Climate science. Latest findings.

I can't understand why this isn't more successful than windmills: owcwaveenergy.weebly.com/wavegen.html

I can find nothing about why they closed it down...

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

log man said..
This is one for Dickie knee

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/24/centrism-is-a-dead-weight-in-australian-politics-and-its-dragging-us-all-down

Gotta love the Guardian. "Our extreme views are being ignored, it must be a failed political system" rather than the fact that you know....your views are extreme...

Taking the advice of the overwhelming population of scientists is now "extreme".........right!

Select to expand quote

log man said..

Taking the advice of the overwhelming population of scientists is now "extreme".........right!

It's the overwhelming advice of a minority but very vocal population, some of whom are scientists.

I would challenge that the "overwhelming population of scientists" agree with that view.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

psychojoe said..
I like what you said Paradox. But I just don't get how Denmark is running on 100% renewables and Australia can't. By the way, not suggesting we should.

Well, again you need to watch what you read in the media. The easy answer is that it doesn't run 100% on renewable, except for short periods. I believe they are on about 70% overall. Denmark is a small country that is well situated to utilise renewable sources. Mainly wind and pumped hydro storage from other countries.

When the wind blows they have enough to power the country, and therefore can claim they run 100%. But its only while its windy. When it doesn't they still rely on fossil fuel, but are admirably trying to reduce that.

They also use stored Hydro solutions by arrangement with Norway and Sweden. This way they can store excess wind power.

It's great what they are doing, but it doesn't go against what I am saying. You need big power turbines feeding into the system. Denmark is well situated to utilise the wind when it blows and use their neighbours hydro infrastructure to store a bit to make it last longer. They still rely on oil, gas and coal though when the wind doesn't blow.

It's great stuff, but not a solution than can be just replicated elsewhere. They need infrastructure managed by countries not on 100% renewables to achieve it.

I really wish I'd Googled before I asked the question (Google says 42%). You've put a lot of effort into this thread Paradox. Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

log man said..

don't be stupid.

I am many things. Stupid is not one usually one of them. Your argument isn't overly persuading me to consider this is one of those times.

Stupid, would be taking a position based on emotion and popular opinion rather than facts and not looking deeper. It is a common affliction.

so you can stay with Andrew Bolt, Lord Monckton and the crew from Sky after dark and I'll back every national science organisation, Nasa, 90 odd percent of scientists, and every decent climate scientist.
The world is warming and the theory put forward about 40 years ago just gets stronger and stronger. So far NO-ONE has put forward a peer reviewed, scientific theory that stands up to the rigors of scrutiny.
So, in the absence of anything.......you've got nothing......just a political conspiracy theory and hope.
So get busy formulating that theory......should be interesting.

Select to expand quote

log man said..
don't be stupid.

You really add nothing to any discussion except that phrase. You're obviously projecting.

Select to expand quote

Foghorn said..

Kamikuza said..
I can't understand why this isn't more successful than windmills: owcwaveenergy.weebly.com/wavegen.html

I can find nothing about why they closed it down...

We had our own wave gen fail in wa although ours didnt really get in the water.Difficulties of maintenance and the fact that its emerced in seawater wouldnt help.

That particular design is an oscillating water column driving a Wells turbine, not those stupid floating things. The OWC things are dead simple and all the bits needing maintenance are not in contact with the ocean.

This one in Bay of Biscay seems to be still working -- www.renewable-technology.com/projects/mutriku-wave-energy-plant/

Lot less ugly and intrusive than windmills...

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Chris 249 said..

1- Your source "Wattsupwiththat" is not in any way objective, nor does it actually prove the claims in your link. It's rather strange to use a source that quotes fiction to support it. Those who speak of the financial and career incentive for scientists to fudge data appear to ignore that people who are interested in making a buck from science can do it much better in industry than in academia. Scientists who become academics tend to do it because they are not all that interested in money. And the fossil fuel industry is enormous - it's the oil companies that have the cash that can distort debate.'

Note that the "Wattsupwiththat" article you linked to comes from another blog and its authors are NOT scientists in any way. One of them is a financial guy, the other four are ex military. What in the world do they have that gives them any credibility to speak about the climate science and academia?

2- is an assertion for which you have given no evidence whatsover.

1- Sure, I wont disagree that it is opinion and a discussion point and I linked it just to reduce my post size. I believe the issue is very real, feel free to dismiss it though. The point is that research funding comes with a caveat that you don't question the popular opinion on climate Science if that is what the funding dictates. It seems that it is career suicide for a climate related scientist to argue against mainstream views. Who will employ anyone who doesn't give the answers the funding or employer wanted? Peter Ridd is a good example.

