 28,2010
hmmmm...... is it the CO2 theory, the busted models or both ?
Sunblot at #132:
For heaven's sake, man, will you stop confusing weather with climate?! All of us here are sick and tired of your lame-brained posts! I could cite dozens of examples where the opposite is happening. The fact is that the planet's surface has warmed appreciably over the past 30 years, and that 2010 will rank #1 when the records come in. There are all kinds of biotic indicators supporting the temperature data as well.
Your posts are an abomination. GO AWAY!
No doubt they will fudge figures again !
http://en.wordpress.com/tag/global-freeze/
http://en.wordpress.com/tag/global-freeze/2/
http://en.wordpress.com/tag/global-freeze/3/
Remember David Rose of [Rosegate](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/rosegate_1/) fame? After a break of a few months he has now jumped back on the climate denial bandwagon with a nonsense article that cites GWPF stooge [David Whitehouse]( http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/hey-david-whitehouse-why-is-the-…).
[What happened to the 'warmest year on record': The truth is global warming has halted](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335798/Global-warming-h…)
Do some analysis spotty and you'll find you a falling for a con:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Record-high-temperatures-versus-record-…
I know that you prefer searching for the work of cherry pickers, but sorry when you come out of the the denialist echo chambers, we'll confront you with facts. What you do with the facts is up to you. Upto now you appear to be fooling yourself.
Comment by sunspot blocked. [unkill][show comment]
Blessed relief.
Zoot,
Blocking Sunblot's garbage appears to be the only solution. All he seems able to do now is to paste links to a few cold weather events and then claim that this is proof that warming isn't happening. Its shoddy statistics all around. Its like me plotting the relationship between two variables on a graph using 1,000 data points, finding a highly significant correlation, and then someone selectively picking 10 outlying points on the graph and arguing that these points prove the correlation does not exist, even when regression shows that the correlation is significant, *with these points included*.
Sunspot's behavior suggests he is a high school dropout, because he does not have a clue about scale and about stochastic versus deterministic events. As many have argued, for every cold weather record he cites others can cite 5 warm weather records over the same time period. Put together over a longer time frame, and these show a clear pattern.
burnie @ 118,
try RSS MSU lower trop. global mean
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/z10
and sea temps not rising either. http://www.tinyurl.com.au/51x
who's in denial ?
the CO2 hypothesis just aint cutting it at the mo !
> Sunspot's behavior suggests he is a high school dropout
I don't think he got to high school.
> > "Which is 14% for nuclear 0% for wind."
> Where? Not in my country,
In the country that made those figures available. The US. Try reading.
Nuclear is more expensive than renewables, yet, despite insisting that they would drop the idea, Chris doesn't seem to have done so.
> I'm sure we can wait another 60 years.
We don't have to, Chris.
Wind is already cheaper than nuclear RIGHT NOW.
Solar Thermal is too.
PV isn't, but works out about the same, give or take.
And this is before 60 years of government help making it more effective and before increased demand puts up the prices of nuclear fuel.
So, will you drop nuclear like you said?
Or will you continue to batter on about how "sometimes" a report says it's cheaper?
> Here's one from the citation made above:
> > Such waste from a nuclear power plant would also give Australia the potential to immediately make nuclear weapons in a very short space of time.
And in what way is that wrong?
This is EXACTLY the reason why NK and Iran were told not to make nuclear power stations.
And they can.
The simplest nuclear warhead is two sub-critical masses thrown together.
Heck, Birmingham University had an accident which people died from using two lumps of Uranium, a Geiger counter (not otherwise used) a tripod and someone who didn't think it through and brought one lump DOWN on the other sitting on the tripod.
It's very easy to make a bang and throw lots of alpha particles at people.
> Here's another person who thinks that nuclear power plant waste=nuclear weapons.
No, it's someone who thinks that nuclear materials are used in nuclear weapons.
(Just as the US state department thinks.)
So no, you still don't have any obviously wrong canards thrown at nuclear power. All you have are ones you THINK are obviously wrong, but then you think this purely so that you can push your pet project.
Spotty I plotted your chart, except this time I included every year rather than cutting out on in every 10 years. Guess what, you were [wrong again](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1970/plot/rss/from:1970/to:19…)!
No surprises.
BTW spotty, even [Dr Roy's data](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1970/plot/uah/from:1970/to:19…) shows your head is in the sand.
Spotty how do you [boil a frog](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1950/to:…)?
Well some frogs are easier to boil than others. If we save you, you can thank us later. We're doing our best, but dead weight like you makes it harder.
[Foulspot](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2980…).
[Jakerman](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2980…) has already wiped the floor with you, but it's actually even worse than that...
The whole point of the discussion is that progressing decades have been ever warmer, and is now transpires that even your gappy intervals in your cherry-picked dataset show exactly this - that the last ten years have been warmer than the 1990s, which were warmer than the 1980s... It seems that you do not understand how discern, from lines of best fit, what the means for the intervals are.
What do you think that this might mean?
Mentally deranged sunsick:
Your cherry pick left out 2010.
You're a liar.
This slipped me by, so I might be late on the story; but, after denying the comming peak oil, the IEA now talks about it as [been there done that](http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/economy-set-starve/48474).
>*Crude oil output reaches an undulating plateau of around 68-69 mb/d by 2020, but never regains its all-time peak of 70 mb/d reached in 2006, while production of natural gas liquids (NGL) and unconventional oil grows quickly.* [WEO 2010 - Executive Summary]
You obviously need your eyes tested. I already wrote what is wrong with this:
"It's theoretically possible to make a fission bomb with reactor-grade plutonium but it would be extremely technically difficult and far easier just to set up a reactor to make better grade plutonium which is indeed what fission bomb-making countries normally do. This is the fear with Iran and, of course, is what North Korea has already done. Making weapons-grade plutonium is not particularly technically difficult."
As I had already explained, the EXACT reason they were told not to make nuclear reactors of any form was so they could not use those reactors to make weapons-grade plutonium.
Try that with two lumps of reactor-grade Plutonium and see what happens. Try it with two lumps of weapons-grade Plutonium even.
Any idiot could make a fission bomb with weapons-grade Uranium. Making a fission bomb with weapons-grade Plutonium is much more technically difficult and the lower the grade, the more difficult it becomes. As I pointed out before, it is far less technically difficult to just make weapons-grade Plutonium from natural Uranium than to try to make a fission bomb from reactor-grade Plutonium.
And you continue to ignore the fact that what Caldicott says about Radon gas coming from nuclear fuel rod fabrication is wrong. You're just dishonest.
yeah.....hahaha, that was burnies plot, all I did was changed the data source, it was still burnies cherry pick.
get up off the floor burnie
spotty, [your error](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2980…) was egregious in that it changed the result. Your claim was proved false when the missing data was included. BJ's claim was stronger than the data he used, when the missing data is included BJs point becomes even stronger.
Who knows if BJ set you up, but regardless you were shown up.
BJ's point is even strong [with the missing data](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1970/plot/gistemp/from:19…).
>*potty, your error was egregious in that it changed the result*
Correction, worse still for Potty, even with the missing data the Rss MSU data didn't not contradict BJ's claim, that each decade from 70's was the warmest on record.
yes, i suppose so akerz, that was due to what ?
The same thing that produced the MWP !
remember this ?
'Even Phil Jones, the CRU director at the centre of last year's 'Climategate' leaked email scandal, was forced to admit in a littlenoticed BBC online interview that there has been 'no statistically significant warming' since 1995.
One of those leaked emails, dated October 2009, was from Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the US government's National Centre for Atmospheric Research and the IPCC's lead author on climate change science in its monumental 2002 and 2007 reports.
He wrote: 'The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't.'
After the leak, Trenberth claimed he still believed the world was warming because of CO2, and that the 'travesty' was not the 'pause' but science's failure to explain it.'
Potty, you are in denial. We're already warmer than the MWP (caused by extended period of lower volcanic activity and orbital orientation to the Sun). We also have already identified the cause of most of the current warming.
You're also in denial with you need to return to in appropriate times scales to argue lack of warming. We don't expect statical significance over a short period when thn warming trend is small compared to cycles and noise variability. We have statistical significance over longer periods, precisely because the CO2 forcing is cumulative and over a 20 to 30 year period the CO2 forcing dominates over the cycles and noise.
akerz, you seen this ?
(http://www.wsl.ch/staff/jan.esper/publications/Esper_2009_CC_IPCC.pdf)
and akerz I suppose that you have seen this IPCC graph.
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/z2e
This one is for you pinocchio
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/z2g
Sunblot,
Trust WTFUWT to promote an article in a journal with an impact factor of < 1.5. But then again, the climate change denial sites routinely do this, as evidenced by their constant plugging of crap that appears in sources like E & E.
What this shows is that the denialati will scrape the bottom of every barrel to find anything to support their nonsense.
As JAkerman has annihalated your usual gibberish, why do not go away for good?
