thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: As for science limiting free inquiry. We don't need to imagine "conspiracy" to have that happen. Group-think is a thing, even among the highly educated. That in fact has happened many times in the past and is happening today across several different fields. Climate science, because of the political aspect (which we won't be discussing here), has certain research programs that are anathema. It's exactly the same conspiracy theory that climate skeptics use to explain why the science isn't on their side: Research that doesn't agree doesn't get funded or published. "I know I'm right and if the scientific literature doesn't agree, then there must be something wrong with the process. It couldn't be that I've got it wrong."
Mind you, solar is great too. I certainly wouldn't argue against solar. Though, doesn't solar have the same problems with intermittency as wind and need the same kind of power storage solutions? One advantage to having both is that they're differently intermittent. They peak at different times and shut down at different times. My link to the travails of Georgia Tech Climatologist Judith Curry were simply to show that credible scientists at good universities were shutdown for even daring to significantly criticize climate science. Once she announced her retirement, and why she retired, she was contacted by a number of colleagues in the US and Europe who expressed similar concerns - who dared not speak up for fear of losing their jobs. My original source was listening to an interview of Judith and not the particular link I posted above. That interview is apparently not on the InterWebs, hence the link just to show I wasn't making stuff up. I'm moderately certain I was streaming something from BBC when I listened to that interview.
As for the paper CB linked to just recently. Namely, Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar , it is a rather telling study.
PNAS wrote: The conclusions reached by the study* about the performance and cost of a system of “100% penetration of intermittent wind, water and solar for all purposes” are not supported by adequate and realistic analysis and do not provide a reliable guide to whether and at what cost such a transition might be achieved. In contrast, the weight of the evidence suggests that a broad portfolio of energy options will help facilitate an affordable transition to a near-zero emission energy system. In short, the idea of getting over to only wind and solar (with a minor amount of hydro and geothermal) in the USA, even by 2050, is a canard. The paper* by Jacobson et al is a sad commentary on the state of inquiry in the field today. A professor like Judith gets slammed for reasonable doubts while Jacobson et al actually get published (in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences no less!) despite the risible quality of the paper they wrote.
I am not expressing a "conspiracy" regarding the feasibility of wind power, but merely stating certain "inconvenient truths" (and yes CB I know I just plagiarized Al Gore, sorry... no, actually not sorry :D) that show most large scale installations to be boondoggles. Because they are.
* {Jacobson MZ, Delucchi MA, Cameron MA, Frew BA (2015) Low-cost solution to the grid reliability problem with 100% penetration of intermittent wind, water, and solar for all purposes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:15060–15065}
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: As for science limiting free inquiry. We don't need to imagine "conspiracy" to have that happen. Group-think is a thing, even among the highly educated. That in fact has happened many times in the past and is happening today across several different fields. Climate science, because of the political aspect (which we won't be discussing here), has certain research programs that are anathema. It's exactly the same conspiracy theory that climate skeptics use to explain why the science isn't on their side: Research that doesn't agree doesn't get funded or published. "I know I'm right and if the scientific literature doesn't agree, then there must be something wrong with the process. It couldn't be that I've got it wrong."
Mind you, solar is great too. I certainly wouldn't argue against solar. Though, doesn't solar have the same problems with intermittency as wind and need the same kind of power storage solutions? One advantage to having both is that they're differently intermittent. They peak at different times and shut down at different times. My link to the travails of Georgia Tech Climatologist Judith Curry were simply to show that credible scientists at good universities were shutdown for even daring to significantly criticize climate science. Once she announced her retirement, and why she retired, she was contacted by a number of colleagues in the US and Europe who expressed similar concerns - who dared not speak up for fear of losing their jobs. My original source was listening to an interview of Judith and not the particular link I posted above. That interview is apparently not on the InterWebs, hence the link just to show I wasn't making stuff up. I'm moderately certain I was streaming something from BBC when I listened to that interview.
As for the paper CB linked to just recently. Namely, Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid... "This mainstream scientific criticism of renewable energy not only proves I'm right about wind not being viable, but that scientists get shutdown if they dare criticize climate science." Do you even know what you sound like?
You're doing exactly what you were accused of above, except more so by taking both tacks in the same post.
Have the scientists who dared submit that evaluation been shunned and driven out of their jobs? Have those who Curry claims contacted her to express their similar concerns come forward or are they just hearsay from her?
Remember, once you start accepting Curry's argument that credible scientists lose their jobs for criticizing climate science, it's not just the claims you don't like that you have to question, it's everything. Not just the evidence against wind being a good source, but the evidence against climate change in the first place could be suppressed. That's what she claims. It's certainly possible, but it's also been the first claim of kooks in every field for decades and it's rarely held up. Potentially on a small scale, but nothing like these claims.
To be honest, that Evaluation of the Jacobson study looks like how science works to me. Someone publishes a study. Someone else publishes a critique. Others critique the critique - There's a letter linked in the Evaluation responding too it. And so on.
thejeff wrote: "This mainstream scientific criticism of renewable energy not only proves I'm right about wind not being viable, but that scientists get shutdown if they dare criticize climate science." Do you even know what you sound like? Do I know what I sound like?
Since that "quote" isn't from me I'm not sure what you're driving at, except maybe slander.
thejeff wrote: You're doing exactly what you were accused of above, except more so by taking both tacks in the same post. I'm stating the facts. Judith was hounded for her position. A position argued from the data.
The link I posted just up thread, this one here: Mother Jones telling it like it is.
The overall issue can be summed up: 'It's us, not them'.
Though I admit the title isn't one to engender much resonance from the accused: <cough> Liberals and Climate Change: Not Yet a Happy Marriage </cough>
Stating the scientific equivalent of that will get you shunned. Because it's your peers that are reviewing what you are submitting and they aren't going to want to hear those kinds of facts no matter how nicely you phrase it. Nor does it matter what data you bring to the argument.
thejeff wrote: Have the scientists who dared submit that evaluation been shunned and driven out of their jobs? Have those who Curry claims contacted her to express their similar concerns come forward or are they just hearsay from her? The one's speaking up were either also retired or nominally working as "professor emeritus". Wind power is a boondoggle for the majority of the large scale installations and saying so isn't a career enhancing move. That's why the only negative published studies are by biologists who talk about dead birds. But alas none of them will put a dollar value to those dead birds, or to any of the other drawbacks of large scale wind power projects.
The paper criticized was titled "Low-cost solution to the grid reliability problem with 100% penetration of intermittent wind, water, and solar for all purposes" and just about every word in there is a flat out lie. And not difficult or obscure lies to ferret out.
That "solution" proposed in that paper in fact is not "low-cost", does not offer a "solution to the grid reliability problem", cannot hope to get "100% penetration" even by 2050, and has not a ghost of a chance to be used for "all purposes".
