@TMTisFree

Quote:

Muller's critic was directed to the 'trick(s)'

Yes, the link was included here for historical reference that Muller had been a well established anti-Global Warming critic.

And yes Muller was cherry-picked by Republicans. At the recent presentation there was a lawyer, a professor of marketing, an economist, and Muller was 1 of 3 scientists. Specially Muller because he was knowing to be a strong critic of Global Warming. Surprise!

Quote:

I think the position of Watts is like one having been advertised a 240 miles range for his new EV car to discover right in the middle of nowhere it to be only 150.

Watts believed Muller would be fully on his side. Watts waved the victory flag before the report and... Surprise!

@T-J

Quote:

I personally doubt that the Green and Armstrong paper I found will ever be submitted for peer review.

As said in this post, the paper was in press in 2009 (available from my server).

Quote:

The Greens are always going to be a problem for implementing any energy policy.

Their motto seems to protest against every free energy markets: the first rule is 'no nuclear', the second 'no coal' and the third 'no gas'. But when they are in government, they invoke rule zero : 'blame problems on someone else'.

Quote:

But 'heading for 3rd world status'? I wouldn't say that. Germany has to import *something* to balance its strong manufacturing exports. Why not electricity?

I am not certain that losing base energy independence and production because of irrational ideology/fears is a smart choice: European countries are all interconnected and decreasing net electricity base production means increasing odds of outages during peaks for every one. Somehow new base power plants (coal and/or nuclear) will have to be build somewhere else to keep up with future energy consumption.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

Yes, the link was included here for historical reference that Muller had been a well established anti-Global Warming critic.

I did not encountered him before this video I saw some weeks ago. I don't know his position on the whole AGW affair. Judith Curry has the following to say about Muller: Quote:

Muller was asked to testify by the Republicans. If the Republicans wanted a “denier” to testify, they would not have invited Muller to testify. [...] Muller and has [sic] associates have made numerous public statements about being concerned about global warming.

Quote:

And yes Muller was cherry-picked by Republicans. At the recent presentation there was a lawyer, a professor of marketing, an economist, and Muller was 1 of 3 scientists. Specially Muller because he was knowing to be a strong critic of Global Warming.

I would not like to be at his place to testify before politicians: choosing between being honest or advocating is a difficult moral choice given the pressure.

Quote:

Watts believed Muller would be fully on his side. Watts waved the victory flag before the report and... Surprise!

IIRC, Watts was positive about the methodologies BEST team has shown him under NDA. I think he was somewhat disappointed by Muller giving raw results publicly before disclosing data and methods. My position is that it is sensible to wait for the first significant results, methods used and replication of the work before forging an opinion.

Edit: added a quote from J. Curry

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 06-Apr-2011 at 10:27 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

I did not encountered him before this video I saw some weeks ago

Welcome to someone that had a notable anti-GW record in the scientific circles.

Quote:

My position is that it is sensible to wait for the first significant results, methods used and replication of the work before forging an opinion.

Indeed but certainly not before posting the work. And certainly this is what Watts should have done. He placed his bet and got it wrong. Watts got egg on his omlet covered face again.

@BrianK

Quote:

Welcome to someone that [sic] had a notable anti-GW record in the scientific circles.

J. Curry who certainly knows scientific circles better than you and me disagrees: Quote:

Muller was asked to testify by the Republicans. If the Republicans wanted a “denier” to testify, they would not have invited Muller to testify. [...] Muller and has [sic] associates have made numerous public statements about being concerned about global warming.

Quote:

Indeed but certainly not before posting the work.

I was thinking about both Muller and Watts. I don't know if one is able to refuse a testimony before Congress in the US?

For me, the most intriguing part of Muller's testimony is this one: Quote:

The Berkeley Earth agreement with the prior analysis surprised us, since our preliminary results don’t yet address many of the known biases. When they do, it is possible that the corrections could bring our current agreement into disagreement. Why such close agreement between our uncorrected data and their adjusted data? One possibility is that the systematic corrections applied by the other groups are small. We don’t yet know.