> It's theoretically possible to make a fission bomb with reactor-grade plutonium but it would be extremely technically difficult and far easier ...
This doesn't mean that the statement you said was obvious crock.
The rest of your diatribe still proves my case that when you said categorically:
> I have absolutely no interest in nuclear electricity IF it is more expensive than renewables.
You were talking bollocks since you still have a great bit stiffy over the nuclear industry.
Since you are incapable of honesty or even accuracy on this case, GTFO.
> You're a liar.
> Posted by: Chris O'Neill
Projecting again, Chris.
Which would you prefer, Wikipedia or the USA Department Of Energy?
Oh, if it fluffs your wanger with pro-nuclear info, Wikipedia
By the way did you read this bit:
Wind power 060 60
Advanced Nuclear 067 67
Nuclear (to suit site; typical)[13] 040 75â105
Solar thermal 085 85
So liar, liar pants on fire back to you, you troll
pinocchio,
your not much of a scientist are you.
one-eyed and twist the data to make the facts, career thing is it ?
nongovernmental studies that don't confirm your views are all bullshit are they ?
>*akerz, you seen this ?*
Nope, and given your record, its odds on that I'm not missing anything of value.
>*and akerz I suppose that you have seen this IPCC graph*
Potty, Yes I've seen those curves, and the 1990 curve is a schematic not an plot. How well our understanding has improved over the last 20 years.
>*your not much of a scientist are you.*
Potty coming from you, and given your record, I'd be more comfortable with your insults than your support. Carry on.
*your not much of a scientist are you*
Sunblot, how would you know about my scientific qualifications? You probably would not understand a word in any of my published work, if your distortions of climate science are anything to go by. You continually mix-up climate and weather patterns when it suits your narrative, and then go on the attack when it doesn't. You endlessly cite crap from anti-environmental web sites, and ignore a far vaster (and more comprehensive) body of scientific literature.
Your vacuous pontifications do not deserve a response, to be honest; you should feel flattered that anyone here does respond to you. But the number is dwindling, take note.
Hi Sunspot. How's your free energy machine coming along?
Yeah, so?
I even wrote IF in big letters and he still doesn't get it.
You mean the USA Department Of Energy or the USA Department Of Energy.
Stupid moron.
> Yeah, so?
So your assertion that people are spouting obvious crock about nuclear remains unsupported.
> You mean the USA Department Of Energy or the USA Department Of Energy.
They're the same, troll.
But you gave a link to wikipedia.
I gave a link to the USA department of energy.
> I even wrote IF in big letters and he still doesn't get it.
And 67 is more than 60.
Therefore nuclear IS more expensive than renewables.
And wikipedia cites the USA department of energy.
Moron.
Lord_Sidcup #135 Yes that Rose piece is really something. He seems back to his same old "fabrication and lies" self. Some problems I see with his...uhm...writings:
1) International Food Policy Research Institute expect 6.5 degrees by 2100? Oh really?
2) MetOffice's data shows: no warming over the last 15 years. Oh Really?
3) In 2009 MetOffice expected the 2010 El Nino to be bigger then the 1998 one? Oh really?
4) The obligatory Phil Jones says no stat.sig. warming since 1995. Really, what's up with 1995? Why not 1994? I do wonder, would 1995 to dec 2010 not be stat sig?
5) Micheal Mann says MWP is warmer then current temps. Really? I can't find a reference for that.. But I do find Jones hypothesising about that subject. If Rose is actually trying to ref Jones, then that would be gross misrepresenting what Jones said.
There's probably more...
Might be a nice one for Tim to add to his Rosegate library?
Can you make up your mind whether you are talking about my statement or someone else's statement?
By the way, have you managed to put your brain into gear and work out what happens if you bring one lump of weapons-grade Plutonium down onto another?
Enjoy pushing your pet project, Chris.
We know your assertion that you aren't wedded to the idea of nuclear is a crock.
Check out this section over at [desmog](http://www.desmogblog.com/dirty-energy-playing-full-contact-so-cleantec…):
> Virtually all of these attacks push three, interlocking memes about cleantech: 1) Itâs ânot ready;â 2) Itâs âtoo expensive;â and 3) Itâs âunreliable."
Sounds like you, Chris.
Why are you pounding the memes of the fossil fuel brigade?
Are you a fifth columnist?
@cynicus
I was struck by this from Rose:
He doesnât state his source, but Iâm guessing that maybe he is misrepresenting Solomon et al [Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1219.abstract)
As RealClimate point out, Solomon et al:
In fact, the Solomon paper might provide an explanation for the slowing of global warming this decade:
I'm speculating a lot on what what Rose might be basing his "cyclical changes in water vapour" claim on. Anyone got any ideas?
Nuclear warhead what utter crap. Criticality accidents don't produce nuclear warhead explosions. They do, of course, produce dangerous amounts of radiation for people in the immediate vicinity. But there are far more effective and cheaper ways of killing people than setting up fizzling criticality accidents. A criticality accident ain't no Hiroshima.
Excellent. Monbiot is doing David Rose:
[David Rose's climate science writing shows he has not learned from previous mistakes](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/dec/08/david-r…)
What a hypocrite.
Yes, your majesty.
By the way, did you ever work out where wikipedia articles cite their sources? Didn't think an anti-nuclear zealot would.
> I was struck by this from Rose:
> > Other research is beginning to show that cyclical changes in water vapour - a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide - may account for much of the 20th Century warming.
I was struck that the research doesn't show the *cyclical changes* are the cause of the 20thC warming.
I was also struck by the fact that the research doesn't show that as meaning the IPCC position is wrong.
1C per doubling of CO2 plus 2C warming from water feedback is the IPCC position.
It is also the position that, for a doubling of CO2 means that most of the warming experienced by the Earth is from H2O.
About 2/3rds of it.
But, unfortunately, for Rose's statement, the cycle of H2O doesn't explain the warming of the 20th century.
Another case of seeing what you want to see.
EB has linked to a [series of stories](http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-12-09/wikileaks-energy-and-c…) re WikiLeaks (energy and climate).
US Embassy in Ottawa [tells Obama](http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/01/09OTTAWA64.html) that:
>*there is also keen sensitivity over the higher environmental footprint of oil from western Canada's oil sands and concern about the implications for Canada of your energetic calls to develop renewable energies and reduce our reliance on imported oil.*
The US Embassy are telling Obama that those worth mentioning in Canada are concerned at US calls to develop renewable energies!
There is a petition going around Cancun with 1000 scientists from all over the world that challenges the IPCC's claims about global warming/climate change.Many of these scientists are either formerly or currently part of the IPCC.
Makes you wonder about the claims of 'consensus'.
warren:
>There is a petition going around Cancun with 1000 scientists from all over the world that challenges the IPCC's claims about global warming/climate change
No there isn't. You don't know what "petition" means.
Eternal thanks for to thee O Mighty One that give benefit for the English as she is spoke.
There is a REPORT going around Cancun...
Now would you care to address the substance of it?
>Now would you care to address the substance of it?
What substance?
> Makes you wonder about the claims of 'consensus'.
It makes me wonder why you keep making such a fuss over how there's a conspiracy (as proven by the consensus), how science isn't consensus (if it doesn't exist, where's the problem) and how scientists have been wrong before (which these 1000 could be).
The "substance" is that there is no consensus and there never has been.Do you understand?
I couldn't help but notice that the 'selected highlights' at the beginning of the report quoted exactly one climatologist who, according to Google Scholar, has published exactly one paper. In Energy and Environment.
Troll @ 191:
>The "substance" is that there is no consensus
Also, you don't know what [consensus](http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-int…) means.
Warren, if you want to challenge the scientific consensus, you need to do in the scientific medium, not the PR medium. The beat up you call a report is not peer reviewed and does not appear in the scientific literature. At a glace seem void of substantial argument and passes off a bunch of denialist like Vincent Grey as competent in the field.
So Martin,firstly,shall we reject the views/work of anyone who is not a 'climatologist'?If so,then we can start with these guys.Hanson,Schneider,Oppenheimer,Mann,Karoly,Flannery etc,etc.
Secondly,there are stacks of climatologists in the report.Look up the Manhattan Declaration for yourself.
Thirdly,'published papers' for these scientists can be easily googled.
Hansen, Schneider, Mann Karoly etc have their work scrutinized and accepted by peers competent to assess the work. Warren, your favored report fails this test.
Sorry Jakerman,but that makes no sense at all.The "consensus" is an idea that has been completely about PR,and has had nothing to do with science.And the report is not intended to be a "scientific" paper.It is a collection facts about the topic of climate change.As such the idea of 'peer-review' is just a rediculous distraction.If you want talk about peer-review,then how about we discuss the 30% of non peer-revieweed references in the last IPCC report.