How did such crap get published by PNAS?
I don't think it's a conspiracy but there is a monstrous dollop of complicity among the peer group.
thejeff wrote: Remember, once you start accepting Curry's argument that credible scientists lose their jobs for criticizing climate science, it's not just the claims you don't like that you have to question, it's everything. Not just the evidence against wind being a good source, but the evidence against climate change in the first place could be suppressed. That's what she claims. It's certainly possible, but it's also been the first claim of kooks in every field for decades and it's rarely held up. Potentially on a small scale, but nothing like these claims. People look the other way for all sorts of reasons. Some of them self interest (money or prestige), some of them out of "laziness" (I've got 40 requests to review papers in the last month), some out of ignorance (If you're a specialist on sub-glacial melting, professionally what do you care about the hidden inefficiencies of wind power installation? ).
thejeff wrote: To be honest, that Evaluation of the Jacobson study looks like how science works to me. Someone publishes a study. Someone else publishes a critique. Others critique the critique - There's a letter linked in the Evaluation responding too it. And so on. Yes, "and so on"... and now we have dozens of wind power installations doing nearly nothing for AGW while costing plenty (taxpayers are out, soaring birds are out, bats are out, blades not turning because there's no wind and/or because there's no demand when there is wind, etc.).
Better energy efficiency standards set 25 years ago would've made far more impact on global CO2 than all the wind farms combined. Even something modest like 3% improvements per year (in refrigeration, or MPG, etc.), or a switch to an obviously better technology (LED instead of incandescent for most applications).
So... I guess now would be a good time for Galactus to drop by huh?
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: As for science limiting free inquiry. We don't need to imagine "conspiracy" to have that happen. Group-think is a thing, even among the highly educated. That in fact has happened many times in the past and is happening today across several different fields. Climate science, because of the political aspect (which we won't be discussing here), has certain research programs that are anathema. It's exactly the same conspiracy theory that climate skeptics use to explain why the science isn't on their side: Research that doesn't agree doesn't get funded or published. "I know I'm right and if the scientific literature doesn't agree, then there must be something wrong with the process. It couldn't be that I've got it wrong."
Mind you, solar is great too. I certainly wouldn't argue against solar. Though, doesn't solar have the same problems with intermittency as wind and need the same kind of power storage solutions? One advantage to having both is that they're differently intermittent. They peak at different times and shut down at different times. My link to the travails of Georgia Tech Climatologist Judith Curry were simply to show that credible scientists at good universities were shutdown for even daring to significantly criticize climate science. Once she announced her retirement, and why she retired, she was contacted by a number of colleagues in the US and Europe who expressed similar concerns - who dared not speak up for fear of losing their jobs. My original source was listening to an interview of Judith and not the particular link I posted above. That interview is apparently not on the InterWebs, hence the link just to show I wasn't making stuff up. I'm moderately certain I was streaming something from BBC when I listened to that interview.
As for the paper CB linked to just recently. Namely, Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid... Was she fired? Or did she quit?
Cause... you keep adding language around her situation to make it sound like she was forced out. But she wasn't. She chose to leave. Yes, she was unhappy with her situation... but that's her choice.
So, you are trying to b*~+*@@+ this into proving your point, when it doesn't.
Quark Blast wrote: Climate science, because of the political aspect (which we won't be discussing here), has certain research programs that are anathema. Except that every time you have specified what these supposedly 'anathema' topics are you have been proven wrong by citations of published research. In short... it's a proven lie.
Quark Blast wrote: I'm stating the facts. Judith was hounded for her position. A position argued from the data. Except that even when Judith Curry's own data (in the BEST study as previously discussed) contradicted her position she disavowed it. In short... she wasn't arguing from the data at all. It's a proven lie.
Quark Blast wrote: The paper criticized was titled "Low-cost solution to the grid reliability problem with 100% penetration of intermittent wind, water, and solar for all purposes" and just about every word in there is a flat out lie. And not difficult or obscure lies to ferret out. Great. Since it is so easy you'll doubtless be able to provide details proving one of these things was a lie. Except, of course... that they weren't and now that a couple years have passed the Jacobson study is generally considered reasonable and further advances (especially falling battery costs) are making it seem conservative.
Quark Blast wrote: we have dozens of wind power installations doing nearly nothing for AGW while costing plenty (taxpayers are out, soaring birds are out, bats are out, blades not turning because there's no wind and/or because there's no demand when there is wind, etc.). Sorry, but repeating accusations you are unable to defend doesn't make them any less false. You'd previously been reduced to claiming that wind power disproportionately kills specific unidentified species of endangered birds... but repeatedly failed to respond when challenged to back up that claim.
Returning to the wider claim of bird kills in general, without having even tried to dispute the studies showing that fossil fuel power kills more birds than wind power, makes your position blind subservience to an ideology with no concern for evidence or reality.
So now I see CB has arrogated to himself as the 'answer-man' for thejeff.
Unfortunately, as always, he "misunderstands" virtually everything I post.
As a worthy rejoinder to his most recent "contribution" to our dialog, let me say this:
Now for a far more important announcement:
Scientists: Window for avoiding 1.5C global warming ‘closed’
Climate Home News wrote: “The window for limiting warming to below 1.5C with high probability and without temporarily exceeding that level already seems to have closed,” the report found. Nature wrote: The Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) collectively lower greenhouse gas emissions compared to where current policies stand, but still imply a median warming of 2.6–3.1 degrees Celsius by 2100. Normally I love being right. This time? Not so much.
Now, I understand that some entities can overshoot their INDCs and that continued improvements in tech will allow that to happen with increasing relative ease, such that a lower median can be achieved, but that's pretty much what I've been saying all along. Namely, that current targets+efforts will get us to a +2.5°C year 2100, or more, baring near-miracle tech.
I'm still hyped on fusion cause that will actually allow CCS to be profitably engaged in and without some sort of CCS even a +2.5°C year 2100 is simply out of reach.
So if that's a no on Galactus, should I then ask Thanos? Or that just over kill?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: So now I see CB has arrogated to himself as the 'answer-man' for thejeff.
Unfortunately, as always, he "misunderstands" virtually everything I post.
As a worthy rejoinder to his most recent "contribution" to our dialog, let me say this:
"I am right. If you disagree, you merely misunderstood, and I will not clear this up at all. Now, I will walk away without answering any questions. I won. Huzzah."
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Thomas Seitz wrote: So if that's a no on Galactus, should I then ask Thanos? Or that just over kill? I think Ultron's gonna do the job just fine.
Quark Blast wrote: Now for a far more important announcement:
Scientists: Window for avoiding 1.5C global warming ‘closed’
Climate Home News wrote: “The window for limiting warming to below 1.5C with high probability and without temporarily exceeding that level already seems to have closed,” the report found. Nature wrote: The Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) collectively lower greenhouse gas emissions compared to where current policies stand, but still imply a median warming of 2.6–3.1 degrees Celsius by 2100. Normally I love being right. This time? Not so much.