2 - Really? I thought that vox article was a well balanced summary of technical papers on the subject. It's not hard to find more, try googling, or go find a power network engineer to tell you. You can't run a stable power network without some fundamental aspects, especially sources that are dispatchable, have inertia and can maintain frequency. Here is some help:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispatchable_generation
www.nmppenergy.org/feature/dispatchable%20resources
theconversation.com/baffled-by-baseload-dumbfounded-by-dispatchables-heres-a-glossary-of-the-energy-debate-84212

I appreciate the way you're discussing this in a reasonable and fact-based manner.

As someone who is critically interested in scientific funding - my wife is a scientist in another area - I've spent years listening to scientists talk about their research funding. I'm also interested in the history of science and was doing a PhD in another area. Going from that experience, I don't agree that scientists have to follow the popular opinion if they want funding. In fact, boosting your career in science is often best achieved by showing that the popular opinion is wrong. Although I've used it before, the example of Brian Schmidt is a good one - he went against the popular opinion and instead of "career suicide" he got a Nobel Prize.

Sure, some people like Ridd claim that they have lost out because of their position, but such claims are hard to prove.

Secondly, many of the people who are against the consensus are specifically funded by "denialist" bodies. Ridd is a perfect example since he is proudly supported by the IPA, which is heavily supported by Gina RInehart. There is therefore arguably much more financial incentive for people to be "denialists" than to support the consensus, even leaving aside those who are directly funded by the enormous fossil fuel industry.

We are numbering our paragraphs in different ways, which is causing some cross-talking. I wasn't disputing the vox article. I was disputing your claim that "there is no strong or conclusive evidence that any level of climate change currently being observed is predominately anthropological. The best scientists can say is we are probably contributing to some level. ie 1% or more, and there are big variations in scientific opinions on the level. However irrespective of that lets assume everyone agrees its possible that we are contributing to some level and moving away from fossil fuels is good, provided it's economically logical."

The IPCC has said "It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in GMST [global mean surface temperature] from 1951 to 2010. This assessment is supported by robust evidence from multiple studies using different methods." The Royal Society and other bodies say that humans are "largely" responsible for global warming. Even "skeptics" like Judith Curry agree that humans are contributing.

I'm also unsure about the "economically logical" part. Australia at the moment is one of the richest countries ever seen in human history. Many of us could take a major financial hit and the effect would be to cause us to only have a lower standard of home theatre, to run a three year old SUV instead of a new one, or to not buy a new sail or two. People like coal miners are not "trying to make ends meet"; it's the highest paying sector in the country and sparkies and fitters are pulling in $170 p.a. packages. Sure, there are flow on financial effects but manufacturers, farm managers and even outboard motor mechanics will tell you that many of those flow-ons are adverse to other sectors and to their local communities.

Basically, it's hard to feel greatly concerned about causing some belt tightening in one of the richest sectors of one of the richest civilisations ever known, especially when other sectors have been hit much harder.

I agree that nuclear is an option worth exploring. My grandfather was actually the guy in charge of building some of NSW's power stations and he pretty much assumed that by now we'd be using nuclear power and electric vehicles.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Chris 249 said..

I appreciate the way you're discussing this in a reasonable and fact-based manner.

As someone who is critically interested in scientific funding - my wife is a scientist in another area - I've spent years listening to scientists talk about their research funding. I'm also interested in the history of science and was doing a PhD in another area. Going from that experience, I don't agree that scientists have to follow the popular opinion if they want funding. In fact, boosting your career in science is often best achieved by showing that the popular opinion is wrong. Although I've used it before, the example of Brian Schmidt is a good one - he went against the popular opinion and instead of "career suicide" he got a Nobel Prize.

Sure, some people like Ridd claim that they have lost out because of their position, but such claims are hard to prove.

Secondly, many of the people who are against the consensus are specifically funded by "denialist" bodies. Ridd is a perfect example since he is proudly supported by the IPA, which is heavily supported by Gina RInehart. There is therefore arguably much more financial incentive for people to be "denialists" than to support the consensus, even leaving aside those who are directly funded by the enormous fossil fuel industry.

We are numbering our paragraphs in different ways, which is causing some cross-talking. I wasn't disputing the vox article. I was disputing your claim that "there is no strong or conclusive evidence that any level of climate change currently being observed is predominately anthropological. The best scientists can say is we are probably contributing to some level. ie 1% or more, and there are big variations in scientific opinions on the level. However irrespective of that lets assume everyone agrees its possible that we are contributing to some level and moving away from fossil fuels is good, provided it's economically logical."

The IPCC has said "It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in GMST [global mean surface temperature] from 1951 to 2010. This assessment is supported by robust evidence from multiple studies using different methods." The Royal Society and other bodies say that humans are "largely" responsible for global warming. Even "skeptics" like Judith Curry agree that humans are contributing.