Jakerman,get real for goodness sake.The issue was about whether there were 'climatologists' among the scientists,and it is obvious that there are many.As for peer-reviewed published papers,they also satify that requirement as well.Have Christy,Spencer,and Lindzen had their work "peer-reviewed" and published?
> The issue was about whether there were 'climatologists' among the scientists
No, that wasn't the issue.
The issue you brought up was that there are 1000 scientists who did something on something for something. Dark side.
The issue is that it's a load of crap.
> Have Christy,Spencer,and Lindzen had their work "peer-reviewed" and published?
Well, I guess that means they MUST be wrong, since the 10,000 papers that support AGW have also been peer reviewed and published.
> The "substance" is that there is no consensus and there never has been
So why all the hue and cry about how science isn't consensus?
If there's no consensus in AGW, then there's no claim to non science by association with consensus.
Yet you have many times stated that the consensus is proof of conspiracy. I guess the conspiracy doesn't exist either by your own assertions.
(97% of people agreeing on something IS consensus, by the way. What would YOU call it?)
Wow,10,000 papers huh?Do you have the full list handy by any chance?No?Gee what a shame.
Sorry warren but you don't make any logical sense. The argument is about substance, you have none, and neither does your beat up report.
Come back when you can challenge the consensus with science.
For clowns like warren who can't argue the science there is [this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag…) to show the scale of the consensus.
Wow,so many non facts in one post!Where to start.Actually,did I not encounter your wacko attempts at logical discourse a couple of months back?Anyway here goes.
There is no consensus and the proof is the thousands of scientists worldwide who do not sgree with the IPCC's basic assumption about the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.
You probably should not have mentioned the "97%" thing.It was actually 97.4% but who's counting.This result was from a sample of just 77 'actively publishing climate scientists' and was in response to question 2 of the survey.More than one third of the meteorologists asked said "NO" to question 2.
Warren [this](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html) is for you also.
[This is](http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=296) a scientific consensus, and not a PR consensus.
Then you can view [this list](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#State…) of national science academies.
>*There is no consensus and the proof is the thousands of scientists worldwide who do not sgree with the IPCC's basic assumption about the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.*
An other empty comment from warren. Firstly 1000 is a tiny fraction of the scientist in the world, less than a fraction of a percent of the scientific population. Secondly what assumption are you referring to?
Thirdly, you've made no scientific case. Your just making wild claims.
Jakerman,on the Manhattan Declaration there are 206 scientists who work in climatology or closely related fields.There are 3,805 scientists who work in closely related fields who signed the Oregon Petition.Now that is what I call 'consensus'.As for academies,they are just political bodies beholden to government,and they dont necessarily represent the views of the rank and file in an accurate way.If they did we would not have over 31,000 signatories to the Oregon Petition.
> Now that is what I call 'consensus'.
So the 10,000 papers and the 97% of climate scientists (who would have to be either 10,000 [Manhattan] or 127,000[Oregon]) is even more consensus and therefore even MORE correct.
And as to:
> As for academies,they are just political bodies beholden to government,
And the OISM is just a political body beholden to hidden private interests.
Compare warrenidiot's claim:
> There is no consensus
With continued claims that it's all a consensus by governments to fake the science (in his scrawny little brainpan).
That's 168 soverign countries last time I looked.
That is a consensus but 10,000 scientists is not???
> This result was from a sample of just 77 'actively publishing climate scientists'
Oh dear, no it wasn't warrenidiot.
Wow it was not 10,000 scientists.It was only 3146 who responded.Do a little checking before you make a fool of yourself.
As I've pointed out before, if global warming is an international government driven scheme for one world government, surely Copenhagen and Cancaun wouldn't be such monunmental failures? Warren's argument is intellectually barren. "Consensus" for Warren is when a small amount of scientists agree with him, even when they're from the wrong field. Or retired. Or dead.
Any idiot can sign the Oregon Petition (it's easy, even I'm on it and I'm not a scientist!)
> Wow it was not 10,000 scientists.
1.00-0.975 = 0.026
206/0.026 = ?
Go on, do some work for a change.
Ask a grown up to help if you're stuck.
Jakerman, in the Bulletin of The American Meteorological Society a survey showed that 50% weathercasters disagreed that warming since 1950 is likely caused by humans.A survey of 51,000 Canadian scientists found that 68% disagreed that the science was settled.
Warren, I am a scientist. I attend workshops and conferences where these and related issues are discussed and debated. In all my years of research (1991-present) I have met remarkably few peers who doubt the empirical evidence for AGW. So few in fact that I think that I could count them on one hand.
There certainly is broad consensus amongst the scientific community in support of the evidence for AGW and that measures should be made to deal with it. You can refer to anti-environmental bilge web sites all you like, and these wholly unscientific petitions that the denialati like to wheel out all of the time, but it does not change the fact that 95% or more of the scientific community is in agreement over this issue. If we weren't, the denialists and the corporate lobby who support them would be recruiting more and more new scientists to their cause. But, as it is, they have relied on pretty much the same bunch of old farts over the past 20 years to promulgate their views. Given how well-funded they are, this should be seen as proof positive that the number of so-called sceptics is abyssmally small.
> A survey of 51,000 Canadian scientists found that 68% disagreed that the science was settled.
Monckton is the one who thinks the science is settled:
> ...And Iâm going to show you the latest science, which now doesnât leave the question unsettled anymore this is now settled science, it is now settled science that there is not a problem with our influence over Climate. The science is in, the truth is out and the scare is over.
> -- Christopher Monckton. 10/14/9 Minnesota Free Market Institute presentation
Fail.
And one last point: weathermen do not count. Most of them know bugger-all about climate.
John,so you are on the petition heh?What is your last name?I would like to check.
> In 2003, the AMS issued the position statement Climate Change Research: Issues for the Atmospheric and Related Sciences:
> Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.
Funny how the AMS don't agree with warrenidiot.
> What is your last name?I would like to check.
Wny? The OISM didn't bother checking any of their signatories.
Hence Dr Doom is one of the signatories of the 30,000 version of the OP. As is "Dr" Gerri Halliwell.
> And one last point: weathermen do not count
It isn't that they do not count, but that counting them as an authority is rather like counting your dog's vet's opinion on your own ailments.
Jeff,that is all a load of old cobblers and you know it.If you have found 95% of blah blah blah,then you obviously need to expand your social circle outside that leftwing mob you accociate with.The number of sceptic scientists is growing like wildfire.It should not be too mmany more years,in my view,before this whole scam is over.
PS You still wont agree to debate me will you?
Gentlemen, I recommend that you do not bother expending too much energy attempting to educate 'warren'.
In the several months since he last trolled here, he has still not been able to fathom the basic convention of including a space after punctuation marks, even when it was pointed out to him on [several](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/the_co2_is_plant_food_crock.php…) [occasions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/the_co2_is_plant_food_crock.php…).
Someone as dim as that is unlikely to ever manage to grasp even the basics of actual science, especially when his own ideology colours everything that eventually does manage to percolate into the grotto that passes for his cranial cavity.
The guy is so dense that he would make osmium blush.
Just reading over another thread and this turns up:
> > Fundamentally it is per capita emissions that count
> No. Fundamentally it is the number of "capita"'s that counts, which absolutely no one is addressing. - 'cos that's not really PC is it?
Odd. Seems like someone here has seen a choice of
1) kill people off
or
2) drive less
and has decided that everyone should drive.
Wow,how many times do you have make an idiot of yourself before it sinks in?
Neither Doom nor Halliwell are on the list you fool!
The meteorologists surveyed were all scientists guys.
*The meteorologists surveyed were all scientists guys*
How can you verify this? What do you classify as a 'scientist'? Someone with a degree? Or have they done empirical research? Evidence?
How many actual scientific conferences and workshops have you attended in your life, Warren? How many scientific studies have you authored? Where's the beef? Your only exceedingly feeble riposte was to claim that all of the scientists I interact with must be left wingers. This list must run into the many hundreds, if not thousands, then Warren. And, besides, I think I know a lot more scientists personally than you do.
As for a debate, its a non-starter. For one, Warren, if your comic-level book discussions on C02 were anything to go by, then I do not understand at all why you persist. Do you understand the basics of environmental biogeochemistry and stoichiometry? No. About the importance of P and N in terms of plant quality? No. Do you understand how nutrient cycles in terrestrial and marine ecosystems regulate community and ecosystem functions? No. In any debate, you'd try to drag it down to the lowest common denominator e.g to your own exceedingly limited knowledge base. Its a waste of my time, and you know it.
Bernard said: "The guy is so dense that he would make osmium blush".
Amen. Anyone who cites the hilarious 'Oregon Petition' in support of anything does not deserve to be taken seriously. Bye, Warren.
> The meteorologists surveyed were all scientists guys.
One of them was probably Anthony Watts who has NO science training beyond what he may have done in High School.
He has no further education beyond that in any discipline.
Fail to the maxxx!