Now, I understand that some entities can overshoot their INDCs and that continued improvements in tech will allow that to happen with increasing relative ease, such that a lower median can be achieved, but that's pretty much what I've been saying all along. Namely, that current targets+efforts will get us to a +2.5°C year 2100, or more, baring near-miracle tech.
I'm still hyped on fusion cause that will actually allow CCS to be profitably engaged in and without some sort of CCS even a +2.5°C year 2100 is simply out of reach.
Now, Judith Curry would reply that she doesn't find any of this conclusive that the issue is real... right? Also, she'd say we shouldn't listen to scare mongering from politically motivated scientists.
Irontruth wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Now for a far more important announcement:
Scientists: Window for avoiding 1.5C global warming ‘closed’
Climate Home News wrote: “The window for limiting warming to below 1.5C with high probability and without temporarily exceeding that level already seems to have closed,” the report found. Nature wrote: The Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) collectively lower greenhouse gas emissions compared to where current policies stand, but still imply a median warming of 2.6–3.1 degrees Celsius by 2100. Normally I love being right. This time? Not so much.
Now, I understand that some entities can overshoot their INDCs and that continued improvements in tech will allow that to happen with increasing relative ease, such that a lower median can be achieved, but that's pretty much what I've been saying all along. Namely, that current targets+efforts will get us to a +2.5°C year 2100, or more, baring near-miracle tech.
I'm still hyped on fusion cause that will actually allow CCS to be profitably engaged in and without some sort of CCS even a +2.5°C year 2100 is simply out of reach.
Now, Judith Curry would reply that she doesn't find any of this conclusive that the issue is real... right? Also, she'd say we shouldn't listen to scare mongering from politically motivated scientists. There are plenty of scientists with counter evidence that just can't get it published because of that politically motivated bias.
Now that QB's latest diversions have all descended into absurdity...
I'm somewhat encouraged by a recent spate of news on solar powered cars. Lightyear, Sono,and Hyundai all have new models with significant solar range in development and Toyota is testing a 'next gen' solar vehicle with >34% efficient thin film panels.
The Toyota test vehicle is particularly interesting as the average daily range supplied by solar charging should come in nearly equal to the average daily commute in the US... and thus greater than the average commute in most other countries. That introduces the possibility of most cars seldom or never needing to be plugged in. Further, if they ARE plugged in (thus allowing power to flow from the car to the grid) it creates a really interesting sort of self assembling virtual power plant...
Take an event like a major concert (think Woodstock) or an evacuation to a neighboring town in the face of forest fires. Suddenly, that location has a lot more people, and thus more need for electricity, than normal... yet at the same time the cars the people used to get there are generating power from sunlight and plugged in to the local grid... providing much of the extra power needed.
The inherent connection between shifts in where people are located and where their cars are located means that grid connected solar powered vehicles could become a form of automatic load balancing. This probably doesn't become viable until somewhere around the ~34% efficiency that Toyota is currently testing, but given that even higher efficiencies will be available in the future the 'portable personal power plant' aspect could become a strong argument for putting solar on vehicles.
Are Climate Scientists Being Forced to Toe the Line?
Spiegel wrote: After joining a controversial lobby group critical of climate change, meteorologist Lennart Bengtsson claims he was shunned by colleagues, leading him to quit. Some scientists complain pressure to conform to consensus opinion has become a serious hindrance in the field....
.
The scientific journal Environmental Research Letters declined to publish a study he had authored predicting a milder greenhouse effect. Peer reviewers described the report's findings as "less than helpful" and added, "actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of 'errors' and worse from the climate-skeptic media side."
Respected German meteorologist Hans von Storch of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Center, described the justification as "scandalous" and accused the journal of politically motivated decision-making not based on scientific standards....
.
Pielke elaborates, "In a democracy people will organize around all sorts of shared interests, as they should, and many will share values that I don't. So what? Bengtsson's justifications for associating with GWPF are perfectly legitimate. That he was pressured by his peers with social and other sanctions reflects the deeply politicized nature of this issue."...
.
Roger Pielke Sr., a senior research scientist at the University of Colorado and Pielke Jr.'s father, says, "Unfortunately, climate science has become very politicized and views that differ at all from those in control of the climate assessment process are either ignored or ridiculed. From my experience, I agree 100 percent with the allegations made by the very distinguished Lennart Bengtsson."...
.
Climatologist Michael Mann even speaks of "climate wars." For years, he says he was the subject of attacks by conservative groups skeptical of climate change, especially after the "Climategate" scandal, when his e-mail correspondence was published illegally. The other side is not pulling any punches either -- at least when it comes to vitriol. One Austrian professor has gone so far as calling for the death penalty for climate skeptics.
Miller says that scientists were politicized more than anything else by having to seek a consensus on results for the 5th IPCC report. "Global warming is taken as dogma. Anyone who doubts it is bad," says the renowned researcher, who was branded a "climate skeptic" after questioning the scientific validity of computer simulations.
.
And then there's John Christy:
Though Scorned by Colleagues, a Climate-Change Skeptic Is Unbowed
NYT wrote: “I detest words like ‘contrarian’ and ‘denier,’ ” he said. “I’m a data-driven climate scientist. Every time I hear that phrase, ‘The science is settled,’ I say I can easily demonstrate that that is false, because this is the climate — right here. The science is not settled.”
Dr. Christy was pointing to a chart comparing seven computer projections of global atmospheric temperatures based on measurements taken by satellites and weather balloons. The projections traced a sharp upward slope; the actual measurements, however, ticked up only slightly...
.
And while his work has been widely published, he has often been vilified by his peers. Dr. Christy is mentioned, usually critically, in dozens of the so-called Climategate emails that were hacked from the computers of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Center, the British keeper of global temperature records, in 2009.
“John Christy has made a scientific career out of being wrong,” one prominent climate scientist, Benjamin D. Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, wrote in one 2008 email. “He’s not even a third-rate scientist.”
Another email included a photographic collage showing Dr. Christy and other scientists who question the extent of global warming, some stranded on a tiny ice floe labeled “North Pole” and others buoyed in the sea by a life jacket and a yellow rubber ducky. A cartoon balloon depicts three of them saying, “Global warming is a hoax.”...
.
He says he worries that his climate stances are affecting his chances of publishing future research and winning grants. The largest of them, a four-year Department of Energy stipend to investigate discrepancies between climate models and real-world data, expires in September.
“There’s a climate establishment,” Dr. Christy said. “And I’m not in it.”
Judith was not a lone crazy person but is a genuine scientist not afraid to go where the data leads her.