The bottom line is we have to wait to know more.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

J. Curry who certainly knows scientific circles better than you and me disagrees

Where's that skeptical always attitude you keep telling us about? What you've done is provided a political statement from someone concerning Muller. Now certainly my statement about Muller is politic as well. I did show a bit substance behind it as I posted one of the Muller articles. There's no substance in Curry's statement. You'd have to support this.

What would need to be determined is how political J. Curry is, or isn't being political herself. A couple of searches show that Judith Curry backs Muller in other efforts. As such this substance was made before the more recent Muller political statement. It also conflicts with her political statement. Albeit short but enough to give some indication that Curry's statement has changed from her past statements. Politic at work here.

If you really want to analyze what's going on here you'll need more background. You've admitted to not knowing about Muller. So start building your evidence how many papers has his written? What % support man's influence vs lack of influence in the climate? What public speaking things has he done? What was his position at the time? If you want substance then get it. I'd recommend you can start at Watts he's loved Muller's anti-GW statements in the past. Various links from there you can follow the trail.

TMT again I'm disappointed. You explained how you are constantly analyzing scientific items for substance and making your decision. Yet here we see nothing of the sort from you. Instead you said 'Curry knows better' and made a huge fail as you made an arguement from authority. You took the substance, evidence of Muller's past anti-GW actions, (admittedly weak as it was only a single instance that I included for familiarity for those, like you, that don't know Muller) and denied it with a politic? Again where's the substance and strong scientific skepticism you claimed was inbedded into your life constantly? This action speaks more to denialism than true skepticism in your life.



Quote:

I don't know if one is able to refuse a testimony before Congress in the US?

Congress can make friendly requests for people to come present. One can deny such a request. If Congress were to subpoena someone if they don't testify they would likely face penalties.

If you want to know more you can get the testimony from the publically available records. US House Climate hearing Not so surprising is the Republican lead committee had 3 scientists which have their background in anti-GW claims and none for GW. Armstrong was the person that challenged Gore's statements and John Christy has many papers backing warming of a non human cause. I find it telling the Republicans failed to invite NASA researchers. Part of NASA's job is to do plantary research and this includes research about earth.

Last edited by BrianK on 07-Apr-2011 at 02:12 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

Where's that skeptical always attitude you keep telling us about?

I was sceptical of your claim about Muller Seriously I have no position on Muller, except to say his view on the statistical twists from the Team ('hide the decline' & HS) is what I have been saying here for years. I care more about BEST's results (but not so much: the relevance of temperature with anything is quite small). I notice that you did not substanciate your claim "Welcome to someone that had a notable anti-GW record in the scientific circles." by pointing to evidences.

Quote:

TMT again I'm disappointed. You explained how you are constantly analyzing scientific items for substance and making your decision.

The important words here are "scientific items for substance". Political ranting/analyse, not so much (only sometimes).

Quote:

If you want to know more you can get the testimony from the publically available records

I try to keep up with scientific literature first (climate being just one of many matters I follow) and then, when time permits, a little bit of political folklore for the fun.

Edit: added a sentence

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 07-Apr-2011 at 05:22 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

@BrianK Quote: Where's that skeptical always attitude you keep telling us about? I was sceptical of your claim about Muller

I'm glad you put the winky. I'm assuming you realize that the 'I disagree therefore am skeptical' is far different than applying a system of evidence and rational analysis. You posted a politic no such rebuking evidence.

Quote:

I notice that you did not substanciate your claim "Welcome to someone that had a notable anti-GW record in the scientific circles." by pointing to evidences.

I did put 1 put of example towards the claim and indicated an easy area to get more if the reader was interested in more evidence. But, then again I wasn't the one claiming the sketpical superpowers.

Quote:

The important words here are "scientific items for substance". Political ranting/analyse, not so much (only sometimes).

Again certainly you realize having a posting of the opposite of a politic in no way establisheds validity.

@BrianK

Quote:

I'm assuming you realize that the 'I disagree therefore am skeptical' is far different than applying a system of evidence and rational analysis.

You assume correctly. I still don't know what is Muller's view on AGW and don't care much. Given the contrary quasi-evidences seen here and there, this could indicate he is just a no-sided scientist: a rare beast. I'm assuming you realize that the 'I agree therefore I am a believer' is far different than applying a system of evidence and rational analysis.