You have not changed at all Jeff.Still trying to pull rank instead of arguing the science.In any debate Jeff I would make you look silly.You dont know the science anyway.You have never been able to substantiate your claims with numbers.You always hide behind your so-called "qualifications".So go ahead genius, tell us what is wrong with the Oregon Petition.I await breathlessly.
PS I attempted to interview Gleadow[Monash Uni] about her results for Cassava plants,and she ran away when I showed that her science was bogus.And she is a doctor of biology.The story made it to England, Canada, and the US.
warren, Morano's list has been done to death over and over again. Your main achievement here will be yawns.
warren said: "The number of sceptic scientists is growing like wildfire."
The fact is: [survey from 2008 compared to 1991](http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html)
Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Donât Trust the Mediaâs Coverage of Climate Change
S. Robert Lichter, Ph.D, April 24, 2008
STATS survey of experts reveals changing scientific opinion on global warming, extent of pressure to play up or down threat.
earth_large
Over eight out of ten American climate scientists believe that human activity contributes to global warming, according to a new survey released by the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The researchers also report that belief in human-induced warming has more than doubled since the last major survey of American climate scientists in 1991.
*In any debate Jeff I would make you look silly*
You think. Keep on living in your own dream world, Warren, or whoever the heck you are. You appear to be a legend in your own mind. You have no scientific expertise whatsoever so you bluster and pontificate. The fact that you know nothing about the importance of P or N in determining plant quality and regulating community structure in terrestrial and marine food webs says all I need to know. If you want to find out more about the current concern over the loss of terrestrial P, I suggest you get off your butt and read up on it. I am not going to do your homework for you. And if you think you are so damned clever, why aren't you extolling your wisdom in scientific journals and showing where all the rest of us are wrong? All we have is your own words that real, qualified scientists are running scared from your infinite wisdom. Where are your published rebuttals? If you think your knowledge is so profound, then lets see you submit some articles to peer-reviewed journals and see how far you get. My guess is that you will get nowhere.
And, to reiterate, the OP is a farce. The paper that accompanied the original version was even worse.
> Still trying to pull rank instead of arguing the science
compare and contrast from warrenidiot's earlier post:
> The meteorologists surveyed were all scientists guys.
He has a very Palin look to ejumacation: if you have it, you should be ashamed, it's only those who know nothing should be able to comment.
Tiresome windbag, isn't he.
Wow,
You nailed it. He's a Palin redux. Or ther latest manifestation of Dunning-Kruger. The less one knows the more they think they know.
Jeff,the rebuttal to Gleadow 2009 is Imai 1983,and when I showed her that paper she ordered me out of the room and called security.Now her results have been shown to be worthless.My original critique of Gleadow was reviewed and upheld by Dr Klaus E Kaiser.He then wrote an article for Canada Free Press about it.Go there and type in gleadow for the story.Now if a dumbass like me can recognize scientific BS when I see it, and can verify it,then how is it that you can not.Email Dr kaiser and see if I am wrong.
warren, with a qick search I find [this paper](http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/2/11/3572/):
>The differences in results between the studies may have
arisen from variation in experimental duration, soil nutrient availability and soil environments, the
degree of CO2 enhancement or other growing conditions. Of these studies, only the one of shortest
duration [Imai 1983] showed an increase in mass of tuberous roots. In contrast, in our recent work [Gleadow 2009], we
found that tuberous roots were smaller and fewer in number in plants grown under elevated CO2
conditions (710 ppm).
Gee, Canada Free Press vs peer-reviewed journal, which is more reliable?
Good find Tim,I was looking for Gleadow's latest paper.If you read both you can see that she backs away from the 'co2 caused the lower yield' crock.Instead she makes a pathetic attempt to say that 'experimental duration' was the main reason for the decrease in yield.So lets take a look at the logic of what she is trying to suggest.
Imai recorded a 3 fold Increase in biomass over 3 months.Gleadow recorded an 80% Decrease in biomass over 6 months.Now just take that in for a second.That is not a different result-it is an OPPOSITE result.And what Gleadow is trying to suggest[and she said this to me in her office] is that the main reson why Imai got increased yields is because he grew the plants for 3 months less.3 Months LESS!!So in other words the tubers on Imai's plants would have SHRUNK if he had grown them for another 3 months.What a load of crap!Her science is rediculous and bogus.
Over at Tobis's, there's a dedicated open thread just for one single person (Mot Relluf) - it's hilariously LOL funny to see how that dishonorable liar incessantly whines and whinges without success...
Warren, for those of us following along at home, why don't you include links to some of your work?
>*Warren, for those of us following along at home, why don't you include links to some of your work?*
Because Warren is all about noise and PR and nothing about truth seeking.
So Warren, I'm still waiting for a credible rebuttle to the scientific sampling [that found via two different methods that](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2989…) 97% or 98% of climate scientist agree with the core science.
Listing a bunch of dishonest petitions that include names like Michael J. Fox and Girm@ Orressengo is no challenge to proper a scientific comparison.
Nor is writing of all the National Academies of science convincing in the slightest. The denial you exhibit smacks of ideological corruption. What values are you trying to protect when you pursue this bankrupt argument?
A recap, warren has a history of [editing quotes to change their meaning](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/steven_schneider_and_the_skept…) in order to make less than honest arguments.
And to be kind we could deduce from [other attempts](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/the_co2_is_plant_food_crock.php…) at argument that warren is scientifically illiterate. If we were not being so generous our conclusions about warren would be very ugly.
I suggest taking a look at what these people consider 'closely related'. Good for a laugh.
>*What Gleadow is trying to suggest[and she said this to me in her office] is that the main reson why Imai got increased yields is because he grew the plants for 3 months less.3 Months LESS!!So in other words the tubers on Imai's plants would have SHRUNK if he had grown them for another 3 months.What a load of crap!Her science is rediculous and bogus.*
What load of crap indeed. Warren I see from your ill conceived conclusion we are correct to be generous and allow for the likelihood you are scientifically illiterate rather than simply dishonset. But I remain open on that question given your editing of the Schneider quote.
Bernard J,
Hey, I saw a while back (Mass Extinction #6, yr comment #85)that you eat oats for breakfast, Bernard J. And then I noted your comment #222, above, that you addressed to warren: "...he has still not been able to fathom the basic convention of including a space after punctuation marks..." Rather unexpectedly, you further tormented poor warren in your comment, Bernard J, (and here's where it gets a little weird) by taking us all on a tour of one of warren's bodily cavities, blushing osmiums and all.
Now all that got me thinking, Bernard J, that, like, what with your "retentive" (I'm sure you know the indelicate Freudian phrase that applies, so I don't have to say it right out, I hope, Bernard J) "Mr. Grammar Priss" kick re-engaged and what with your oat-based diet that you're you're looking at, you know, like a potential and very personal Anthropogenic GHG catastrophe, if you don't watch out.
I mean, at your age an oat-burner like you has to be careful about combining flatulence (especially when mixed with bile) with "retentiveness." I mean, like holdin' back all that gas pressure, well, you could, like, 'splode, man! Probably need to give up the grammar business for a while--it'll help you "loosen-up"--and, also, you'll probably want to take a break from the oats too--if nothing else, it'll improve your disposition, I'm sure.
>*I suggest taking a look at what these people consider 'closely related'. Good for a laugh.*
Like I pointed out to Warren this number 206 even if it were 2,006 or 20,006 would still be a tiny fraction of scientist in relevant fields. Its a joke. Warren needs to address this question of [statistical sampling](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2991…).
Mike,I have been trying to think who Bernard reminds me of,with his unhealthy obsession about literary form and all that.Last night it came to me.Do you remember that episode of Seinfeld where Elaine breaks up with her boyfriend because he would not use exclamation points on his notes to her.And then Gerry says to her,"I have heard of relationships breaking up for a lot of reasons,but not punctuation!".
That is Bernard.So how about it Bernie,with how many girlfriends have you gone sour because they did not use "a space after punctuation marks" ?
No science from Warren nor mike.
MartinM,I fail to see what you are getting at mate.
Is physics[James Hansen]a related field?
Is mathematics[Michael Mann,Gavin Schmidt]a related field?
Is chemistry[Michael Oppenheimer]a related field?
Is engeneering[Steven Schneider]a related field?
Is geography[Mark Serreze]a related field?
Is palaeontology[Tim Flannery]a related field?
PS Flannery's undergrad degree was in English!!He has never[by his own admission] published a peer-reviewed paper in a climate related field.So by your own standard,would you describe him as "credible" ?
Warren we're[still waiting](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2992…), let us know when you've got something of substance.
Jakerman,your childish desperation is obvious mate,and you are out of your depth.Now shush up and let the adults talk.
Both studies that you mentioned had very small sample sizes[77 subs in one,and 500 odd subs in the other, from memory] and as far as I have heard,they also had questionable methodology,ala Naomi Oreskes.