I find it telling that statements critical of her, posted just up thread, are only statements from her staunchest critics and/or people who really don't know her or her scientific work.
A "climate establishment" indeed!
Quark Blast wrote: Judith was not a lone crazy person Absolutely true. Pielke, Christy, and others are nearly as 'crazy' (your word) as Curry is.
Quark Blast wrote: but is a genuine scientist not afraid to go where the data leads her. Again, absolutely false. She repudiated her own findings when they disproved her preconceptions. This puts her a step lower on the 'actual scientist' scale than Pielke (who simply ignores data disproving his position), who is in turn a step below Christy (who at least admits he was wrong when that has been proven beyond all possible doubt... so, like a dozen times now).
The fact that other people also believe in ridiculous conspiracy theories does not make your belief any less ridiculous.
It is also just absurd that you are now arguing that there is a world wide scientific conspiracy to 'fake' global warming... while previously having cited any and every paper which you thought supported your claims that global warming is so bad that we can't possibly stop it from causing catastrophe.
Pick a false reality already. Your logical inconsistency is getting out of hand.
Quark Blast wrote: Are Climate Scientists Being Forced to Toe the Line?
Spiegel wrote: After joining a controversial lobby group critical of climate change, meteorologist Lennart Bengtsson claims he was shunned by colleagues, leading him to quit. Some scientists complain pressure to conform to consensus opinion has become a serious hindrance in the field....
.
The scientific journal Environmental Research Letters declined to publish a study he had authored predicting a milder greenhouse effect. Peer reviewers described the report's findings as "less than helpful" and added, "actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of 'errors' and worse from the climate-skeptic media side."
Respected German meteorologist Hans von Storch of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Center, described the justification as "scandalous" and accused the journal of politically motivated decision-making not based on scientific standards....
.
Pielke elaborates, "In a democracy people will organize around all sorts of shared interests, as they should, and many will share values that I don't. So what? Bengtsson's justifications for associating with GWPF are perfectly legitimate. That he was pressured by his peers with social and other sanctions reflects the deeply politicized nature of this issue."...
.
Roger Pielke Sr., a senior research scientist at the University of Colorado and Pielke Jr.'s father, says, "Unfortunately, climate science has become very politicized and views that differ at all from those in control of the climate assessment process are either ignored or ridiculed. From my experience, I agree 100 percent with the allegations made by the very distinguished Lennart Bengtsson."...
.
Climatologist Michael Mann even speaks of "climate wars." For years, he says he was the subject of
...
You're citing a bunch of infighting amongst humans.
Do you have research findings from one of these people that you would like to discuss?
What findings of theirs that you think are credible and are being ignored by the scientific community? (note, I'm going to laugh if you link something that these people think warming will be less than 2.0, since that would directly contradict your own argument for the past 40 pages)
CBDunkerson wrote: The fact that other people also believe in ridiculous conspiracy theories does not make your belief any less ridiculous.
It is also just absurd that you are now arguing that there is a world wide scientific conspiracy to 'fake' global warming... while previously having cited any and every paper which you thought supported your claims that global warming is so bad that we can't possibly stop it from causing catastrophe.
Pick a false reality already. Your logical inconsistency is getting out of hand.
I think pretty much the only response to any of QB's links necessary from this point on is "But that's just because those scientists are being forced to toe the climate change line."
thejeff wrote: CBDunkerson wrote: The fact that other people also believe in ridiculous conspiracy theories does not make your belief any less ridiculous.
It is also just absurd that you are now arguing that there is a world wide scientific conspiracy to 'fake' global warming... while previously having cited any and every paper which you thought supported your claims that global warming is so bad that we can't possibly stop it from causing catastrophe.
Pick a false reality already. Your logical inconsistency is getting out of hand.
I think pretty much the only response to any of QB's links necessary from this point on is "But that's just because those scientists are being forced to toe the climate change line." Oh no! Not "forced to". I think the majority of climate scientists are not the lest bit skeptical; in the interest of their own jobs/careers if for nothing else. Nope, they believe their hype, which is why they have no compunction about shaming/shunning minority opinions. Just another group involved in group-think.
Also, a word about the word conspiracy:
Just a friendly reminder to those who purposely misread my posts (that would be pretty much everyone except thejeff):
"climate establishment" ≠ "conspiracy".
But of course they already know that.
Eat less meat: UN climate change report calls for change to human diet
Notice the contrast in these expressed "expert" opinions from the same article:
Nature wrote: While fossil fuel burning for energy generation and transport garners the most attention, activities relating to land management, including agriculture and forestry, produce almost a quarter of heat-trapping gases. The race to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels ― the goal of the international Paris climate agreement reached in 2015 ― might be a lost battle unless land is used in a more sustainable and climate-friendly way, the latest IPCC report says. .
Nature wrote: “It’s really exciting that the IPCC is getting such a strong message across,” says Ruth Richardson, the Toronto, Canada-based executive director at the Global Alliance for the Future of Food, a strategic coalitions of philanthropic foundations. “We need a radical transformation, not incremental shifts, towards a global land use and food system that serves our climate needs.” .
So do we need to be "radical" or "might" we only be needing to think about being more sustainable as a species?
It's funny too because it's like these guys aren't aware of their colleagues' work, and it's their job to know ! Just yesterday I posted this:
Climate Home News wrote: “The window for limiting warming to below 1.5C with high probability and without temporarily exceeding that level already seems to have closed,” the report found.
Devon Northwood wrote: Thomas Seitz wrote: So if that's a no on Galactus, should I then ask Thanos? Or that just over kill? I think Ultron's gonna do the job just fine. Nah. I mean he might...but I'd prefer we get someone I like. I never much like Ultron. Thanos is cool because when Cosmic Ghost Rider does a Penance Stare on him, he smiles.
Quark Blast wrote: Eat less meat: UN climate change report calls for change to human diet
Notice the contrast in these expressed "expert" opinions from the same article:
Nature wrote: While fossil fuel burning for energy generation and transport garners the most attention, activities relating to land management, including agriculture and forestry, produce almost a quarter of heat-trapping gases. The race to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels ― the goal of the international Paris climate agreement reached in 2015 ― might be a lost battle unless land is used in a more sustainable and climate-friendly way, the latest IPCC report says. .
Nature wrote: “It’s really exciting that the IPCC is getting such a strong message across,” says Ruth Richardson, the Toronto, Canada-based executive director at the Global Alliance for the Future of Food, a strategic coalitions of philanthropic foundations. “We need a radical transformation, not incremental shifts, towards a global land use and food system that serves our climate needs.” .
So do we need to be "radical" or "might" we only be needing to think about being more sustainable as a species?
It's funny too because it's like these guys aren't aware of their colleagues' work, and it's their job to know ! Just yesterday I posted this:
Climate Home News wrote: “The window for limiting warming to below 1.5C with high probability and without temporarily exceeding that level already seems to have closed,” the report found.
