By popular request, Brad Keyes is only permitted to post in this thread.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.
By popular request sunspot has his/her own thread. This is the only thread that sunspot can post to, and all replies to any comment to sunspot should go here.
By popular request Flying Binghi has his/her own thread. This is the only thread that FB can post to, and all replies to any comment to FB should go here.
I can't move comments, so I will delete comments that do not follow these rules.
By popular request. Comments from Brent and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by Brent and responses to comments by Brent should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
# 98 last page
I think you are a lying sack of shit, Bradley! All this guff about codes etc...
Link to that comment please.
*I am also waiting* for the link to TL notifying you that you were in moderation. I would like to see that too, please.
Trust but verify and all that!
;-)
"“Is romance in the air?” Er, doesn’t she, like, have a husband?"
So you're saying you're so repellent a person that you'd never be able to get married?
Well, I concur.
BBD:
I think you are a lying sack of shit, Bradley! All this guff about codes etc…
Link to that comment please.
Huh? Are you talking about Mann's code? Which comment about it?
I'm not sure you quite grasp how Доверяй, но проверяй works, but it's an imperative and it's talking to you: you have to trust me, you have to verify that I'm telling the truth, you do all the work.
Nevertheless, since not everyone speaks Russian as well as me, I'll do the work of verification for you just this once—here is the post:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/february-2013-open-thread/co…
Note that the "repeated violations of the rules" are fictional. No "rule", let alone "rules," stated that I wasn't allowed to terrify the minor leagues by coming and going from my eponymous thread as I pleased. I'd hardly call a blog post (the OP of this thread) a rule, let alone "the rules." Hey, I'm a busy guy, I don't have time to read everything Tim posts, and I've often dived into the comments thread on a blog without reading the OP. What other "rules" have I missed by not reading his entire back-catalog of blog posts, I wonder?
Wow
No, I'm saying nothing of the sort. (Comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?)
But you're saying quite a lot.
You're telling us you're so unethical and dishonest that you'd have no scruples dating a married woman.
Well, I concur.
Well, you asserted something that COULD NOT be public knowledge: that chubby had not been sockpuppeting.
Your memory is failing, old bean. Check yourself in to an OAP home before you start wearing someone else's underpants on your head and going "Wibble".
Vince Whirlwind --- We'll just disagree then. I can't argue you out of your current state of misinformed prejudice.
Yeah, see, this is a problem, Dave.
You just said "We'll just disagree then", but THEN you go "misinformed prejudice", indicating that Vince is wrong. Except that negates your "we'll disagree then" statement.
The point is you're a foolish idiot who has swallowed the nuclear load and gobbled it down looking for more.
You are absolutely and hugely idiotically wrong.
USA alone: $7.1Bn subsidies.
Its CO2 output per MWh is higher than solar or wind.
It is taking decades to complete a single prototype and it's now four times the original cost and has been a shambles from the get-go.
We have neither the time, the money, the ability or the need for nuclear power.
It is hugely expensive and completely inappropriate to this current situation since it DEMANDS an entirely stable situation for well over 40 years.
WE DON'T HAVE THAT LUXURY.
Sea level rise over the next 40 years depends on how quickly the greenland ice sheets and WAIS break off. All we KNOW is that our models have underestimated the effect.
Nuclear is just another way of spending time and money we don't have on people who are hugely rich and connected who wish to remain on top, and to hell with the rest of the planet.
I don't have any misinformed prejudice: the nuke history has a long history of externalising huge costs that have to be shouldered by the taxpayer. It also has a long history of peddling misinformation, being secretive, and cutting corners on safety.
On paper, nukes are a non-option - the only way to make it look like a viable option is to do what the UK government did in its 2006 energy report, which is to say, to break the law and tell deliberate lies.
Additional costs we haven't even begun to calculate include, for example, the cost of the UK's 34-years'-worth of dumping of radioactive waste in leaky 44-gallon drums into the North Sea. 74,000 tons-worth that we know about.
France and Belgium combines have dropped over 100,000 drums of nuclear waste into the North Atlantic, and the USA has dumped a similar amoutn in the sea. We won't even talk about the vast amount of radioactive waste the Russians have strewn about the Arctic and the Pacific, including old reactors and loose fuel rods.
What a filthy, dishonest business you support - Where does wind power ask for this kind of subsidy?
EXCUSE ME VINCE???????
"Oops! Slipped out of character there a bit….since when does a half-witted country-bumpkin unable to form paragraphs use a word like “languish” when “gets stuck” and “got blocked” are available?"
How completely rude, obnoxious and entirely unpleasant and distasteful of you Vince!
The fact that I live and work in Rural Australia has absolutely nothing to do with my ability to use the English language and/or my education level.
I used 'languish' as it was the appropriate word. (IMHO). The moderator/s at this site appear to be somewhat lazy and usually only release moderated comments once per day.
Therefore, despite the fact that there is no sock, my comments 'languish'.
Languish: v; 1) to droop or fade. 2) To lose activity or vigour.
So even though I could have used 'blocked' or 'gets stuck' or indeed a plethora of other availble words I chose LANGUISH!
:-) :-) :-) :-)
I am guffawing at your pathetic attempt to stereotype people and then sneer at them down your highly supercilious nose based on NO EVIDENCE other than your muddled and apparently paranoid imagination.
BUT?
If I remember correctly, you were the one who coined the laughable term 'intellect envy' and you were also the one who loudly claimed that MBH98 was CONFIRMED by BEST.
Your word usage has been far more questionable than my usage of LANGUISH.
Wow & Vince Whirlwind --- I will not just take your word for your assertions; links to authoritative sources are required. I currently doubt that such exist.
In particular, do not confuse civilian nuclear power generation (regulated everywhere) with military bomb making (unregulated everywhere I know about). The latter certainly was done quite poorly, at least in the USA.
Comparison of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Various Electricity Generation Sources
http://www.world-nuclear.org/WNA/Publications/WNA-Reports/Lifecycle-GHG…
"Greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear power plants are among the lowest of any electricity generation method and on a lifecycle basis are comparable to wind, hydro-electricity and biomass."
bill:
C: I haven't been to ClimateAudit in weeks. Having too much fun here in the believosphere. I've dropped in at WUWT once or twice, where Marcott et al. is mentioned but not explored in enabling detail; apparently CA has busted yet another hockey stick, but I don't know how or even whether this really occurred so I'm not inclined to crow about it.
Why would you not confuse them?
The former only exists as a result of, or to serve, the latter.
You really have swallowed some nasty PR, David.
Are any in such a state of denial about this that we need to dig out the various government policy statements that make this deliberate link clear?
...says the "World Nuclear Association".
How about we get some genuine analysis instead of nuke-spruikers' PR?
What do they seem to be saying here:
?
Nuclear fuel cycle not included?
Could this be the approach to "information" that got the nuke lobby found guilty of unlawful activity by the UK High Court in 2007?
David B,
I agree that some sensible planning needs to be done re future energy needs.
When or, perhaps IF the moderator/s at this site stop holding back my comments FOR NO REASON (!!!) I hope that you will still be around to discuss this further.
If not, perhaps you could suggest another site where these issues are discussed?
Oh, what a hoot your document is:
Gee, I'm sure carbon emissions is high on the list of concerns among the millions of people affected by the forced evacuation of hundreds of thousands of square kilometres of land caused by the nuke industry's "high degree of safety"....
Yep. Just leave it out.
Who needs a complete picture anyway?
That was a sales brochure posing as a meta-study.
Wottalodacrap, David.
"Wow & Vince Whirlwind — I will not just take your word for your assertions; links to authoritative sources are required. I currently doubt that such exist."
And you'll decide if they are authoritative, right?
What do you want a link for, hmm?
Okilituke or something like that is currently nearly four times over budget. You can find a link for that yourself. The french one is nearly three times over budget.
The insurance taken out is limited (I forget the name of the act in the usa that limits it), and the difference underwritten. It's the same deal for the Japanese one. The insurance is only for minor accidents that happen day-to-day. You can google the information yourself. Pick the authoritative source yourself.
If we were secure because we'd done something 20 years ago, then i'd be fine with trying the thorium reactor again to see if we can make it work this time, as a test to see if we an replace older designs with a new and now proven (hasn't been yet) safer design. We don't really have the money for it, though. But two tests are currently underway, so my wishes don't seem to matter.
We have neither the money, time nor ability to make a rapid increase of nuclear. Especially off untested and already expensive and unreliable versions of a reactor that we dropped 50 years ago.
Bradley
Evasive little worm!
I think you are lying about this because Chameleon is either a sock or your significant other. Defend yourself by linking to the comment in question instead of engaging in childishly transparent evasions.
"Доверяй, но проверяй"
Ah, Bradley the google-enabled polymath strikes again! It's very simple, oh mighty intellect: I don't trust; you need to verify.
***
It's amusing to see what I wrote to your alter-ego in the comment immediately before your last hurrah:
***
Your lies are risible, Bradley:
You cannot possibly have missed this.
Wow
You are correct: your wishes do not matter. The needs of the people, and of the environment, are paramount.
Oh. My. God. What have we done to deserve more of 12 Deniers Make One Sou's trademark blend of humor and searing climate-debate analysis?
Well, which is it? One or two or three?
Riiiight.
Which NOBODY CLAIMS IT IS.
Other than that little incomprehension, spot-on as usual, Sou!
Ah, BBD, the guy who presumes his own ignorance of Russian is shared by others, projects again!
And I suppose that’s why you wrote:
?
They say that’s the hard bit about being a liar: you have to have a good memory.
Try to remember your own commenting history next time, BBD.
BBD,
just to drive home an older point, remember the way Wow's take on the "reasoning" process drove you to homicidal exasperation on the weekend?
Remember how Lotharsson once criticised Wow for his sub-high-school comprehension of English and urged him to get help? Remember how Wow accused some other contributor of being mentally ill and Lotharsson pointed out that Wow had it precisely back-to-front?
You now have direct personal experience of how profoundly retarded Wow is. That experience is shared by your deltoidal coreligionists.
The question is:
What makes you think Wow comes across as any less retarded when he's debating us than he does to you?
He doesn't.
Don't commit the Gell-Mann fallacy.
For an up-to-date example, look at comment #2 on this page.
Look at comment #5 and compare it to the comment Wow is "responding" to, in which I explicitly said:
See? As Forrest Gump said, stupid is a robust trait. Wow is an embarrassment to your "side."
Gee, it's a pity 'Chebbie' couldn't apply some of that genius to accurately parsing Delingpole's rantings.
This is getting to be one of the daftest soap-operas going! The performances are worthy of 'Twilight'...
bill:
Interesting.
So you think Chameleon sounds like a female (whatever that means) when she writes.
I'm sure you're right, bill... but it's not going to endear you to some of the locals!
"The needs of the people, and of the environment, are paramount."
You are correct. Which is why nuclear should be off the table.
PS Am I not allowed to be one of the people, nuclear-lover, just because I don't love nuclear without reservation as you and David do?
Who decided that those who are not for nuclear should be ostracised from society?
BBD:
Further proof of the Gump Conjecture:
When Wow is "debating" me I tend to suspect he's on the Heartland payroll.
With this new data, I'd say he's just as likely to work for the nuclear lobby.
That's not why you're a pariah, Wow.
Wow
Turn it round. The world does not want to be subjected to the emissions arising from anti-nuclear hysterics pushing nuclear off the table.
You are still projecting. I do not want to take renewables off the table. I want *both* nuclear and renewables because:
Nuclear + renewables = *much less* CO2 that just one or other.
I object to anti-nuclear hysterics because they are a dangerous obstacle to decarbonisation.
As I have already pointed out, several times.
Yes, that's what I did: turn it around. Oddly, though, you think that only works for you.
"The world does not want to be subjected to the emissions arising from anti-nuclear hysterics pushing nuclear off the table."
That's fine. Renewables are on the table.
"I want *both* nuclear and renewables"
Yes, you want nuclear on the table and WILL NOT condone it being removed, no matter how dangerous or counterproductive it is.
"Nuclear + renewables = *much less* CO2 that just one or other."
Incorrect.
Renewables + Renewables = MUCH LESS CO2 than Nuclear + Renewables.
And renewables + nuclear = much much more danger than renewables alone.
And renewables + nuclear = much less renewables.
"I object to anti-nuclear hysterics because they are a dangerous obstacle to decarbonisation."
1) It isn't hysteria. It's merely a lack of fanboi adulation
2) It isn't an obstacle to decarbonisation.
If you want to say
100% (Renewables + Nuclear) is easier than 100% Renewables
you would have to argue how and the weight given in that calculation, but I could at least concede that there may be a case there.
@ 25
Good - that's all I've been arguing from the start. You still don't understand that I'm not a 'fan' of nuclear nor an enemy of renewables. I'm a fan of decarbonisation and an enemy of plans that don't add up.
We don't have to be at war over this. Especially not once you concede that I'm not trying to push renewables off the table. I really do mean renewables + nuclear = optimum decarbonisation trajectory. Renewables only = suboptimal decarbonisation trajectory. Nuclear only = suboptimal decarbonisation trajectory.
"@ 25
Good – that’s all I’ve been arguing from the start. "
No, you haven't. You've been arguing this:
Which isn't the same thing at all.
Nope, not that either.
It costs 20Bn to put 2 GW of nuclear power up.
For the same price we can get 20GW of renewables.
It takes 15 years to get 2GW of nuclear power up before it generates electricity.
Renewables can start within weeks of the first connection to the grid and first installed unit.
Going for nuclear IS the sub-optimal one because we have neither the time nor the money to build and building in haste ensures that the bulding will be shoddy.
But a shoddy wind turbine may kill a cow.
A shoddy nuclear power plant does bites Chernobyl.
Nuclear is the sub-optimal route.
You have to demonstrate why you insist renewables are sub-optimal.
So far all you've had is the proven falsity that "we can't do 100% renewables".
"Especially not once you concede that I’m not trying to push renewables off the table."
I'm not against you for trying to push renewables off.
Though that IS the consequence of paying time and money to build nuclear.
I'm against you pushing nuclear despite it being absolutely the wrong choice at this time in the world we have.
Note that I said:
However, you decided that wasn't needed.
Wow
If renewables are as marvellous as their more excitable proponents believe, then you must not concern yourself.
The decarbonisation problem is as good as solved.
Of course if you are rather badly mistaken, we will need nuclear to make up for broken renewables promises. If you have been paying attention, you will know that this is what James Hansen (and many others) believe makes uncritical acceptance of renewables boosterism so very dangerous.
While I like and respect you (despite your recently colourful reflections on my character and intellect) I have more time for Hansen's views than for yours. This should not be a stinging insult (it would not be if someone said it to me!)
So let's not go to war over nothing. If you are right, renewables will be a wonderful, ever-growing, ever-giving energy solution. If you are wrong, well, it's not the end of the world... is it?
Uh, you're presuming here that nuclear can be used to "make up for broken renewables promises".
What if it can't?
Then isn't spending time and money on it a waste of both?
"we will need nuclear to make up for broken renewables promises"
It cannot.
To build a generator scale prototype thorium reactor: a poor use of our money. But if we learn from it, even though it is, as with most nuke power station builds, it's almost entirely "how not to do it", there's at least progress.
But to pretend that these thorium reactors should be built as a priority? Rubbish. It only demonstrates that we DON'T learn.
These reactors are 20 years away, even if they work out as the best utopian ideas about them imply. It will be AT LEAST 5 years before either of the prototypes start generating and another 10 years to find out what the hell happens when you try running them (note: the current designs need weapons-grade materials to generate their power because it's cheaper to produce a design like that. Which is why these designs DO NOT solve any proliferation problems). The designs also aren't built to allow use of old materials (a different design is needed to do that without the "refuelling" being "gut the whole place and replace the core").
They would show what the result of generating power with thorium would do to the reactor. But ONLY if run for several years not as a commercial product, but as a prototype, where the power generated is offsetting the cost, not the reason for running it. Running it as a commercial product is why Chernobyl went bang: the engineers who knew the design and the shortcuts/design "features" were were replaced with cheaper newbies who did not know the system. So an accident started and the normal procedures were ineffective because the design was different in an attempt to make it safer or more productive.
So it would be 15 years at least, if no more problems occur, before we know what the hell happens with the thorium designs we are implementing. IF they turn out to be workable, the next generation STILL is bespoke, because all we learnt from the current design is what doesn't work. Not what does when starting again.
Five years later, IF the utopia pans out, we may know enough to run with the designs.
But each step of "if" adds another 20 years.
One "if" wrong and we're mid 21stC. WAIS and GIS have, unless we've decarbonised by 2020 almost completely, are either on the road to recovery by 2100 or we're SOL.
In the latter case, there is nowhere we can plant a nuclear power station.
Nuclear power is only an option AFTER we've decarbonised.
And, to be frank, decarbonisation is nearly possible now if we stop wasting so much damn energy. USA could use 25% of their use, UK (and much of Europe) half.
If 30% of current need is replaced with renewables in 20 years, along with the cuts from those above the world average TO the world average, we'd be 80+% decarbonised. That's probably enough to keep under 400ppm, or at least under 450ppm. If that isn't enough, then we're boned anyway, all we've managed to do is delay the onslaught.
Why are you going on about thorium reactors? I'm talking about Gen III - a proven technology.
Of course it can. It is a proven, scalable, dispatchable baseload technology.
The unproven,non-baseload, non-dispatchable hand-waving stuff is called large-scale renewables. This is what we are taking the big functionality gamble on. Hansen knows this. I know this - indeed most people with some familiarity of the topic know this.
We know Gen III works, Wow. You are shouting nonsensical - indeed *falsifiable* - assertions.
Eh - 'some familiarity *with* the topic'
I’m talking about Gen III – a proven technology.
You'd never said what tech you were talking about. AndGen II was a proven technology too. It's why there are so many out there still being extended in use because it cheaper than building a new one.
From the wiki:
Oklituko and Flamanville are currently years late and two to three-plus times over budget AND STILL NOT FINISHED.
EDF require a GURANTEED rate, inflation based, or won't bother at all. If that reactor were commercially viable, then the wouldn't be asking for a pre-agreed profit, would they. And still require a cap on liability. Doesn't bode well for what they assume for safety.
So it appears that the people doing this don't think it is commercial.
And what design was Fukushima? The same as the ones in the USA currently being retrofitted with hardened vents.
They would require replacing first, wouldn't they? Or are you going to keep them running?
And nuclear requires backup. About 10% of the time it's unavailable due to unforseen outages and there's a periodical (roughly 18 months) outage for about 50 days for maintenance.
What do you back it up with?
More nukes?
Lastly, France are owning up to the fact that if they had a problem of a similar magnitude to Fukushima, France would no longer exist since it would be bankrupt. Indeed their nuclear power dependence has seen them hit HARD not only because nuclear generation is ineffective in a variable load market, especially in a warming climate. But they are also finding the cost of running these (EdF is subsidised directly by the French taxpayer) is commercial suicide and is bleeding the tax revenues dry.
They're skint partly because of nuclear power.
Who's this "We", kimosabe? You don't, if you think that nuclear power can make up for "broken renewable promises".
Which, let us remember, is entirely based on a few assumed IFs that go against renewable generation. Ifs that have no reason to be so.
Generation capacity is cheaper, quicker to complete and can start generating before more than a small fraction of the site is complete.
The price of all renewables are going down, when the cost of production for all the others are going up.
And those countries trying to go as much renewables as possible without you nay-sayers saying "no way, it can't work, you're a fool, STOP! STOP YOU'RE KILLING THE PLANET!!!!", are finding that
a) they're reaching targets much much earlier, a Canadian energy company who fought tooth and claw against building renewables did a complete 180 when they were told "do it or we find someone who will".
b) finding it cheaper to build out than feared
c) finding that their balance of payments have improved greatly
therefore have increased manyfold their required renewable roll-out.