As for the Oregon Petition,neither MJ Fox nor Oressengo are on it, you Dropkick!
Warren, they are peer reviewed studies, and their sample size is sufficient to establish a clear consensus. In opposition to this you have nothing.
Your little boy rhetoric is transparent, and not substitute for rigorous evidence.
And I add your dismissal of the National Academies of Science is laughable.
Carry on Warren. try and find some substance to support your wild rants.
For those who are curious, it seems that warren is, by the nature of his claims, [Timothy Wells](http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/26669.html).
[Mike](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2992…):
Yes, it is becoming a little weird, because you seem to be implying a body cavity other than the one to which [I refered](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2990…) - the inside of warren's skull... assuming that said object actually is possessed of a cavum.
Oh yes, I certainly do. And if you want to parade your psychological issues on Deltoid, by all means do so, but take care that you do not project them upon other folk.
And on the matter of percolating psychological issues, I note that you still haven't been able to calm down and let go of my swipe at your poor grammar. It's been months, dude - get over it. I guess that this explains your ironic projection of biliousness, on top of your obsession with other people's "bodily cavities".
Warren, BTW if you think you are more cleaver [than the NAS reviewers](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2991…) perhaps you can specific how big a sample size is required for statistical significance given the findings published.
Nice find BJ, so [these tactics](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2991…) are those of one Tim Wells.
In other news,I am sure you have all heard that the cold weather in Europe is setting record lows again.[What ever happened to the 'snow is a thing of the past' forecast for Britain made in the year 2000] Now ofcourse,we all know that weather is not climate,but this is now 3 years in a row for tough winters.Things are beginning to stretch a little me thinks.I play tennis with a guy who has a Russian wife,and they said to me just a week ago that the Russkies are predicting the coldest winter 'EVER' this time around.We will see,but it is cetainly off to good start.
>*I am sure you have all heard that the cold weather in Europe is setting record lows again.*
[Warren is a moron](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Record-high-temperatures-versus-record-…).
Still [waiting Tim Wells](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2992…) (aka warren), have you got anything?
None.
I dated girls who had at least a moderate degree of intelligence and/or education.
Now, could you at least attempt to demonstrate either - or both - and improve the quality of your understanding of science?
Apparently even Cancun has set a record low[10 C] during the festivities of COP 16.What with the blizzard and everything at Copenhagen last year,you guys just cant seem to catch a break on this 'warming' thing.Maybe Al gore was in town again.
Timothy Wells:
>Now ofcourse,we all know that weather is not climate
You've demonstrated numerous times here that you do not, cretin.
Warren (aka Tim Wells) is [still a moron](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2992…).
So Wells, I see you [have nothing](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2992…) but empty rhetoric. My hypothesis gains more confirmation with your evasion.
Bernie,what is it,specifically, about my 'understanding of science' that is troubling my dear?
>*what is it,specifically, about my 'understanding of science' that is troubling my dear?*
Too many choices, but lets [start here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2992…).
Timothy Wells:
>the IPCC's basic assumption about the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.
So, Timothy Wells is apparently one of those "very few" morons who denies the existence of the greenhouse effect, which embarrasses his fellow travelers so much that they [keep](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…) [claiming](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/10/14/exclusive-mic…) he's only a straw man.
Bernard J,
Hey, Bernard J, could I take advantage of your super-sized erudition, for just a second or two. I've been trying to figure out a Latin phrase, but it has me completely stumped. So could you please reach into that grab-bag of "prig"-lets of yours and provide me with a good idiomatic English translation of the phrase: "Yo Mater!"
Mike, how did BJ embarrass you so much as to provoke your current unedifying display?
Jake,the point is that,even assuming that those surveys are accurate for the sake of the discussion,one then also has to fairly acknowledgethat there is a huge body of dissenting scientists on the other side.In that case,an objective observer would conclude 2 things.First there is no 'consensus',and second the science is not 'settled'.
It's almost complete absence.
Warren:
>*one then also has to fairly acknowledgethat there is a huge body of dissenting scientists*
Come on [gold fish](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2992…), shake yourself awake:
>Like I pointed out to Warren this number 206 even if it were 2,006 or 20,006 would still be a tiny fraction of scientist in relevant fields. Its a joke.
People, here's my recommended course of action when it comes to "warren" and "mike".
Dave,calm down and stop being so immature.No one denies the greenhouse effect or that CO2 has increased in the atmosphere blah blah blah.The assumption that the IPCC makes is that CO2 has caused most of the warming we have had in the last 150 years.That assumption is neither demonstable nor observable.The main case for attribution rests on default.IE We cant explain it any other way.This not a scientifically defensible position.As long as we continue to have a poor understanding of the climate system[which we have],we will no have no way of attributing specific climate changes to specific drivers.
Bernie,you disappoint me.I thought you going to humour me with some specifics.Dang!
Jakerman,
Reply to yr question #265
I want to make clear at the outset that this is my last post on this thread since I don't want to get "dis-emvowelled" for excessive comments. So I'm using up my last comment, Jakerman, to answer your question.
It seems that Bernard J considers the phrase, "fungus-among-us", a phrase I employed to devastating effect in another blog, to be defective English. Bernard insists on the locution, "fungus-amongst-us." See the difference? So when Bernard J cites my "poor grammar" he's talking about the above. Pretty amazing stuff, huh?
I love the guy, despite what he thinks.
Bernard wrote,"I dated girls with...intelligence...education"
And did you learn your lesson?
[I was very specific](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2992…).
I learned many lessons. It's what happens.
You could learn some yourself. In science.
Wow, mike, BJ's point must have really cut you deep. Sorry to read about that.
Tim Wells, you still got nothing, and are [still scientifically illiterate](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2992…).
What you call indefensible is actually supported by multiple lines of evidence. Try again, but with substance next time.
Mike, it seems to have sailed over your head, but I pointed out your grammatical inconsistency because you had, yourself, complained of a similar ambiguity of meaning in someone else's post just before your own. Unfortunately, your post seems to have been binned, otherwise I'd link to it in order to point out this hypocrisy of yours that started the whole thing in the first place, and to which you have obviously remained oblivious for all of the months that you have been stewing over the matter.
Bernie,surely I must know something.The queensland university of technology let me graduate.
The problem jake is that there is no evidence that demonstrates that CO2 has caused the warming we have observed.It is an IPCC assumption only.
>*The problem jake is that there is no evidence that demonstrates that CO2 has caused the warming we have observed.It is an IPCC assumption only.*
You're incompetent Tim Wells. [Here is some of the evidence](http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.h…) you are in denial of.
Britain is having the coldest December for 100 years so far.Minus 15 C in Scotland and minus 13 in England. I wonder whether it will continue?
>*Britain is having the coldest December for 100 years*
Tim Wells [is a moron](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/plot/gistemp/mean:240/plot/gis…) and has the [memory of a goldfish](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2992…).
Jake,that may be so,but you will notice that they cannot attach an emperically derived number to it.The results of both Lindzen[Erbe] and Spencer[Ceres] refute the idea that the warming is anthropgenic.
Heh.
A university that shall remain nameless saw fit to give Girm@ 0rrsengo a PhD.
So what is your point?
The point Dear Bernie, is that I know more about the science than you do.
Bernard J,
Your comment #276
Man-o-Man, Bernard J, you're causin' me to risk another comment!
In its simplest form, Bernard J., you're full of it. Didn't happen the way you said. Did happen the way I said. And any Deltoid who wants to check it out, can confirm my claim by referencing the Stoat Blog's post "Can't think of any more amusing Curry jokes" of 30 October 2010 comments #'s 46, 64, 71, 87, and 89. The only comment in our exchange, Bernard J, that was "binned" (you'll recall now that I've refreshed your memory), was the one in which you tried your hand at trash-talking and showed yourself to be a shambling dork in such matters. I was embarrassed for you. And as I recall you even issued a public apology for the spectacle you made of yourself (comment #89).
You kinda led with your chin on this one, Bernard J. I mean, like there's a public record and all that readily exposes your little "fib."
And I'm not "stewing" about anything. You're a portentous prig and I like screwing with you when you deserve it. That's all.
warren ([234](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2990…), [236](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2990…)),
>"Now if a dumbass like me can recognize scientific BS when I see it, and can verify it,then how is it that you can not."
>"Her science is rediculous(sic) and bogus."
You're a moron warren.
If you knew the first thing about science you would ask:
Was Gleadow's experimental temperature the same as Imai's? (they were not)
Was their daylength the same? (We cannot tell, Gleadow did not include this)
Did they use the same soil composition? (unlikely)
Did they use the same level of all essential nutrients? (unlikely)
Did they use the same irradiance? (unlikely)
Did they grow the same cassava strain? (unlikely)
Was the experimental design the same in all other aspects that could potentially influence growth rate? (no)
Since Gleadow's experiment was plainly not an attempt to replicate Imai's (She did not even cite Imai, and she should, which is the only major problem I see in her paper), you cannot directly compare the results. To attempt to do so, when a 'no' answer to any of the above questions could explain the different result, is to plainly demonstrate your woeful lack of knowledge on the issue, and how poorly equipped you are to pass judgement.