But isn't that just these scientists being forced to toe the line? I'm sorry: involved in group-think, caught in their own hype, in the interest of their careers?
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: I think pretty much the only response to any of QB's links necessary from this point on is "But that's just because those scientists are being forced to toe the climate change line." Oh no! Not "forced to". I think the majority of climate scientists are not the lest bit skeptical; in the interest of their own jobs/careers if for nothing else. Nope, they believe their hype, which is why they have no compunction about shaming/shunning minority opinions. Just another group involved in group-think.
Also, a word about the word conspiracy:
Just a friendly reminder to those who purposely misread my posts (that would be pretty much everyone except thejeff):
"climate establishment" ≠ "conspiracy".
But of course they already know that. First, it is extremely telling that instead of adressing the main points (that you are arguing both for AND against climate change and that your "pressured scientist" argument can be used against pretty much every possible position in the debate) you're going of on a tangent about you never using the phrases "conspiracy" and "forced to".
Second, if no one is forcing anyone and there is no conspiracy, then why are people afraid to be sceptic? Where is the mainstream pressure coming FROM? Group-think starts from requirements like "no/small outside incentives to leave the group" or "small, somewhat isolated group". The climate scientist community is large and distributed around the entire world, and there are big, concrete incentives to leave the group (the last guy to postulate that climate change is a chinese hoax was subsequently elected President of the United States). Plus, this pressure had to start somewhere, and 20 years ago CC-advocates got laughed out of the room when they talked about stopping climate change.
And third, I know we all want to believe we are the one shining light of reason, the galileo in a sea full of ignorant popes, but 4 out of 5 time, when everybody constantly misunderstands you - then the problem is YOU, not them.
But he can't be wrong, he got an A in a class taught by a prominent climate scientist.
thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Eat less meat: UN climate change report calls for change to human diet
Notice the contrast in these expressed "expert" opinions from the same article:
Nature wrote: While fossil fuel burning for energy generation and transport garners the most attention, activities relating to land management, including agriculture and forestry, produce almost a quarter of heat-trapping gases. The race to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels ― the goal of the international Paris climate agreement reached in 2015 ― might be a lost battle unless land is used in a more sustainable and climate-friendly way, the latest IPCC report says. .
Nature wrote: “It’s really exciting that the IPCC is getting such a strong message across,” says Ruth Richardson, the Toronto, Canada-based executive director at the Global Alliance for the Future of Food, a strategic coalitions of philanthropic foundations. “We need a radical transformation, not incremental shifts, towards a global land use and food system that serves our climate needs.” .
So do we need to be "radical" or "might" we only be needing to think about being more sustainable as a species?
It's funny too because it's like these guys aren't aware of their colleagues' work, and it's their job to know ! Just yesterday I posted this:
Climate Home News wrote: “The window for limiting warming to below 1.5C with high probability and without temporarily exceeding that level already seems to have closed,” the report found.
But isn't that just these scientists being forced to toe the line? I'm sorry: involved in group-think, caught in their own hype, in the interest of their careers? Which scientists?
There is a shift going on as to what the consensus is. I've been posting about it for pages now. The shift? We see formal publications moving from, "AGW is bad but here's how we get a handle on it", to, "AGW has us so ###### that if we don't go vegan and stop breeding now the planet is totally screwed for thousands of years".
OK, I exaggerate the degree but it's heading that direction. No more calm reassurances and BIG international conferences (with 30k members and press all pledging to do stuff - in the future), now we are told to "get it in gear people or the #### will hitteth the fan forthwith".
All that aside, Judith/John Christy/ et al were, in part, simply criticizing the limited data being presented as conclusive, and/or criticizing the extrapolation of data, and/or criticizing linear interpretations of our very non-linear reality.
That they would be hounded is sad (you saw the "Climategate" emails so you cannot deny they were hounded in a group-think/juvenile/middle school sort of way) but, given what the Internet is transforming our global society into (everything must be expressed as an outrage ! ), it's not too surprising anymore. My college ethics professor regaled us with real situations/conflicts that have gone on since he became professor 30+ years ago (with names helpfully redacted and/or actuall situations somewhat remote from the present to protect the guilty) and I must say humanity is a sad lot. We're talking Ivory Tower "woke" PhDs that can't get along in the most petty and demeaning ways.
It's no small irony that the institution designated to teach ethics to our future leaders practices ethics so poorly.
Devon Northwood wrote: And third, I know we all want to believe we are the one shining light of reason, the galileo in a sea full of ignorant popes, but 4 out of 5 time, when everybody constantly misunderstands you - then the problem is YOU, not them. You're srsly positing this?
You know the modern Internet is the natural habitat of social trolls right?
So stats like that, even granting that they're accurate, do not support your conclusion.
Also, "everybody" doesn't misunderstand me. Just a few people, who do so on purpose (to be clear I'm excepting thejeff in large part on this accusation, as always). People I know IRL? People who are highly education and respectful of others, they don't see me that way. Even when we disagree.
I'll take the reflection of who I am from quality people like that any day over the spew that is the Internet.
But thanks for trying.
:D
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Eat less meat: UN climate change report calls for change to human diet
Notice the contrast in these expressed "expert" opinions from the same article:
Nature wrote: While fossil fuel burning for energy generation and transport garners the most attention, activities relating to land management, including agriculture and forestry, produce almost a quarter of heat-trapping gases. The race to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels ― the goal of the international Paris climate agreement reached in 2015 ― might be a lost battle unless land is used in a more sustainable and climate-friendly way, the latest IPCC report says. .
Nature wrote: “It’s really exciting that the IPCC is getting such a strong message across,” says Ruth Richardson, the Toronto, Canada-based executive director at the Global Alliance for the Future of Food, a strategic coalitions of philanthropic foundations. “We need a radical transformation, not incremental shifts, towards a global land use and food system that serves our climate needs.” .
So do we need to be "radical" or "might" we only be needing to think about being more sustainable as a species?
It's funny too because it's like these guys aren't aware of their colleagues' work, and it's their job to know ! Just yesterday I posted this:
Climate Home News wrote: “The window for limiting warming to below 1.5C with high probability and without temporarily exceeding that level already seems to have closed,” the report found.
But isn't that just these scientists being forced to toe the line? I'm sorry: involved in group-think, caught in their own hype, in the interest of their careers? Which scientists?
There is a shift going on as to what the consensus is. I've been posting about it for pages now. The shift? We see formal publications moving... But isn't that just these scientists being forced to toe the line? I'm sorry: involved in group-think, caught in their own hype, in the interest of their careers?
If your example, Judith Curry, is right that critics of the older climate consensus were hounded out of the field or silenced within it, how do you know the same process isn't driving the new more extreme consensus?
