Global Warming

[Bill James]

Can you point me to the scientific papers wherein Mann has "consistently mishandled the data"? I know there were criticisms of some of the Hockey graph reconstruction (which on the whole has been confirmed by subsequent papers), but I wasn't aware of a consistent problem, something that I think would be an accomplishment considering the attention on Mann and the peer review process.

As I have said earlier in this thread, my own take as a layman in this field is that I will accept the scientific consensus (ie what is the best picture of the situation and predictions as to the course it will most likely take). Recent reports on Tuvalu are an example of the refinement of the impact of climate change and don't detract from the body of evidence that supports the conclusion that anthropogenic climate change is occuring. It has been a recurring theme on this thread (ie point out where new data has required revision of a prediction and claim that the science as a whole is suspect). As I have said, if anyone has a better theory, I would love to hear it. If it is actually plausible and consistent with what we know about the climate then publish it and place it under the scrutiny of the scientific community.

It would be my opinion that Mann applied significance to localised tree ring data in a hemispherical context that was not warranted. An opinion that is supported by many proxy reconstruction scientists who exclude such data from their papers.

It would be my opinion that Mann made fundametal errors in the application of the primary component analysis to his initial proxy work that resulted in the variance bands in the proxy period being significantly understated. An opinion that is supported by the fact that that chart is no longer used by the IPCC. Primary component analysis is commonly used technique in medical research and the pitfalls are well known a call to the epidemiology department or stats department at Penn State would have been most instrutive.

It would be my opinion that Mann and/or Nature magazine refused to provide the data behind his early work for analysis. An opinion that is supported by recorded fact. I would speculate that it was Mann at fault not Nature as the magazine has a strict editorial policy in this regard.

It would be my opinion that Mann's subsequent work has misused data series published by other scientists. An opintion suppored by the response that it didn't change the result anyway. Hardly the response demanded by a rigorous scientist.

You continue to hide behind the peer review excuse which in the narrow field of proxy reconstructions could not be achieved without conflict with Mann. It has been shown that virtually every single qualified pear reviewer in this field had co authored a paper with Mann et al. A fact that you continue to ignore.

In my view there is no other way to analyse temperature changes over extended periods of time than proxy analysis and there is some very good work being done which is interesting to follow. But the attitude of Mann and the way he handles data is doing an extreme disservice to others in his field.

I note that you didn't question me about my views on McIntyre. It suggests to me that you may also approaching the science with a conclusion already in mind!

 

[Bill James]

It would be interesting to see the basis for that 100m claim. It is next to impossible to judge the plausibility of an assertion without the justification and data to support it. That is why I place more weight on the scientific literature then an interview or documentary.

If you get a chance, check out this response to Christopher Monckton. It highlights some of the tactics used by the 'skeptics' and a science-based response. I know Monckton is a soft target, but some of his claims have appeared (recently) on this thread.

And then you offer a slide show documentary as a response.

 

[AngryAnt]

If you watch the slide show it actually goes and looks at the literature in detail - in terms of how Monckton misuses the literature. It shows you the papers themselves, what was actually written and how the authors of the papers respond to the misuse of their work by Monckton.

 

[ssstone]

gw is just bunkum and balderdash.... i know this cause the great saviour little prime powerpoint told me that is was the greatest moral challange of my time and then went and spent 38 million on a national crisis............... ha @#$#@#%%^&&& ha and they have the cheek to call US deniers......and to think when i attended primary school in the 70's i was taught/told that we were entering another ice age??????scuse me if i believe the farmers in my district whose families have records dating back over 100 years over a bunch of guvvermint funded ,peer?? reviewed bunch of self promoting yuppies
flame away kiddies :cutelaugh :cutelaugh :cutelaugh :cutelaugh :cutelaugh :cutelaugh :cutelaugh :cutelaugh :cutelaugh :cutelaugh :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
p.s.... no brown bombers were harmed durng this posting

 

[Merveille]

An interesting weather stations study....

Anthony Watts: The project summary is basically this; the majority of stations are out of compliance with the Weather Service’s own siting rules, and while the compliance itself is clear and no-one denies that, the question then becomes how has that affected the temperature record. Dr Pielke, his research group and myself are now in the process of finishing a paper for submission to a peer reviewed scientific journal that illustrates what we found in the way that siting difference has affected the US temperature record. And I can say with certainty that our findings show that there are differences in siting that cause a difference in temperatures, not only from a high and low type measurement but also from a trend measurement and a trend calculation.

So we believe that the United States temperature record is biased by this problem, and that the problem also extends worldwide…

Michael Duffy: In which direction does the bias lie? Are you suggesting that the temperature has not got as hot as the American official historical record suggests?