This is complete rubbish. Reactors designed for power generation *do not* use 'weapons-grade' fuel *nor* do they produce weapons-grade material as waste. You are shockingly ill informed on a very important issue.
Yes, weapons-grade uranium can be *diluted* and used as fuel but that is absolutely *not* what you are claiming here. Someone has been filling your head with nonsense.
Here's my prediction for the next twenty years:
- Renewables will fail to deliver on capacity, reliability and budget (this is already a major issue in the UK, where we are really trying to do something with wind)
- AGW will continue to bite
- Obsolescence will force closure of coal-fired plant
- Nuclear will be built to replace coal for baseload because it will by now be evident that renewables are unsuitable for baseload and are not dispatchable.
- Renewables will be be used in conjunction with nuclear in the developed world
- God knows what will happen in developing economies - it's perfectly possible that they will carry on burning coal for baseload
Then why is North Korea and Iran not allowed their nuclear power program?
BECAUSE OF PROLIFERATION FEARS.
Apparently, the USA and UK don't agree with you. And they have people who study this for a living.
Current thorium designs require enriched beyond the power station level enrichment of fissile materials to generate power. The continuing replacement of these materials by the products of thorium is how they are called "Thorium reactors".
Apparently, when you said "We know", you should have excluded yourself from the list...
Well, it;s already been proven wrong in Germany, Denmark, Scotland and Sweden.
You failed your prediction even before you made it.
Well, duh.
This "not dispatchable" is complete and utter bullshit. It doesn't even mean anything.
And since renewables are load-following, you actually need about 80% of the power generation capacity of "baseload-biased" generation to cover the requirements. Proven in California in a study, IIRC, in 2008.
France is in deep shit because they have so much nuclear generation. And Germany is making out like bandits from their move to renewables since their load-following renewable generation will export daytime (high value) energy to France and France exports nighttime (low value) overproduction at below generation cost (else it is just going to waste) to Germany.
Germany's balance of payments to France increased in their favour by over 10% because of their shift to renewables.
http://climatecrocks.com/2013/03/13/renewables-changing-the-math-of-ene…
And this time read the fucking thing.
No, Wow, you are just saying stuff. And we are reaching the point of can't-be-bothered.
NK and Iran aren't making fuel for power reactors alone - they are enriching for weapons, hence the problems. Weapons-grade uranium (WGU) is enriched to over 95% U-235. Reactor fuel is enriched to about 4%. You are just saying stuff. Has it ever occurred to you (as it has to others) that fuel can be made in one country and supplied to another if the recipient doesn't play nicely with others? That gets round the proliferation problem easily enough.
Why are you still wittering on about thorium? I've been talking about Gen III right from the outset. See here.
Give me numbers (with solid refs) not more bloody assertions.
Percentage of electricity generated:
Germany?
Scotland?
Denmark?
Sweden?
And Ontario shows your prediction already broken:
http://climatecrocks.com/2013/01/21/ontario-phasing-out-coal/
The UK government can decide to scupper renewables, indeed seem hell bent on doing so, but this is no more about the renewables than the fall of the Twin Towers was due to the cleaners being inefficient.
WTF are you on about?
'Not dispatchable' means 'not load following'. You haven't got a clue, have you? Not a fucking clue.
Yes, it's called "communicating".
You now have to engage the brain. It's called "listening". Give it a go.
Your prediction is already wrong.
What does that tell you about the thought processes that led you to that assertion?
Nope, it doesn't.
"Not load following" would (if tautologically so), but that is what nuclear and coal power generators are: not load following. Dinworig is.
And it's neither nuclear nor coal.
I'm afraid you're heavily Braying here.
Do you think that those numbers are not available?
Way back in the 2000's Bray was demanding "SHOW ME the figures for how many scientists agreed with AGW!".
Deep deep derping Braying going on with you here.
Wow
Dinorwig is pumped hydro. Nuclear is for baseload. Coal is for baseload. We need baseload.
Then you need dispatchable capacity for load following, usually gas-fired plant.
You are totally, hilariously wrong about your definitions you eejit - FFS look it up instead of frantically digging deeper - although the terminal damage is done, I'm afraid.
*Dispatchable* = *load following*. In grown-up world ;-)
Give me the numbers to back up your assertions or withdraw your assertions. I challenge them all.
Percentage of electricity generated:
Germany?
Scotland?
Denmark?
Sweden?
Calling me names when your ignorance leads to to fuck up hideously is not the best way of handling the situation.
Google and apology might do better.
chameleon --- I regularly check
http://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/index.cgi
and there are many actual engineers who comment there. It is a much more rational place with an excellent post facto moderator.
BBD appears to have come to much the same conclusion as I have.
I point out that the French NPPs can and do load follow. That is only rarely done in the USA, but I know of an instance around here.
I would attribute that to both of you being blinkered to the facts, when those facts are not beneficial to nuclear power.
Except they don't.
You can dial back a little but that runs less efficiently and it takes over 24hours to spin up a nuclear power station from cold.
This is why France sells so much night time power to other countries and why it is sold below cost.
Brad Keyes, always good for a laugh, says,
Nobody "debates" you, Brad, we just occasionally pelt you with peanuts.
Uh, no, the fuck ups (in the same case as Bray's derping insistence on similar "fuck ups" by everyone else other than him and his denier chums) are in your imagination.
And calling you names? No, I've only described your actions. If those apt descriptions of your actions are offensive to you, then DON'T DO THEM.
Fuck, talk about "calling me names" under those definitions, what the fuck do you think YOU are doing???
Sending bloody love letters????
Yes.
Dinworig will follow loads and is not nuclear.
Baseload is THE MINIMUM of power requirements. NOT "load following" as you asserted in #56.
Really? You call "hilarious fuckup" on me after THAT howler?
You really are a mental midget with an ego out of all proportion.
But France can't keep baseload: they have to have backup in more nukes because it's out for 20% of the time. So they produce 120% of what they need and find that they overproduce at night.
Worse, since they can't afford to have many more idle nuke stations, when daytime comes along, they're unable to produce their needs and have to buy it in from Germany, for example, where renewables are ramping up because, as so many anti-renewable idiots bray about all the time "The sun shines only during the day".
And morning/evening, sea breezes mean wind power are ramping up for the waking up/coming home ritual when solar finally begins to drop its capacity (you can get 8+hours of midday capacity with solar-tracking solar panels).
In winter, when you may need heating, winds are generally stronger.
In a hot summer, there sun is bright, and people want cooling.
In summer, when the rivers are hot, the nuclear power station can't keep cool and have to shut down or go boom.
If the rains are lacking and there's a drought, there's not enough water and again, nuke plants have to shut down or go boom.
And they don't like being flooded.
Says someone who doesn't nother looking it up and demands "Where are the figures for Germany, Denmark, Scotland...".
Yeah, you're not doing your brain any favours by letting it out of its leash like this. It's failing HARD and you're waving it around like a flag.
Then you and David are COMPLETELY WRONG calling nuclear dispatchable.
But what it means?
Well, lets look at some dictionary definitions which would have been the reasoning behind using that word:
Dispatch
Verb:
1. To relegate to a specific destination or send on specific business. See Synonyms at send1.
2.
a. To complete, transact, or dispose of promptly.
b. To eat up (food); finish off (a dish or meal).
noun.
1. The act of sending off, as to a specific destination.
So any electrical generation can manage this.
There is "Dispatchable Standby Generator", but since nuke plants take ages to warm up, Hydro, geothermal, Solar Thermal, Pressurised storage, and similar storage theories are dispatchable.
And gas turbines can start in an hour or two, depending on size.
But "load following"? DSG?
No.
DSG doesn't follow loads.
It sits in standby.
It goes on or goes off to fill in for peaks.
Then again, a Wind Turbine in the wind can be turned off to not generate and is sitting there ready to start off at a moments notice. It takes a few minutes to start up, maybe even several minutes.
If you had 120% capacity in wind, the 20% could be idled and only need the angle of attack of the blades changed to "dispatch" these "standby generators" in minutes.
Not as good as most stored power standby power, but better than almost every other generation method.
BBD,
The UK hasn't just done virtually nothing with wind, but their government has broken the law by producing a pro-nuclear policy-informing report on their energy options.
Sad to see people taken in by the propaganda. Reminds me of Tony Blair's disastrous privatisation push.
Gosh, stuck in the '80s are we?
"baseload" is largely a myth used by spin-merchants.
If you don't believe me, check out Germany's "baseload" 30 years ago, their "baseload" today, and that projected for 20 years hence.
Gee, look at that incredible vanishing "baseload".
Even if we did need baseload to the extent propagandised by the nuke lobby, there is no economic case to be making for using nukes to produce it - they are utterly unaffordable.
Did Wow point out the intermittent shutdown of French (and US) nuclear reactors during periods of peak demand caused by lack of water at a suitable temperature?
Intermittent money-gobbling nukes v. intermittent cheap, clean wind turbines.
No-brainer.
Well, power storage DSG would follow loads if you could vary the output and it can only follow loads for the length of time of stored power.
Hydro can, for a few hours. But it needs overproduction to restore its reservoir and can't repeat the feat until then.
Then again, renewable power can do the same. Dinworig generators pump the water up hill even if the electrons came from a wind turbine or hippy's home solar panels.
It was ignored, though.
It is not goodfact.
Therefore double plus ungood, infoseek resolution: discard.
Fukushima can't happen here?
http://www.plux.co.uk/sizewell-flood-map/
10% chance for Sizewell.
http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/sizewell_nuclear_power_station_site_at_high_…
With an example of a minor incident:
So nuclear is intermittent too...
Power engineering terms ---
Baseload: the minimum power requirement over a 'standard' 24 hour period.
Dispatchable: capable of being used to meet an expected or even unexpected load. Units which are unavailable are not dispatchable nor are units whose generation varies uncontrolled by the grid operators.
Availability: the fraction (or percentage) of the time a generator can operate. Typically this is over 90% of the time for fossil fuel and nuclear generators, about 25% of onshore wind and at most 25% for solar.
Capacity factor (CF): the equivalent fraction of time that a generator is running fully. Most grids run nuclear fully when available, coal burners at around 85% CF. If wind and solar are under 'must take' contract then the CF is the same as the availability.
Responding to System Demand
http://ansnuclearcafe.org/tag/load-following/
An obsolete approach, the perpetuation of which serves the interests of certain dinosaurs.
David Mills has a crack at educating you here:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/12/02/3081889.htm
And here is the modern situation as happening today in Germany:
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/graph-of-the-day-why-baseload-power-pla…
Your baseload argument is propaganda and no longer applies.
In a nutshell.
Well Dr. David Mills has wrong definitions although his approach is interesting. Load is requirement; demand. I properly defined baseload. How it is met depends upon the mix of generators available. Around here that is almost 100% hydro.
For Dr. David Mills approach to work he must have adequate storage for the longest interval that the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine (enough). Actually doing to calculations for whatever grid is of interest to you shows that a quite considerable overbuild is required. If the ratepayers do not mind the additional expense (Denmark and Germany come to mind, although both still have coal burners) then fine. Most would prefer a grid which is not only reliable and on-demand but as near to minimal cost as can be. So the storage changes from heat storage or pumped hydro storage to pre-heat storage such as nuclear pins (or that which we want to stop using, fossil fuels).
David B, (and ironically BBD) :-)
For no good reason, Vince and Wow are resorting to their usual unsubstantiated sneering/bullying tactics on someone who is only trying to talk some common sense.They seem to believe that power can be switched on or off anytime we like WITHOUT a base load requirement ...or....perhaps equally absurdly.... that energy plants that supply that necessary baseload can just be switched on and off like their switches at home??????
I will endeavour to work out how to use the link at #63 and hopefully discover that there are more rational and sensible people around.
I find it rather amusing that BBD is now complaining that he is being treated unfairly (via unsubstantiated personal assassination tactics) by the same people he encourages when he and they use exactly the same process on commenters like me.
In the meantime, re baseload and reliable dispatchable energy have you and BBD ever come accross posts like these?
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/renewable-power-a-ticking-bom…
If you can disregard the political perspective, I think you may find that this post and several others by this person clearly outlines the dilemna that you and BBD are attempting to highlight here.
(and ironically, I will now have to wait approx 24 hours before you get to see this comment partly thanks to BBD's unsubstantiated paranoid assumptions about me)
Gee, you come here for the latest installment of the soap, and instead they've replaced it with the Jerry Springer 'Nukes - Duke It Out' show... ;-)
I mean did the wife turn out to be the long-lost half-sister, or what?
Wow,
this is a lie:
Why would I care how many scientists "agree with" AGW when I myself am pro-AGW? I want to know how many scientists believe in seriously net-dangerous AGW.
Liars aren't welcome on this thread.
Why are you still here, exactly?
Well Bill,
That might be because future energy needs is a way more important topic and a way more interesting topic than your nonsense sideshow.
Developing Countries Expected to Drive a Nuclear Power Boom
http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Developing-Countri…
198
David, you're compounding your obsolete idea of "baseload" with an equally outdated concept of "overbuild".
It just doesn't work that way any more. Germany produces in excess of 20% of its electricity from renewables (only 3.5% hydro), so it's had to grapple with this change in approach.
The idea that power plants that can't vary their output get 100% guaranteed access to the power market (with fully-externalised cost of emissions), with other operators forced to compete for the remaining variable demand no longer applies.
Renewables will produce all they can up to the limit of what they want to take to market, while the inflexible continuous-production power plants are unable to vary supply in response to demand, and therefore are forced to sell at a loss, as is the case with the French power companies lumbered with nukes.
Times are a-changing.
In Germany, the inherent variability in demand is compounded by intermittency in supply by a factor of between 2 or 3. This just has to be dealt with.
Here in Australia, we have the luxury of ample choice for siting of wind turbines, resulting in us getting four times the output/installed capacity that the Germans are working with.
If *they* can get it to work with 7%, imagine how much easier it will be for us with our 30%!
It is a complete waste of time to consider nukes here (at least) because there is no conceivable way they could become a political reality even, let alone demonstrate any viable competition with all other sources on economic terms.
I was just reading some pro-nuke rant that pooh-poohed solar by claiming that to provide Germany with 100% solar power would require a solar farm the size of Bavaria.
Now, I've driven across Bavaria. It didn't take long. And I would say scores of such solar farms could fit here in Australia, with only a single one, a quarter the size of Bavaria required for our power needs. (OK, more, because we're so retarded with energy efficiency).
One thing the pro-nuke lobby is good at, is throwing out unrealistic scenarios (100% solar+crowded country) and disregarding the forward march of technology.
Which is funny really, because whenever they try to convince us nuclear is an option, it's always vapourware like "Gen IV" and "thorium" and some imaginary magic that will take care of nuclear waste.
Yes, devloping countries will be sold nukes, for the same reason companies like Nestle target them once their homes markets becase saturated.
Not really something to be proud of or boast about, but yet more proof of the unethical nature of the energy industry's most dirty, dangerous, and dishonest corner.
Vince Whirlwind --- The definition I gave of baseload is US industry standard. Deal with it.
As for various countries deciding on NPPs, I assume that most of the planners, economists and engineers are rational. Deal with that as well.
As for using once through nuclear pins, read "Plentiful Energy". The design is commericialized by GE-Hitachi. As you said, the forward march of technology but I only consider equipment which has been shown to work when attempting to treat the complexities of a low cost, low carbon, reliable, on demand grid.
CROSS-BORDER TRADE IN ELECTRICITY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF RENEWABLES-
BASED ELECTRIC POWER: LESSONS FROM EUROPE
OECD Trade and Environment Paper No. 2013/02
by Heymi Bahar and Jehan Sauvage
COM/TAD/ENV/JWPTE(2012)20/FINAL
provides an annex about electric power basics and central definitions. The paper itself mostly explains the power markets as done in Europe. Note in particular 'merit order' and the accompanying figure.
All epex spot prices are positive:
http://www.epexspot.com/en/market-data/auction
"Yes, devloping countries will be sold nukes,"
Unless we don't like them for some reason.
" Note in particular ‘merit order’ and the accompanying figure."
However, it is a description of the system that is there, not a system that could be there.
The merit order is therefore a statement of what is, not what could be and is not about merit in itselt.
Spain 18%. Denmark 20%.
Germany had a 24 hour peak of 50% of their power generation via renewables. Though I might me mixing that up with Denmark or Spain.
"Baseload: the minimum power requirement over a ‘standard’ 24 hour period."
So not following load.
Load changes over the 24 hour period.
And the need for a 24 hour period? Because it takes that long for a large coal or nuclear power station to ramp up from cold to fully operational.
Therefore, as Vince says, a shibboleth of the old system. A nonexistent thing brought into being to explain what they did. Not something inherent to electricity use at all.
"In Germany, the inherent variability in demand is compounded by intermittency in supply by a factor of between 2 or 3. This just has to be dealt with."
However, the load is equally (by the definitions that apply to wind or solar) intermittent by a factor of 2 or 3. THAT TOO HAS TO BE DEALT WITH.
Even when it isn't wind powered.
Oh, it was somewhere in the thousands, then.
PS that isn't what I wrote. YOU are the one who demanded that if it were in quote marks, it had to be a quote and could not be changed from the actual wording.
Seems like not even you believe yourself.
OLD SYSTEM power engineering terms. You know, like the aether: a term that was widely used in physics but was a shibboleth of the time.
24 hours because it takes about that time to turn on a coal or nuke station.
If we hadn't gone that route and done microgeneration, "baseload" would not exist, because there'd be no need to define it.
Which is not coal or nuclear power, then. Despite your insistences that it is, it doesn't by this definition.
What the hell does that mean? If there is no generator? Or is it just if the generator is not running at that time?
Because the latter is ridiculous.
So wind and solar can be.
You can turn the AoA of the blades of standing turbines that are not extracting power and the wind passing by will turn the blades where they did not before.
And you know how fast the wind is blowing.
But you can't have coal or nuclear standing by and ramp it up from cold to running when you want it.
Wow:
No, it was somewhere in your febrile imagination.
I'm sorry, are you talking to me? Because I have no idea what you're referring to.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
You are a comedian.
You cannot run an industrialised economy on microgeneration. This is what is technically known as 'hippie bullshit' in energy circles ;-) An industrialised economy is not a smallholding in the outback.
It requires baseload. This requires dedicated baseload capacity, which will either be coal (old system term) or nuclear (new system term).
As D.B.B says, 'deal with it'. It won't go away just because you don't like facts and definitions. The world is.
petard:
A what acquaintance?
Have you told this person to his or her face that you consider him or her a "denialist"?
Why, is "denier" not offensive enough for your purposes?
Ah, I see. They weren't actually calling Briffa a fraud. But presumably they were thinking that, you reckon. I mean, that was basically the subtext, in your interpretation of things.
Fair enough.
Gosh, really? Even after several visits to Deep Climate? It must be a really really complex issue then.
In any case, I commend your circumspection. You have the honesty to admit you don't understand the issues and are not qualified to go round calling people—basically or otherwise—liars and frauds.
Too many people in the climate debate don't know all the facts, know they don't know all the facts, but do they let that stop them basically calling people frauds left right and centre? Not for a second!
But not you. I can see you're a cut above the usual shoot-from-the-hip retard, petard.
Good for you!
Oh.
:-(
Marco:
Don't you need to have proxy data overlapping with the instrumental data you have in order to know whether or not the "proxy" is a proxy for the "true" value? How else do propose we [in]validate proxy data?
# 82 Chameleon
GFY. You were put in moderation by the blog owner, not by me. Whine to TL. With luck he will ban you outright.
# 87 Vince Whirlwind
SPV. What happens at night? What happens during cloudy days? What happens during the Austral winter when TSI is reduced for months on end?