I mean, I don't think so, but I don't buy Curry's claims in the first place. You're the one feeding the denier's "climate scientists can't be trusted" line here.
Quark Blast wrote: That they would be hounded is sad (you saw the "Climategate" emails so you cannot deny they were hounded in a group-think/juvenile/middle school sort of way) I may be misunderstanding you, but I THINK that you're citing "climategate" as evidence of this cabal/conspiracy/hounding.
If so, you've definitely been drinking the koolaid. Climategate was pretty thoroughly shown to be absolutely nothing of the sort
thejeff wrote: ...I don't buy Curry's claims in the first place. You're the one feeding the denier's "climate scientists can't be trusted" line here. Could be but from what I can tell, IRL and on the Interwebs, literally anything one might say feeds a conspiracy theory. So to the extent your accusation is true I'm not feeling it. I'm just trying to understand the science.
pauljathome wrote: Quark Blast wrote: That they would be hounded is sad (you saw the "Climategate" emails so you cannot deny they were hounded in a group-think/juvenile/middle school sort of way) I may be misunderstanding you, but I THINK that you're citing "climategate" as evidence of this cabal/conspiracy/hounding.
If so, you've definitely been drinking the koolaid. Climategate was pretty thoroughly shown to be absolutely nothing of the sort I cite Climategate as an unambiguous example where professionals engaged in juvenile name calling and character assassination of colleagues whose scientific work they disagree with. Proof, if you will, that widely respected climate scientists were behaving in a thoroughly unprofessional manner.
In short: It doesn't take a "conspiracy" to shutdown minority opinion, just pervasive social pressure having nothing to do with science properly practiced.
Quark Blast wrote:
I cite Climategate as an unambiguous example where professionals engaged in juvenile name calling and character assassination of colleagues whose scientific work they disagree with. Proof, if you will, that widely respected climate scientists were behaving in a thoroughly unprofessional manner.
In short: It doesn't take a "conspiracy" to shutdown minority opinion, just pervasive social pressure having nothing to do with science properly practiced.
I admit that I'm not at all an expert on climategate. I just know that the consensus would disagree with that.
Since it is unambiguous, all you need to do to convince me and to get me to publicly admit that I was wrong is to quote a couple of letters unambiguously showing this. The WHOLE email (including the chain it is replying to).
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: ...I don't buy Curry's claims in the first place. You're the one feeding the denier's "climate scientists can't be trusted" line here. Could be but from what I can tell, IRL and on the Interwebs, literally anything one might say feeds a conspiracy theory. So to the extent your accusation is true I'm not feeling it. I'm just trying to understand the science.
Call it whatever you want, but once you agree that's happening to any significant degree, you can't trust anything. You're saying:
1) Climate scientists hound skeptics out of the field.
2) There's a shift in the consensus towards a more catastrophic view.
And you don't acknowledge that the first could be playing a role in the latter. Maybe those trying to publish evidence of a more moderate view are the ones being pushed out now and we're not seeing those papers. Just because they happen to be in line with your view doesn't prove anything.
pauljathome wrote: Quark Blast wrote:
I cite Climategate as an unambiguous example where professionals engaged in juvenile name calling and character assassination of colleagues whose scientific work they disagree with. Proof, if you will, that widely respected climate scientists were behaving in a thoroughly unprofessional manner.
In short: It doesn't take a "conspiracy" to shutdown minority opinion, just pervasive social pressure having nothing to do with science properly practiced.
I admit that I'm not at all an expert on climategate. I just know that the consensus would disagree with that.
Since it is unambiguous, all you need to do to convince me and to get me to publicly admit that I was wrong is to quote a couple of letters unambiguously showing this. The WHOLE email (including the chain it is replying to).
Honestly, I don't even need evidence of "juvenile name calling and character assassination of colleagues". Scientists are human and engage in such stupidity in private. Is it broad enough throughout the field to be effective at shutting valid science out of the field? That's the question.
thejeff wrote: pauljathome wrote: Quark Blast wrote:
I cite Climategate as an unambiguous example where professionals engaged in juvenile name calling and character assassination of colleagues whose scientific work they disagree with. Proof, if you will, that widely respected climate scientists were behaving in a thoroughly unprofessional manner.
In short: It doesn't take a "conspiracy" to shutdown minority opinion, just pervasive social pressure having nothing to do with science properly practiced.
I admit that I'm not at all an expert on climategate. I just know that the consensus would disagree with that.
Since it is unambiguous, all you need to do to convince me and to get me to publicly admit that I was wrong is to quote a couple of letters unambiguously showing this. The WHOLE email (including the chain it is replying to).
Honestly, I don't even need evidence of "juvenile name calling and character assassination of colleagues". Scientists are human and engage in such stupidity in private. Is it broad enough throughout the field to be effective at shutting valid science out of the field? That's the question. If this article in the guardian is correct you're absolutely right. Scientists are human too. At worst, some questionable acts. The worst email ( suggesting they'd suppress some evidence) did NOT actually happen as the evidence was NOT, in fact, suppressed
thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: I cite Climategate as an unambiguous example where professionals engaged in juvenile name calling and character assassination of colleagues whose scientific work they disagree with. Proof, if you will, that widely respected climate scientists were behaving in a thoroughly unprofessional manner.
In short: It doesn't take a "conspiracy" to shutdown minority opinion, just pervasive social pressure having nothing to do with science properly practiced.
Honestly, I don't even need evidence of "juvenile name calling and character assassination of colleagues". Scientists are human and engage in such stupidity in private. Is it broad enough throughout the field to be effective at shutting valid science out of the field? That's the question.
According to several (previously) respected and published researchers, both in Europe and NA, the answer to your question is an emphatic "Yes".
pauljathome wrote: If this article in the guardian is correct you're absolutely right. Scientists are human too. At worst, some questionable acts. The worst email (suggesting they'd suppress some evidence) did NOT actually happen as the evidence was NOT, in fact, suppressed My point with the Climategate is not that it shows a conspiracy (because how the hell can you either prove or disprove a conspiracy without the conspirators frank admission of guilt (either intentionally or unintentionally, and we don't have that here)?), but that it shows gross peer pressure and disdain for the minority opinion. Your Guardian article isn't really trying to report that angle. I'm talking the dump of texts themselves, taken as a whole; they are a rather poor reflection on the majority community.
Further, had there been a dozen other such email hacks, of other majority opinion holders, I've no doubt you would get similar results. Not a conspiracy but pervasive A##hattery to the minority scientists. In other words, corroboration of the testimony of the likes of Judith, John, etc.