Anthony Watts: That’s correct. It’s an interesting situation. The early arguments against this project said that all of these different biases are going to cancel themselves out and there would be cool biases as well as warm biases, but we discovered that that wasn’t the case. The vast majority of them are warm biases…

To be submitted for peer review, the outcome will be interesting - although, hold the phone, the debate is over...forget it..

 

[Bill James]

If you watch the slide show it actually goes and looks at the literature in detail - in terms of how Monckton misuses the literature. It shows you the papers themselves, what was actually written and how the authors of the papers respond to the misuse of their work by Monckton.

It also includes the 2001 IPCC Hockey Stick chart (after Mann) for which the the variation bands in the proxy range have been shown to be mathematically incorrect. This is exactly the type of behaviour Monckon engages in.

 

[AngryAnt]

So you admit the slideshow engages with the literature at least - I suppose you've actually looked at some of the presentation this time.

On the other hand, Monckton deliberately misquotes, paraphrases incorrectly and takes out of context often - in other words, he acts in bad faith and actively tries to mislead. This is what the presentation proves - do you disagree?

I'll look at the presentation again to see what the argument around Mann's hockey stick is. I notice you don't comment on the other 50 or so minutes of the presentation where Monckton is shown to be deceptive in numerous ways and on many, many occasions.

 

[Bill James]

So you admit the slideshow engages with the literature at least - I suppose you've actually looked at some of the presentation this time.

On the other hand, Monckton deliberately misquotes, paraphrases incorrectly and takes out of context often - in other words, he acts in bad faith and actively tries to mislead. This is what the presentation proves - do you disagree?

I'll look at the presentation again to see what the argument around Mann's hockey stick is. I notice you don't comment on the other 50 or so minutes of the presentation where Monckton is shown to be deceptive in numerous ways and on many, many occasions.

I don't think you get it. I group Mann and McIntyre as people who either deliberately or with tunnel vision misuse data for their own cause. But at least they deal with data. I would put Monkton in the same category as Gore and simply call them activists. As such I have little interest in their output and agree they misuse information. I have not even bothered to read Monkton in depth but was exposed to Gores film on a plane.

My comment on the presentation was driven by PT's protestation that he "he places more weight on the science rather than interviews and documentaries" and in the very next sentence throws up a cherry picking presentation to support his case. Despite what you say the presentation is not a detailed literature reveiw, it cherry picks information and it uses at least one chart that the IPCC discarded some years ago. In as much it seems to be guildy of the same criticism leveled at Monkon albeit on a lesser scale. I presume you are critical of Gore in the same way?

There are two lunatic fringes from the yea and nay adherents from which the science cannot be trusted. I repeat two and it is not very hard to ascertain this from the documentaries and papers they produce and their response to criticism.

I have questioned the poor science from both extreme views but Antman and PTFC only take me to task for my criticism of one side. Does this mean they only question the science on one side? This same mistake led to the world wide acceptance of tree ring proxies from Bristle Cone pines but totally disregarded similar research from our own Australian scientists utilising Houn Pines (which by the way can provide a longer proxy record because while the tree does not live as long its natural oils mean it is preserved for hundreds of years on the forest floor. This mistake probably slowed down the process of moving on to better temperature proxies and also put the public in a position where they are skeptical of the science because they have had poor science forced down their throat from both sides. Unfortunately (perhaps fortunately) the best science rarely makes the newspapers.

The IPCC concludes that Global Warming or Climate Chagne is a consenus view not a unanimous view, therefore it remains encumbent on us all to question all the science in order to refine it faster. If research does not support a warming theory then it does not necessarly mean it is wrong or the consensus is wrong but may simply mean the body of science is incomplete. If scientists are frightened to publish results that do not support the consensus then we will advance nowhere fast.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

And then you offer a slide show documentary as a response.

It isn't a documentary. :

If you bother to watch the talk it very clearly shows how Monckton blatantly misrepresents the literature and presents data that is inconsistent or has no obvious source. The talk is focussed primarily on the literature that Monckton uses to show the weaknesses in the the scientific consensus. By looking at the data and speaking directly to the scientists that published the papers it is clear that Monckton misrepresents the findings (to put it as nicely as possible). I don't know how you can claim this is "cherry picking". When so many examples of intellectual dishonesty are demonstrated, it should raise a red flag on the conclusions and motives of Monckton.

As for Mann's work, you make claims on the validity and the findings of other scientists, but you haven't provided the sources that you base your opinion on. I am genuinely interested in the debate, but it is impossible to test the veracity of your claims without reference to the source of your opinion. This goes for the basis of the "opinions" that you refer to as well as your reference to "poor science" and the "best science".