You did not even try to address the fact that CO2-enriched cassava is far more toxic than when grown under current levels.
[By the by](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2989…):
>"There is no consensus and the proof is the thousands of scientists worldwide who do not sgree(sic) with the IPCC's basic assumption about the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere."
[Followed by](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2992…):
>"No one denies the greenhouse effect or that CO2 has increased in the atmosphere blah blah blah."
You are a liar warren.
And learn to write. I wonder how you got to be a journalist...
Another denialist [shows the substance of their argument](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2992…)...
Tim Wells writes:
>*The problem jake is that there is no evidence that demonstrates that CO2 has caused the warming we have observed.It is an IPCC assumption only.*
When [shown he is wrong](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2992…), Tim Wells simply shift argument to nonsense:
>*that may be so,but you will notice that they cannot attach an emperically derived number to it.
This does no way conflict with evidence that AGW is occurring due to our adding CO2, as I said there are [multiple line of evidence](http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on…) supporting AGW. That you set an impossible standard says more about you than our understanding.
Tim Wells goes on to make up more rubbish:
>*The results of both Lindzen[Erbe] and Spencer[Ceres] refute the idea that the warming is anthropgenic.*
They do no such thing, [when reviewed](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-choi-…) they don't even stand up to scrutiny.
Tim Wells, I'm happy to inform that Lindzen is so embarrassed by is 2009 paper that he got upset when a debating opponent raised it. He thought that because he had acknowledged the serious errors in that it should be out of bounds for critique.
Not so it seems, denialist like you still bring it up despite what Lindzen was arguing about disappearing it from debate.
Bernard J,
As you cobble together your reply to my comment #285, Bernard J, could you please quote for me the portion of your Stoat comments that addresses "ambiguity" in my use of "fungus-among-us" (I know, Deltoids, how silly this exchange sounds, but I'm dealing with Bernard J). Let me repeat, please quote the portion of your Stoat comments (as in a comment by you, Bernard J) that speaks of "ambiguity" in any form with respect to my comments (Hint: you won't find any such thing to quote).
As for your possibly fib-based or possibly delusional recollection of a Stoat comment by me that discussed "ambiguity" with another commentator, well, that's all news to me. I certainly don't remember such a discussion. The closest I ever got to pointing out someone's "ambiguity", that I can recall, was when I invited one of Stoat's more obnoxious pests to "Bite me!" Unfortunately, that colorful comment, that I put a lot of thought into, was "binned" just like the one where you tried to talk like some fern-bar bad-ass.
Okay, I've had my little say and await with anticipation your rejoinder, Bernard J, ol' man.
Dessler [video explaining his paper](http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/09/science-cloud-feedback-likely-pos…) in cloud feedbacks.
MFS,it appears that you do not understand the scientific method.The major variable WITHIN both experiments was the CO2 concentration.That was the effect that was being studied.The differences in methodology are very likely irrelvant as the MAIN variable WITHIN both studies was CO2.Gleadow showed a big decrease in yield;Imai showed a big increase in yield.Now IF,both methodologies were VALID in terms of their efficacy to obtain meaningful data,then it naturally begs the question,"Why do we have OPPOSITE results?" Generally in science this kind of result would smell very much like an error of some sort-either in the methodology OR in the data processing stage.[I actually put this question to Gleadow and she angrily dismissed it].Slight differences in method for studying the same variable should give slightly DIFFERENT results-not OPPOSITE results.So there is the delemma-how do we find out which is the most likely study to have made an error or whose result are less convincing?The only thing we can do is look at other work done on this particular variable[CO2]in regards to it's effect on crop yieldsIE The same aim as that of the 2 studies.So we go to people like Kimball[1983] who was cited in both studies,and who found that in 430 prior observations,the average increase in yield was 33%.BUT,Cassava is a root/tuber plant so we should also look studies on those kinds of crops.Again we find that the yields are almost always increased.Eg Potato,Konjack etc.
Now given also the vast number of studies on plants other than crops,which show the same results of incresed biomass,then we can safely conclude that Imai's results are consistent with the mainstream science and Gleadow's results are not consistent with it.
PS MFS,only the leaves of cassava are more toxic,not the economically valuable roots.
Thanks for the Dessler article Jake,it is a good one.All I can say is,"the debate goes on".
>*All I can say is,"the debate goes on".*
Not where you were claiming it was. The debate is right up where the IPCC said it was.
warren:
Is that this denialist scam?
Chris,yes it very well may be.They did not tell me the source of their information.It appears that there isn't any substance to it then.
MFS,
Don't waste your time debating with Tim Wells. He does not understand the basics of C or N-based plant allelochemistry or of the simple fact that if you increase concentrations of atmospheric C, plants with C-based allelochemicals will invest more in defense, in both roots and shoots. Many of these compounds are synthesized in root tissues and delivered to above-ground shoots either systemically or locally. At the other end of the spectrum, plants with N-based allelochemistry may be forced to reduce investment in defense as N is shunted from plant tissues in favor of increased C. Moreover, at the moment, the depletion of P from terrestrial ecosystems is of profound concern. Much of it is ending up in aquatic systems where a lot is not recycled.
At the larger scale, there are bound to be competetive asymmetries in the effects of increasing atmospheric C on terrestrial communities. Given the scale of the atmopsheric experiment humanity is conducting, it is ludicrous, as Wells does, to try and extropolate primary productivity, systemic resistance, resilience and stability on the results of (mostly) small scale greenhouse experiments conducted in microcosms. These greenhouse experiments exclude consumer-level interactions, and thus are ecophysiologically flawed. Most of the studies that Wells posted up here a few months ago were done in greenhouses where abiotic conditions were strictly controlled; there were also no biotic constraints. Researchers like Rick Lindroth, who have worked in this field for years, always warn of the potentially deleterious consequences of rapidly increasing atmospheric concentrations of C on the structure, health and functioning of natural ecosystems. As I said above, the effects will be asymmetrical: some species will do very well, others less well and still others poorly. This will lead to shifts in dominance hierarchies amongst plant species and it is likely that natural systems will be greatly simplified, thereby making them more prone to collapse.
What I am doing here is invoking standard ecological theory (this goes back to the times of pioneering ecologists like Odom, Elton, Hutchinson, Gleason, and others) by integrating the effects of one parameter (C02) on a suite of above- and below ground processes in complex adaptive systems. Pretty much the entire community of plant and population ecologists would agree with me that it is impossible to conclude that increasing C02 levels in the atmosphere will yield net benefits for nature and for humanity. This is voodoo science. I have a colleague here who did his PhD on plant insect interactions under increased C02 and I discussed with him some of the comments made by Curtin and Wells on recent Deltoid threads, and he was, lest I say, shocked at the simple correlations they have drawn.
When Wells writes, "Jeff,the rebuttal to Gleadow 2009 is Imai 1983", he cannot be serious. A rebuttal published 26 years earlier?
Lastly, note how hypocritical Wells is. He cites the OP as an example where scientists are challenging the AGW orthodoxy, then later argues that some weathermen, most who probably have basic degrees and have never done any research in their lives, are 'scientists'. Then later, he accuses me of 'not knowing the science' in a field that is related to the one I have worked in as a scientist for the past 10 years. Basically what Wells is saying is this: "Any qualification, no matter how shoddy, matters if you agree with me and makes you a scientist; by contrast, those who disagree with me, no matter how qualified they are and what their pedigree is in science, are not really qualified scientists and are to be dismissed". How else can one sum up his position?
[Timothy Wells](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2992…) aka "warren":
>No one denies the greenhouse effect
You've effectively denied it several times here, for example [this thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/ian_plimer_lies_about_source_o…) and [this thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/monckton_caught_making_things.p…) both from May 2009 and [this one](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/09/john_mashey_recommends_climate…) from September 2009 in which [you were banned](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/09/john_mashey_recommends_climate…), hence your new alias.
Jeff,all of that self-aggrandizing waffle that you put into your posts does not change the fact that CO2 ferilization in the vast majority of cases produces more biomass and greater yields.The science,at the moment,strongly suggests that the benefits way outweigh the costs,by far,and until we know differently[for sure],then it looks like extra CO2 in the atmosphere will be a boon for our agriculture.
IF you have any really pertinent data/results on these deleterious effects that you allude to above,then present them here for us to evaluate.Otherwise stop whining.
Jeff,Cassava does not invest more c-based allelochemicals in roots for defense.There was no increase in toxicity for the tubers,only the leaves.And this is a good thing as it should mean less leaf loss to herbivores-another boon for yields.