Quark Blast wrote:
My point with the Climategate is not that it shows a conspiracy (because how the hell can you either prove or disprove a conspiracy without the conspirators frank admission of guilt (either intentionally or unintentionally, and we don't have that here)?), but that it shows gross peer pressure and disdain for the minority opinion. Your Guardian article isn't really trying to report that angle. I'm talking the dump of texts themselves, taken as a whole; they are a rather poor reflection on the majority community.
Or, you know, the majority have the very human tendency to see others who have different opinions as wrong and somewhat foolish.
I know that, in my field of programming, if somebody tried to maintain that Fortran was a better general purpose language than C++ I'd pretty much consider them a fool. Not all opinions have equal value
I'm not seeing anything beyond that.
Peer review and the way science works is imperfect and human. But that is a long way from "gross peer pressure"
Quote:
Further, had there been a dozen other such email hacks, of other majority opinion holders, I've no doubt you would get similar results. Not a conspiracy... I prefer not to make assumptions from a sample set of one. Heck, I could make an argument that other sites were probably hacked too and did NOT show this which is precisely why the hacks weren't released.
It's not a great argument but it's better than you assuming the one site where emails was released is representative.
Ultron I don't think is ready for this...
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: I cite Climategate as an unambiguous example where professionals engaged in juvenile name calling and character assassination of colleagues whose scientific work they disagree with. Proof, if you will, that widely respected climate scientists were behaving in a thoroughly unprofessional manner.
In short: It doesn't take a "conspiracy" to shutdown minority opinion, just pervasive social pressure having nothing to do with science properly practiced.
Honestly, I don't even need evidence of "juvenile name calling and character assassination of colleagues". Scientists are human and engage in such stupidity in private. Is it broad enough throughout the field to be effective at shutting valid science out of the field? That's the question.
According to several (previously) respected and published researchers, both in Europe and NA, the answer to your question is an emphatic "Yes". And thus, per your argument, you can't trust the science in this field. There's pressure to publish research that's more catastrophic and shutdown any that isn't.
Wait, so QB is arguing that we shouldn't believe any of his links that warn us of a catastrophic future because they are the result of corrupt pressure in the field?
I already think catastrophic futures are upon us. I just keep wondering whether is Age of Ultron, Terminator, Old Man "insert older comic version" or just plain old "it's all crap." dystopia.
Irontruth wrote: Wait, so QB is arguing that we shouldn't believe any of his links that warn us of a catastrophic future because they are the result of corrupt pressure in the field? He does seem to be rather arguing against his own position.
As I understand his position, all the science itself is suspect, the scientists exert corrupt pressure AND the scientific consensus is optimistic and, barring magic tech, even a 2 degree warming is unachievable.
Personally, I believe the science is fundamentally sound (although incomplete and certainly not 100% perfect), the process yielding the consensus is fundamentally sound (although like everything imperfect and subject to human foibles) AND, unfortunately, I believe that keeping things down to "only" a 2 degree warming is now all but unachievable.
I may be wrong but at least my position is logically consistent.
pauljathome wrote: Irontruth wrote: Wait, so QB is arguing that we shouldn't believe any of his links that warn us of a catastrophic future because they are the result of corrupt pressure in the field? He does seem to be rather arguing against his own position.
As I understand his position, all the science itself is suspect, the scientists exert corrupt pressure AND the scientific consensus is optimistic and, barring magic tech, even a 2 degree warming is unachievable. Near as I can tell his position is that the scientific consensus backs his position and is getting more catastrophic. This can be trusted.
The whole argument about "gross peer pressure and disdain for the minority opinion" in the field started as a way to discredit any defense against his attack on wind power. It has nothing to do with calling his sources into question of course.
Your take on his position is at least coherent, but it doesn't seem to match what he's posted. That's why I started harping on how his conspiracy theory take discredited his own arguments.
thejeff wrote: Near as I can tell his position is that the scientific consensus backs his position and is getting more catastrophic. This can be trusted.
I often just skim his posts so I may be misremembering or misinterpreting but wasn't one of his positions that all the climate modelling was inaccurate (way beyond the accepted error bars) due to chaos theory? Or something like that?
The modelling is pretty darn central to the science, you can't really question one and accept the other
thejeff wrote: pauljathome wrote: Irontruth wrote: Wait, so QB is arguing that we shouldn't believe any of his links that warn us of a catastrophic future because they are the result of corrupt pressure in the field? He does seem to be rather arguing against his own position.
As I understand his position, all the science itself is suspect, the scientists exert corrupt pressure AND the scientific consensus is optimistic and, barring magic tech, even a 2 degree warming is unachievable. Near as I can tell his position is that the scientific consensus backs his position and is getting more catastrophic. This can be trusted.
The whole argument about "gross peer pressure and disdain for the minority opinion" in the field started as a way to discredit any defense against his attack on wind power. It has nothing to do with calling his sources into question of course.
Your take on his position is at least coherent, but it doesn't seem to match what he's posted. That's why I started harping on how his conspiracy theory take discredited his own arguments. I agree that we aren't presenting his argument "as he presented it", but rather taking it to the next logical conclusion.
pauljathome wrote: thejeff wrote: Near as I can tell his position is that the scientific consensus backs his position and is getting more catastrophic. This can be trusted.
I often just skim his posts so I may be misremembering or misinterpreting but wasn't one of his positions that all the climate modelling was inaccurate (way beyond the accepted error bars) due to chaos theory? Or something like that?
The modelling is pretty darn central to the science, you can't really question one and accept the other
Yes, he's long railed against all modeling, unless it's done by Stephen Wolfram.
He argued that due to irreducible complexity (a term coined by Stephen Wolfram), the modeling isn't possible to do. Of course, this misunderstands Mr. Wolfram's definition of irreducible complexity, and so fails as a criticism of climate modeling. He thinks that the term means something can't be modeled, which is actually the opposite of how Wolfram uses the word. That argument took place about a year ago.
Irontruth wrote:
He argued that due to irreducible complexity (a term coined by Stephen Wolfram), the modeling isn't possible to do. Of course, this misunderstands Mr. Wolfram's definition of irreducible complexity, and so fails as a criticism of climate modeling. He thinks that the term means something can't be modeled, which is actually the opposite of how Wolfram uses the word. That argument took place about a year ago.
Unless Wikipedia is REALLY lying to me I'm pretty sure that Irreducible Complexity (a term used by creationists) is NOT the right phrase for Wolfram's theory.
But yes, it was Wolfram's New Kind of Science that he was citing.
Sorry, I mixed up my terms, computational irreducibility. I've been watching too many apologist debates lately.
Quark Blast wrote: Devon Northwood wrote: And third, I know we all want to believe we are the one shining light of reason, the galileo in a sea full of ignorant popes, but 4 out of 5 time, when everybody constantly misunderstands you - then the problem is YOU, not them. You're srsly positing this?
You know the modern Internet is the natural habitat of social trolls right?