As for consensus view vs unanimous view in science, such a situation is ubiquitous for all scientific theories, to different degrees. Therefore, I agree that it is always important to question the science. I would just like to see the basis for that skepticism and the presentation of an alternative view that better fits the data.

Your views on peer review are also interesting. I am not going to claim that peer review is perfect, there are plenty of examples of poor papers making it through the screen. However, you do realise that the peer review process is anonymous? You do realise that Mann would have no knowledge of his reviewers? Nor would Wegman (whom I assume you refer to ) in his analysis, he relied on co-authorship only. You also realise that the pool of experts is always going to be reasonably small in any specialised area?

 

[AngryAnt]

I don't think you get it. I group Mann and McIntyre as people who either deliberately or with tunnel vision misuse data for their own cause. But at least they deal with data. I would put Monkton in the same category as Gore and simply call them activists. As such I have little interest in their output and agree they misuse information. I have not even bothered to read Monkton in depth but was exposed to Gores film on a plane.

I understand what you are saying, and agree that we can make a distinction between "activists" and scientists in most cases.

I think Mann and McIntyre both acted in good faith. Scientists have political opinions of course but take big risks if they allow these opinions to influence the selection of data sets and presentation of data. It's interesting the incredible focus skeptics place on hockey stick - Mann's original paper came out in 1998, McIntyre raised some objections in 2004 based on data sets and statistical method. Other scientists checked this and with expanded data sets have confirmed the Hockey Stick metaphor was correct all along.

But we still get "Mann left stuff out in 1998". Well sorry, science has moved on and this is a great example of how science works.

There are two lunatic fringes from the yea and nay adherents from which the science cannot be trusted. I repeat two and it is not very hard to ascertain this from the documentaries and papers they produce and their response to criticism.

Actually, no. There may be lunatic activists but lunatic scientists don't survive.

The IPCC concludes that Global Warming or Climate Chagne is a consenus view not a unanimous view, therefore it remains encumbent on us all to question all the science in order to refine it faster.

Eh? You'll never get a unanimous view on anything. By all means question science though - science should be robust enough to be questioned.

 

[Bill James]

"As for Mann's work, you make claims on the validity and the findings of other scientists, but you haven't provided the sources that you base your opinion on. I am genuinely interested in the debate, but it is impossible to test the veracity of your claims without reference to the source of your opinion. This goes for the basis of the "opinions" that you refer to as well as your reference to "poor science" and the "best science"." Quote from Panteras Tiger FC, (Apologies I haven't worked out how to quote from two entries at once. BJ)

In regard to Peer Reviews, Wegman http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf in section 5 of this paper illustrated the problems of social peer networks. It demonstrated that it was almost impossible to find an unconflicted peer reviewer for the Mann, et al paper behind the "Hockey Stick" chart.

It seems I have. Moreover the paper discusses how Mann aplied primary component analysis incorrectly which goes to the key question of todays observations versus probable historical ranges.

Oh and for what its worth Wegman concluded that on the balance of probability global temperature was increasing.

I disagree with antman, I don't believe Mann or McIntyre act in good faith. They are stuck in a context which extends far beyond their science and they cannot conduct their science independent of that context. I guess what I am saying is they are so convinced of the answer they are looking for they are unable to properly question their data, techniques and language. Their papers (not just their websites) contain emotive statements that reach beyond the scope of their research.

 

[AngryAnt]

It seems I have. Moreover the paper discusses how Mann aplied primary component analysis incorrectly which goes to the key question of todays observations versus probable historical ranges.

Oh and for what its worth Wegman concluded that on the balance of probability global temperature was increasing.

I disagree with antman, I don't believe Mann or McIntyre act in good faith. They are stuck in a context which extends far beyond their science and they cannot conduct their science independent of that context. I guess what I am saying is they are so convinced of the answer they are looking for they are unable to properly question their data, techniques and language. Their papers (not just their websites) contain emotive statements that reach beyond the scope of their research.

How do you feel about Mann's essential conclusions being supported by a range of other scientists and scientific bodies Bill J? This is the strength of the scientific method and peer review for me - it becomes irrelevant what personal opinions individual scientists have - either their conclusions are supported by other science or they are not.

 

[Bill James]

How do you feel about Mann's essential conclusions being supported by a range of other scientists and scientific bodies Bill J? This is the strength of the scientific method and peer review for me - it becomes irrelevant what personal opinions individual scientists have - either their conclusions are supported by other science or they are not.

In summary I don't believe the hockey stick chart as originally published by Mann (I think in 2000) which showed today's temperature being much hotter than at anytime in the past 1000 years. I believe this view has changed which is why the projections for the next hundred years have reduced.