You talk about vapourware yet blithely ignore the fact that SPV needs science-fiction batteries that don't exist to fill in the intermittency. Every night, the capacity of the imaginary, sci-fi batteries that do not exist will be drained. Every day, in addition to meeting ongoing demand, they must be recharged. A run of cloudy winter days and you are in a spot of bother.
Wind and SPV. Let's take Europe (we include the UK; screw the political nuance). All you need is a persistent winter anticyclone stilling winds across the Continent for a couple of days or more when demand is extremely high and we will run out of energy. SPV cannot meet demand on its own because it is *winter* (it couldn't do it on its own 24 hours a day in summer either, but never mind that now).
We are going to use much more electricity for heating and transport, remember and it is *cold* during winter anticyclonic conditions. Unless there is sufficient baseload and load-following capacity in reserve to carry the grid - at full demand - until the wind starts to blow again.
And before you mention pumped hydro backup, do think about capacity and cost. In the UK, providing 2 days backup for an 80GW wind array delivering an average 32kWh/d/p would require the equivalent of 400 Dinorwigs. So around 100 of Britain's major lakes and lochs would have to be *engineered* into pumped storage capacity. This would cost hundreds of billions of pounds sterling, none of which is *ever mentioned* in the 'costing' of wind power for the UK.
Gen IV/thorium. Once again, you are waving this strawman around although both D.B.B and I have pointed out that we are talking about *proven* Gen III technology.
"SPV. What happens at night?"
Nuclear power station goes down (See N Sizewell B). What happens?
Here's a tip for you, kid, free of charge: Renewables is not synonymous with Solar PV. There is more than just the one renewable source.
For a whiny little shit who says "you're just saying stuff" and "Why don't you read what I wrote in..." you really don't read anything of anyone else's, just spot read it for something to berate.
During the night, winds are stronger.
It's been said before, it's been in the links I've given.
But you ignore it because you want to pretend that renewables don't work because the sun isn't visible at night.
"You talk about vapourware yet blithely ignore the fact that SPV needs science-fiction batteries that don’t exist"
Gosh. All those "Battery required" toys were LYING TO OUR CHILDREN!!!
Wow
Your purest comedy gold yet!
You really are truly, madly, clueless.
Sod off and do some reading.
And do we still think that renewables (excluding hydro and CSP with thermal storage) are load following ? And that 'load following' is not synonymous with 'dispatchable'?
Dear oh dearie me. You need an intervention before you do any more damage to yourself.
Try reading what I actually write for a change.
Incidentally, how old are you?
Bradley
Not if the proxy can provide absolute temperature information. Shelly forams in sediment cores yield isotopic ratios that can be used to determine sea water temperature (specifically it's the ratio of δ18O to δ16O). This was sorted out about half a century ago and the landmark paper on the basis of modern methodology is Imbrie and Kipp (1971).
All the scepticoid morons at WTFUWT and CA are clueless about paleo proxies. The stupid munts all think its tree rings all the way down. How we laughed...
BBD:
OK, that makes more sense. I forgot that not all proxies require an instrumental validation period. Thanks
I haven't even dipped my toes into the Marcott ruckus enough to know what the points of contention are, so I ask this without any prejudice: do you (BBD—I'm not asking Sou, chek or Wow and I'm not going to read any responses from said idiots) think McIntyre has a leg to stand on, or is this a scientific version of what LBF used to call a nontroversy?
"Try reading what I actually write for a change."
ROFL!
You ask Vince "So what happens at night, huh?"
But that has ALREADY been answered by me. Evidence you didn't read what I wrote.
But you still think you can complain that I do it? Splinter vs plank going on here.
Uh, that was YOUR statement, dickhead.
YOU claim that there are no batteries, they haven't been invented yet.
But, apparently pointing out how you are ridiculous is somehow risible and a source of humour for you?
You're a fucking nutcase, kid.
Batteries exist.
Storage for power exists too.
You know, Dinworig? That's power storage.
Did you know that it will store power from Solar PV?
No, you probably think that no such thing could happen. Because you're a fucking nutcase.
“You talk about vapourware yet blithely ignore the fact that SPV needs science-fiction batteries that don’t exist”
THAT is your comedy gold.
Apparently you don't think it counts when it's you.
Just like Bray.
# 12
Read the link at # instead of yapping like a teenager.
Are you a teenager btw?
'Read the link at # 8'
# 13
The kind of battery technology required for mass energy storage does not exist. Fact. Before you witter to me about VRB, let me remind you that this tech is still prototyping.
Once again, you simply do not have a clue what you are talking about. Read the link at # 8 and inform yourself.
Shouting at me does not change the facts.
No, I'm better acquainted with the *facts* than you are. Since you obviously didn't read my earlier comment, let me redirect you to # 5. Pay *special attention* to the penultimate paragraph.
"No, I’m better acquainted with the *facts* than you are."
Incorrect. Unless you meant "facts".
You asserted that SPV required batteries.
WRONG.
You asserted that batteries did not exist.
WRONG.
You are not aware of any facts, only pointless and idiotic rhetoric.
"The kind of battery technology required for mass energy storage does not exist"
Yes it does.
"Read the link at # instead of yapping like a teenager."
No need: you claimed no batteries existed.
You can't point to someone else to say that you're right.
"We are going to use much more electricity for heating and transport, remember "
Yes, that's why the UK will need more than 10kwh/p/d.
The average electrical power use for the UK is 10kwh/p/d.
This is a fact you are as unaware of as all others to do with energy needs and production.
ADDITIONALLY, we won't need as much power for transport if we move to electrical.
And do you know what those cars will have in them?
Batteries.
Batteries THAT ALREADY EXIST.
" In the UK, providing 2 days backup for an 80GW wind array delivering an average 32kWh/d/p would "
be completely unwarranted, just as demanding backup for 80GW of nuclear power would be.
You truly are the least capable individual on this thread.
Given Bray is on it, that's a fucking AMAZING achievement.
So backup for the UK wind fleet is 'completely unwarranted' is it?
;-)
You get better by the comment. Winter anticyclones. It's all in # 5, if you would just read what I write...
No it doesn't!
Can't you use Google? Seriously?
" “The kind of battery technology required for mass energy storage does not exist”
Yes it does.
No it doesn’t!"
Yes it does.
"Can’t you use Google?"
Yes.
" Seriously?"
Yes.
"So backup for the UK wind fleet is ‘completely unwarranted’ is it?"
As much as backup for the UK nuclear fleet is.
" Winter anticyclones."
Yes. Winter and anticyclones.
You don't seem to know what you mean, though.
Does the tide not run?
Yes.
Does the sun not shine?
Yes.
Does it cover the entire world with no wind anywhere?
No.
Is your asinine comment COMPLETE void of any utility?
Yes.
I think that's just over half the actual value, which is ~18kWh/d/p (UK average). IIRC the average for Wales is higher: ~22kWh/d/p.
Where did you get your figure from?
"I think that’s just over half the actual value,"
Nope, the total for electrical AND heating is about 18kwh/p/d.
However, you have previously indicated how completely lacking knowledge you are, so your error is entirely expected.
" IIRC "
You don't.
"Where did you get your figure from?"
DECC.
# 27
So in your, erm, vision of a future UK energy mix, tide, wave and SPV can cover for a ~2 - 4 day hiatus in wind output caused by a winter anticyclone? Is that what you are trying to say? Because if it is, you have some *amazing* figures for projected UK wind, wave and SPV capacity.
Please share them with me.
WRT DECC - Links, please Wow.
You are too prone to assertion. I want some evidence.
"WRT DECC – Links, please Wow. "
https://www.gov.uk/.../department-of-energy-climate-change
"You are too prone to assertion"
Rather rich coming from "BATTERIES HAVEN'T BEEN INVENTED YET!!!" boy.
It's easy. You do it like this:
2010 Welsh figures here.
"# 27
So in your, erm, vision of a future UK energy mix, tide, wave and SPV can cover for a ~2 – 4 day hiatus in wind output caused by a winter anticyclone?"
Yup.
It managed more than six months without Sizewell B.
Wow, don't be a tit. I know where the DECC website is. What I would like you to do is link me to the bit of it that confirms your numbers.
As for your # 34, the kindest thing I can thing of saying is that you have misunderstood my comment rather fundamentally. Perhaps you should read it again.
At least you're improving, if barely.
You now admit that there is more than one renewable at a time.
(PS you REALLY DO NOT HAVE A CLUE what you're talking about wrt winter cyclones)
You keep missing the essential part of the battery problem, which is that really super big massive mega batteries of the type needed to back up renewables against intermittency and slew don't exist. It would help if you read the links. Really, it would.
"Wow, don’t be a tit. "
I'd have said the same to you, but despite being warranted, you wouldn't have done it.
"As for your # 34, the kindest thing I can thing of saying is that you have misunderstood my comment rather fundamentally."
Perhaps you'd better say what you MEAN rather than demand I work out what the hell you meant when I've clearly understood what you SAID.
WRT winter *anti*cyclones, yes, I really do!
I've also missed the point that baterries made out of fairy dust and unicorn piss that are needed to back up wind power for making electrons green instead of blue like all the school textbooks have them don't exist.
And for the same reason.
THEY ARE NOT NEEDED.
"WRT winter *anti*cyclones, yes, I really do!"
Nope.
You know what you've been let do believe by other lying sacks of shit pushing nuclear because they're fuckwits.
However, you do not know about the actualities of winter cyclones.
Right, meant anticyclones, though.
Typo.
And shit, man, what happened to that 195kwh/p/d that then dropped to 125kwh/p/d and now looks anaemic at 32wkh/p/d?
Talk about shrinking...
And when it comes to wind power, TRY to get out of the 18th Century, will you? "Slew"??? They aren't fucking direct drive turbines, you twat.
My God! The lying sacks of shit pushing nuclear are brainwashing our kids with *fake meteorology*!
In this context, 'slew' is synonymous with 'variability of output' which in the case of wind generation results from wind speed variability.
Any luck backing up that 10kWh/d/p yet?
The UK has, at this very moment, around 125GWh of battery that could be used as electrical storage. And changes to an all-electric fleet would increase that to something over 250GWh.
Though this level of backup is no more needed than it is for nuclear, coal or any other element of the electrical grid.
"Any luck backing up that 10kWh/d/p yet?"
Plenty. Oh, and it's less than 10kwh/p/d.
Any luck backing up this idea that batteries haven't been invented yet?
# 40
Well, others differ ;-)
Here's a taster from an article at The Conversation:
More lies from the nuclear industry? Or perhaps you are a teeny bit wrong?
"I want to know how many scientists believe in seriously net-dangerous AGW"
The vast majority. I was just visiting a university in northern Michigan and the scientists I spoke with there had pretty choice comments in describing those who downplay the seriousness of AGW. In the last 10 years I can count on one hand the number of scientists I have met who do not take the repercussions of AGW very seriously indeed. Off the top of my head I can think of two.
Thing is, Brad, you aren't a scientist so you play the 'head in the sand' strategy. That is, if you cannot see the actual numbers stuck right in front of your face, then you will argue that there is no proof that most scientists are concerned with the potentially serious consequences of inaction over AGW.
Please tell me this: why has every Academy of Science in every nation on Earth released statements in which they emphasize the serious threat posed by AGW? These esteemed organizations have huge scientific memberships. Or is this just some vast conspiracy? Jonas N couldn't address this issue on his thread and its a recurring weak point fro those who deny or downplay AGW.
To reiterate, the vast majority of scientists take AGW very seriously. So, now that this is out of the way, Brad, what it there left for you to argue?
Nothing. I thought so. Glad that you now accept the nature of the problem.
# 47
Really? Source?
Jeezus, I think I know where this bunch of retards get their asinine figures from.
From David "WOO GO NUCLEAR!" MacKay:
That's right, this fuckwit thinks that the average daily travel in the uk is 50km per person.
Yet even this doesn't get him to 195kwh/p/d, only 125.
But even he recognised that some of that "winter no wind, therefore renewables don't work" was bullshit:
OK.
But you pretended that this was uncontestable. Lying by omission is still lying.
Fuck, why not go along to WUWT like Duffer exhorts us and see that there's someone there saying that AGW is over and go "Oh well, lucky for us, eh? Nothing to worry about any more".
re 51:
Cars.
Seems like you don't know what makes cars go.
"In this context, ‘slew’ is synonymous with ‘variability of output’ "
Ah, the humpty-dumpty defence.
If you're going to make up the meaning of words, DON'T.
COMEDY GOLD FROM DICKHEAD HERE!
Actually, the amusing thing is that this is entirely made up. A strawman.
I didn't say they were teaching our kids the wrong thing.
Only BabyBraD here, and it wasn't from his teachers, either.
It's from fellow nuclear shills. Making up whatever is convenient for the moment to spur on the drive to get nuclear back in the black.
Even if it screws up with the rest of the population bigtime.
Oh, and may I point out to you, BabyBraD, you've now shown yourself to be a true liar like brad.
#46: In this context, ‘slew’ is synonymous with ‘variability of output’
However, that was about your comment #37 which states:
#37: intermittency and slew
So slew and slew???
Intermittency means on/off.
Slew means variability.
The two terms are not synonymous.
For example, when wind speed falls below the operational threshold of the turbine, output ceases. When wind speed rises above this threshold, output resumes. This intermittence.
When output varies with wind speed during continuous operation, this is variability or slew.
"Intermittency means on/off."
And this doesn't vary the output of a generator?
Well, given SizewellB was off for six months, Nuclear is intermittent.
And Coal.
And Gas.
And every other generator.
Well, unless you invent a perpetual motion machine.
"For example, when wind speed falls below the operational threshold of the turbine, output ceases"
And when there's an electrical fault in the nuclear power reactor systems, output ceases.
And how much is Fukushima or Chernobyl producing today?
Now how much is the windfarm that was nearer the epicenter in Japan producing, and how long was it offline?
chameleon --- Thanks for the link. Yes, designing a reliable, on-demand grid requires considering all 24 hours of every day.
Obviously some solar can be accommodated as the intermediate load picks up during the daytime. However some form of balancing agent is required due to clouds.
Available means ready to generate or generating. WInd power is not available when there is no wind or it blows to hard. Solar is not available at night. Nuclear is not available during refurbishment and replenishment intervals.
# 11 Brad Keyes
It's a nontroversy as far as I can see. The important part of M13 is the Holocene reconstruction. See here for a sensible discussion. If you elect to read the comments, Bob Brand knows what he is talking about.
A bit like the nuke-spruikers don't like to mention the approaching-100billion pound cost of decommissioning old nuke sites currently being borne by the taxpayer?
What's the better investment? A technology that is becoming ever more erxpensive with every year that passes and carries an uninsurably high risk *and* based around a severely finite fuel supply? Or a clean technology based on an unlimited fuel supply that is getting cheaper with every year that passes?
# 67 Vince
The cleanup argument is false equivalence. The radioactive mess from the 1950s onwards is the legacy of nascent technology, administrative naivety and cold war imperatives. It does not extrapolate to C21st nuclear electricity generation.
The better investment question is a strawman. The objective is rapid decarbonisation. Removing enabling technologies from the table is counter-productive.
"For utility scale battery systems, expect to pay between $1,000/kW and $4,000/kW, according to the Electricity Storage Association. The DOE’s optimistic assessment estimates those costs will drop to around $500/kW by 2012."
from
http://www.masterresource.org/2010/03/can-utility-scale-batteries-rescu…
And price is still around US$3000/kW for high quality units:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Utility_Scale_Batteries
All that says is that storage of potential is a problem that needs more work done on it. Work on this problem will be far more fruitful than throwing any more money away on that nuclear crap that's had 60 years to solve their problems and have abjectly failed..
In the USA the NPP operator sets aside a certain sum (daily) which provides a fund for the decommissioning of the NPP at the end of its service life.
So nuclear's off the table then, is it?
Although this sounds a lot like the, "It's all perfectly safe now, something like Chernobyl could never happen again", and, "new nuclear technolgoies coming online consume existing waste and produce none of their own", I don't reject what you've just said, because it is very true that the current astronomical costs associated with developing a nuclear power plant are very much related to the fact the operators are no longer allowed to externalise quite so much of the costs of the pollution they used to assume no responsibility for.
Use the free market to fully internalise the cost of uncapped and non-taxpayer-subsidised insurance and I'll be happy with nuclear as a solution if it can prove economic viability.
After perusing
http://www.ambri.com/
click of the link to the MIT Technology Review article about the startup. If they can actually achieve US$500.kW that should be a game changer.
Gail Tverberg:
http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/The-Darker-Side…
Not too shabby.
In December 2012, Germany's upper house of parliament approved a law that willreduce the liability on transmission system operators in the event of delays or damage to offshore gridlinks. from
http://www.marketresearch.com/Business-Monitor-International-v304/Germa…
in which the final paragraph makes an important point.
Anyway, Vince, are you now opposed to offshore wind generation when the liabilty is capped?
Oh FFS, DBB, YET ANOTHER FUCKING STRAWMAN.
No, Vince never said that he was opposed to nuclear because liability was capped.
He said that the capping of liability (which you have still avoided acknowledging) is a subsidy, and for nuclear a HUGE one.
Well in the UK the decommissioning of our reactors are getting more and more expensive. Cleanup is expected to be north of £60Bn.
I can fund a new house. £20 a week. It won't cover the cost of a new house, but I can build a fund for it from that amount no problems.
And all that storage is needed for any other generator.
If SizewellB goes offline for 6+months again, the shortfall has to be made somewhere. If the HVDC link goes down, shortfall again. If France have to take their nuclear power stations offline for a few months because of a heatwave again, then there will be a shortfall.
Each of those requires storage technology or backup generation.
And wind does that.
So does solar, tide, hydro, pumped storage.
In any way that these ones don't, nuclear doesn't either.
N SizewellB is not available to generate. Therefore it is not available, therefore nuclear is not dispatchable, it is intermittent. It therefore needs as much backup as Wind does, has problems of "slew" (indeed a greater degree of variation over time by far than any wind or solar power) and therefore needs the same sort of magical batteries that Wind does.
Yes, cleaning up nuclear power is a far more dangerous and long-term tragedy to clear up.
Whereas you don't get lots of wind leaking out of the farm and spoiling the ground making the food grown from it too windy to feed to even animals.
No leaking of sunlight into the waters to kill the fish.
There is no equivalence, you're right.
Oh for fucking jesus lords sake, what the hell are you blithering on about now????
Clouds don't make a large difference to the power available from solar. It's still very very much lighter even on the cloudiest of days than it is at twilight.
And clouds form mostly when there is a front moving through.
Fronts mean winds.
Proof required.
Oh, look, the contamination at Fukushima proves you wrong. Sizewell? Proving you wrong again.
So looks like proof you're talking complete shit again, DBB.
Wow!
I know this will set of another 'gattling gun' set of comments but you seriously haven't got a clue!
You need to read and UNDERSTAND the links that BDD & DDB have very patiently supplied you!
Your concept of energy requirements and REALITY as in THE REAL WORLD do not match!
The industrialised/urban society MUST HAVE reliable and dispatchable grid power.
BBD @#4???
Did you miss the word PARTLY in that comment????????
Don't overly flatter youself BBD.
It's not all about you :-)
Gas is intermittent:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/mar/21/gas-price-warning-short-…
No gas? No gas electrical generator available.
Recent news in the UK:
"a site incident has been declared and the plants on the site have been moved to a controlled, safe, shut down state."
Intermittent.
Slewed.
Not Available.
Not dispatchable.
So do we need 80GW of backup for Nukes?
No. Just necessary over-capacity to cope with a couple of reactors going offline at a time. Oddly enough, this is exactly how the grid is set up now, except that the over-capacity is used to cover for coal-fired plant going offline.
It works very well and has done for many decades.
