Bishop Hill Climate cuttings 53
May 31, 2011 Climate: Cuttings A mini-edition of climate cuttings while I'm up to my neck in other things:
George Monbiot is singing the praises of wind power. I'm intrigued to know the sources for his figures.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the momentum of the shale gas is looking unstoppable.
Climate Realists takes a look at an old paper by, among others, Mann and Schmidt on the subject of the solar influence on climate.
"Sceptics" was deemed too polite, so "deniers" was introduced. "Cranks" enjoys favour from time to time. Now, the epithet-du-jour from the climate PR people is climate "truthers". I can't imagine what it's like to spend your whole career thinking up rude names for people.
And lastly, a fascinating article looking at the similarities, or not, between the proxies in one of Mann's temperature reconstructions.
Reader Comments (105)
Vangel
Re shale gas: I followed your earlier discussion with GKA with interest, as you may recall. As you say, the markets will ultimately decide. Not Frosty, quoting scaremongering rubbish from the Guardian (and before lunch, too. Very bad form).
He's a Peak Doomer and they all rub me up the wrong way. Exactly like climate catastrophists, now I think of it.
The solution to the energy problem is obvious - nuclear. And it's high time we got on with it, but unfortunately the anti-nuke activists are making the future a dangerous place for future generations (sounds familiar but a bit different...?)
WRT the MacKay quote - I don't believe he intended the example he gives to be taken literally. It is by way of getting people (including pro-renewables activists) to think a little more clearly about the scale of the problem.
This is the root misconception that most renewables advocates share. They do not appreciate how poorly renewables perform next to fossil and nuclear, nor how much treasure and land/sea area they consume. As I said above, they don't 'get it'.
We really cannot afford to go on like this for much longer. Adults need to intervene, and soon.
"I am not pro-wind or pro-nuclear: I am just pro-arithmetic."
If only more were...
"Pleased to see your indignation at rude name calling, Andrew. Presumably "Carbon-crazed Cate" slipped through the irony filter."
Alliteration is covered by the poetic license.
James P
Indeed. It's what I have said to Zed: I'm not 'anti-renewables' because they're green; I'm agin them because they do not and will not deliver as claimed. The numbers don't work. But as the man said, those who cannot master arithmetic are doomed to talk nonsense...
Reminds me of Hengist, actually. He can't count either.
BDB
I think you're part of the problem, re polite intellectual discourse.
please apologise, or make true on your (as it turns out) effeminate promise to leave and comment less or not at all.
fossil fuels should get taxed more for energy generation as their cost on health is not taking into account.
in any case oil should be used for plastics and a little while longer for aviation , and coal should be used for making steel.
It is certainly worthwhile to invest more in renewables R&D.
Solar is a big promise as we come to grips with our understanding of the Photosynthesis complexes.
Plants only have a 1% efficiency in turning solar to chemical energy (sugars) . this due to the very narrow IR bandwidth of the few PScomplexes around in nature. the idea should be to improve plants. Algae biochem technology should provide that.
Nuclear has a future IF only the industry around it can be transformed. They have complied to leftist regulation out of self interest and morphed into a paper pushing 50s technology.
UTB
Now how was it you described me again? Ah yes:
My profoundest apologies for falling below your own rigorous standards of polite intellectual discourse.
Good grief.
Anyone
What's an 'effeminate promise'?
I'm intrigued.
BBD
well I just describe your intellectual aptitude from what I can read, I do not juxtapose vulgar sexual scenery , like you do.
BBD
Well it is all very racist and misoginist maybe what you are suddenly intrigued about, and maybe I am far worse than you, but that won't score you any points or do away with the soundness of my argument that you howl a lot at people yourself with scant intellectual backup.
Make true on your promise and ,b>Go back to your classroom where maybe you still have a little authority.
I'm with Zed and Hengist , for as long as buerk-buerk-buerk BBDs are around
Phinnie
Don't take it personally old chap ;-)
All
Can we please cut the nonsense on this thread.
BBD
I am with Ursula on this, allthough i do not know her.
You be consequent now and make good on your promise and return to your pupils: they need their geography lesson. The longest river , the highest mountain..you can do it. Yes you can!
Phinniethebutch
I refer you to BH above.
cannot really believe that the "mobile phones are dangerous" meme is surfacing again...I suppose it happens every 3-5 years or so.
BBD
stop being the problem and insulting people like you continuously do.
Especially when there is no substance in all your commentary.
Also stop associating posters with each other around.
Diogenes
Saying "it's a meme" hardly is a rebuttal for also "climate scepticism" can be called a meme.
The studies warning on mobiles are there but quickly hushed away.
Same with living under power cables actually: Not to be recommended.
Radiation is good but too much is bad.
For the record, I fully support PTW.