FWIW to summarise my own assesment of the what I read would be as follows:

Is CO2 increasing? Dare I say it, unanimously yes. The data is incontrovertible.

Is the increase in CO2 anthropogenic? 95% certain, there are some uncertainties where we lack data such as what happens in the Oceans.

Is temperature increasing? In the context of the last 100 years definitely, in the context of 1000 years probably, in the context of geological ages probably not.

Is the increase in temperature directly related to increased CO2? Most probably, 90% certain.

All of the above are areas where we can collect data, utilise proxy data and make correlations and to a greater or lesser extent the measurements are repeatable across locations and proxies. The next stage moves into future forecasting and with both scientific modelling and economic modelling.

How much will the temperature increase in the next 100 years? At least 0.5 degrees very likely. At least 5 degrees most unlikely.

What will be the climatic impact of a temperature increase of say 2 degrees in the next 100 years? Very uncertain in my view modelling anything is difficult, modelling the planets weather ...... extremely difficult.

What will be the economic impact of temperature increase of say 2 degrees in the next 100 years? Almost impossible to tell in my view. Economist stuggle to forecast GDP growth within 30% across a 4 year budgetting period the idea that the economic impact of something as nebulus as a temperature change can be accurately assessed one hundred years in advance is absurd in my mind.

After dealing with the forecasts of change, impact and cost, we then get into actions

Should we do something? If we are all going to be dead in 10 years, I am young enought to vote for it. If we are all going to be dead in a hundred years I am alturisitic enough to vote for it. If the temperature is going up 2 degrees in the next 100 years, there are some actions I would take but most I would not.

Can we do something? Technically yes, politically I doubt it. Population has increased almost 10 times in one hundred years and is forecast to continue growing until 2050 (probably a more accurate forecast than CO2/Temp/Impact). The strongest correlation I have seen in climate science is world population vs CO2 concentration. In other words people cause climate change not fossil fuels. The urbanisation of the existing population is increasing faster than the population. Modern cities cannot exist without portable energy ie gas/petrol/electricity. Imagine life in a city without lifts, cooling, heating, food transport, refrigeration, personal transport etc. It just doesn't work.

What can we do? Take Australia as an example; one third of our GHG emissions comes from 90 coal fired power installations, another third comes from 20 milllion vehicles, the balance comes from clearing, farming and other. The best way to deal with CO2 is to deal with the 90 coal fired power installations that are stationary. Problem: they are the key to urban life as we know it!!! To fix them we have to change the electricity fuel mix, less brown coal, less black coal, more gas, more carbon capture and as much renewable energy as the system can handle which is not much, maybe 15%. In my view (and the greens) the ETS proposed was not going to mitigate any significan carbon but would have imposed a large impost on energy charges.

What is worth doing?

got to go to golf, before the grass dies, back soon

 

[Merveille]

In summary I don't believe the hockey stick chart as originally published by Mann (I think in 2000) which showed today's temperature being much hotter than at anytime in the past 1000 years. I believe this view has changed which is why the projections for the next hundred years have reduced.

FWIW to summarise my own assesment of the what I read would be as follows:

Is CO2 increasing? Dare I say it, unanimously yes. The data is incontrovertible.

Is the increase in CO2 anthropogenic? 95% certain, there are some uncertainties where we lack data such as what happens in the Oceans.

Is temperature increasing? In the context of the last 100 years definitely, in the context of 1000 years probably, in the context of geological ages probably not.

Is the increase in temperature directly related to increased CO2? Most probably, 90% certain.

All of the above are areas where we can collect data, utilise proxy data and make correlations and to a greater or lesser extent the measurements are repeatable across locations and proxies. The next stage moves into future forecasting and with both scientific modelling and economic modelling.

How much will the temperature increase in the next 100 years? At least 0.5 degrees very likely. At least 5 degrees most unlikely.

What will be the climatic impact of a temperature increase of say 2 degrees in the next 100 years? Very uncertain in my view modelling anything is difficult, modelling the planets weather ...... extremely difficult.

What will be the economic impact of temperature increase of say 2 degrees in the next 100 years? Almost impossible to tell in my view. Economist stuggle to forecast GDP growth within 30% across a 4 year budgetting period the idea that the economic impact of something as nebulus as a temperature change can be accurately assessed one hundred years in advance is absurd in my mind.

After dealing with the forecasts of change, impact and cost, we then get into actions

Should we do something? If we are all going to be dead in 10 years, I am young enought to vote for it. If we are all going to be dead in a hundred years I am alturisitic enough to vote for it. If the temperature is going up 2 degrees in the next 100 years, there are some actions I would take but most I would not.