The problem with the UK wind fleet is that it goes offline in its entirety during winter anticyclones, sometimes for several days at time. That's why it needs substantial backup. The bigger it is, the more backup will be required.
It's conceptually very simple, really.
"Just necessary over-capacity to cope with a couple of reactors going offline at a time"
Don't you mean backup generation?
And, no, we aren't turning on more nuclear power plants to make up the shortfall. We're
a) using other countries generation
b) using gas generator backup
you know, just like you decry needing for renewables.
But apparently, if it's nuclear backup generation, that's fine, it only gets bad if it's not nuclear power backup.
And you wonder why we accurately label you as pro-nuke.
"It works very well and has done for many decades."
And it's how renewables will work too and have done for many years.
Sigh. Yet more terminology confusion.
Backup generation or 'reserve' *is* over-capacity.
Did you know that Dinorwig was originally intended as reserve/backup capacity for nuclear?
The problem with the UK wind fleet is that it goes offline in its entirety during winter anticyclones, sometimes for several days at time. That’s why it needs substantial backup. The bigger it is, the more backup will be required.
Please respond to this, as it is something you need to address coherently. Please try and calm down. I am rather tired of your histrionics.
Another completely incorrect claim. SPV output is directly proportional to insolation and falls by about a factor of 10 under cloudy conditions. This is why alternating cloud/sun causes substantial and abrupt output fluctuation in SPV arrays which makes grid integration complex and problematic.
So you claim.
But total cloud cover is not what you were talking about when using your pen-name david. You talked about clouds in the sky.
And the illumination of the earth is still very high under most cloudy conditions.
And cloudier conditions are accompanied by windy conditions.
No more so than nuclear power stations going offline.
There is no problem with renewables for the grid that haven't had to be solved when we put the grid together for coal or nuclear power generation.
No it doesn't.
Then all you're talking about with renewables is over-capacity.
NOTHING you blather on about being acceptable for nuclear power is not acceptable for renewables.
NOTHING you blather on about being unacceptable for renewables is acceptable for nuclear.
If renewables are intermittent, Nuclear is intermittent.
If renewables are not dispatchable, Nuclear is not dispatchable
If renewables need backup generation, Nuclear needs backup generation.
If nuclear is load following, renewables are load following.
Please respond to this, as it is something you need to address coherently.
Wow
I'm getting fed up with this sort of nonsense from you.
Fact - winter anticyclones produce national-scale calms
Fact - wind turbines do not produce electricity when the wind is not blowing
Fact - the UK wind fleet produces very little output during winter anticyclones.
Fact - once again, when cornered by reality, Wow goes into shut-eyed denial mode and starts lying
Sort your head out.
I am not David B. Benson. And I do more than 'claim'. I will prove it.
It is easy to demonstrate that cloud has a strongly negative effect on SPV output. We will use real data from Germany, accessible here.
The first day of this month (01/03/2013) was a cloudy day over most of Germany. Pick the calendar from the far right side of the toolbar and click on Friday 01 March. Watch. Peak output for the day was 5.1GW out of a potential 33GW - about 15% peak capacity.
NO! Wind and solar are not dispatchable. They are not under the direct control of grid engineers. The wind blows when it does. The sun goes in at night and there are days of national cloud cover.
So - obviously - we cannot use wind and SPV as back-up for conventional baseload plant. Obviously.
Then you just go off on another Gish Gallop of nonsense.
"Fact – winter anticyclones produce national-scale calms"
Uh, disproof: We've had several anticyclones this winter. We haven't had zero wind power once.
You might as well say: "Fact, if nuclear stations blow up, we don't get any power from them".
Anticyclones do not stop winds across the UK from happening.
FACT.
"NO! Wind and solar are not dispatchable."
Then Nuclear and coal is not dispatchable.
"They are not under the direct control of grid engineers."
Sizewell B went offline because the engineers wanted an emergency?????
"The sun goes in at night and there are days of national cloud cover. "
And gas runs out and not replenished and there are months of a nuclear power station being unavailable.
Therefore nuclear and coal are "just as bad" as renewables and you keep asserting these problems of intermittency are solved.
So they are solved for renewables too.
Fact – the Sizewell B produced no power for 6 months.
FACT - france had to shut down just about all their nuclear power plants during the heatwave in 2003 and produced almost no power.
Therefore nuclear is not dispatchable.
But you'll go all goggle-eyed in your raving disposition against some mythical renewable-only problem and ignore facts that you cannot condone because of your ideology.
Fact –nuclear power stations do not produce electricity when they are shut down.
You just can't acknowledge that these problems you're thinking are only with renewable generation are in fact problems with any grid-scale energy production.
Open your fucking eyes, DBB.
Oh, but how low did it go? (Zero is a strawman, and you know it!)
;-)
*All* plant shuts down periodically. Sure. So why are you claiming that this is somehow a killer problem with nuclear plant? Would that be a strawman?
;-)
2009 shutdown, not 2003.
Open your fucking eyes, DBB.
1/ Calm down. No hysterics
2/ I am not David B. Benson, so please stop calling me David or DBB.
"*All* plant shuts down periodically."
So when SizewellB was shut down because of an electrical problem, this is because that's what the engineers wanted?
Really?
Why? Are they manipulating the price of electricity? Trying to scare people off nuclear power? Insane?
Or are power plants shut down for emergencies?
And when they're shut down, they don't produce power, do they.
Wow, trying to use Sizewell B as a argument for *anything* is a strawman.
"(Zero is a strawman, and you know it!)"
Except it isn't.
It's entirely what you mean when you call wind "intermittent". Or are you, Bray-like, making up what you mean to whatever is convenient at the time?
“Fact – winter anticyclones produce national-scale calms”
Remember?
Or is your fake-scare supposed to be "Wind power may not be 100%"?
Well, guess what? Nuclear power isn't at 100% either.
If it's fine for nuclear, it's fine for renewables.
If it's not fine for renewables, it's not fine for nuclear.
However, since you NEVER will accept it, this is the evidence for our claims that you are a pro-nuke shill.
What about this?
It is easy to demonstrate that cloud has a strongly negative effect on SPV output. We will use real data from Germany, accessible here.
The first day of this month (01/03/2013) was a cloudy day over most of Germany. Pick the calendar from the far right side of the toolbar and click on Friday 01 March. Watch. Peak output for the day was 5.1GW out of a potential 33GW - about 15.5% peak capacity.
OK, well trying to use anticyclones as an argument for *anything* is a strawman.
# 8 is one of the most ludicrous and forced examples of false equivalence I have ever seen.
" Clouds don’t make a large difference to the power available from solar."
Yeah. What about it?
You weren't talking about total cloud cover under your pen-name of David B Benson.
It doesn't make much difference.
No, you've managed to be by far the most ridiculous thing on this thread, BabyBraD.
"Oh, nuclear has backup, that's fine!".
"Wind power needs backup, that proves it can't be used!!!!".
Do you ever think when you're putting stuff down about what you look like to the sane parts of society?
Cobblers! It is a proven argument for the necessity of substantial backup for the UK wind fleet. There are periods - sometimes two days and longer - when the UK wind fleet is producing very little electricity because of anticyclonic conditions. So expanding the UK wind fleet means of necessity expanding backup capacity to match.
It's really very simple and straightforward - and widely accepted.
This is not acceptable.
I am not David B Benson, so please stop misnomering me like this.
I have just proved to you, using real data, that cloudy conditions massively reduce the output of SPV. Proved it. So for you to come back with 'it doesn't make much difference' is asinine and dishonest and, frankly, a little bit insane.
Sort your head out, please.
Wow is the stool sample version of a Loo:
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/ipcc-lead-author-calls-lewandowsky-del…
The poor sod...;-)
# 18
If you wish to contribute to this discussion, please do. Otherwise, kindly fuck off.
As you were BBD, please carry on. I'm sure you know its even more worse than you thougth. :-)
Cobblers! It is a proven argument for the necessity of substantial backup for the UK nuclear fleet.
There are periods – sometimes two days and longer – when the French nuclear grid is producing very little electricity because of drought conditions. So expanding the UK nuclear fleet means of necessity expanding backup capacity to match.
It’s really very simple and straightforward – and widely accepted.
"So for you to come back with ‘it doesn’t make much difference’ is asinine and dishonest and, frankly, a little bit insane."
Really? So when you come back with "trying to use Sizewell B as a argument for *anything* is a strawman."
To the response of "So SizewellB is down because the engineers wanted an emergency?" as proof your claim that nuclear stations are only shut down because the engineers want to is complete and utter bogshite, this is, as far as you're concerned NOT insane?
You do know that the real nutter is always the least informed of their state, right?
So stop acting Bray. It is not acceptable.
If I'd thought you absolutely incapable of not acting Bray-ish, I'd not bother.
However, you're not doing anything to prove that faith in you correct, are you. Doubling down on the bray and repeating his tricks is entirely indicative of the BabyBraD identification.
Think of it as aversion therapy.
When you're less blind by idolatry you'll be thanking me.
Oh, and IIRC, 14 out of the 19 nuclear plants are on the coastline and at risk from coastal erosion and/or flooding.
Compare and contrast:
With:
I am not BDD.
It is often claimed that introducing variable renewable energy resources such as solar and wind into the electricity network comes with some extra cost penalties, due to “system effects”. These system effects include intermittent electricity access, network congestion, instability, environmental impacts, and security of supply.
Now a new report from the OECD titled System Effects of Low-Carbon Electricity Systems gives some hard dollar values for these additional imposts. The OECD work focuses on nuclear power, coal, gas, and renewables such as wind and solar. Their conclusion is that grid-level system costs can have significant impacts on the total cost of delivered electricity for some power-generation technologies. from
http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/03/22/counting-hidden-costs-of-energy/
BBD:
DBB:
Oh don't worry, guy[s]—we get the message... in stereo.
Methinks thou dost protest about twice as much as necessary. ;-)
You[se] really are in perfect sync.
Remarkable.
"It's the tag-team approach to subject matter that dissonates," to quote resident barstool psychographologist Dr J.
Will TL, who knows your IP address, weigh in here eventually?
:-)
You are not BBD!
Thanks for that link David B.
Some realistic figures rather than PR sound bites :-)
Now switch to your David B. Benson character, as though you were having a conversation, and back and forth....
Oops!
I am not BBD either.
:-)
Smoothly done. Now switch back to your "BBD" hand...
Seriously though—the casual misspelling of your alter ego's initials was a brilliant touch.
So we get to make a decision: do we want "extra cost penalties" in the form of building the relevant number of power-producing installations?
Or, alternatively, do we want "extra cost penalties" in the form of periodic trillion-dollar GNP-lowering Fukushima-style events?
Honestly - if the free market decides it can't insure them, why the fuck should the taxpayer assume the risk?
BabyBraD,
you do realize you're commenting on your own comment here, right:
?
It's recursive fury!
LOL
Piss off Brad. The adults are discussing nuclear technologies.
Compare and contrast
trying to use Sizewell B as a argument for *anything* is a strawman.
With
" OK, well trying to use anticyclones as an argument for *anything* is a strawman.
Cobblers! It is a proven argument for the necessity of substantial backup"
The removal of sizewell b was not done beause the engineers planned it to come down at that time.
But, no, you claim cobblers and people just have to accept that even though every downside to renewables exists with nuclear, that it only matters if its a downside to renewables.
And you STILL want to pretend that what you've said is, when used in evidence against you, is "a strawman, and everyone knows it".
Tell me, when you claimed that 80GW of wind needed 80GW of backup power and also claimed that "saying zero is a strawman", is this because
a) you're a lying sack of shit
or
b) you don't know that 80 - 80 = 0
?
"It is often claimed that introducing variable renewable energy resources such as solar and wind into the electricity network comes with some extra cost penalties"
And idiot deniers like Bray often claims that there is no consensus on AGW.
Just because deniers often claim that the end of AGW warming is here now, doesn't make the claim correct.
When we introduced nuclear, that required a LOT of changes to the grid. The HVDC line to France was one of them. Dinworig was another.
When a single installation can go out of action in minutes and that one single installation is producing 2GW of power, and any replacement generator takes a few hours to a day to come up to speed, there is a HUGE amount of engineering problems to overcome.
Hell, the massive rate of change of power in the grid alone when a nuke station goes down caused huge problems.
But it seems like nuclear engineers thing that they and their fellow engineers are now too dumb to do this again.
Or is it that they think that engineers can only fix those problems if they're produced by nuclear power stations and that this renewable stuff is just too complex for them?
In either case, they are neither being honest nor intelligent, nor complementary about their fellows.
Vortical Vince:
Where? You mean, between BBD telling himself to "kindly fuck off" and Wow calling him "a lying sack of shit" who doesn't "know that 80 – 80 = 0"?
And how can variable energy sources be a problem on a grid that has variable load?
Recursive fury!
:-) :-)
chuckle.
I think he's pissed off that the thread that was never going anywhere is going there without him...
@39 (provisionally)
You do understand that when your comments come out of moderation en bloc it buggers up the existing comment numbering? Or did we miss that?
Oh. Dear. God.
Please tell me that this is intended as a joke.
Dear god, tell me that you're just a fuckwit, or do you really not understand?
Or is the problem that you really just don't know why, you've been told it is bad to have a variation on one side of the equation and it hasn't been solved, but we have solved variation if it's the requirements.
And you've just accepted it without wondering why.
"Oh noes, the input can vary! Catastrophe! Rivers of Blood! THE APOCALYPSE!!!".
Why?
That what we need varies has been solved by distribution and storage.
And what we supply varies, but apparently this is unique to wind and solar, for reasons you've never been able to explain why, merely assert.
And no "If all the wind stops, then there's no wind power" is not a reason you can use because you don't accept "If all the plants are shut down, then there's no nuclear power".
No it hasn't. Not in any grid in any nation on Earth. Once again, you are lying.
And when are you going to admit that you lied about the huge effect of cloud on SPV output? I'm waiting.
I'm having trouble accepting that you are this thick. Surely it's a joke. A Poe, right?
You're having trouble saying anything, DBB. All you're doing is making empty statement after empty statement.
You're probably TRYING to look all mysterious and wise, i.e. "I'm so smart that this is so obvious a problem I can't see the need to explain it". What you ARE coming across as is a pompous clueless git.
You claim that varying inputs are bad.
But you don't know why. Cannot explain what the problem is at all.
Wow, talk about idiot!
OK, I take it you're not saying that required power is a constant, right?
So that means what we want out of our grid system varies.
So therefore you MUST be saying that this problem HASN'T been solved in any grid electrical system in the world at any point in the past.
So how come we are both using electrically powered computers to post on an electrically powered server?
And when are you going to read a fucking thing anyone says even if it isn't going to mean what you fervently hope it means?
You're blathering on about that like Bray blathers on about "Hide the decline", BabyBraD.
You weren't talking about 100% cloud cover when you introduced "because clouds, we can't use solar" under your pen-name.
Unavoidably, when clouds fill the sky, covering the sun, light levels are reduced. But it doesn't mean that your solar power panel system stops producing power, it's output will reduce to about half is there is enough light to cast shadows. A thicker cloud blanket in the sky reduces operations even more and by the time heavy clouds show up, solar power panel systems will produce very little power.
If all of that sounds too demoralizing, take note that effects of clouds on a solar power panel can be surprisingly good as well. It may be unbelievable, but your solar panels output their peak during a cloudy weather type! When the sun shines through a gap between clouds, the solar panels receive both direct sunlight and the light reflected from the clouds. This means more than they can receive on a clear sunny day! And amazingly, your solar power panelsystem actually outputs 50 percent or more than in direct sunlight conditions on such type of cloudy weather.
http://www.apxsolar.com/articles/clouds-and-solar-power.htm
And remember, the expected cloudiness is already taken into account, which is why some areas already have Solar PV grid parity whilst others are not yet.
The nuke-lovers probably thought that the cost difference was because the photons were different or something...
Okay, Wow, we have reached *that* point.
Once again, you are accusing me of running a sock. Once again, you indulge in name-calling to which I have specifically objected. Once again, you spew out a torrent of incoherent, nonsensical bollocks instead of actually responding to what I write. And once again, you simply *refuse* to acknowledge major errors when they are unambiguously demonstrated to you. This is collectively disgraceful. You should be profoundly ashamed of yourself, and I suspect the little part of you that *knows* what you have done *is* deeply ashamed.
As well it might be. I have rarely seen such a grotesque display as the one you have put on here. Despite evidently knowing *absolutely nothing* about energy, you have hurled yourself hysterically into debate and made a sequence of the most astonishing and major errors. Not one of which you subsequently acknowledged when they were pointed out to you. Had you attempted this on a moderated energy blog, you would have been silenced many days ago. It really is that bad.
Attempting reasoned discussion with a ranting, ill-informed buffoon is a waste of time. As I said, we have reached *that* point.
If you are capable of sober reflection, now would be a good time to reflect, soberly on what you have done.
Why do you insist on saying nothing all the time? Hell, this one sounds like we're in a fucking marriage!
Sorry, if you can't take it, don't deal it, dearie.
I've already told you that I'm describing your capabilities and when it comes to nuclear, you're as dumb and bigoted as Bray.
Consider enlightenment as a way out.
But, no, you're going all butthurt because you've dug yourself deep in the bullshit and are now wondering how to clear a path out.
You're stuck so deep in the shit, your only chance is to try a "Stop saying I'm covered in shit, it's demeaning!" distraction.
*** NEWSFLASH ***
Our Bradley has screwed up mightily over at Tara's blog (where inevitably, he continues to pontificate and boast).
Our Bradley is not quite the scientific whiz he would have us believe. Look what he did here:
That's right. Bradley doesn't understand that the 2x in 2xCO2 in the ECS/2xCO2 estimate refers to the doubling of the pre-industrial level of ~275ppmv CO2 to ~550ppmv.
Our Bradley is clueless.
But here he is, condescending to me:
Perhaps that wasn't a such a good idea, Brad!
Pratfall aficionados can see the full clown-and-banana-skin routine here.
It's not that he doesn't understand, really. He very likely doesn't, but this isn't really the issue.
He does not WANT to understand.
Grima Orresango (or whatever his name was) did precisely that with his "maths". He got an answer he liked if he used equations that were in school textbooks. He then used those equations to "prove" AGW sensitivity was low. When told his calculations were incorrect, he'd claim HERE IS THE EQUATION! WHERE IS IT WRONG???
The problem being not that the equation was wrong, but that he was using an equation to show RATE of warming to give the EQUILIBRIUM of warming.
He would not understand, though. He'd say "Well, that's the heating in one second, and therefore it's 1 second. Times one is the same value".
He didn't care that he didn't know what the equation meant. He got an answer out from that equation that was what he wanted.
This is the case with many partially-math-literates on a subject where there are a lot of possible equations and they have a vested interest in seeing the answer they wanted to see.
Mind blowing.
This is for David B. Benson (who has suffered enough) and bill.
At least I didn't do a Basil :-)
Re Newsflash; that's really, really embarrassing! Everybody knows that - except, it seems, BoywunderKind!
Lets all just look back at his efforts on this thread in light of the above, shall we? All the claims of having read the actual literature, for a start?
Maybe it just all went by in a speed-reading blur? ;-)
Also, he has shown up over at SkS.
With predictable results. I hope this helps Brad appreciate the largess of our genial host.
Oops: 'largesse'
I know Brad is a picky linguist.
Before today I had no idea that it was even possible to have a negative information flow.
Now I know better. :|
Et tu, David?
LOL. Really? Then you obviously, ahem, forgot to consider the major source of information haemorrhage: forgetting.
For example, you and BBD have both forgotten something you undoubtedly knew at Wow's age, because they teach it to the brighter high-school kids: how logarithms work. ECS per doubling of CO2 means exactly what it says: every time CO2 doubles, from any value x to any value 2x, you expect to see (on average) a certain rise in global average temps.