I'm also unsure about the "economically logical" part. Australia at the moment is one of the richest countries ever seen in human history. Many of us could take a major financial hit and the effect would be to cause us to only have a lower standard of home theatre, to run a three year old SUV instead of a new one, or to not buy a new sail or two. People like coal miners are not "trying to make ends meet"; it's the highest paying sector in the country and sparkies and fitters are pulling in $170 p.a. packages. Sure, there are flow on financial effects but manufacturers, farm managers and even outboard motor mechanics will tell you that many of those flow-ons are adverse to other sectors and to their local communities.

Basically, it's hard to feel greatly concerned about causing some belt tightening in one of the richest sectors of one of the richest civilisations ever known, especially when other sectors have been hit much harder.

I agree that nuclear is an option worth exploring. My grandfather was actually the guy in charge of building some of NSW's power stations and he pretty much assumed that by now we'd be using nuclear power and electric vehicles.

There is a lot there so I will just touch a few.

1) regarding my statement and your following quote from IPCC (also addresses Guac's poor attempt at paraphrasing)

ME: "there is no strong or conclusive evidence that any level of climate change currently being observed is predominately anthropological. The best scientists can say is we are probably contributing to some level. ie 1% or more, and there are big variations in scientific opinions on the level."

IPCC: "It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in GMST [global mean surface temperature] from 1951 to 2010. This assessment is supported by robust evidence from multiple studies using different methods."

I see no conflict in the two statements. Strong and conclusive evidence does not attract words like extremely likely. That's projection, not certainty. My comment also clearly states that scientific opinions range from 1% contribution to more, ie up close to 100%. It wasn't meant to suggest consensus was 1%, but only that is where some start. Others are obviously more. IPCC's comment is postulating that we are causing more than 50% and refer to "robust studies" without reference. Given that the IPCC's charter is to report only on Anthropological Global Warming, they are not unbiased in their postulations either, so I would consider there is positive bias there. I have concerns over the woeful track record of IPCC's climate modelling accuracy too, but I will leave that elsewhere.

Irrespective, the point is, we have Co2 levels, we have global warming. They are both going up so there appears to be a correlation, (although it is far from perfect correlation). But correlation is not strong conclusive evidence. If it was, the Pastafarians claim that the decline of pirates also correlates with global warming would have to have equal weight. The facts are that we THINK Co2 contributes to global warming. Greenhouse theory gives that line of thought weight (but there is also theory that indicates it is self regulating ie dampens effects). But....there are so many variables that we just don't know. There is no hard evidence, just conjecture and theory and lots and lots of promotion of rubbish as fact by some areas of society. I will say that again. There is no observable evidence that proves the increases in CO2 accounts for the steady increase in Global temp we are also seeing. There is also no strong evidence that are facing runaway temperature increases. It is all postulation and theory. I am not trying to be contrarian here, I just want to point out that fact. It all could be wrong.

To summarise that, in my view on what I have read, most experts believe we are contributing to global warming, not just CO2, but land use practices etc. too. Thing is, in the surveys and comments I have seen it seems to be around 50% possible contribution is the median view. The rest of the warming is considered natural cycles we can't change. It's a small point but key when you look at the effect of action on just CO2. It may actually not do much.... that matters if we are talking about huge investments that could otherwise be spent on better things.

2) on Ridd, he was employed by a university. He spoke out about some of their methods going against sound scientific process and was sacked. It went to court and he won. I have no idea on his relationship with IPA (before or after the fact? maybe they helped his case?) and I don't think it matters. I am a scientific skeptic at heart I don't ignore any scientific evidence unless it's obviously biased or unscientific. IPA may be funded in part by by resources money, but I can't find too much wrong with their works, but have not looked too deeply.

3) regarding economics. I think you might be surprised at how easily an economy can collapse due to shocks. Stuff with our power supply reliability (price as well, but reliability mostly) and you will find our economy in tatters very quickly. Mainly from a business and industry perspective. Irrespective of that, it doesn't matter what you or I think, votes are what decides policy. Votes move quickly for surprisingly small amounts of "perceived or real" loss of income or services.

However, all that said, I am not opposed to tightening up to work toward a significant reduction in CO2 emissions. What I am opposed to is the significant push by extremists that we need to move to renewable energy within a short period, pushing far ahead of whats achievable with current technology and without nuclear. ...and if we don't then we have a catastrophe.... I see no evidence to back that up.

Select to expand quote

NotWal said..

You'd be wrong. climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Denialism is tantamount to climate vandalism.

Well one of us is, and you've been misled unfortunately....

"Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" ...I will take Einstein over Greta any day....

This is the direct quote on what that particular NASA page said there is consensus on:

"Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities"
and then it references the infamous 97% paper by our very own Cook.

Nothing I have said contravenes that quote.

I know what you think that says. But for that statement to be accurate all you need is consensus that the majority of scientists believe humans have contributed in some manner. It's a very vague statement and intentionally so.

I am familiar with the 97% paper (our very own Cook) and it's garbage by any sort of scientific rigour. If you want a teardown on the 97%: business.financialpost.com/opinion/climate-change-consensus-among-the-misinformed-is-not-worth-much

This is the sort of stuff that really bugs me. Pages like NASA, that should be trusted and immune from bias have moved away from absolute scientific fact and gone down the path of political messaging. For them to be putting us misleading quotes and still be referencing that paper is troublesome in the extreme and highlights my point. There is precious little scientific rigor left in climate science. No one challenges it and its just political messaging now with little basis in fact. The more I look into it the more I see serious problems with the highly biased message that is being pushed.

This guy mirrors a lot of my findings, and thankfully as far as I can see sticks with the facts, no spin.
medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-learned-about-climate-change-the-science-is-not-settled-1e3ae4712ace

A great quote from it.

Consensus is not an argument for any scientific principle. Many important scientists toiled alone to make discoveries that were less than popular. One key paper can be worth more than thousands of papers reinforcing a myth. The claim that 97 percent of scientists believe in man-made global warming is one such myth. Almost all scientists expect a small man-made contribution to warming, so the claim is misleading.

Select to expand quote

NotWal said..

Paradox said..

log man said..

Taking the advice of the overwhelming population of scientists is now "extreme".........right!

It's the overwhelming advice of a minority but very vocal population, some of whom are scientists.

I would challenge that the "overwhelming population of scientists" agree with that view.

You'd be wrong. climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Denialism is tantamount to climate vandalism.

Nah NASA's in on the conspiracy too Notwal....

Select to expand quote

log man said..
why is it that every time a conservative links to some article or other you have to check the author or the publication before you get started on the actual substance. It's like the person is being deliberately misleading. Take the link
medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-learned-about-climate-change-the-science-is-not-settled-1e3ae4712ace
It turns out the author is a web designer who posted an article on a site called "medium" ...........it's just a blog. Does this guy know anything about climate science.....who knows.........but Paradox doesn't care.

As for the content.......you can google the author and the article........as I did, and you can see the facts don't square with what he's saying.

YAWN!!!!

I just found the site so haven't done any checking on his background, or even gone through all of it. Much of the info on it seemed to be reasonably accurate and backed up a lot of what I have read and know to be true. Much of this comes from logical conclusion, you don't need to be a rocket scientist.

So lets do that. Which bits don't you agree with? forget the author, as I have no idea either. Front up with the areas of his or my statements that you don't agree with and we can go with that. I'm more than happy to be proved wrong or shown factual evidence that will change my mind.

Truth is all I am interested in and there seems to be precious little of that floating around.

Select to expand quote

log man said..
why is it that every time a conservative links to some article or other you have to check the author or the publication before you get started on the actual substance

You're doing it wrong. Check the data, don't play identity politics with the author or the publication.

You know the original rocket scientists were actual Nazis, right? They still got the ****ing science right.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

log man said..
why is it that every time a conservative links to some article or other you have to check the author or the publication before you get started on the actual substance. It's like the person is being deliberately misleading. Take the link
medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-learned-about-climate-change-the-science-is-not-settled-1e3ae4712ace
It turns out the author is a web designer who posted an article on a site called "medium" ...........it's just a blog. Does this guy know anything about climate science.....who knows.........but Paradox doesn't care.

As for the content.......you can google the author and the article........as I did, and you can see the facts don't square with what he's saying.

YAWN!!!!

I just found the site so haven't done any checking on his background, or even gone through all of it. Much of the info on it seemed to be reasonably accurate and backed up a lot of what I have read and know to be true. Much of this comes from logical conclusion, you don't need to be a rocket scientist.

So lets do that. Which bits don't you agree with? forget the author, as I have no idea either. Front up with the areas of his or my statements that you don't agree with and we can go with that. I'm more than happy to be proved wrong or shown factual evidence that will change my mind.

Truth is all I am interested in and there seems to be precious little of that floating around.

All you have to do is google the guy and read the destruction of his bull****.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

log man said..
why is it that every time a conservative links to some article or other you have to check the author or the publication before you get started on the actual substance

You're doing it wrong. Check the data, don't play identity politics with the author or the publication.

You know the original rocket scientists were actual Nazis, right? They still got the ****ing science right.

you love them nazis don't you