Can we do something? Technically yes, politically I doubt it. Population has increased almost 10 times in one hundred years and is forecast to continue growing until 2050 (probably a more accurate forecast than CO2/Temp/Impact). The strongest correlation I have seen in climate science is world population vs CO2 concentration. In other words people cause climate change not fossil fuels. The urbanisation of the existing population is increasing faster than the population. Modern cities cannot exist without portable energy ie gas/petrol/electricity. Imagine life in a city without lifts, cooling, heating, food transport, refrigeration, personal transport etc. It just doesn't work.

What can we do? Take Australia as an example; one third of our GHG emissions comes from 90 coal fired power installations, another third comes from 20 milllion vehicles, the balance comes from clearing, farming and other. The best way to deal with CO2 is to deal with the 90 coal fired power installations that are stationary. Problem: they are the key to urban life as we know it!!! To fix them we have to change the electricity fuel mix, less brown coal, less black coal, more gas, more carbon capture and as much renewable energy as the system can handle which is not much, maybe 15%. In my view (and the greens) the ETS proposed was not going to mitigate any significan carbon but would have imposed a large impost on energy charges.

What is worth doing?

got to go to golf, before the grass dies, back soon

The most informative, sensible, all-encompassing and forward-thinking post I have read on this thread Bill, thanks.

 

[Bill James]

In summary I don't believe the hockey stick chart as originally published by Mann (I think in 2000) which showed today's temperature being much hotter than at anytime in the past 1000 years. I believe this view has changed which is why the projections for the next hundred years have reduced.

FWIW to summarise my own assesment of the what I read would be as follows:

Is CO2 increasing? Dare I say it, unanimously yes. The data is incontrovertible.

Is the increase in CO2 anthropogenic? 95% certain, there are some uncertainties where we lack data such as what happens in the Oceans.

Is temperature increasing? In the context of the last 100 years definitely, in the context of 1000 years probably, in the context of geological ages probably not.

Is the increase in temperature directly related to increased CO2? Most probably, 90% certain.

All of the above are areas where we can collect data, utilise proxy data and make correlations and to a greater or lesser extent the measurements are repeatable across locations and proxies. The next stage moves into future forecasting and with both scientific modelling and economic modelling.

How much will the temperature increase in the next 100 years? At least 0.5 degrees very likely. At least 5 degrees most unlikely.

What will be the climatic impact of a temperature increase of say 2 degrees in the next 100 years? Very uncertain in my view modelling anything is difficult, modelling the planets weather ...... extremely difficult.

What will be the economic impact of temperature increase of say 2 degrees in the next 100 years? Almost impossible to tell in my view. Economist stuggle to forecast GDP growth within 30% across a 4 year budgetting period the idea that the economic impact of something as nebulus as a temperature change can be accurately assessed one hundred years in advance is absurd in my mind.

After dealing with the forecasts of change, impact and cost, we then get into actions

Should we do something? If we are all going to be dead in 10 years, I am young enought to vote for it. If we are all going to be dead in a hundred years I am alturisitic enough to vote for it. If the temperature is going up 2 degrees in the next 100 years, there are some actions I would take but most I would not.

Can we do something? Technically yes, politically I doubt it. Population has increased almost 10 times in one hundred years and is forecast to continue growing until 2050 (probably a more accurate forecast than CO2/Temp/Impact). The strongest correlation I have seen in climate science is world population vs CO2 concentration. In other words people cause climate change not fossil fuels. The urbanisation of the existing population is increasing faster than the population. Modern cities cannot exist without portable energy ie gas/petrol/electricity. Imagine life in a city without lifts, cooling, heating, food transport, refrigeration, personal transport etc. It just doesn't work.

What can we do? Take Australia as an example; one third of our GHG emissions comes from 90 coal fired power installations, another third comes from 20 milllion vehicles, the balance comes from clearing, farming and other. The best way to deal with CO2 is to deal with the 90 coal fired power installations that are stationary. Problem: they are the key to urban life as we know it!!! To fix them we have to change the electricity fuel mix, less brown coal, less black coal, more gas, more carbon capture and as much renewable energy as the system can handle which is not much, maybe 15%. In my view (and the greens) the ETS proposed was not going to mitigate any significan carbon but would have imposed a large impost on energy charges.

What is worth doing?

got to go to golf, before the grass dies, back soon

And a very enjoyable round it was, broke my PB at the local course around about the same time Jack kicked his tenth. All in all a very good day.