I am not taking sides here, but no chasing away commenters please.
any real evidence Phinnie or Ursula?
think about the radiation from the Sun, which can cause burns, and cancers....then compare it to the radiation from a mobile phone mast. And remember we might be close to a TV or radio...so there will be radiowaves there. Of course, we do not put our heads in a microwave oven, because that would be silly. But my wifi connection has just downloaded 60 minutes worth of a BBC programme in 5 seconds... I wonder why my brain has not fried. Grow up and learn some non-dialectical physics!
Phinnie...the worries about living under pylons have been going on since about 1935. Surely it's time to get over it.
when does absence of evidence mean that there is no evidence and that the presumption is rebutted?
the meme that bullets kill have also been going on since 1935
"why do you have so much invested in denying even the possibility that shale gas will be a benefit to the species wrt our little energy problem?"
Shale denier? Can you hear yourself?
With such strength of argument how can I possibly respond!
Something random on RF, I was once in a meeting, about 10 yrs back, with an inventor (same bloke who invented a wind turbine based on the "sail wing" principle with the heavy gear at the bottom instead of on a huge pole) who was demonstrating a "self charging" battery, about the size and shape of a credit card, I can't remember the numbers (small numbers), but it did get charged from the ambient RF.
I wonder if it ever made it to the market for any application.
Frosty
The problem is not with me, it is with you. Your attitude to shale gas is absolutely negative, and your original comment illustrates this perfectly.
I dislike doom-mongers - of which you are one. I do not apologise for this. You are part of the problem, not the solution.
I will go a little further. Your self-proclaimed retirement from society to some sort of survivalist community actually removes your right to criticise what everyone else does. You have left the building. You dropped your voting rights at the door.
phinniethebutch
Stop pretending to be two different posters. Did you really think no-one would notice? Diogenes has. I daresay BH has too.
Your own conduct on the Wolff thread was appalling. You have forfeit any right to criticise me or any other commenter here.
Shub
Eh??
BBD
your conduct is appalling on every thread.
It ranges from pathetic brown nosing to insulting anything that obstructs your clouded little nukes-shrines laden worldview.
Oh and stop associating me with ursula i do not know her.
you make yourself look like a teenage school boy.
Don't forget you have matured now, you're on the other side of the classroom divide, now.
longest river, highest mountain, the number of peoples in china : get on with it.
phinniethebutch
You forgot to switch psuedonyms above - look how you signed off... priceless. Thanks.
Now you have confirmed that you are indeed posting under two pseudonyms and lying about it, perhaps we can get on with business as usual.
Oh, and I am not, nor have I ever been, a teacher. Entirely the wrong temperament for it ;-)
Can't you tell?
Shub
Looks like you backed the wrong horse.
He's a Peak Doomer and they all rub me up the wrong way. Exactly like climate catastrophists, now I think of it.
BBD
I must confess that they bug me as well and that many are scientific illiterates who usually have trouble with logic and critical thought. That said, we cannot discount all of the points that they make at all times just as we cannot accept all of the arguments made by the smart people that we admire.
I agree with you that the obvious solution is nuclear. My problem with the shale hype is that it is diverting us from other alternatives. Frankly, I would rather have the government get out of the way and let the shale players try to see if they can manage an positive return on the energy that they invest when drilling shale formations. But I would also want to see the regulators clarify the accounting rules so that investors are permitted to see reality as it is rather than a papered over version of it. While I have no problem with allowing the producers to make assumptions regarding the ultimate recovery there is no way that those assumptions should be permitted to contradict the real world production data from the formations. I also believe that the SEC rules allow a form of deception that keeps a floor under the shale producers. It looks to me as it their value is not for the real return that they will provide but for the cover that they can give to oil companies that have trouble replacing their reserves. The SEC needs to stop providing cover for distortions of reality. It either has to make everyone more accountable or get rid of all of the rules so that the false sense of security is no longer presented to a naive public.
I also feel the same way about the renewables scam. We need to make sure that all of the information that is presented actually fits the known reality. Voters and investors should know exactly how viable the programs are without subsidies and should know the straight up comparison of costs produced by each source. Governments and promoters need to stop channeling the ghost of Orwell and need to be held responsible for distorting the language as they mislabel depreciation, research, and other cost write downs as subsidies or mislabel subsidies as operational revenues. People are not that stupid. Once all the facts are clearly presented and the implications are made clear they can make a decision about the viability of options.
On the shale issue we will see the markets make the call. As far as I am concerned it already has made the call. We have already seen the shale players bleed red ink and report massive negative cash flows as their management teams scramble to borrow more money, sell off assets to oil companies in need of a reserve boost, or try to sell themselves as 'shale liquids' operations. While natural gas is still very cheap and should get a huge boost eventually it is my contention that shale gas costs will keep rising right along with the natural gas price because of the low energy return of the process. While that will be a problem for investors it will also be a problem for society because the diversion prevents good people with good ideas regarding energy solutions from getting the attention and the financing that they need to advance those ideas.
BBD
I wonder if the 14y old brainee would notice it :)
alternatively this could be also called: "a typo"
You have EVERYTHING of a geography teacher in a mid life crisis. EVERYTHING.