Quote:

I did put 1 put of example towards the claim

Being sceptical of the Team's statistic twists is a far cry from being sceptical of AGW: for example McIntyre has always stated that if AGW is a problem, policies have to be implemented. Second, if Muller was a hard-core sceptic like (others want) you (to) believe, he would have downplayed his result and stressed preliminary result and uncertainty much more, which he has not, mostly the opposite. Either way, result and explanation of result are what should matter (to me at least).

Quote:

Again certainly you realize having a posting of the opposite of a politic in no way establisheds validity.

You have to understand that putting Muller (or any scientist) in one box or in another should have no influence on whatever scientific conclusion one can reach. What you preach is a form of ad hominem rampant in the AGW circles which adds nothing but diversion away from discussing the big holes of the AGW affair: a tactic which has fire-backed badly in the recent past. Perhaps it is time to learn lessons and revise strategies.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

You have to understand that putting Muller (or any scientist) in one box or in another should have no influence on whatever scientific conclusion one can reach

Of course I do it was my whole point about Watt's behavior. Watts has presented Muller's anti-GW work. He backed Muller expecting Muller would continue along this line and that's not what happened. Watts therefore got egg on his face.. Said many posts ago.

What I preach? Pshaw! I made my observation of the politics carried by various Anti-GWers, and especially Watts in particular, and noticed how they fled from the scene when they pre-emptively backed the science instead of waiting for the results. And as soon as the results were opposite of their conculsion it's then we see them back peddling and demanding things they fail to demand of the other scientists whose conclusions were the same as their own. As I said may posts ago. Interesting political theater.

@BrianK

That is not my view on the whole affair. As there is no point repeating it, I won't.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

A new discrepancy between model-based sea level predictions and real world tidal gauge measurements. The conclusion says: Quote:

Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each time period we consider, the records show small decelerations that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records. The decelerations that we obtain are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less than the +0.07 to +0.28 mm/y² accelerations that are required to reach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf (2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted, Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010). Bindoff et al. (2007) note an increase in worldwide temperature from 1906 to 2005 of 0.74°C. It is essential that investigations continue to address why this worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years.

The paper is Houston J.R. and Dean R.G. (2011) Sea-level acceleration based on U.S. tide gauges and extensions of previous global-gauge analyses Journal of Coastal Research.

No acceleration in sea level then. Rise is thus stable but a discrepancy remains between tide gauges which give about 1.6mm/year and satellite the double (~3mm/year), possibly meaning a calibration problem with altimeters:

(for some reason, the graph has not been updated since mid 2010)

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Difficult time ahead for wind energy:

Quote:

The following five statements are common assertions made by both the wind industry and Government representatives and agencies. This Report examines those assertions. 1. “Wind turbines will generate on average 30% of their rated capacity over a year.” 2. “The wind is always blowing somewhere.” 3. “Periods of widespread low wind are infrequent.” 4. “The probability of very low wind output coinciding with peak electricity demand is slight.” 5. “Pumped storage hydro can fill the generation gap during prolonged low wind periods.” This analysis uses publicly available data for a 26 month period between November 2008 and December 2010 and the facts in respect of the above assertions are: 1. Average output from wind was 27.18% of metered capacity in 2009, 21.14% in 2010, and 24.08% between November 2008 and December 2010 inclusive. 2. There were 124 separate occasions from November 2008 till December 2010 when total generation from the windfarms metered by National Grid was less than 20MW. (Average capacity over the period was in excess of 1600MW). 3. The average frequency and duration of a low wind event of 20MW or less between November 2008 and December 2010 was once every 6.38 days for a period of 4.93 hours. 4. At each of the four highest peak demands of 2010 wind output was low being respectively 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity at peak demand. 5. The entire pumped storage hydro capacity in the UK can provide up to 2788MW for only 5 hours then it drops to 1060MW, and finally runs out of water after 22 hours.

Quote:

The nature of wind output has been obscured by reliance on “average output” figures. Analysis of hard data from National Grid shows that wind behaves in a quite different manner from that suggested by study of average output derived from the Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) record, or from wind speed records which in themselves are averaged. It is clear from this analysis that wind cannot be relied upon to provide any significant level of generation at any defined time in the future. There is an urgent need to re-evaluate the implications of reliance on wind for any significant proportion of our energy requirement.