So what is worth doing? Well for a start an ETS will have no positive impact without cruelling the economy simply due to the threshold tax required to make meaningful mitigation technologies work. So lets look at the technologies and they will focus on power generation because that is the single largest prodcuer of GHG on the planet. For reference a coal fired generation plant will produce approximately 1 tonne of carbon for every MWhr of electricity produced. (Brown coal more, High energy black coal less)

Wind Power: Its clean its green. But in most parts of Australia when there is no breeze is when it is most needed. It costs at least double to build a MW of windpower than it does for thermal generation but the fuel is free. A good windfarm will only run 40% of the time whereas thermal generation is usually up for around 90% of the time and you can mostly choose your downtimes to fit with power demand. So a power line built to a windfarm needs to be able to cope with fluctuating loads and for the same construction cost will only transport half the power making it more exepnsive. It is easy to see how much more wind costs than coal/gas because whenever the RECS (renewable energy credits) drop below $60MWhr windfarm construction stalls. Every electricity retailer is obliged to have a renewable energy credit for a percentage of the power they sell to us punters. If they don't get enough from buying renewable energy, they have to pay the Feds $60/MWhr for their shortfall.

Solar: Its clean and green and in most parts of Australia it is at its best when its hot which is good because thats when we most use power. Again its probably only good for about 10-12 hours a day but at least you know which hours that will be. Its more expensive than wind and unfortunately most of the good locations (sun and lack of storms) are a long way from the heavy demand locations which means the transmission impost will be high. Rooftop solar is stupid. Think about it for a minute. The efficiency of having 2-3 guys climbing up and down ladders to install 6-10 square meters of solar power for each connection vs finding a good locatin in the country where 1000's of square meters could be rolled out on the ground. The cost differental is massive. The federal government discovered its solar program was going to cost it a fortune very early on and decided that it would make the state electricity retailers pay for it by forcing them to buy the power (which was expensive, very expensive). To soften the blow the feds offered 3 renewable energy credits for every MWhr produced from rooftop soalr in the first three years. Obviously this flooded the market with REC's and the price dropped to almost $20/t. This of course meant nobody wanted to build windmills or solar because the effective subsidy had disappeared. What was the feds response? They held an enquiry to find out why the price of REC's had dropped. Now they have split solar and wind REC's. What this tells us is solar needs a bigger subsidy than wind to compete, probably more than $100MWhr.

Nuclear: Its clean but not so grean. Its largely academic in Australia for the next 20-30 years anyway. The smallest commercial units in the world are around 1000MW. The biggest single coal turbine we have in Australia is Cogen Creek at about 750-780MW. The reality for nukes are unless they are large they are expensive. We can't accomodate a large one in our network yet because of redundancy issues if it drops out. Let me explain. Put 500 people on a Jet with four turbines, we all feel ok if one drops out. Put 500 people on a Jen with a single tail mounted turbine and if it sputters our day takes a turn for the worse. Big power units are the same. The ability to cover them in a small capacity large extent network like the east coast is tough.

Geothermal: Its clean its green and ts not coming to a town near you soon. The plus for geothermal is it runs 24hrs a day 7 days week so it is a source of electricity that fits with our daily lives. The bad bits are our best locations are hundreds if not thousands of kilometres from market and the cost of transmission will be prohibitive for most locations in Australia. The other bad bit is the risk of drilling the holes. The cost of building a geothermal plant is probably half the cost of a coal plant with no fuel cost but the cost of drilling the holes is probably three times the cost of building the plant and the risk of the hole not delivering is high. Thin gulf of Mexico and you understand the depths we are talking about. I will come back to this later.

Biomass: Biomass invovles burning wood and plant waste to generate power instead of coal. Again depending on the cost of the biomass it can be competitive with a $60 rec. But there is not big quantities available. A good sized plant is around 50MW (Australia has 44,000MW installed) becuase the biomass becomes uneconomic more than 50km from the plant and there is only so much that can be sourced inside that distance for each plant.

Carbon Capture Sequestration: Despite the hoohaa this works. Pulling CO2 out of flue gasses is pretty straight forward, and coca cola have been buying CO2 from power plants for years. Burying it is also straight forward if (and its a strong if) there is a suitable trap site. Old gas fields work ok, which is why they are sometimes used to store gas, companies wouldn't store gas in them if they thought it was going to leak away because they would lose money. Problem is that in most parts of the world the old gas reservoirs are not near the coal fired plants and piping liquid CO2 (very cold, think wart removal) is not easy and the longer the distance the more expensive it becomes. But in summary the better opportuntities in Australia and elsewhere could probably be achieved for around $60 per tonne which would add around $60 per MWhr to the cost of power.