According to http://co2now.org, the latest CO2 reading from Mauna Loa is 396.8 ppm. (The website hilariously asks: "Are you ready for a 400 ppm world?")
Let's say you use an ECS estimate of ~2.5K, which according to BBD is enough to make a 550 ppm* world "catastrophic."
Then it follows that an atmospheric CO2 of 550 ppm would be associated with a warming of
~2.5K * ln(550 / 396.8) / ln(2) = ~1.178 K
Hence my true statement (to zero decimal places!) that
And now that I’ve refreshed your memory on how logarithms work, you’ll grasp why
To insist, as BBD does, that ECS “refers to” doubling in relation to a specific Amish golden age of 275 ppm is dyscalculic, innumerate, mathematically illiterate, or however you want to euphemise it. It’s as silly as claiming that the half-life of a radioactive material “refers to” how much has decayed since 0:00.00 AM, Jan 1, 1970. Wrong. There *is* no implied baseline.
* Admittedly I missed the fact that BBD had stipulated that "well over" 550 ppm implied catastrophe. What does “well over 550” mean? No idea. It's impossible to tell what, if anything, BBD is predicting. For the sake of argument let’s assume he made a meaningful, falsifiable prediction about the world as it will be at 550 ppm.
BBD:
Oh yes, much like a stint in North Korea would help the average Australian to see the generosity and lenience of Gillard's crackdowns on media speech.
The SS kiddiez really are insecure little pricks, aren't they? I've already posted a number of comments that violated no site policy only to have them deleted without a moderator comment, as if they never existed. That appears to be their primal response when they can't get you on a technicality: down the memory hole.
Lest anyone be in any doubt about the improbity and hypocrisy of the SS moderators, consider this comment, by a grindupBaker:
I wrote that grindupBaker should cut out the ad hominems, citing the comments policy:
and adding:
The moderators' reaction?
False claims of ad hominem snipped.
Jeff Harvey,
I've written some comments to you at Tara's blog to avoid huge interaction lags. Would be very interested in your thoughts.
They've so far only attracted the attention of puerile palindromes. :-(
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/mar/22/wholesale-gas-prices-soa…
Wholesale gas prices soar in Britain after pipeline is forced to close
No 10 plays down fears over energy stocks after a pump failure cuts off gas supply from Belgium
Yes, if you can't answer the questions, make out it;s because their name is a palindrome.
Tell me, do you expect that sort of dribble to work?
Bradley
This is, of course, a lie. And only one of several.
This is the third time you have shamelessly misrepresented my *extremely clear* statements. Which I will now repeat. Describing 'well above' and 'well over' as 'weasel words' is as risible as it is desperate.
And:
So this is a *lie*:
This is the *same lie*:
This is the same lie *again*:
No, it isn't. You are a serial liar. This is contemptible behaviour.
Perhaps it is an effort to avoid discussing the problem with your position? Let us remind ourselves what that is:
And:
So, your claim requires that you reject even a conservative estimate for ECS 2x CO2 = ~2.5C – ~3C. We have established that you have no evidential basis for doing this, and you have claimed that you *are not* doing this, but you are.
So far, anthropogenically forced warming = ~0.7C. We've got nearly 2C to go if ECS is as *low* as 2.5C. More if ECS is nearer 3C or over 3C. And *more still* if the atmospheric fraction of CO2 rises above ~550ppmv. The more it exceeds this value, the greater the warming. Hence the need for *emissions controls* to avert potentially catastrophic warming.
*Denying* this is illogical. And stupid.
Your calculation is confusing you because you have ignored the difference between transient climate response and equilibrium sensitivity. The 0.7C warming experienced so far does not bring the climate system into equilibrium with 395ppmv CO2 - there's ~0.5C lagged response 'in the pipeline' (as they say) - ocean thermal inertia.
If 0.7C isn't a catastrophe already, would Bray The Ignorant like to tell these people they're making it up?
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/new-zealand-drought-hurting-farmers-and-…
Hang on…. let me see if I understand you, BBD:
The less AGW has already taken place with the increase from 275 to 397 ppm, the more AGW is going to take place with the increase from 397 to 550 ppm.
Really?
Seriously.
You’re serious about this.
And you told me you understood logarithms.
Like growing grapes?
Good grief Wow!
That is a Terrible article with no scientific basis and about a seasonal drought in NZ.
NOWHERE othef than in some very weak assertions does this article claim some sort of catastrophe.
Equilibrium sensitivity requires restoring to equilibrium. That requires a millennium or so to approach.
David B. Benson
What estimates for ECS and TCR do you find most persuasive? Which projected emissions scenarios/GAT increase by the end of the C21st do you find plausible?
Duffer: "Equilibrium sensitivity requires restoring to equilibrium."
NO, it doesn't.
It is the time-independent solution to a rate equation.
Before pretending to know something, try and find something about it first, hmm?
Duffer: "That requires a millennium or so to approach."
So you think that the sensitivity is much much MUCH higher than 3C per doubling!
Wow
David B. Benson is not a duffer.
It sounded like him, though.
my mistake.
Wow,
Geez, if only gas was as reliable as windpower, which is getting cheaper and cheaper every year...
Why is this abject fuckwit still allowed to pollute this blog with his pointless gibberish?
Have a look at this graph and tell me if you can figure out what people might be using as their baseline:
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/gallery/spo_overview/Slide23?full=1
Oops, NOAA are hard to pin down, try this one:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-measurements-uncertainty.htm
Baseline?
I reckon my 9-year-old could have figured it out what Brad apparently can't.
5 years ago.
Charney equilibrium climate sensitivity is the effects of just the so-called fast feedbacks; changes to the cryosphere re not included. The most likely value is in the range 2.4--2.8 K for 2xCO2.
There are several different notions of transient response. One is the instantaneous doubling of CO2. This gives a fast rise to a knee about 60% of the way to the top and in about 20--30 years; probably climate model dependent. Retto Knutti (with others) has at least one paper about it.
David, facts won't dissuade him from his glib gibberish.
BBD asked.
Here Brad, I've had time to look at NOAA and find their CO2 primer for primary schoolers:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html
I reckon you could get a lot out of that, if you only try.
Vince Whirlwind:
Huh? Did your 9-year-old compose that sentence, too?
At the age of 4, your child (who still can't compose a proper sentence) knew how logarithms work? Remarkable.
"Dr" J:
Sure. A "colleague". Wink wink.
*Sigh.* If it's logarithmic then it doesn't matter whether you "start" from 275, 397, 550, 1100, 2200, 4400, 8800, or any other past or future atmospheric CO2 concentration.
What part of "every doubling" don't you understand, Dr J? The word "every"? That's the bit that you find confusing, isn't it?
LOL.
It's meaningless to you, no doubt.
To a smart 13 year old (or even to Vince's 4-year-old spawn, for that matter) it's instantly recognisable as the solution to a trivial mathematical problem:
If the temperature response to every doubling of atmospheric CO2 is 2.5° Celsius, what will the temperature response to an increase in atmospheric CO2 from 396.8 ppm to 550 ppm be?
If your, ahem, "colleague" knows a better way to the answer than by getting the log-base-2 of (550 ÷ 396.8) and multiplying it by 2.5° Celsius, tell your "colleague" to stop being a lurker and start interacting. Tell me the solution, Bernard... I mean, "Bernard's colleague."
I'm all ears.
That's why "this fact" is treated as a constant (2.5 K) in my formula, beefwit.
David:
Sure—but if we don't act now, how can we ever look our great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren in the face?
# 85 (at least for now) David B. Benson
Agreed. Thanks for clarifying. I generally quote the ECS range as "~2.5K - ~3K" but I'd never *quibble* over this ;-)
Not so sure about a ~1ka lag to fast feedback equilibrium - but it all gets blurred into the full 'Earth System Response' with altered cryosphere etc.
The runt of Lothar grunts a backhanded compliment:
But then expresses concern:
Aww.
Dear, sweet Loather, instead of worrying about me why don't you tell us your answer to the Year 7 Kidz Maths Olympiad Challenge:
If the temperature response to every doubling of atmospheric CO2 were 2.5° Celsius, what would the temperature response to an increase in atmospheric CO2 from 396.8 ppm to 550 ppm be?
:-)
Why is this abject fuckwit still allowed to pollute this blog with his pointless gibberish?
Damned if I know, Vince.
Oh! My!
Brad sure played it well at SkS did he not.
His slippery playing with language is straight from a 'Law & Order' episode and not from considerations of science and was recognised as such. Good to see somebody else stood up for Steve Schneider, although I missed the actual posts I get the drift - more or less what we saw here.
Here is some more schooling for Brad: Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast - Lectures, a copy of the book would help him too.
BBD --- Over one millennium of simulated time was required in a run of GISS's GCM.
Lionel:
Why would missing the posts be a problem? That's not how the internet works. Surely you can read posts whose initial appearance you didn't witness "live." It's just a matter of scrolling up (back in time) from the end of the thread and reading the written record of the posting—which persists in time—isn't it?
Oh.
I see.
The alleged posts are nowhere to be found, are they? The supposedly dishonest question I asked—"where have I referred to Stephen Schneider's ethics?"—is nowhere to be found, is it? Welcome to SS, the Orwellian Hall of Mirrors where non-existent posts can be used to convict you of dishonesty, error, science denial, tax evasion, beef disparagement, greyhound substitution and/or arson.
David B. Benson
Thanks. Given this result, do you think discussion of TCR should concentrate more on land surface trends and projections rather than GAT?
SS and other sites moderated by the SS kidz: the only region of the blogosphere where threads get progressively shorter.
They warned me it was Stalinesque, but I didn't believe them. Silly me.
Is anyone here smarter than "a smart 13 year old" (h/t Bernard J) ?
Year 7 Kidz Maths Olympiad Challenge:
If the temperature response to every doubling of atmospheric CO2 were 2.5° Celsius, what would the temperature response to an increase in atmospheric CO2 from 396.8 ppm to 550 ppm be?
The point is, Brad, you are a lying fuckwit who couldn't possibly be intellectually enfeebled enough to genuinely believe that the serially-wrong non-scientist, conspiracy-theorist and mining stock spruiker Steve McIntyre is a "defender of science".
That's a rather odd answer to a maths problem, Vince.
You don't know how to use logarithms, do you?
Go ask your 9-year-old.
Tumbleweeds.
Listen fellas, I don't have all day. But I'm a fair man. Instead of setting a time limit, I'll set a comment limit.
If three (3) believalist comments are posted without answering the Year 7 Kidz Maths Olympiad Challenge question, it's an admission that you're all less numerate than a teenager.
Ready.
Set.
Go.
Ocean SSTs set the land temperatures.
One down. Two to go.
We interrupt your logarithmic humbling to bring you this important
**** CONSPIRACY ALERT ****
Lionel A has uncovered the existence of a possible identity racket:
If you encounter RedNose, all should be treated as not being what it seems!
************************
We now return you to the Year 7 Kidz Maths Olympiad Challenge.
FrankD legitimately points out that I am needlessly cloggin up the Open Thread with Brad's Pittance.
I'm pleased to see though that he's responded here to my post:
Several points Keyes.
First, you said that there was no baseline. There is. The climate sensitivity is predicated on a doubling from a starting concentration of 275-280 ppm carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is the logarithmically-defined increment that determines the linear temperature respond per doubling. Change the size of the initial CO2 increment (with respect to a specific anomaly value) and you change the rate at which temperature would increase.
Baseline matters. In spite of your asserion to the contrary.
Second, I was forwarded the extract exactly as I posted on the March Open thread. I see from your post above and from actually going back on this thread that the context of your original posting is very distinctly different from that which I garnered from the email that I received, owing to the truncation of the extract that I was given. Read the portion that I quoted and you'll see the difference. As such, I understand that you were saying something quite different to what I believed, and I quite happily and freely admit that you are correct in your original claim.
There, it's that easy.
Now... would you care to go back over the hundreds of your postings here and elswhere, where you have made mistakes and where they have been pointed out to you in the face of complete subsequent denial on your behalf?
Oh, and congratulations on getting yourself bounced from the Skeptical Science thread. It was in fact that thread that led one of the other researchers on my floor to this thread (greetings W).
And to wrap up, have you yet located any evidence to support your assertion that planetary warming of 2.5-4.0° C is not going to have grave consequences for many plants, animals and human communities?
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!
Bernard J correctly agrees with my answer of 1.178 K:
Yep! It's as easy as going from ...
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
to
and finally
There, it’s that easy!
Oh, you mean like the mistakes I made about Naomi Oreskes:
- her claim that DDT had been promoted as a "magic cure for malaria" was clearly a slip of the tongue, not a sign of medical illiteracy
- her claim that beryllium was a 'heavy metal' was in fact true under some popular definitions of the term
- her claim that the pH of a "neutral" solution (given the various conditional assumptions you once described in an attempt to lecture me) is 6.0 was almost certainly just a typo, and she gives the "right" value (7.0) in Errata on her website
... or the mistake I made about ECS:
- there is, in fact, more than a handful of papers claiming evidence for a higher ECS than I thought
... or any of the other errors I've voluntarily acknowledged?
Oh, is that (my emphasis) how the burden of evidence works now? :-)
In any case, given the number of species of plants and animals and the number of suburbs and cities on the planet, it's almost inevitable that some (or even "many") of them would fare badly in that hypothetical scenario. So what? The proper question is one of overall benefits and harms on balance and in the balance of probabilities.
D. B .B.
Yes, and as we know, land surface temperatures are higher and rising faster than SSTs and this is expected to continue, which is why I wonder if discussion of impacts would be more informative if it concentrated more on LSTs.
Brad
You claim that 395ppmv - 550ppmv = +1.2C.
I think you are mistaken. Climate response so far = 0.7C.
Climate response at equilibrium to 550ppmv (assuming ECS = 2.5C) = 2.5C
2.5C – 0.7C = 1.8C
Not 1.2C.
TCR vs ECS.
What you are refusing to admit is that you should have *added* the lagged response for 275 – 395ppmv CO2 to the 1.2C linear response (395 – 550ppmv) to get to the correct equilibrium response (+1.8C *not* +1.2C).
As I keep saying: TCR vs ECS.
BBD
Indeed, and will Keyes ever grok this? Not as long as his fundament points downwards if he fails to consult some of the sources of enlightenment pointed to by David B Benson [1] , myself and others.
Neither does he seem to grasp the fragility of an ecosystem that has developed over a few tens of thousands of years whilst climatic swings were modest compared to what our accelerated development has set in train, which is nothing less than the breaking down, in a few short centuries, of most of the fossil fuel that was billion's of years in creation into its component parts to provide energy for what has become nothing less than wanton consumption.
The above being encapsulated in the dedication of David J C MacKay's book Sustainable Energy – without the hot air, 'to all those who will not have the benefit of two billion years' accumulated energy'.
[1] Will he admit to falsely conflating you two at that.
Lionel:
Will BBD admit to falsely conflating me and Chameleon?
Also, what's this "Keyes" bollocks, Lionel? I thought we were past that in our relationship. It saddens me that you believers are so principled, formal and unrelenting in your unpleasantness. Why do warmists have the coldest hearts? :-(
Indeed. And as I keep saying when BBD subtracts 0.7 from 2.5, apples minus oranges. Will the penny ever drop for BBD, and if so, when? Who knows. That's what keeps this game so interesting!
BBD:
This new mathematics is intriguing.
Let's round off the current CO2 concentration to 395 ppm, as you've done.
Let's now address the question posed by the website I quoted: "Are you ready for a 400 ppm world?"
Please estimate (in newmath) how much warmer a 400 ppm world will be, assuming ECS = 2.5 K.
BK
Apples and oranges.
I still disagree. The lagged element of the response to 275 - 395ppmv CO2 needs to be added to the CO2-only response to 395 - 550ppmv to arrive at the correct equilibrium value for 2xCO2 (275 - 550ppmv).
We can't just ignore it as you appear to do.
Last time climate was ner equilibrium was when CO2 concentration was 275 ppm. Everything since then has been a transient response.
Sometimes, I suppose, LST is more suitable than LST+SST. Either way the actual numbers are not placed in context until one understands something of the increases/decreases in precipitation and changes in extreme weather events.
Your translation of this is pretty good:
I'd say: "developed the paper for the Vniigaz Research Institute of the Gazprom Group, an address that certainly isn't entirely innocent of lobbying interests"
"not exactly free of the suspicion of vested interests" is more elegant, but less literally correct IMHO.
David B. Benson
As I suggest to BK.
BK
Reviewing the discussion here and elsewhere, I wonder if you aren't clear about what is meant by the 'lagged element' of the response to 275 - 395ppmv CO2.
This is the energy that has already accumulated in the climate system in response to 275 - 395ppmv CO2. Most (>90%) of this energy is in the ocean (Levitus et al. 2012). The transient increase in *surface air temperature* to date has been 0.7C but OHC has increased by ~25 x 10^22 Joules over the last half century. That energy is *here now*. It doesn't just go away.
Nope, he doesn't get it.
Subtracting 0.7 from 2.5 is a meaningful operation that gives a meaningful answer: 1.8.
1.8 is the remaining temperature increase at equilibrium after one CO2 doubling.
Your 1.2 on the other hand is meaningless. Maybe you can explain it to us - without references to crank bloggers.
Then again - maybe not.
3 years studying the art of talking bullshit with other Arts students seems to have sapped Brad's ability to emit anything meaningful.
I think I should have stated 285 ppm:
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2hq8k1z&s=7
It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/26/1769471/todays-quote-via-jo…
Keyes, get over your overweening narcissism.
I was under a misapprehension, for which I freely apologised (you could learn a little grace yourself, by the way.) My conclusion was valid given the impression that I was given by my correspondent, so your juvenile gloating is rather unbecoming. I am happy to admit my mistakes, whether they arise from my own errors or otherwise, and I do so with no hesitation.
If you were to follow my example you might be held in rather more regard than you currently are. Of course that would require a completely separate thread, lest the page numbering capacity of this blog is exceeded...
Also, my underlying point stands. There is a baseline concentration of atmospheric CO2 to which the phenomenon of climate sensitivity refers, and the size of this baseline (that is, the concentration immediately pre-Industrial Revolution) is relevant when referring to how much warming occurs per doubling.
If you dispute this, let's go back to the mathematics and discuss.
Also, you have yet to credibly support your claim that warming of the scale that humans are putting in train will not be not harmful to plants, animals, and humans. Why do you persist in avoiding any substantiation of your notion?
Oh, and Keyes...
Why do you think that you were booted off Skeptical Science?
BJ at# 29.
Good for you for admitting your error :-)
Look again at Brad Keyes' comment # 12 re the burden of evidence.
Why are you asking him to disprove a negative?
What IS the definite & quantifiable net harm to plants, animals and humans?
Why IS 275ppm the PREFERED and/or OPTIMAL figure?
1. What's this "Keyes" nonsense, Bernard? Haven't we been through enough campaigns together? Call me Brad for god's sake.
2. In what way have I been ungracious (to you) in victory? Have I gloated? Not over you, particularly much. In fact I've referred to you in impeccably respectful tones at the blog where I'm debating Dominic. When BabyBraD says,
"You claimed that the temperature response 395ppmv – 550ppmv is 1.2C and you are WRONG."
I reply,
"Only, the funny thing is, when I asked ecologist Dr Bernard J. the question…
"… he [eventually] agreed with my answer. To quote ecologist Dr Bernard J.:
"As you know—given my science background—I’d never argue from authority, but still, I wouldn’t want to change places with you right now, Dominic."
How can this possibly be described as gloating (over you), Bernard?
3. I know exactly why I was relieved of my commenting privileges at SS and it was for exactly the same reason as at STW last year.
I won't put you on the spot by asking you what the reason was, because you couldn't possibly know. The answer is as follows. I embarrassed the moderator. (Someone called JH.)