*Jeff,all of that self-aggrandizing waffle that you put into your posts does not change the fact that CO2 ferilization in the vast majority of cases produces more biomass and greater yields. The science,at the moment,strongly suggests that the benefits way outweigh the costs,by far,and until we know differently[for sure],then it looks like extra CO2 in the atmosphere will be a boon for our agriculture*.
Incorrect. We cannot extrapolate the effects of closed laboratory experiments on conditions in nature where, as I said, biotic and abiotic constraints are prevalent. These are either excluded or controlled in greenhouses or climate-controlled facilities. We simply do not know enough about these effects to make any kind of confident prediction on the effects of increasing C02 on the assembly and functioning of complex adaptive systems. What we do know, incorporating studies that have measured changes in other parameters in the field, is that there will almost certainly be effects that will simplify natural systems, given the rate at which the atmospheric concentrations of this gas are increasing. And since primary productivity and plant quality are based on stoichimetry involving C, N and P, changes in the availability of these other vital nutrients will have consequences that are impossible to predict but which may be highly deleterious.
You can b*s all you want, but you are way, way out of your depth on this issue. What is refreshing is that I know the scientific community by and large would stand by me on this. They do not listen to third rate right wing pundits, who have pre-determined worldviews, and who think that cause-and-effect relationships in nature are linear. Yours is a primary school level understanding of the world. If the world was made of nothing but billions of small glasshouses, with one plant species grown in each under high nutrient regimes and where biotic factors are expunged, then fine, yields of most plants will increase. But this is certainly not at all the case in the field, where there are a million or more other constraints that must be factored in. There is growing empirical evidence that some natural biomes, for instance grassland ecosystems, are not more productive under increased C02. Furthermore, at smaller scales we know that herbivorous insects often feed more on plants under elevated C02 to compensate for lower foliar N levels, and that the performance of mutualists like mycorrhizal fungi are also negatively affected. Scale these small-scale asymmetrical effects to the level of communities, ecosystems and biomes, and the outcomes are almost certainly likely to lead to simplified systems characterized by much lower plant diversity and in turn the diversity of higher trophic levels.
In summary: you do not understand basic ecology. I ask anyone here to suggest who theyb think is winning the scientific 'debate' on this issue, if one can call it that. Its hard for me to debate you when your understanding of broader ecological and physiological processes is so poor. Therefor, I think its a slam-dunk. Most importantly, I am sick of your ignorant musings. I have actual science to do.
> The queensland university of technology let me graduate.
It's quite common, warrenidiot, that when you want to get rid of someone, you give them what they want and let them move away, praising their abilities to make sure some other sucker takes them on.
In other words, you know nothing.
> Britain is having the coldest December for 100 years so far.
So when did you emigrate from Australia?
Jeff,you mentioned only one word that was of any value in that post.The word was 'evidence'.You said there is some.Can you post it please.Thank-you.
Warren-Wells,
That one word was probably all you could understand of what I wrote. As I have said, you do grasp basic ecology. Why should I waste my time with another D-K disciple?
Here's a simple question for you: wild plants exhibit enormous genetic variation in phenotypic traits in nature. These traits include primary and secondary metabolism. Some of this variation is expressed over very small spatial scales. Constrast that with most cultivars, where most of the variation has been greatly reduced or even eliminated. So my question is this: what maintains this variation in nature, and what are the consequences of reducing it under natural conditions?
Of course I don't expect you to have a clue about what I am talking about, given that you never discuss real 'science' with me but only the results of a few studies done in greenhouses, as if this is conclusive. But my question is intimately connected to the discussion.
Unless you can answer this satisfactorily, go away.
warren:
As long as you've helped spread misinformation, you've done your job. As they say, misinformation gets half-way around the world (spread by the likes of warren) before the truth gets out of bed.
Ooops, I don't want to swell this guys already massive ego. I meant to say "DOES NOT understand basic ecology!!!!"
warren:
From a simpleton denialist point of view that leaves out feedbacks, aerosols and everything else but the direct effect of CO2, the warming due to CO2 can be calculated from its measured infra-red absorption. This is about 1.2K/CO2 doubling. We are nearly at one-half a doubling now, so the direct warming effect of CO2 alone is about 0.6K compared with the observed warming of 0.8K. So the CO2 on its own has demonstrably produced more than half the warming.
Quantifying the negative feedback of vegetation to greenhouse warming: A modeling approach
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/z6t
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/z6u
Probably too late Jeff.
If science was based on ignorance and assertion, Warren would imagine himself to be our visiting Hawking of enlightenment.
As it plainly isn't, obviously he's not.
Here are several examples of complex, unpredictable non-linear effects of increased C02. What these show is that extrapolating sytem-wide effects of increased C02 is virtually impossible unless many other processes are factored in. There are some studies which show net positive effects of C02 on local biodiversity over short time scales, but there others that do not and which, in fact, illustrate the reverse. What I have tried to explain to Wells, over and over and over and over and over again, but which he clearly does not understand, is that a stupendous array of factors regulate biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. C02 is just one of them. Like all laypeople promoting an agenda and looking for quick and easy answers, Wells uses the tried and trusted tactic honed by the anti-environmental lobby of arguing that "Without 100% unequivocal evidence of negative effects over larger scales, then there is no problem". The same trick has been used to downplay acid rain, habitat loss on biodiversity, extinction rates etc. Wells cherry picks a few studies (mostly in greenhouses) with a few crops, and then argues that, because these generally show a positive relationship between C02 and plant biomass (but not necessarily quality), then, until we have more solid evidence from natural systems, this proves the net benefits of increased C02. End of story. And he also habitually leaves off addendums in the studies he cites to support his views, where the authors often admit that our understanding of C02-related effects in terrestrial ecosystems is very poor. He also habitually ignores the growing number of studies showing that increases in atmospheric C02 are leading to ocean acidification, with potentially serious consequences for primary productivity in marine systems and thus effects right up the food chain.
Wells thinks he can win a debate with anyone using this strategy. Speaking as a scientist, I am doing what we all should be doing: expressing caution and being rigidly sceptical. To use an analogy I used before when Wells waded in here with his ignorance on this topic the first time, its like the scale of complexity in nature goes from 1 to 100 (1 represents a greenhouse or laboratory, 5 a simple ecological community, 10 and ecosystem, 30 a large biome and 100 the biosphere, for arguments sake). Our understanding of this complexity starts to dilute after level 5 and is very weak by the time we get past 10. This means 90-95% of the factors that regulate biodiversity and ecosystem functioning are poorly understood. What does Wells do? Ignores the complexity and says that we can understand the world on the basis of what we do understand between numbers 1-5, and until definitive evidence comes in showing conclusive deleterious effects on scales 5-100, then we ought to ignore it and stick with the tiny bits that we do know. However, given that the effects of elevated C02 may be system-specific and dependent on the interactive effects with an infinite number of other biotic and abiotic processes, we may never be able to understand the longer term consequences until it is too late.
Below I give examples of studies where this complexity is discussed. There are many more with evidence showing net bnenefits for small scale plant communities as well as negative effects for small scale plant communities. The effects on consumers is also being studied but only at very small scales. Basically, the pumping of C02 into the atmosphere represents an experiment in which the outcomes are vast and unknown, but potentially disastrous.
Bolker et al. (1995)http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365 2486.1995.tb00035.x/pdf
Rillig et al. (1999)
http://dbs.umt.edu/research_labs/rilliglab/Rillig%20et%20al.%20Nature%2…
Shaw et al. (2002)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/298/5600/1987.abstract
Morgan et al. (2007)
http://www.scidev.net/en/news/carbon-dioxide-could-make-grasslands-unus…
warren,
>"MFS,it appears that you do not understand the scientific method."
Oh, that IS a good one!
Sun freckle, don't trust anything from The Register, they are hopeless.
Lewis Page at the Register writes:
>*The NASA and NOAA boffins used their more accurate science to model a world where CO2 levels have doubled to 780 parts per million (ppm) compared to today's 390-odd.*
Wrong, they modeled a doubling of CO2 from pre industrial levels which is from 280 to 560 ppm.
"Without the negative feedback included, the model found a warming of 1.94 degrees C globally when carbon dioxide was doubled." (the low end of the 2 to 4.5 range) with vegetation feedback they a reduction of 0.3 degrees.
Taking 0.3 degrees off the 2 to 4.5 degree range is not the answer to our prays, and there is strong action required to ensure CO2 does not reach 560 ppm. So far were heading to a tripling rather than a doubling. And we need to reverse our deforestation to take advantage of this 0.3 degree boon, something that requires strong action.
Here is a [better source](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101208085145.htm).
Jeff, now you're talking!An interesting question,atlast.I will have a stab at it.