From ANALYSIS OF UK WIND POWER GENERATION NOVEMBER 2008 TO DECEMBER 2010 [PDF].



Humph.

Edit: added the picture.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 10-Apr-2011 at 11:13 AM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

Future difficulties for the nuclear industry?

Fukushima was upgraded to a 7. This is the same rating as Chernobyl. The estimated pollution is roughly 1/10th of Chernobyl.

The current estimate for the clean up effort is a decade. Estimated clean up costs in excess of $10 Billion. This doesn't include the costs to build a new power plant. An estimated 10 million people are impacted by this event. The deaths may be low but the impact certainly is not.

It's ironic that Fukushima is Japanese for -- "Good-Fortune Island"

Last edited by BrianK on 12-Apr-2011 at 03:24 PM.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

(for some reason, the graph has not been updated since mid 2010

When one does research there is a point at where the data collection ends. Subsequent to this one must draw their conclusions. The next step is internal validation. From there one goes to peer-review and submission for publication. During that time one can't be changing their paper. Adding more data between the conclusion and peer-review should and must be a no no. (Didn't you claim to be an ex-scientist?)

Now this isn't to say that perhaps there isn't more data since mid-2010 and maybe the authors are tracking it. If they are they should be in a future paper.

Quote:

possibly meaning a calibration problem with altimeters:

That's one possibility there are several others. The paper is fairly new and as such there has been very little, (I'll be as bold to say no), vettting.

@BrianK

Quote:

When one does research there is a point at where the data collection ends. Subsequent to this one must draw their conclusions. The next step is internal validation. From there one goes to peer-review and submission for publication. During that time one can't be changing their paper. Adding more data between the conclusion and peer-review should and must be a no no. (Didn't you claim to be an ex-scientist?)

What are you talking about? Sea level data is freely available. The particular plot I showed (and I used to use) was from a website (Boulder, University of Colorado), not from the paper (it helps to read what is written before discussing). Below is one another, updated this time, which shows the same thing (ie no acceleration):


The plot of the paper showing the discrepancy [PDF] between tidal gauges and satellite altimetry:


Here is an up to date (December 2010) version:


Quote:

The paper is fairly new

So what? Data is data, new or not, like it or not. It builds on the work of others [PDF]:


Clearly the discrepancy has to be explained in the future, else the value of satellite data will be greatly reduced for comparison purpose and historical perspective.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

What are you talking about? Sea level data is freely available. The particular plot I showed (and I used to use) was from a website (Boulder, University of Colorado), not from the paper (it helps to read what is written before discussing).

Egads how could I possibly mistake a graph about sea level rise as being from the paper about sea level rise when you don't indicate it's meant by you to be a collaborating source. How silly of me!

@BrianK

Quote:

Egads how could I possibly mistake a graph about sea level rise

Holly cow! You comment on a paper without reading it (at least diagonally). Post modernism at work!

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

Future difficulties for the nuclear industry?

There are more than 60 nuclear plants currently building worldwide, with 1-4 opening every year or so. As said previously, the future energy winner is clearly shale gas (if Big Enviro doesn't kill it though): see, here (France) we have the same technically recoverable shale gas quantity per person as in the USA. I see difficult time ahead for the 'decarbonize' people.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Quote: Future difficulties for the nuclear industry? There are more than 60 nuclear plants currently building worldwide, with 1-4 opening every year or so. As said previously, the future energy winner is clearly shale gas (if Big Enviro doesn't kill it though): see, here (France) we have the same technically recoverable shale gas quantity per person as in the USA. I see difficult time ahead for the 'decarbonize' people.

People will never be 'decarbonized'. It's that simple. We use oil for many products besides power.

Nuke industry in the US seems to be fairly dead. Costs of any new plants are easily excedding $10Billion. Time to build is just under 10 years. In the US projected rates for charging is about 30cents per Kwh. Coal, oil, and natural gas are half that rate. Solar is currently around 25, wind cheaper even, and there's no bets to be taken to move millions of people and pay billions of dollars when there's an accident or a terrorist attack.