So what to do, what to do? Well the ETS won't do anything, why because we have outlined above that no carbon mitigation activities of any significance will kick in at a carbon price of less than $60/t. However given the wholesale pool price for electricity in eastern Australia has been around $45/MWhr, adding $60/MWhr to it will have a major impact on peoples lives and industry without actually reducing carbon emissions. The greens were aware of this which is why they wouldn't pass the legislation. It is my believe that the coalition didn't actually understand it at all. Labour was just trying to snow the electorate into thinking they were doing something when in reality for every $10B of carbon revenue, $4B was going to subsidiese brown coal generators, $5B was going to subsidise customers of black coal, $0.5B was going to administer in Canberra which left about 500 million to work on reducing carbon. It was insane.

So that means I am a direct action man, some would call it a carbon tax, call it what you like. I think the best way to reduce carbon emissions as distinct from eliminating them is to introduce a penalty on all carbon emissions from stationary generation. Say $10/tonne then take that pool of revenue and subidise the best/cheapest mitigation projects through a tender process at around $60/t. This means in theory one sixth of the emissions could be mitigated. As time goes on and the technology/cost/science emerges we could play with the tax rate to produce a revenue pool large enough to achieve the reductions we want. The big advantage over the ETS is that the penalty is only $10/MWhr which is not going to cruel individuals and jobs but at the same time it could result in a 15% reduction in GHS.

But before any of that, we must stop subsidising fossil fuels. In every state the governments are trying to keep fuel and electricity prices lower than true cost. This is nuts. The quicker energy prices are cost reflective the quicker alternative technologies will be competitive.

Have to walk the dog, can talk about fossil fuel subsidies later.

 

[Merveille]

Well well - well well well. The professor of Climate Change at Uni of East Anglia speaks...shouldn't we listen? Note the comment further down about the 'seamy side of peer review.'

‘’The release of the emails was a turning point,’’ Mike Hulme, professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia, told The Guardian . ‘’...Already there is a new tone. Researchers are more upfront, open and explicit about their uncertainties.’’

Bob Ward, policy director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics, said researchers had to accept that the affair would not only result in their own science being judged but also their motives, professionalism, integrity and ‘’all those other qualities that are considered important in public life’’.

The Climategate controversy erupted last November, weeks before the Copenhagen summit. It was sparked by the leaking of thousands of emails belonging to the University of East Anglia and their publication online.

The emails, mostly between Dr Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and colleagues both in Britain and the US, appeared to reveal a systematic attempt to evade freedom of information requests as well as open discussion on ways to play down research findings that did not fit within the framework of steadily rising global temperatures.

The scientists also appeared to work actively to stop the publication of rivals’ work in peer-reviewed papers. Hans von Storch of the KGSS Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, told the newspaper that trust had been damaged by the affair:

‘’People now find it conceivable that scientists cheat and manipulate, and understand that scientists need societal supervision as any other societal institution,’’ he said…

Judith Curry, of the Georgia Institute of Technology, the scientist who has worked hard to try to reconcile warring factions, said the idea of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientists as ‘’self-appointed oracles, enhanced by the Nobel prize, is now in tatters’’…

The furore had laid bare ‘’the seamy side of peer review and consensus building in the IPCC assessment reports.’’


http://www.theage.com.au/world/climate-scandal-a-game-changer-20100705-zxjw.html

 

[Merveille]

Note also the comment by Han von Storch that 'trust had been damaged' - this is more than you have ever acknowledged Panthera..

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Note also the comment by Han von Storch that 'trust had been damaged' - this is more than you have ever acknowledged Panthera..

Of course trust has been damaged, not due to the contents of the emails, but the shoddy reporting and misinformation campaign that surrounded them.

Why do you think the Sunday Times of London, which led the climategate campaign, put out a formal retraction?

As has been said though "trust has been damaged". Mission accomplished.

Sad that it really has nothing to do with the body of data that is at the core of the scientific consensus on the issue. Something that I am still waiting for you to take aim at.

 

[Merveille]

Well, I read your link
The retraction you link to has nothing to do with the post above, and Climategate emails. You have either been sloppy Panthera, or intentionally misleading
The retraction as out-lined below was to do with an article on the 2007 IPCC report re the Amazon, nothing to do with spreading mis-information about the emails themselves, as you say.
I would suggest you didn't even read your own link, you were just taken in by the mis-leading headline..

From your link, directly.

"A lie can get halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on, as Mark Twain said (or “before the truth gets a chance to put its pants on,” in Winston Churchill’s version), and nowhere has that been more true than in "climategate." In that highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal, e-mails hacked from computers at the University of East Anglia’s climate-research group were spread around the Web by activists who deny that human activity is altering the world’s climate in a dangerous way, and spun so as to suggest that the scientists had been lying, cheating, and generally cooking the books.