How?
By repeatedly and unapologetically asking where my deleted comments had disappeared to, why everybody was talking about non-existent comments, and why JH deemed my remarks about Stephen Schneider to be so off-topic as to deserve summary deletion without a trace when:
1. I was merely answering a question another commenter directly addressed to me, which had been allowed to stay up
2. JH was allowing other commenters to malign, mischaracterise and sucker-punch my ex-comment in absentia
3. these dishonest, cowardly and/or confused attempts at rebutting my "off-topic" comment were deemed "on topic"!
Unfortunately JH is a craven, lying turd—as you'd expect from someone who sees himself as belonging, not to the ancillary staff of an unpopular science blog, as to a "conspiracy to save humanity"—and fails to tell you any of the above, and there's precious little I can be bothered doing about it, since the only thing I got out of my 24 hours of registration at that "site" was an intense desire to shower.
Vince,
you obviously occupy the same evolutionary rung, below idiots, morons and cretins, as your "cohort" Wow.
No, unfortunately I can't explain it to you—though I've already explained it to the literate and numerate readers of this blog.
And no, http://co2now.org is not a contrarian outpost of the libertarian-right crankosphere.
"you obviously occupy the same evolutionary rung, below idiots, morons and cretins"
Yup, humourless cultist.
Just when you thought Bradley could sink no lower...
After being shown up for the posturing buffoon that he is at Tara's, Bradley's desperation to delegitimise me in some way gets completely out of control:
A contemptible toe-rag, is our Bradders.
So, without appreciating the irony and hypocrisy Keyes accuses BBD of racist blog comments when in this post he writes:
Why did he not make his opinion clear in his first post at SkS? Doing so would have saved other contributors there much time.
And BTW Keyes it is and Keyes it will remain, first name terms are for family, close friends and those I respect, you fit in none of those categories Keyes.
Keyes once again shows how dishonest he is. Here is what he dishonestly claims were the reasons he was barred from posting at SkS:
Here is the real reason he was barred:
Keyes is the most dishonest person who has ever posted on this blog and that says a lot when you think of the innumerable trolls who have tried to spread their rubbish here. My very first comment about Keyes was describing how dishonestly he twisted my words on a post I made here. He has not changed his MO since. Surely dishonesty and insults should be a reason for having him barred from this site since he has been banned from a number of sites for these very reasons.
LOL... I remember it almost verbatim, as if it were just the other month!
IIRC, you said that, "any denier who says consensus is not science should be ridiculed".
I abused, tortured, stretched and distorted your statement beyond all recognition to: "Ian says consensus is science."
How... devious of me!
ROFL!
:-)
Lionel:
You must be a raging success at parties!
Bernard J:
A commendable quality of yours, Bernard. I can't quite claim to be happy to admit my mistakes, but I'm willing to do so without hesitation (see comment #12 for some examples).
In rē: logarithms and the supposedly crucial role of "starting" values,
I dispute this. The whole premise of logarithmic growth is that, given a particular ECS—whether 2.5C, as in my example (which is smack inside the range David B Benson cites, FWIW), or something higher / lower—that value tells us the equilibrium-shifting effect of a doubling from 275 to 550, 550 to 1100 and 1100 to 2200, or 400 to 800, 800 to 1600 and 1600 to 3200, or 280 to 560, or 276 to 552, or 2760 to 5520, or any other doubling of a past / future CO2 concentration.
#31 chameleon --- 275 ppm is the pre-industrial concentration; it had been close to that value for a long time. Changes need to be slow, millennial scale.
Brad Keyes --- Your formula is fine provided you wait long enough for equilibrium to be reached, a millennium or more. At that time scale the way you do sums is fine.
David B. Benson
A1B? A1F1? A2? None of them? What do you think?
(For BK)
Projected transient temperature response under various emission scenarios from IPCC AR4.
BBD ---
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/26159.html
Brad Keyes --- More precisely, start with 285 ppm to compute what the equilibrium temperature will be if concentrations are held constant at, say, 400 ppm. After waiting the required millennium then increase to, say, 580 ppm; wait another millennium for equilibrium.
David B. Benson
There's no arguing with agnosticism ;-)
Look out, everyone—chek's swivelled his loose cannon around 180 degrees and is now targeting believers instead of deniers! LOL...
So....no, you can't explain it.
What can I say?
htttp://rabett.blogspot.com/2013/03/laughing-at-those-who-laugh-at-science.html?showComment=1364438215294#c5464131083730013154
Foo.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2013/03/laughing-at-those-who-laugh-at-scien…
"So….no, you can’t explain it."
But remember, it's EVERYONE ELSE'S fault. Not his. Never his.
The self-centred little prick.
Lionel,
I see the phrase "Lewandowsky's mongoloid henchboy" is still exercising you.
What is it like to have no sense of the poetic? Sad, I assume.
You're drawing a bit of a long etymological bow when you construe it as a racist epithet. In fact it took me a while to figure out what you were getting all righteous about, as Genghis Khan was the furthest thing from my mind when intimating that John Cook was mentally subnormal.
Nonetheless, just as the word "slave" and its cousin "ciao" are potentially offensive to people of Slavic heritage, perhaps I should add the m-word to the growing list of those it would be better to avoid. Thank you for this valuable life lesson, A!
More lies from BK:
This from the man who said:
Keyes was wrong about the evolution of TCR toward equilibrium right from the start of this conversation. It suited him to be wrong because it allowed him to misrepresent both the rate and size of future temperature change under higher emissions trajectories. Remember that Keyes thinks emissions regulation is 'stupid' because he believes future temperature increase will be relatively trivial:
He has done everything in his power to avoid admitting that he does not understand how TCR will evolve towards equilibrium and he still has not admitted it, despite having it pointed out to him again and again and again on two different blogs.
"My climate-change position is that there is no evidence that AGW is going to be hugely net-dangerous unless emissions are reduced,"
So where is his evidence that there's such a thing as Catastrophic AGW Mitigation (CAM)?
"I see the phrase “Lewandowsky’s mongoloid henchboy” is still exercising you. "
Look up that meaning of the word, dimwit.
PS all someone has to say to make you froth at the mouth and scream like the maniac you are is mention Lewandowsky. Seems like his paper still "exercises" you.
Why is this exercising you so much Keyes, could it be that you have to return because you keep failing said challenge?
BTW I didn't realise that you were trying for stand-up comedian.
For hugely dangerous try 6 K: read Peter Ward's "Under a Green Sky" and Mark Lynas's "Six Degrees":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/apr/23/scienceandnature.climatecha…
And there's the Zachos Curve.
You mean, other than the tens of billions of dollars that should have been spent on oncogenetics research instead? That’s only considering the US government’s profligacy, by the way.
Is it? That’s nice.
Yawn.
Oh and: a Happy Easter to friends and foes alike!
To many of us it’s little more than a long weekend and an excuse for a chocolate bender, but let’s not forget the Reason for the Season. Take a moment to think of Spartacus and the thousands of crucified slaves on the Appian Way, who suffered under Marcus Crassus that we might be redeemed from bondage.
I see the infestation has now spread to Eli's. How happy the bunnies must be.
On climate sensitivity, a couple of starters for Keyes for the weekend:
Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective, note the comment by the Rabett who knows his carrots from his onions. I notice that Cardinal Puff has lobbed in his two groats worth.
and the similar, but not the same,
Making Sense of Sensitivity … and Keeping It in Perspective.
Lionel A:
Lionel A:
It’s not exercising me. It’s over. The challenge is over, A! It’s been over from the moment I wrote:
Or did you miss that?
Dr Bernard J won the challenge by being the first deltoid with the necessary combination of grace and intelligence to concede that my answer (~1.18 K) was correct.
The only high-school level maths question that remains unanswered by any of you people—perhaps because the teacher hasn’t supplied the solution this time—is the one I keep asking BBD in vain:
Assuming (for the sake of argument) an ECS of 2.5C and a current atmospheric CO2 concentration of 395ppm, how much warmer will a 400ppm world be?
If you’d like to be hailed as an intellectual god among believalists, A, correctly solve that high-school-level maths question. Showing your working, obviously.
(US readers, please substitute “middle-school-level math question.”)
As the website says, “Are you ready for a 400ppm world?”
D'oh.
Moderators, please delete the first copy (which was misformatted). Thanks.
Also, you don't really need to keep moderating me. You can stop now. I appreciate that you have busy lives and more important things to do.
The usual Sticky Bishop/Nic Lewis double-act. But let us not forget that Lewis's stuff is nothing more than a guest post at Bishop Hill. And until it is published in a mainstream, reviewed journal, it remains what all informed commenters have said it is - systematically biased low because Lewis has used every trick he can find to make it so.
NL needs to publish or shut up. His endless touting of his guest post at a denialist blog as if it had real scientific merit is getting tiresome.
Prattlers like Keyes need to have a good, long look at the Zachos curve then read Rohling et al. (2012) and the draft Hansen et al. paper posted on arxiv which expands on his team's contribution to the PALAEOSENS project presented in Rohling (2012).
Of course I linked both these studies for our resident Master of Science and he declined to so much as glance at them. 'Boring', he said, IIRC.
Being wrong while sneering at the supposed scientific illiteracy of others will remain Bradley's forte until he does some work instead of preening away on the internet day in, day out.
Dominic:
Hmmm. You know my first [screen] name. By not using it, you come across as almost... well, annoyed with me for some reason, buddy.
Was it something I said?
turn up in all sorts of places now accusing John Mashey of 'conspiracist ideation'.
So a stand up comic he is but one who's jokes are so, well er, toilet (equates to infantile). What's up Keyes, has Mashey got close to some of your personal truths? You are clearly no more interested in the truth about the scientific consensus on climate change (and no, don't kick off and that one again your hole is deep enough there) these posts at the Rabett's is further evidence showing up your dishonest stance here.
Have the Heartlanders taken you to their heart, after all your brand of Orwell-speak and tortured semantics would be welcome there - one of the home of obfuscation and illusion they being. You will need a new box of squirrels though.
Keyes seems 'exercised' by this
Where Keyes is either ignorant of the back story here wrt a the barrage technique of FoI request used by the likes of McIntyre and despite what he thinks Keyes fails to understand that scientists authenticate their work via a different process than FoI and that their organisations are ill-equipped to deal with such from lack of resources. They don't have large admin' staffs like top flight lawyers or mining executives.
This has been chewed over extensively here, bring yourself up to date and use 'More Posts' or 'Next' for more, and more and more. You will notice a few stunners like 'McIntyre had the data all along', 'McIntyre's Tricks', 'Steve McIntyre’s DOS attack on GISS' and many more nuggets.
Other places where this has been thrashed out were indicated in this piece Debate with Steve Easterbrook where we find, my emphasis but do not neglect sections between:
Indeed. A remarkably successful, and criminal, propaganda exercise.
Lionel,
Mashey's conspiracy theory is... interesting; thanks, Lionel.
Lionel @ 65
I saw that. I also noticed that Keyes simply *asserted* that JM was guilty of conspiracist ideation. JM on the other hand *demonstrated* the chain of payments from Donors Trust to The James Partnership and CA.
Perhaps Bradley thinks everyone at Eli's is stupid. He says not, but his actions don't tally with his behaviour there.
Earlier:
"Nic Lewis needs to publish or shut up. His endless touting of his guest post at a denialist blog as if it had real scientific merit is getting tiresome."
According to the Economist:
I thought NL was a 'semi-retired financier' or something like that. Nor did I know that his blog post at Bishop Hill had been accepted for publication. If this is correct, it will be interesting to see what the reviewers make of NL's submission. It will be interesting to see what numbers make the final cut.
accusing John Mashey of ‘conspiracist ideation’.
"Brad's" doing his smear tactic thing in the hope that others will be too stupid to understand the difference between the mindset exposed by Lewandowsky and Cook (which for some reason chafes "Brad" and his fellow cranks something chronic like an itchy communal thong), and the secret - or at the very least underhand - channelling of money to groups attempting to subvert democratic government. The kind of thing that some likely would call an actual conspiracy.
In "Brad's" world, it seems we're all Karen'n'Cammy style dumb.
Another invasive species:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2013/03/bernard-j-has-aanother-suggestion.ht…
I know this is a believalist site, but would anyone mind if we took a brief intermission from conspiracism to discuss science?
"Are you ready for a 400ppm world?" :-)
Assuming (for the sake of argument) an ECS of 2.5C and a current atmospheric CO2 concentration of 395ppm, how much warmer will a 400ppm world be?
Come on. It shouldn't be this difficult. Some of you claim to have teenaged kids, so get their help.
You believe so, therefore it is?
Keyes, you are in no position to ask such questions here since you have not adequately, if at all, answered a number put to you.
Try working that out for yourself, but here are some things to consider: Two Key Climate Change Concepts Are ‘Misunderstood’.
This would be a better use of your time than thrashing around at the Rabett's and elsewhere. Your lack of appreciation of how science is carried out, combined with your non existent understanding of the development of the 'Brownlash', and how scientists were ill equipped to deal with it, is telling.
BTW what do you know about 'The Hunt for Zero Point'? Just saying.
# 76
When are you going to admit that you were wrong about the way TCR evolves towards equilibrium response? Considerable effort went into trying to point out your error but as yet, you have failed to acknowledge that you were incorrect.
Popping up making irrelevant but noisy demands that *we* answer *your* questions is inappropriate at present.
Here's a quick review of how you screwed up:
- Most of the energy (>90%) that has accumulated in the climate system in response to 275 - 395ppmv CO2 is now in the ocean (Levitus et al. 2012).
- The transient increase in *surface air temperature* to date has *only* been 0.7C but OHC has increased by ~25 x 10^22 Joules over the last half century.
- Some of that stored energy will contribute to *future* atmospheric warming *additional* to the direct response to the increase from 395 - 550ppmv CO2.
- That is how we get from 0.7C response in surface air temperature at 395ppmv to 2.5C at equilibrium to 550ppmv. A total increase of 1.8C. Not 1.2C.
You either didn't understand the way TCR evolves towards equilibrium response or were pretending not to. In either case, please have the good grace finally to admit your mistake.
***
Levitus (2012):
Surely You're Joking, Mr A-man!
Yes I have. And more than my fair share at that. With Chameleon missing I'm the sole spokesmodel for the realist population on this thread. Don't tell me I haven't been fielding questions.
Anyway I understand if maths isn't your thing, A.
Could you at least clear up a linguistic mystery: what's invalide a reference to?
dT = 2.5ln(400/280)/ln(2)
David,
thanks for your answer about "a 400ppm world," but you appear to have misinterpreted the question slightly. It assumed some informal premises about English usage, and perhaps I needed to be more explicit.
I'm not asking how much warmer it will be compared to the Golden Age of Amish culture but how much warmer than it is today.
Lotharsson:
A bit like the first rule of being the Messiah, eh Loth? ;-)
I'm missing because I'm thoroughly sick of having my comments languish in moderation for 24 hours and longer.
BBD:
Come on, don't exaggerate! One guy, called cRR or ccR or something, seemed to have half a brain. And that's not even counting me.
How confusing of me. My actions don't tally with my behaviour, you say. I hate when that happens!
A,
I read it, interesting stuff. Which of those two concepts did you think I'd failed to understand, and why?
BBD:
Maybe you should have thought of said buggering-up effects before you went crying to the moderators about me and got me punitively delayed. There was a time, a few weeks ago, when all I had to do was wander off-plantation for a minute and you'd have an expletive-laden convulsion about how uppity I was.
Consequences of your actions:
Our once-sparkling repartee now flows like molasses.
David:
But how many millennia will that temperature response take? More than long enough to adapt as we focus our financial and intellectual resources on solving real problems, I should think.
Keyes once again shows his ignorance with this little exchange at The Rabett's,
LA wrote:
to which Keyes responded,
.
Which highlights a couple of things, that Keyes has not understood the basic flaw in Wegener's hypothesis which is that a fundamentally different mechanism is involved to that posited by Wegener. Now anybody who has been studying the literature in order to fully understand, as far as current understanding goes, the Earth systems that have a bearing on the topic of global warming and climate change would have come across this.
See e.g. writings by Ruddiman and Garrison.
The other thing it highlights is his continued evasiveness when caught out on a point of fact.
In a subsequent reply to a. n. other Keyes then writes this:
Which displays his total ignorance about the true FUNCTION and NATURE of the IPCC. It also demonstrates his over-blowing of the case in point - which is following that of the worst elements of the blogosphere and which most of us have consigned to history because it alters not the path of events that are unfolding on the ground.
Indeed the one example of slightly incorrect infornation that has been lambasted so much looked almost like a typo. If Keyes would bother to follow up on tracking down the contentious points then maybe he would be able to quote, with citations, here.
I know where to look, does he.
Keyes strikes me as one who has come to this party late and as he blunders along throwing out factually incoherent statements on every blog he visits he has become one of 'those laughing at science' who we are now 'Laughing at'. To use the words forming the title of the subject post at the Rabett's.
As for 'invalide', I am sure a man of words of your calibre could work that out.
Since he
a) insists that one typo in an IPCC report invalidates EVERYTHING it stands for
and
b) he admits having made a mistake asserting someone's statements to another
Does that not mean Bray's entire stance is now invalidated?
A:
Oh goody! It's one of those rare comments that educates the reader instead of just disproportionately insulting some pseudonymous interlocutor! This is my favorite part about being wrong—which I should really try to do more often!: being set straight by someone who knows more about the topic than me.
Learning is fun!
Anyway, I didn't mean to interrupt, Professor Lionel—do go on. You were telling us (from your extensive comprehension of the literature) what the basic flaw in Wegener's hypothesis was.
Ah, of course! How did I forget? What Wegener failed to realize was that a fundamentally different mechanism was involved to that posited by Wegener. Cheers, Lionel, that's been bugging me all night—I've been racking my brains trying to remember what my Science teacher explained to us in Year 7; thank you so much for clearing that up.
There ya go, folks—a fundamentally different mechanism was involved.
You're obviously no mere geological dilettante, Lionel! I feel privileged and humbled just to have been in an argument with such a guru. The chief bane of the climate blogosphere is that it's infested with blustering bunnies who brag and bluff and affect an air of expertise but, when it comes down to it, are just full of, er, caecotrophs. Not you though, Lionel—you clearly know your, er, crap.
Evasiveness?
ROFL. This is what passes for “evasiveness,” apparently, dear readers: Professor A corrects me on a matter of pedantics ’n’ semantics, demanding...
…and I despicably dodge the question, like the denialist I am:
That’s right: it’s evasion by gratitude! What a genius for evil I have.
It gets even more amusing, readers. When reminded of the notorious Himalayan prediction, Lionel half-tries to trivialize it:
*Sigh.* Nobody cares what it “almost looks like,” Lionel. Are you really naive or audacious enough to tell us, with a straight face, that it was a typo, or aren’t you? I’m happy either way—you just need to commit, otherwise it’s just painfully obvious that you lack [the courage of your] conviction. C’mon, Lionel, I promise I won’t make too much fun of you: if you sincerely think it was “a typo,” then say so. :-)
Fun and games aside, what's so fascinating about the above attempt at—to use BBD's favorite word—delegitimising me (LOL) is the detail Lionel chooses to omit. ;-)
Namely, that the whole conversation started because Lionel refuses to accept "the key to science":
If your prediction is wrong, your hypothesis is wrong.
B-b-b-but, Lionel says,
Uh, no. Sorry. I never thought I'd say this, Lionel, but I have to side with Richard Feynman on this. I think he’s got you here.
If your prediction is wrong, your hypothesis is wrong.
Of course it’s perfectly understandable that you're reluctant to face this—most civilians are. But science isn't for muggles. Science is a harsh mistress.