So stats like that, even granting that they're accurate, do not support your conclusion.
Also, "everybody" doesn't misunderstand me. Just a few people, who do so on purpose [...] You said:
Quark Blast wrote: Just a friendly reminder to those who purposely misread my posts (that would be pretty much everyone except thejeff): That is a big claim , and one YOU have made. I am pretty sure that I understand you, in the sense of "I understand what you are writing". I disagree with the conclusions you draw and the opinions you have based on those conclusions.
So when you reflect criticism based on disagreement by saying that not only am I missunderstanding you, but I do so DELIBERATLY, than you should back that one up pretty good. And so far you have not managed to even point out what part of your arguments I (or anyone else) have "gotten wrong". And instead of doing that, you (as I have said before) go on one tangent after another about you never saying the word conspiracy (no one said that), the internet being full of trolls (which proves nothing), to then comming up with yet another link to god knows what.
Case in point: Last time CB made a big post, answering several of your points, your answer was:
Quark Blast wrote: So now I see CB has arrogated to himself as the 'answer-man' for thejeff.
Unfortunately, as always, he "misunderstands" virtually everything I post.
As a worthy rejoinder to his most recent "contribution" to our dialog, let me say this:
and the exact next post was you writing:
Quark Blast wrote: Now for a far more important announcement:
[unrelated link]
[...]
So to repeat my point from before: If you constantly try to defend yourself by saying "you guys all missunderstand me" and then never pointing out WHAT we are not understanding, then I have a very good idea who the troll is.
So, let's repeat my last point that you conveniently haven't answered before:
Devon Northwood wrote: If no one is forcing anyone and there is no conspiracy, then why are people afraid to be sceptic? Where is the mainstream pressure coming FROM? Group-think starts from requirements like "no/small outside incentives to leave the group" or "small, somewhat isolated group". The climate scientist community is large and distributed around the entire world, and there are big, concrete incentives to leave the group (the last guy to postulate that climate change is a chinese hoax was subsequently elected President of the United States). Plus, this pressure had to start somewhere, and 20 years ago CC-advocates got laughed out of the room when they talked about stopping climate change. So far your answer seems to be "they are afraid some people will write some mean things in private emails most people will never read". Or am I missing something?
Interesting new study on '100% renewable' power.
Rather than simply determining whether and how renewables could generate 100% of the electricity needed, this study looked at how cheap electricity storage would have to be in order for wind and solar at current rates to be the least expensive option.
They found that an installed cost of energy storage around $150/kWh would allow local wind and solar to cover all electricity needs 95% of the time at minimum cost. Lithium battery modules (not including installation) actually cost about that much now, so getting the installed cost down to that level is well within reach with just economies of scale considered... let alone further technology improvements. Ditto for flow batteries, pumped hydro, and several other storage options.
Covering the remaining 5% (i.e. instances where local wind and solar are both low for extended periods of time) solely via additional storage would only be the cheapest option with storage at $20/kWh... which isn't going to happen any time soon. However, if wind and solar prices continue to decline (which they certainly will) then you could instead install excess generation in each region to cover the exceptions. Likewise, building long distance transmission could allow excess power generated in one region to cover an extended lull in another. Other options include geothermal, run-of-the-river hydro, and load flexibility.
In short, this study found that not only is 100% renewable power possible... but starting full scale conversion to such a system now would be cheaper than continuing with what we have. Indeed, wind, solar, and various forms of storage are the least expensive option available to us, and would only require minor additional infrastructure/planning to eliminate any problems from rare extended periods of low wind and solar generation.
thejeff wrote: 1) Near as I can tell his position is that the scientific consensus backs his position and is getting more catastrophic. This can be trusted.
2) The whole argument about "gross peer pressure and disdain for the minority opinion" in the field started as a way to discredit any defense against his attack on wind power. It has nothing to do with calling his sources into question of course.
3) Your take on his position is at least coherent, but it doesn't seem to match what he's posted. That's why I started harping on how his conspiracy theory take discredited his own arguments.
1) Yes, I believe essentially none of the many particulars about what the various climate models predict (computational irreducibility rearing its ugly head there), but I think the science is pushing up certainty of the value for the floor of what our climate will warm to by the year 2100.
2) Not "any defense". I've already admitted that there are many near-shore installations that make sense. Essentially none of the off-shore ones do. Most of the inland projects, particularly the remote ones, are a net waste of money. This says nothing of future wind power installation; what with all the lawsuits and other negative press for all the raptor slaughter and Chiroptera slaying, I think some sense is finally starting to get into the wind power project planning process.
3) Thank you for clarifying my position to others who seem to refuse to listen to me. And I think you know, at this point at least, that I don't advocate a conspiracy approach in my skepticism. Proving conspiracies is practically impossible but I think any reasonable person would see the Climategate emails (and Judith's and John's testimony) as proof that important journal editors and reviewers are willing to set aside good scientific practice for age-old group think.
.
Devon Northwood wrote: If you constantly try to defend yourself by saying "you guys all missunderstand me" and then never pointing out WHAT we are not understanding, then I have a very good idea who the troll is. You can say that but given that thejeff has just proven my position is clearly understandable I call BS on your argument here (and generally elsewhere for that matter).
.
CB wrote: In short, this study found that not only is 100% renewable power possible... but starting full scale conversion to such a system now would be cheaper than continuing with what we have. Indeed, wind, solar, and various forms of storage are the least expensive option available to us, and would only require minor additional infrastructure/planning to eliminate any problems from rare extended periods of low wind and solar generation. It's not that this can't be done. It's not that it doesn't make economic sense. It's that it doesn't make sense this year, or next year or even next decade. Sometime in the 2030s? Yeah, maybe.
Problem is we needed to be on this path in the late 1990s to get to a +1.5°C year 2100.
To go all in now, like right now, like scrap all non-100% renewable projects in favor of this approach... yeah, that's a recipe for disaster. The disaster might only last a couple of decades but by then we'll be a couple more decades behind on the old CO2 problem.
In particular see the discussion around figures 3 and 4 in the paper cited by CB, the one titled:
"Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar"
.
Irontruth wrote: Sorry, I mixed up my terms, computational irreducibility. I've been watching too many apologist debates lately. "Sorry"? "Sorry"?! OMG! OMG! The end of the world is nigh!
AHHHHH!!!! Run!... Run for your lives!!
:D
CBDunkerson wrote: Interesting new study on '100% renewable' power.
Very interesting indeed. Of course, as with just about ALL scientific papers, one has to wait at least 2 years for the discussion to settle down as various people yell about how bad the paper is :-) (That is NOT meant to imply any kind of conspiracy. That is how science is SUPPOSED to work with anything that meaningfully advances a field).
Thank you for sharing that (that is sincere, NOT a thanks for sharing blowoff)
|