Any jeune-premier does the "I am not the one I always was" thing.
How long is the Missisippi? Tell me, you just WANT to tell it , don't you?
Phinnie
It is certainly worthwhile to invest more in renewables R&D.
Everyone is free to invest in any company trying to come up with any solution to our energy problems. Who gets the money and how much should be decided by the investors willing to take a risk, not some idiot bureaucrat looking to score political points.
nuclear is good for electricity (25% of the energy conundrum)
We need energy for mobility, heating, and making products as well.
BBDs nukes are not in the picture there (unless he takes a nuclear submarine to go measure the length of the mississippi , for his class).
so "fixing" with nukes alone is simply not on.
The renewables R&D is entirely justified .
It is just the rollout of what basically is 19-20th century technology that is NOT justified.
Wind has a niche it might make sense to install them on the Spanish Sierra cams or on remote islands, so it is a mistake to tarnish all windmills.
political mongering is much stronger than "science" and sound economics.
Germany was against nuclear energy because it has coal, and had a huge UNIONISED workforce digging the coal out. France, also an engineering nation, did NOT have coal and a UNIONISED workforce for coal, so they embraced nuclear for electricity. (note, BBD: nothing stopped them to put nukes in their car's petrol tanks either . But they did not. Instead many French drive DIESEL and GAS)
The early COAL conundrum (Germany has it , France not) was the basis of the EU.
It was even their first name
phinnie
I've had enough of your insults and nonsense.
On this thread, while posting under two pseudonyms, you have said:
No phinnie. It’s called ‘a lie’.
One which you are, in your unhinged way, just attempting to pretend didn't happen.
Not good enough. IMO you should be banned.
Vangel
I'm sorry - meetings for a while now - what you say at 1:38pm (speed read I'm afraid) sounds entirely reasonable but I don't ahve time for a proper response. Hopefully later.
BBD
why don't you focus on all the bile you direct to people who dissent a little with you, and make true on your promise to stay away.
Phinnie
Vangel
He means he has to supervise the play court for the 14:00 break.
phinnie
Keep it up. It only helps make the case.
Vangel
Essentially what you say is that shale gas and renewables both suffer from state-sponsored misrepresentation, and both fail the EROEI test.
However, I think the state intervention wrt shale gas is a US problem but not yet a UK one - the government here is just hemming and hawing about how much exploration, and where etc. The market hasn't been distorted. So perhaps it will operate more efficiently in testing the claims of the shale gas proponents. We shall see.
Here, all the nonsense and hype is directed into forcing on- and offshore wind into the energy mix with virtually no regard for cost or consequences. The rhetoric is: 'pay more for less. Here's a smart meter to ration you with. And don't be so selfish'.
I've argued for years that the 'bridging technology' from coal to nuclear is gas because the plant is quick and (relatively) cheap to build. Energy security is the worm in the apple, obviously.
It would be hugely convenient if SG works out in the end, but if it doesn't I would hate to see a replay of the renewables scam. As you say above, it's all about opportunity cost. To conventional gas, and ultimately to nuclear.
We are getting our unfair share of random rantings in this thread, BBD. Perhaps you should ignore them. I am finding the conversation with Vangel interesting.
BH Although you may not have access to it, it is possible to track the IP address of posters. Perhaps you can clarify if we have one troll using three names or three trolls. They are becoming tiresome.
Don Pablo
I'm doing my best, eg 3:17pm above. And thank you for looking in.
"Sceptics" was deemed too polite, so "deniers" was introduced.
Have you just made that up or are you able to quote some kind of source for that sentiment?
BBD,
I did not back the 'wrong horse' or any horse. PTW has diagnosed a lot of people right. He picked out on Bart V well before many (any?) others did, he picked on lucia briefly and started irritating her (perhaps obnoxiously so, but I don't care, grown-ups can handle it); I used to wonder why. But I see what he says - I have my own observations as well. Lucia, for example picks on Monckton, but now she's presenting multimodel mean vs real temps on her blog. Guess who showed similar stuff earlier. So I have a reason for 'backing my horse'.
It would be hugely convenient if SG works out in the end, but if it doesn't I would hate to see a replay of the renewables scam. As you say above, it's all about opportunity cost. To conventional gas, and ultimately to nuclear.
Clearly, some shale formations should work out. There are a few companies in the US that have hit sweet spots in shale formations and have made a great deal of money from producing the gas. The problem is that most of the formations may be totally unsuitable for serious production. And if shale is not the answer the optimists want it to be we will be further behind in our quest to find a suitable solution to our energy problems.
Shub
The conventions of public discourse prevent me from making a frank answer to your comment above.
But if you think PTW's behaviour on this blog since the Wolff thread is even remotely acceptable, then we differ irreconcilably.
I wonder if you would be so quick to leap to PTW's defence if his insane bile was being directed at you every day?
[Snip]
[Snip]
Ursula