More importantly there’s also the fact that you’re a climate believalist—an IPCC agreer, a hypercapnophobe, an adherent to the idea of CAGW. Pretend all you want; we both know you consider future AGW to be catastrophic.
And like all catastrophists I’ve ever known, you baulk at the conditions of entry on the roller coaster that is science.
Is it just a coincidence that (as far as anyone knows*) climate catastrophists invariably think they know better than Feynman about the scientific method? Or is there a systematic relationship there; do you need to break away from 250 years of scientific reasoning in order to take The Science™ of climate alarmism seriously?
* I’d be DELIGHTED for this premise be proven wrong, by the way—PLEASE, if you’re a believalist and you read this and think: “Hey! I accept the unadulterated scientific method, no ifs, ands, or buts—no excuses for those who cut corners, no passing off non-evidence as evidence, and all the rest of it,” then by all means, speak up. Otherwise nobody will know you exist and a false theory—that climate alarmism necessarily (if not sufficiently) comes from a rejection of modern science itself as a system of inquiry—will needlessly persist.
Wow:
Hmm. You may have a good point here. Of course we'll never know until you write it in English.
BBD:
When I realize I was wrong.
When will that happen?
Not until you correctly answer the question about "a 400ppm world."
# 79?
Uh, no.
Try again.
And don't just guess this time, BBD.
Thanks for that rant (#91) dipstick Keyes that has made my day for I must have hit a sore spot smack on.
Your wording WRT Wegener indicated that you had a poor grasp of the difference between continental drift and plate tectonics, a cognitive framework distortion that you have now confirmed. This includes your continued lack of understanding of the role and structure of the IPCC.
Nearly every post you make shows up how little you know about this topic and also the confusion campaign that has left you this way - believing all sorts of strange things that have been argued over for, in some cases, decades and others since the faux-scandal of Climategate and the 'gates that quickly followed of which Himalayan Glaciers was but one example.
It would be refreshing if you were to provide a straight answer a question, until then your are pissing in the wind and making yourself look not only ignorant on several avenues of climate change literature but rather unbalanced at that. Performing the goat may be a laugh at parties, but the audience will be laughing at you not with you but your lack of self-awareness prevents you appreciating the difference but it does not do here.
Your continued obsession with Feynman, where you persists in mischaracterisation, is but one example of how you have hold of the wrong end of the arguments. Just because Feynman did not offer an alternative does not mean the alternative is invalid, only somebody with an invalide cognitive framework would attest otherwise.
It seems chek now has a serious rival in the CFC emissions stakes! hahaha
Blah blah blah blah blah.
Cut and paste and assign to Bray and you have his entire screed in easy-to-assimilate form.
So, Brad. Too stupid to see the error, or too unpleasant to admit to it?
Bradley - do you think the equilibrium temperature response will happen during the year that 400ppmv is reached?
Or some time thereafter?
See it yet?
It's always someone else's fault, isn't it, Bradley? You strut around acting the prat and boastfully claiming you can post anywhere - get moderated. And now this is *my* fault?
GFY, Bradley.
;-)
Let me know when you figure out why you are wrong about the evolution of TCR.
- Most of the energy (>90%) that has accumulated in the climate system in response to 275 - 395ppmv CO2 is now in the ocean (Levitus et al. 2012).
- The transient increase in *surface air temperature* to date has *only* been 0.7C but OHC has increased by ~25 x 10^22 Joules over the last half century.
- Some of that stored energy will contribute to *future* atmospheric warming *additional* to the direct response to the increase from 395 - 550ppmv CO2.
- That is how we get from 0.7C response in surface air temperature at 395ppmv to 2.5C at equilibrium to 550ppmv. A total increase of 1.8C. Not 1.2C.
You either don't understand the way TCR evolves towards equilibrium response or you are pretending not to.
Dominic:
Well, anecdotally it certainly seems that way. But let's look at the hard data just to make sure:
1. you and your coreligionists bitched and moaned about how I was winning too many arguments and begged Tim to give me my own thread—YOUR FAULT
2. Tim gave me my own thread—TIM'S FAULT
3. you bitched and moaned to the moderators when I wandered off-plantation—YOUR FAULT
4. they punitively quarantined me—THE MODERATORS' FAULT
Proportion of times it was my fault: 0.0 %
Proportion of times it was someone else's fault: 100.0%
There you go. Science says yes, it's always someone else's fault. Of course, we both know that doesn't fit your worldview so you'll just deny the science. Sticking your head in the sand won't change the facts though!
Brad Keyes --- Cannot adapt to 6 K; die from hydrogen sulfide poisoning. H2S is expressed under any
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event
(which happens now off the coast of Namibia and is barely repressed in the Black Sea). At 6 K warming anoxia sets in.
David, that's thought-provoking, thank you. I've read the wikipedia article but let me ask about your own analysis: if we rapidly liberated as much CO2 as possible as quickly as possible, then at what atmospheric concentration—ballpark figure, in ppm—do you expect we'd bring about (or at least "lock in," pending eventual equilibrium) 6 degrees of warming?
Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong.
Richard Feynman
One time I was in the men's room of the bar and there was a guy at the urinal. He was kind of drunk, and said to me in a mean-sounding voice, "I don't like your face. I think I'll push it in."
I was scared green. I replied in an equally mean voice, "Get out of my way, or I'll pee right through ya!"
Richard Feynman
Philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.
Attributed to Richard Feynman
OK, this is all good fun, but could you please answer my question, David? Namely:
If we liberated as much CO2 as we could as quickly as we could into the atmosphere, then at what concentration—a ballpark estimate in ppm—do you think the climate would be committed to 6K of warming?
From your previous comments I gather this must be about 2 x ECS in your view. So two doublings, right?
That question makes NO SENSE, bray.
"if we liberated...as quickly as we could...what concentration..committed to 6k warming".
The "as quickly as we could" makes no sense whatsoever, it's completely redundant. And "as quickly as we could" is nonsense in what climate sensitivity would be to CO2.
Therefore we have to ask you what you mean.
6k warming over what? Pre-industrial temps? Then two doublings over pre-industrial CO2. Current temps? then two doublings over current CO2.
Both answers are ridiculous, though, since you've already been told what the best guess for climate sensitivity is several times, so why the hell are you asking?
You are a jester, Brad. Proportion of problems caused by your behaviour: 100%. 100% your fault. Except from within the bubble of your self-regard and delusion.
When are you going to have the good grace to admit that you have been wrong for a long, long time now about the evolution of TCR to equilibrium?
It's bad form (ie evidence of bad faith) to refuse to admit error.
BBD,
Sigh. Yes, I understand the rules of Wangernumb, Dominic. I understood them the first time; that doesn't mean I agree with them. The most objectionable thing about this New Math is the way it lets you "carry forward" the effects of past CO2 increases and blame them on future increases. This cheap trick—which not only the eminently-reasonable David Benson but even fanatics like Bernard have enough sense to refrain from using—is achieved by subtracting apples from oranges. You compare the GATA at 395ppmv out of equilibrium with that at 550ppmv in equilibrium. No doubt the resulting "response" stimulates a pleasingly urgent feeling of frisson in one’s political loins, but it's not science. It's creative accounting with Kelvins.
But let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that the consensus is wrong and your New Math really is the way of the future. It’s Wangernumb! Well and good. It should be the simplest thing in the world for you to solve this “problem”: assuming ECS = 2.5K / 2xCO2, what will be the temperature response to an increase from 395 ⟶ 400 ppm? Are you ready for a 400 ppm world, Dominic? :-) ;-) :-| :-(
What are you finding so goddamn difficult all of a sudden?
Upon deeper palpation of the Conscience Area of my frontal bones…. I think you may be right. At the end of the day. In a way.
The whole spiral of antisocial activities and revolving-door punishments that's ultimately led to my languishing here, stripped of human rights in this concentration thread for reviled minorities, was set in motion by my own choices. It would be all too easy to blame you, the illiberal Dominicans, the rabid dogmatists—and I’m sure the average person who read the historical data would instantly cast you as the villains:
But isn’t that just a way of letting me off the hook? After all, none of this would have happened had I not persisted in confounding, humbling and correcting everyone who dared debate me in the first place. This tragedy started when I made that decision, all those weeks ago, to come in here, to come into your sacred space, kick asses and take names.
Well, consider me shriven and repentant. I'm the Saddam in this atrocious chapter of climate history, and I know it. You believers were the innocent Kurds, going to your Friday prayers, flying your kites, getting in the occasional hockey-stick fight and otherwise minding your own business. You never asked for this. You never signed up to be guinea pigs in a test of rhetorical WMDs. And now you’re a nation of women, children and old men. All your men of fighting age are gone. Their blood is on my hands. (Okay, fine, technically speaking most of the blood and brain matter is on my clue bat, hey shut up, it’s an allegory!)
I'm a bad person.
This has been a real wake-up call.
Or with Keyes:
, addition from Wolfgang Pauli.
Solve for X:
6 = 2.5ln(X/280)/ln(2)
Best hope we don't get too close to 1000ppmv, let alone 1478ppmv. It could be catastrophic.
IIRC there was a recent paper/discussion examining the paleo record that identified 2 CO2 'switches' for the cryosphere - one at about current concentration that gives a lesser melt eventually amounting to several metres, then a looongish 'steadyish-state' gap until a little past 1000ppm, at which point we're locked in to the full 'start redrawing your globes' calamity.
Anyone else recall that?
For anybody still in any doubt, "Brad's" psychopathic leanings and general loss of touch with reality are pretty well exposed here. (h/t Bill)
That Cook-Lewandowsky paper on conspiracy nutters really lit some short-burn fuses!
"And remember: when they do it, it’s a conspiracy.
When we do it, it’s a well-orchestrated, well-funded behind-closed-doors campaign implicating Big Nicotine, Big Oil and the Murdocracy and going all the way up to the White House, employing a tiny but vocal cabal of Jewish tobacco scientists who travel through time promoting FUD by exaggerating minor typos in the science, which are then amplified into pseudo-scandals by the dog-whistling of the right-controlled hate media with perfect timing so as to derail international will on climate change, lung cancer, gravity, evolution or whatever the corporation-threatening Science of the decade happens to be. Not a conspiracy.
That, by the way was our philosophin' Mr Rational "Brad" here, not some methed-up street nutter.
David,
Thanks David—just double-checking.
For those without calculators, X = ~1478ppmv; this is the concentration at which, if ECS = 2.5K, the climate is committed to 6K of eventual warming (relative to the previous equilibrium, which we enjoyed back when CO2 and temps were at Amish levels). Warming on such a scale has been associated with anoxic events.... which sound rather catastrophic, I must admit.
chek wades out of his depth:
ROFL... jawohl, Herr Doktor!
Verbum sapienti: when you can't differentially use the words psychopathic and psychotic in a sentence, that's a pretty strong clue that you ought to leave the pop-psych wankery to seasoned psychonanists (like Bernard J).
bill --- If current concentrations are maintained then, from paleodata, SLR will be about 20--40 meters. That's enough to redraw the maps.
BK
You understand less than you think you do.
Now you misrepresent David B. Benson, who sees what you apparently cannot:
And a few comments later:
Ponder these statements. Compare with what I say. Then have a little re-think.
The TCR to another ~4ppmv is an irrelevance here. Keep your pointless misdirections to yourself and admit your fundamental error. TCR vs ECS. 1.8C not 1.2C.
The longer you persist with this, the worse it will get.
You are are mistaken, Bradley.
"which we enjoyed back when CO2 and temps were at Amish levels"
You bigoted little fuck.
I meant to quote your misrepresentation of Davd B. Benson above. Here it is:
A quote from a UKIP MEP: "There are no independent scientific institutes in the world which have not conceded that there has been no global warming for 15 years. That's a matter of fact, not opinion."
Isn't that an appeal to consensus authority?
Bray. ATTACK!
What you say in that short paragraph reveals how bizarre your perceptions really are:
You find the correct distinction between TCR and ECS 'objectionable' and a 'cheap trick'. You call it 'creative accounting' and, most tellingly of all, 'not science'.
Then you claim that the effects of past CO2 increases are being 'blamed' on future CO2 increases. But there is no cheap trickery involved. No false accounting. No pea-and-thimble blame-game. Just correct distinction between TCR and ECS. Correct scientific understanding of the topic.
You are in such a mess here. But the way in which you persist in being wrong is illuminating. As I said to you a long time back, denial has warped your perceptions.
BK
You have won no arguments with me, Brad.
"1. you and your coreligionists "
delusion.
"bitched and moaned about how I was winning too many argument"
delusion.
"and begged Tim to give me my own thread"
delusion.
Wow:
Huh? Against the Amish?! Oh, relax. It's not like they're reading this.
;-)
@Brad 'Dayum' Keyes, to keep the Rabbet Hole clean I'll respond to your 9:47 comment here.
First, I might feel raped by you. Otoh I gave you the benefit of the doubt in order to lure you into my artillery sights which would happen if and only if you are a climate revisionist, which you are and today so stated clearly. You see, in our gentlemen's exchange at Rabbet's you tried to lead me into believing we were actually on the same side in the CAGW-debate ì.e. the realists' side. Rabiately independently minded as I am, I took some time sussing you out while temporarily blocking out the storm of comments by those who already knew you (but me, probably less so). You showed up under the barrels in close to no time, though as a climate revisionist you are relatively clever. Like a rat of sorts. Still, I dare say you could learn dayumed much from one McIntyre in this respect.
Second, yes, I shot a flare at those whose company I feel honoured to be allowed to enjoy, simply because it is my experience that these wise people often still do not fully understand what they are up against. They tend to think they are dealing with trolls, or, at their least naive, they think they are dealing with 'merchants of doubt' and believe they can negotiate with such 'merchants'. What they need to understand is that they are debating with fascism. The kind of fascism that abhors knowledge, science, intelligent thinking. The kind of fascism that uses people and planet to waste for their own petty materialistic egocentrism (oh, long live death). The kind of fascism that will destroy the planet just for the fun of it. The kind of fascism that has rape for culture.
Third, I am a True Believer for I am the Founder of the Pi Sekt. We believe the ratio of circumference and diameter of any circle is a transcendent number and we kick out those who say otherwise without trial or comment - like True Believers do.
Fourth, dessert will be served. Cold.
And without their delusions they'd have nothing at all.
Like "Brad" thinking his psychotic outburst (just a joke? Nope, the "Jewish tobacco scientists" 'persecuted' by Naomi Oreskes invented by "Brad" says categorically not) referenced at #18 excuses his sly, manipulative, psychopathic traits.
Wow:
Yes.
You're learning!
With pleasure.
The argument conveyed in that quotation is NOT VALID!
It ought to be based on how many data sets are consistent with a remission of global warming, not how many institutes acknowledge the remission. As it stands, the argument is a matter of opinion, so the last sentence is precisely wrong.
To be redundantly clear, I'm asserting that this sentence:
is precisely wrong. The antecedent claim was an appeal to consensus (and therefore opinion) par excellence.
Lionel A:
What's wrong with calling for Climate Nuremberg Trials?
Your guys have been fantasising about it, in print and on air, for years. Well then. Bring it on. Our guys would like nothing better. Everyone's happy.
Right?
Yes Brad. Let's talk about *anything* except your errors.
Then we can move on to not talking about all that sneering by the Master Of Science™ at my supposed thickness.
How excruciatingly embarrassing that must be for you now. And *infuriating* too. Knowing that I am laughing at you. I know how you hate to be laughed at, Bradley.
" "Isn’t that an appeal to consensus authority?”"
Yes.
You’re learning!"
Yes, we're learning that you only whine about SOME people using consensus authority.
"What’s wrong with calling for Climate Nuremberg Trials?"
Yup, what's wrong with wanting dellingpole, watts, monckton, yourself, et al up for crimes against humanity.
You're learning.
'sfunny, though, you deniers always going on about suing the scientists for telling you things you can't accept but when it comes to it, you're just not able to find anything that works outside your echo chamber, or in the case of mad lord monkgish, running away.
"The argument conveyed in that quotation is NOT VALID!"
Hang on, when the climate scientists and the rest of the sane portion of humanity do an "appeal to consensus", you berate this as "PROOF" that AGW science is wrong.
Yet when deniers do it, it's "Oh, that's not valid".
NO.
If you're going to ATTACK like you'd said you'd do "With pleasure", it would be "The 'skeptic' position is falsified by them using an appeal to consensus".
Go on.
Say it.
The self-averred 'skeptics' who claim the IPCC wrong and AGW not a problem/ending/never was there/whatever todays meme is are invalidated in their arguments because this bloke used an appeal to consensus to support that position.
BBD:
If I sneered at you, then that's worth talking about.
If so, I apologise for it; but you know how things get in the heat of debate. We all make facial expressions we regret later.
On Tara's blog I've gone out of my way to argue that your faulty math was not a result of stupidity, dishonesty or lack of overall education, but rather was a perfectly sensible approach for a non-scientist to take:
http://tarascienceblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/375/#comment-556
My plea for cognitive empathy, reflection and tolerance ends with one of my favourite sayings. It reminds us that logic itself is (virtually if not actually) "subjective:"
One man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens.
#34.
That's real funny Brad. For a failed stand up comic.
Bullshit.
We're learning, much to your chagrin, that I'm scrupulously fair. If you draw a logical faux pas to my attention in the climate debate, no matter which "side" made it, I'll call it illegitimate without pulling punches.
By the way, the same goes for a moral faux pas. I denounced the 10:10 video about detonating children. I denounced the Heartland billboard about Ted Kaczynski. (Ross McKitrick got it right when he described the billboard as fallacious, puerile and offensive, I think.)
This is because I have integrity.
The average punter mightn't know enough about science, climate science or "The Science" to come to an informed verdict on the debate for themselves, but they do have the social intelligence to tell the difference between integrity on one hand, and zealous deletionist decline-hiding data-secreting pal-reviewing literature-gaming consensus-stacking character-assassinating death-cheering truth-stretching doubt-omitting scary-scenario-offering truth-versus-effectiveness-balancing on the other hand. And when they hear "scientists" speaking in a way that more befits image consultants, they know something has gone badly wrong. They may not know exactly what it is, and they may want to place a bet each way (by making token gestures of greenhouse propitiation, switching off at Earth Hour, buying that solar water heater they were always going to buy anyway, etc.); but they know better than to sign up to any meaningful sacrifice unless and until their suspicions are allayed.
People aren't as stupid as you hope, Wow.
Wow,
Sometimes I wonder whether you read my comments at all, or do you just skip them the way I skip most of yours?
No I bloody well don't. I denounce the argument as scientifically invalid. Do you even know the difference between "it's wrong" and "it's invalid," Wow? Don't be shy. If you don't know, just ask. We all know you never went to college, but this is important stuff to grasp if you want to become a less idiotic citizen.
Sure I also go a bit further. I also point out that true scientists would never knowingly make use of a scientifically invalid argument. Not only can it achieve nothing epistemologically (by definition), it's also prima facie unethical, because it's guaranteed to mislead non-scientists into assuming the argument is meaningful.
Therefore an argument from scientific consensus tells us nothing whatsoever about nature, but it does tell us about the standards and ethics of the people making it. And what it tells us is not good!
Oh, one last point: I consider the AGW theory to be correct. How many million times do you need this explained to you, Wow?
When deniers do it, it's not valid.
It's embarrassing. Not only is such an argument evidentially worthless, but just by making it, denialist consensualists lower themselves to (or at least towards) the level of the believalist consensualists.
Lionel,
You find the post-War Nuremberg investigations into crimes against humanity funny? Please share the joke with the rest of the class.
Boring.
Be careful what you wish for, Bradley.
Common moderator/s! ?????????
You're actually letting the faithful look silly! I'm laughing but it probably isn't fair to BBD et al.
I can see what they write but they can't see what I might insert in the meantime.