Genetic variation in nature is generally maintained by the wide dispersal of genetic traits.So nature through it's own processes of fertiliztion[eg widespread seed dispersal,insects taking different pollen to other plants etc]keeps the genetic stock in healthy good order.What maintains it?Well,the general genetic health of a species is maintained bt the mixing of genetic material,which inturn should have benefits for disease resistance etc.So large populations, and hence a large variety of genetic information, are good.Small or isolated populations may be susceptible to genetic degradation and therefore maybe extincton.So,anything that effects the availability or distibution of genetic variations probably results in a reduction of genetic 'robustness' to coin a phrase.The consequences of this reduction would ultimately be species loss.
There how did I go?Give me a grade please.
Not bad. I will give you an A- (I am a generous marker). Was this off the top of your head? I would go further:
Genetic variation is based on local responses of species to a suite of biotic and abiotic selection pressures over time where different genotypes posses traits that make them better adapted to one set of selection pressures whilst other genotypes are selected for under another set of selection pressures and *so on*. The optimal phenotypes are generally selected on the basis of trade-offs between certain traits when metabolic resources are limiting. Given that most plants harbor multiple attackers (e.g. pathogens and herbivores), as well as multiple mutualists (e.g. pollinators and natural enemies) then the abundance of certain phenotypes may change over time. Most importantly, genetic diversity reinforces the resilience and persistence of a species by allowing certain genotypes to maintain themselves in populations when conditions change.
Where you fall short is in applying this knowledge to cultivated plants. Why are these plants generally much more susceptible (and poorly adapted) to environmental stresses than wild plants? And what will this mean under elevated C02 regimes?
This is where I want our discussion to go. This is because I want you to appreciate how much we don't know...
Ah yes, it was at Stoat and not at Deltoid...
My error at post #276, Mike, was that I remembered it as occurring that you were "tightening up" someone else's post, but on checking just now it turns out that you were merely "tightening up" your own, to wit:
Unfortunately for you, it makes no difference to my original intent several months ago... It was upon exactly that "tightening up" that I was basing my comment when I corrected you: if you can't deal with that when you've already expressed your own pedantry on language usage then it's not my problem.
Mike, I pulled you to pieces. It was not the sort of thing that William Connolly permits on his blog however (and fair enough), which was why he deleted it, along with several of your own posts.
As for the apology, that was to William Connolly for cluttering his blog with my very barbed snipe at you - I made no apology to you, nor would I have in the circumstances. You are misrepresenting my actions - which makes you a liar.
So, contrary to your fantasy, there is no" fibbing" on my part Mike, even if I misunderstood in the first place whom it was that you were correcting. And I don't know what dictionary you're using, but by most normal folks' standards this whole grammar thing, and it's origin, has you in a cauldron of stew.
Seriously Mike, you need to let go of this issue. I took a swipe at a trivial grammatical peculiarity after you started on your own excusion of pendantry, and you've been clutching to your bossom ever since, this assault on your use of English. I even [noted at the time](http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/10/cant_think_of_any_more_amusing.ph…) that it was not really a subtly-sparked snark, but you've completely missed the point.
Now, if you are willing to get back to the cause of all of this and discuss Judith Curry's woeful behaviour in climatological commentary, let's have at it. There's even [a thread on Deltoid](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/about_time.php) where such a discussion can be held.
I am most curious to read your analysis of that particular situation...
[* Except that it was not the only comment that was removed, as [you yourself subsequently admitted](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2992…).]
OK thanks for the high grade.It was off the top of my head.
Your next question.Why are these plants much more susceptible...?
Well we have almost already answered that one.Firstly because they are a mon-culture,but also because they have very little genetic diversity and are therefore susceptible to disease/predators/competition.Strong genetic variation means that many members of a genetically diverse population can survive or resist various selection pressures.The simple answer is less genetic variation equals less adaptability.
This characteristic of our modern agriculture is very worrying as you know.All we need is one super pest and an entire world-wide monoculture could fail.That could be a disaster- in theory
Did I read correctely, did Tim Wells almost say that our food sources are less adaptable to change.
I wonder if Tim will next almost say that changing CO2 and associated changes like disease, temperature, water, competition is the type of change that our food stock are less adaptable to?
Jakerman,
Now we are getting somewhere with Tim Wells.
My point was that, under global change scenarios, crops will be harder hit than many wild-types because they are not adapted to cope with challenges posed by pathogens, herbivores, or abiotic conditions. We do know that N is the most limiting nutrient for herbivores. Given the fact that many (though not all) crops have been directionally selected to reduce levels of defense compounds, then these plants are often exceedingly susceptible to attack from their own enemies. If foliar N concentrations decrease, then these plants will potentially become even more susceptible to herbivory, because herbivores will consume enough plant biomass to ensure that they obtain enough N in their diet. If this means compensatory feeding and/or supernumerary instars, then this is what will happen.
There are many other possible scenarios, with the one I have described above being the most basic because it represents just a single constraint.
By the way, I only now became aware of the horrific article by John OâSullivan ("Global Warming Biologist Suspected of Fraud in Suspicious Study") in describing Ros Gleadow's recent research. IMHO the guy is a vicious hack. His article was puerile and insulting, and I cannot believe, Tim, that you would condone such a thing. If these are the kinds of people the 'sceptics' rely on for their support, then I am glad to want nothing to do with them. Its also very dangerous for pundits to throw around words like 'fraud' as well. Furthermore, the Imai study you cite as your 'rebuttal' was published in an innocuous journal (Japanese Journal of Crop Science) and has only 5 citations since 1984 when it was published. Which makes it almost invisible. Besides, what makes it so robust?
>No science from Warren nor mike.
Who needs science or peer review when you have a dodgy petition?
Bernard J,
Your comment #316
For the most part Bernard J, I think it best to just leave your comment to speak for itself. Especially the part where you acknowledged I was right and you were wrong. Two minor comments:
If you think your "binned" comment referring to a "fork in your mouth" (or something like that--that's my best recollection of the "barbed" portion of your "snipe") was a snappy retort, then I'm willing to allow you your little face-saving illusion.
You wrote: "...I made no apology to you...You are misrepresenting my actions-which makes you [i. e., me] a liar." C'mon Bernard J, you're supposed to be a smart guy. So why are you so perversely dumb? Anyone on this blog can read my comment #284 where I said, "And as I recall you issued a public apology for the spectacle you made of yourself." As plain as day, anyone can see I did not characterize your public apology as one addressed to me. You made that up, Bernard J, so that you could then call me a "liar." Didn't you, Bernard J? You're a freaking joke, guy. And unethical, too.
And just so you know, Bernard J, I've got nothing to "let go." On the other hand, I find self-appointed grammar fuss-budgets, like you, to be annoying blogosphere pests that arouse my predatory instincts. That's all.
Engage in civil discourse with fellow commentators and leave off the grammar minder business and you'll deprive me the means to engage with you, Bernard J. Is that too much to ask? In the meantime, as I advised you previously, that trick, used by Brit (and Anglophile) elites, to put peasants in their place by nit-picking their grammar doesn't work with Americans. We don't have that class "thingie" in the States.
Shorter mike:
Look! I am really, honestly, frankly, extremely, totally, willing to actually discuss climate science and Judith Curry's commentary of climate science!
Really, honestly, frankly! -- I am really, honestly, frankly, extremely, totally, willing to actually discuss climate science and Judith Curry's commentary of climate science!
But at the same time, I really can't resist the opportunity to lash out at Bernard J.'s 'grammar fussiness'!
I really want to talk about climate science! But I really can't resist talking about something else! It's not my fault! I really want to talk about climate science! Honest!
Frank,
Not quite there, but a nice try. This is an open thread, Frank. I want to talk about grammar and grammar in relation to Bernard J. The detail of my interest is available in my various posts on this thread. I never pretended otherwise.
Shorter mike:
Aha, I've fooled you! The talk about climate science was just an excuse! My real aim is to beat the crap out of Bernard J.! I win! Haha!
What's wrong with pointing out bad grammar, or in this case, consistently bad punctuation? If someone wants to show how little someone else thinks about something then what is the problem with drawing attention to that?
And the US never had slavery either.
sunsick (mentally that is):
Aren't those cherry-picked places lucky? Pity that so many places had their hottest November ever giving the global average its hottest November ever.
Not at all.
Really? Don't get out to the Hamptons much then, eh?
See also:
Bernard J,
You're right about one thing--I don't get out to the Hampton's much. In addition, you've half convinced me that there may be something to the oat-driven life. For sure, you've got more energy than me, I concede, Bernard J. So I'm takin' a break. Did enjoy the chit chat, though.
I've heard of oat-driven horsepower but WTF is the oat-driven life?
>"I've heard of oat-driven horsepower but WTF is the oat-driven life?"
Dunno, but I enjoy my porridge in the morning... should I be worrying?
Japan pulled out of Kyoto because .......
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/z7p
It's called Tragedy of the Commons.
Right-wing 'logic':
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/6821/wingnut.jpg
(see comment at http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/28112.html for the original)
I'm looking forward to The Australian's take on this:
I imagine Joanne Codling and her groupies will forth at the mouth somewhat.