But not only did British investigators clear the East Anglia scientist at the center of it all, Phil Jones, of scientific impropriety and dishonesty in April, an investigation at Penn State cleared PSU climatologist Michael Mann of “falsifying or suppressing data, intending to delete or conceal e-mails and information, and misusing privileged or confidential information” in February. In perhaps the biggest backpedaling, The Sunday Times of London, which led the media pack in charging that IPCC reports were full of egregious (and probably intentional) errors, retracted its central claim—namely, that the IPCC statement that up to 40 percent of the Amazonian rainforest could be vulnerable to climate change was “unsubstantiated.” The Times also admitted that it had totally twisted the remarks of one forest expert to make it sound as if he agreed that the IPCC had screwed up, when he said no such thing.

It’s worth quoting the retraction at some length:

The article "UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim" (News, Jan 31) stated that the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report had included an “unsubstantiated claim” that up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest could be sensitive to future changes in rainfall. The IPCC had referenced the claim to a report prepared for the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) by Andrew Rowell and Peter Moore, whom the article described as “green campaigners” with “little scientific expertise.” The article also stated that the authors’ research had been based on a scientific paper that dealt with the impact of human activity rather than climate change.

In fact, the IPCC’s Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence. In the case of the WWF report, the figure . . . was based on research by the respected Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) which did relate to the impact of climate change. We also understand and accept that . . . Dr Moore is an expert in forest management, and apologise for any suggestion to the contrary.

The article also quoted criticism of the IPCC’s use of the WWF report by Dr Simon Lewis, a Royal Society research fellow at the University of Leeds and leading specialist in tropical forest ecology. We accept that, in his quoted remarks, Dr Lewis was making the general point that both the IPCC and WWF should have cited the appropriate peer-reviewed scientific research literature. As he made clear to us at the time, including by sending us some of the research literature, Dr Lewis does not dispute the scientific basis for both the IPCC and the WWF reports’ statements on the potential vulnerability of the Amazon rainforest to droughts caused by climate change. . . . A version of our article that had been checked with Dr Lewis underwent significant late editing and so did not give a fair or accurate account of his views on these points. We apologise for this."


You are the one in denial Panthera..you refuse to acknowledge what Mike Hulme, Bob Ward, Hans von Storch, Judith Curry are well ready to, as quoted above in my inital post.
Yet in the same breath, you expect people like myself and others, to accept blindly the word of people such as these, or their ilk.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Well, I read your link
The retraction you link to has nothing to do with the post above, and Climategate emails. You have either been sloppy Panthera, or intentionally misleading
The retraction as out-lined below was to do with an article on the 2007 IPCC report re the Amazon, nothing to do with spreading mis-information about the emails themselves, as you say.
I would suggest you didn't even read your own link, you were just taken in by the mis-leading headline..

The article dealt specifically with misinformation regarding AGW that was published during the Climategate firestorm that was subsequently retracted. Damage done. Do you deny this? Your insinuation that I don't read my sources is cute, but not supported by what I actually wrote. Re-read my post:

Of course trust has been damaged, not due to the contents of the emails, but the shoddy reporting and misinformation campaign that surrounded them.

Why do you think the Sunday Times of London, which led the climategate campaign, put out a formal retraction?

As has been said though "trust has been damaged". Mission accomplished.

Sad that it really has nothing to do with the body of data that is at the core of the scientific consensus on the issue. Something that I am still waiting for you to take aim at.

Where have I said that the link was directly related to the emails? I clearly state the misinformation campaign that surrounded them, which the Sunday Times was a part of.

When you limit your reading to denialist sources of course you will come to the conclusions you have drawn. Have you read the independent reports from the UK government and now Penn State University on the actions of those implicated in the Climategate controversy? Both clearly exonerate those involved in any wrongdoing and make suggestions on how their practices might be improved to avoid any issues with public perception. This explains quotes like this one in the Age article:

‘’The release of the emails was a turning point,’’ Mike Hulme, professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia, told The Guardian . ‘’...Already there is a new tone. Researchers are more upfront, open and explicit about their uncertainties."

Does this surprise you considering the treatment they have received in the media and accusations they have faced?

You are the one in denial Panthera..you refuse to acknowledge what Mike Hulme, Bob Ward, Hans von Storch, Judith Curry are well ready to, as quoted above in my inital post.
Yet in the same breath, you expect people like myself and others, to accept blindly the word of people such as these, or their ilk.

Denial? Like I said in my previous post, trust has been damaged. By design.

I don't ask you to blindly accept the word of anyone. I just expect that you look at the broader picture and not quotes mined in one article.

Check out the findings of the Science and Technology Committee and the Penn State report. It might shed some more light on the situation for you.