I have got rather sick of it but quite obviously Brad K hasn't!
You are actually disadvantaging your regulars.
Release Brad K from moderation at his own thread AND if you don't mind. . . PLEASE release me.
THERE IS NO SOCK! ! !
David B. Benson
Over.
Let me stress once more: I consider the AGW-theory to be correct.
But within the herd of elephants and wolves there is one cat whom you should NOT visualize as being pink. Moreover in this catastrophic association we all know climate sensitivity to carbontwooxide is nil whereas a temperature rise of sorts is agreeable, NOT catastrophic.
But let me tell you, AGW is correct, because I have integrity! Which no-one can say of IPCC, Lambert, Mann, Hansen and all those other fraudulent climate scientists who should be tried before Nuremberg NOW and not post-war!
Don't think of pink elephants, ever!
O and then there is the swallow thing. Well known it is that one swallow doeth no summer make, so a million swallows CERTAINLY make no summer!
"Moreover in this catastrophic association we all know climate sensitivity to carbontwooxide is nil"
Fair enough.
What do you think the climate sensitivity to the greenhouse gas CO2 is, though?
O Wow, please. Don’t be shy. If you don’t know, just ask. We all know you never went to college, but this is important stuff to grasp if you want to become a less idiotic citizen.
Sorry, let me be serious for a moment: I was just practising with picking keyesholes.
Me, I think climate sensitivity for a doubling of [CO2] of 1900 values is 4-5° C (including H2O feedback) to be gotten about a century or two after that doubling has happened. So, three or four more to go. Yes, I am a bit on the 'alarmist' side on this, primarily because I think the Arctic amplifications (multiple) in mainstream modelling (resulting in around +3, +3.5° C) might imo be slightly underestimated.
"O Wow, please. Don’t be shy. If you don’t know, just ask."
I did.
What do you think the climate sensitivity to the greenhouse gas CO2 is?
Or do you not know therefore you're avoiding the issue?
Of course it isn't, Bray.
Now THERE is bullshit.
As I said:
If this
Is true, then say it:
The self-averred ‘skeptics’ who claim the IPCC wrong and AGW not a problem/ending/never was there/whatever todays meme is are invalidated in their arguments because this bloke used an appeal to consensus to support that position.
The history of this threads 4000+ posts prove you a liar, Bray.
# 40
You proceed to link to your own, often-repeated and incorrect strawman.
There is no fault in the explanation of the way TCR evolves toward ECS. You remain wrong and you are *still* dishonestly claiming the fault is mine.
This has gone beyond tolerable limits again. Your behaviour is contemptible. You are a liar.
"You proceed to link to your own, often-repeated and incorrect strawman."
I.e. his only available M.O.
BK says:
Oh my sides.
Wow
Yup, he's stuck. He can't admit he's wrong because too much of his 'argument' hinges on underestimating TCR (and because he's an arrogant tosser). He's also too heavily invested in his Master Of Science™ posturing to admit a basic lack of core topic knowledge.
So he lies. And lies. And lies. In front of an unsympathetic audience. Sniggering is audible. Growing louder.
On the internet, everyone can see you pwned.
Wow #53, please read the second, larger paragraph of my #52. It answered your question and it is what I truly believe re climate sensitivity for CO2.
Apparently I fooled you totally with my word salad of posts above. What I was doing there was mimicking Brad Keyes. What this elaborate troll does is to declare himself convinced of AGW theory and evidence and then he systematically smears every bit of it plus and most vilely climate science and scientists.
It is demagogues trick: rule the mind by feeding it antitheses. Because antithese hypnotize, they are meant to stop thinking processes. Do not think of pink elephants. Arbeit macht frei and Jews were robber capitalists ánd communists at the same time et cetera.
Okay?
"Wow #53, please read the second, larger paragraph of my #52."
Why? You never read my entire post #51. Otherwise you wouldn't have sneered "just ask".
Wow, please, cRR Kampen is making a very good point about BK's playbook. I'm sure he didn't intend to 'sneer' at you. Nor, I think, is he writing in his first language, so it behoves us to make the extra effort to understand, and to be patient in the process. I would not wish to have to comment in German or Dutch (or any other major European language, come to that).
:-)
He's actually a troll, BBD.
Maybe long before your time here.
Can we keep the focus on the egregious Mr Keyes?
If that's a requirement, then you ought to be getting on crrtroll's back, shouldn't you.
Fight! Fight!
Well, reading to make a more exhaustive rebuttal and I've been poe'd.
i'd pretend this was deliberate to show those who claim "it's a poe" incorrectly what a poe *actually is*, but I don't think that'll work, really...
Apologies crr.
cRR Kampen's estimate of 4--5 K for 2xCO2 is about right for what is called Earth system sensitivity. It is determined by looking at paleodata from the Pliocene and Miocene.
If the Holocene does turn out to be something like MIS 11 (and why not, given the ~400ka orbital dynamics?) then the Lake El'gygytgyn cores give pause. Not our problem, certainly, but all that apparent non-linearity with added CO2?
What then?
You disappoint, Wow. Normally it takes you several pages at least to realize the ideology you're rabiately railing against is a figment of your own incomprehension, supplying us in the interim with 2 or 3 days of sustainable laughter.
Hang on—are you admitting that the purpose of “reading” cRR’s comment was to come up with a more exhaustive rebuttal of it? So when you're just attempting a regular, moderately-exhaustive rebuttal you don't normally deem it necessary to READ the comment you’re reacting to?
That would explain a few things! LOL
Here's the curious part though, Wow (and I’m confident that cRR will take note of it).
Even when you hadn’t read cRR's comments properly (if at all), even BEFORE you understood so much as which “side” he was on, you already saw fit to allege this about him:
Since your own comments up to that point had demonstrated such an encyclopedic unfamiliarity with cRR Kampen’s work—to the point of thinking he was a denier like me!—the obvious question is: where the hell did you get this allegation that he’s a veteran troll?
There is only one answer consistent with the facts in evidence. The answer is: you made it up out of whole cloth.
Strage bedfellows you’ve got there, cRR.
BBD,
evidently still fixated on his comfort topic (ECS), writes about me:
BBD, cover your ears. There are plenty of topics in science on which I lack the basic, core knowledge!
That's the thing about being trained in the scientific method (which, incidentally, only makes me a Jack of Science™). And you can unblock your ears now.
They teach you how scientists think about everything, but they don't cover what scientists think about everything. Science is a method, specificly a system of acquiring knowledge of truths about nature; it's not a laundry-lift of knowledge[s]. I have very little "core topic knowledge" in cosmology, for example. I would have been taught all about it if my science degree had been in Astronomy / Astrophysics, but otherwise that kind of thing is left up to the individual to acquire; I've never been very interested in outer space, so I never researched it. As a consequence, I know how science works but I have no idea how galaxies work. Most scientists are in exactly the same boat, mutatis mutandis.
Moving on: you repeatedly tell me I’m wrong about the temperature increase attributable to 395➞550ppmv. Not only am I wrong, in your opinion, but I should be embarrassed to think I’m right. Pray tell then, if I should be embarrassed—without ever having professed to be a climate scientist—then how humiliating do you think it is for Bernard J and David B. Benson to agree that I’m right? (I thank them again for their honesty and integrity in that matter.)
Nor is it a laundry-list of knowledge[s].
;-)
Wow,
your understanding of logic is no better than Lotharsson's:
The invalidity of an argument doesn't falsify its conclusion.
cRR:
Other than the A, G and W bits.
You've got me mixed up with someone else.
Most climate scientists are A-OK with me.
The lying anti-scientists constitute a tiny, necrotic focus within climate science. This zone of corruption is surrounded by a larger, indurated, hyperaemic, silent zone—the so-called "accessory zone," or "zone of complicity."
Name one antithesis I've fed you.
This doesn't even rise to the level of pop psychology. What are you going on about?
That's not an antithesis.
Let me guess: everything you know about psychology you learned from Inception, right?
That's not an antithesis.
Ugh. This nonsense is not even tangential to the debate, it's completely non-intersecting. Whom are you quoting, and why?
Wow #68, thank you. You have warned me I have to be very careful with that kind of sarcasm - it is dangerously easy to be misinterpreted. O well, actually I enjoy that kind of risk a bit :)
David re sensitivity, yes, I used paleoevidence to arrive at my conjecture. E.g. what is recently found from Greenland ice cores for temps during last optimum (~115,000 yrs ago) Thank you for the term.
@Wow, I owe you one explanation still, about "Don't be shy etc" in #52 - that I copy/pasted from #43, third paragraph. Expecting that would be recognized ;)
BBD, it appears I can be equally mystical in my first language, Dutch. Style. But I lived 4 years in Australia as a child so there are Brit memetics grown in my brain.
#67, q.e.d.
cRR,
In your attempted parody of me, you write:
So you've gone out of your way to associate CAGW disbelief with Judenhass, ethnic cleansing and concentration camps.
But when a disbeliever invokes Godwin's Law, you call him "paranoid":
Gosh, I wonder where Watts got that idea from?
:-)
Huh. Interesting that you were once a "denier," if not entirely surprising—for you do exhibit the clichéd enthusiasm of the overcompensating convert.
But what made you blame the sun, cielo? Well, let's go through the smorgasbord of theories you've proposed as explanations of "climate revisionism." (I hope I haven't missed any.)
Please pick the explanation[s] that applied to you when you were a "climate revisionist":
- you were a cryptopatriot
- you were a fascist who abhorred knowledge, science, intelligent thinking
- you were the kind of fascist that uses people and planet to waste for their own petty materialistic egocentrism (oh, long live death); the kind of fascist that would destroy the planet just for the fun of it
- you were the kind of fascist that has rape for a culture
- paranoia was part of your syndrome, but what it was really about was this: "¡Muera la inteligencia! ¡Viva la Muerte!"
- you were charging money for the classical fallacy of mixing climate with weather
Second question: what motivates Freeman Dyson's "revisionism"? Pick the explanation[s] that apply:
- he is a cryptopatriot
- he is a fascist who abhors knowledge, science, intelligent thinking
- he is the kind of fascist that uses people and planet to waste for his own petty materialistic egocentrism (oh, long live death); the kind of fascist that would destroy the planet just for the fun of it
- he is the kind of fascist that has rape for a culture
- paranoia is part of his syndrome, but what it's really about is this: "¡Muera la inteligencia! ¡Viva la Muerte!"
- he is charging money for the classical fallacy of mixing climate with weather
Thank you for your explanatory concerns,
"Brad Keyes"
Let's talk some more about Brad's errors.
It's worthwile keeping some evidence of Brad's rather... odd attidudes front and centre, as he likes to hide his mistakes behind lots of diversionary waffle laced with lies (eg # 40).
Let us return to this fascinating statement by Brad 'explaining' why he rejects the standard scientific understanding of the way TCR evolves towards equilibrium response. It provides insights into the rather... odd way Brad thinks:
So, according to Brad, correct understanding of the evolution of TCR toward equilibrium is:
objectionable
New Math
cheap trick
apples and oranges
Woo! Brad doesn't like the *correct explanation* for the way TCR evolves towards equilibrium response at all!
Instead of seeing the consequences of ocean thermal intertia in the behaviour of the forced system, he sees a "cheap trick" which is used to "blame" future TCR on past forcing. I think I hear a bat-squeak of paranoia...
While we wonder who is doing the "blaming" and why, Brad carries on:
Of course we compare the current, transient response with the future, equilibrium response. How else do we estimate how much warming will result if CO2 is stabilised at (purely for example) 550ppmv? I pointed out that the current response is transient, not equilibrium, right at the outset. I now believe BK simply didn't understand what I meant. He's done some frantic catch-up reading but it's too late; he has said far too much.
In Brad's odd world, we have to stabilise CO2 at 395ppmv and *wait* until the climate system reaches full equilibrium, *then* we can start adding more CO2 until we get to 550ppmv... That, apparently, is 'real science' - at least according to Brad (see above - the emphasis is Brad's own). Frankly, this is more than merely odd; it's bollocks.
But if you don't agree, our self-appointed Master Of Science™ will sneer that you are incapable of scientific reasoning and so forth.
Looking back, we see that according to Brad, the correct understanding of the evolution of TCR toward equilibrium is:
political [woo!]
it's not science [double woo!]
creative accounting
Let's add these interesting descriptions to the previous list:
objectionable
New Math
cheap trick
apples and oranges
political
it's not science
creative accounting
Wow. And all from just two short paragraphs. This is where Brad has gone galloping instead of simply admitting his obvious error. So *why* doesn't Brad just demonstrate some integrity and start chewing the crow?
I believe that he can’t admit he’s wrong because too much of his ‘argument’ hinges on underestimating TCR. He’s also too heavily invested in his Master Of Science™ posturing to be able to admit that he has completely failed to understand how TCR relates to ECS despite repeated explanations. The thought of being publicly exposed and ridiculed as a poseur and a comical prat is intolerable to him.
So he lies. And lies. And lies. In front of an unsympathetic audience. But the sniggering in the auditorium has now become outright laughter. What is poor Brad to do? How do you get out of a mess like this? The two paragraphs quoted above provide the answer:
And I looked, and behold a spavined horse: and his name that sat on him was Gish, and Brad followed with him.
Wow:
Gosh. I guess David B. Benson, Bernard J and I are just going to have to live with the shame of not getting the same answer as a mental midget like you, Wow.
We'll survive. Somehow, we'll survive.
BBD:
Oh come on. David, Bernard and (for the most part) myself have been nothing but gracious in vindication. Of the three of us, I'm the only one who even once rubbed your face in your error, which I only did because you keep banging on about it!
You're boring the readers, Dominic.
If you're really intent on prolonging the torture, you could at least answer the question I've been asking you for a couple of weeks now. Assuming an ECS of 2.5K and a current CO2 concentration of 395ppm: if a 550ppm world would be 1.8K warmer than today, how much warmer would a 400ppm world be?
Are you ready for a 400ppm world? ;-)
You are still wrong, Brad.
BBD,
Don't you mean:
?
Now that I have you here, let me ask:
1. Assuming an ECS of 2.5K and a current CO2 concentration of 395ppm: if a 550ppm world would be 1.8K warmer than today, how much warmer would a 400ppm world be?
2. What motivated you to deny CAGW a couple of years ago? Please pick the applicable statement[s]:
- you were a cryptopatriot
- you were a fascist who abhorred knowledge, science, intelligent thinking
- you were the kind of fascist that uses people and planet to waste for their own petty materialistic egocentrism (oh, long live death); the kind of fascist that would destroy the planet just for the fun of it
- you were the kind of fascist that has rape for a culture
- paranoia was part of your syndrome, but what it was really about was this: “¡Muera la inteligencia! ¡Viva la Muerte!”
- you were charging money for the classical fallacy of mixing climate with weather
It'll be a wetter world:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/07/1828331/when-it-rains-it-po…
A lot wetter!
Brad Keyes --- Your question is overly convoluted. For a constant 400 ppm world the equilibrium temperature increase over ca. 1850 CE temperature is
dT = 2.5ln(400/280)/ln(2)
with an expectation that about 55--60% of that is 'immediate', i.e., within decades.
David—I agree totally; but I want to see what BBD says.
And I want to know the increase over today, not over Amish times.
:-D
Thanks anyway!
Still wondering what happened to the mirror when Delingpole gazed into it and found a Brad Keyes -> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100210866/an-english-… .
Of course, there's another class: self-pwnage, such as not knowing what pwning is, just demonstrated there.
PS given the collapse of the corn farming in the USA, wheat farming in the USSR, lamb and potato farming in the UK and the everything farming in Aus, it seems like we aren't ready for a 400ppm world.
David B. Benson
Brad is being overly convoluted because he is trying to conceal the fact that he's wrong.
Incidentally, he has repeatedly insinuated that you *agree with* his odd ideas. # 82 is only the latest example of this. It would be useful if you objected to this behaviour. Then he might stop.
BBD
He cannot, like Delingpole he is too enamoured with his own wrecktoric.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histrionic_personality_disorder
Exhibitionist behavior
Constant seeking of reassurance or approval
Excessive sensitivity to criticism or disapproval
Pride of own personality and unwillingness to change, viewing any change as a threat
Inappropriately seductive appearance or behavior of a sexual nature
Using somatic symptoms (of physical illness) to garner attention
A need to be the center of attention
Low tolerance for frustration or delayed gratification
Rapidly shifting emotional states that may appear superficial or exaggerated to others
Tendency to believe that relationships are more intimate than they actually are
Making rash decisions[4]
Blaming personal failures or disappointments on others
Being easily influenced by others, especially those who treat them approvingly
Being overly dramatic and emotional[6]
+++
Several deniers, but mostly bray and joan seem to be entirely made of several of these tells.
Brad
dT = 2.5ln(400/280)/ln(2) = ~ 1.3C at equilibrium
So although we'll get to 400ppmv in a couple of years there will be ~0.5C 'in the pipeline' leading towards equilibrium. TCR, not ECS.
See where you went wrong yet, Brad?
And we aren't going to stop at 400ppmv. Or 550ppmv, come to that. And once we get up into the 600 - 900ppmv range, even assuming a low value for ECS as we have done (purely to humour you), then there will be major warming.
But I'm fed up with pandering to your pollyanna-ish crypto-denial. Let's look at something more realistic:
dT = 3 ln(800/280)/in(2) = 4.5C
You mean, why was I formerly a 'lukewarmer'. Fear and denial, Brad. Fear and denial. Enabled by reading Lindzen and Spencer uncritically and without context.
We live and learn, or at least some of us do.
Perhaps at some point it will occur to you that the only reason I have spent so much time on you is because I was once as big a fool as you are now.
No. I mean *you* are still wrong Brad.
Why do you keep pretending that others agree with your odd ideas when they obviously don't? That's misrepresentation. It's dishonest and you should not do it.
#93 BBD --- Yes, that answers Brad's question.
David B. Benson & Brad Keyes
Brad says:
What error?
BBD:
Sorry, I'll try to be more open about my denial. ;-)
BBD:
If you were a 'lukewarmer' then, does that make me a 'lukewarmer' now? OK.
Honestly? You were afraid of the effects of climate change? And that's what motivated you to look for a way to discredit The Science™? And when you found it, did you feel relief from the fear?
If this is an accurate recollection, then you were reasoning in a very silly and unscientific way. This is "motivated reasoning" (h/t Dan Kahan etc) par excellence. Notwithstanding your silliness, it must have taken great intellectual honesty to subsequently change your mind when you thought the evidence pointed towards the thing you feared. Even though you ultimately came to the wrong conclusion, I congratulate you for having the courage.
Do you reckon your story would also apply to many, or most, other 'lukewarmers'?
I'd like to say I can relate to it, but I can't. My "lukewarmism" comes from the opposite consideration, if anything: AGW may be real but it has never been remotely scary to me.
So please be careful not to assume that I, or anyone else, rejects climate alarmism for the same reasons you once did.
I'd be rather surprised if more than 1% of "lukewarmers" are adopting their position out of "fear and denial." This is simply not how normal people think. No offence, BBD. It's pathological (as I'm sure you'd agree); natural selection tends to make short work of individuals who "deny" the signs of what they "fear."
Well, there's your mistake right there.
My "skepticism" comes from the work of people like Oreskes, Mann and Marcott and the practices of the IPCC. I knew CAGW was bullshit long before I was even aware that so many distinguished scientists agreed with me. I hadn't even heard the name "Richard Lindzen."
Or perhaps it will dawn on you that the only reason I spend so much time on you is that you were once as smart as me.
The indictments you levelled against The Science™ at Bishop Hill are devastating. Ironically, because you're not a scientist you don't realize how good your arguments were. If you genuinely want to redeem me from my delusion then the first, minimal step is to tell me why those arguments were misguided. Why aren't you doing that?
No. Why the hell would it?