Posts by James Smith 3

Re: @ James Smith 3

However, the real world involves burning the fuel in a power plant, and gas fired power plants have been shown to produce half of the CO2 of their coal fired counterparts.

http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/gas-vs-coal.html

"The CO2 emissions from Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) plants are reduced relative to those produced by burning coal given the same power output because of the higher heat content of natural gas, the lower carbon intensity of gas relative to coal, and the higher overall efficiency of the NGCC plant relative to a coal-fired plant.(1)"

“The average emissions rates in the United States from natural gas-fired generation are: 1135 lbs/MWh (Mega Watt hours) of carbon dioxide, 0.1 lbs/MWh of sulfur dioxide, and 1.7 lbs/MWh of nitrogen oxides. Compared to the average air emissions from coal-fired generation, natural gas produces half as much carbon dioxide, less than a third as much nitrogen oxides, and one percent as much sulphur oxides at the power plant.(2)"

No no no...

Thumbs DOWN if you think it's time for CEO Ronan Dunne to resign over this.

Sorry.....

Re: Cleaning Out The Augean Stables.

It's perfectly reasonable for the policy makers to follow the advice of the IPCC. When making decisions about something you're not an expert, it makes sense to take the advice of the experts in the field. Without the relevant scientific knowledge the policy makers cannot question the advice of the IPCC, so must take it as truth. In this way the IPCC effectively defines policy with its conclusions. This is dangerous if the report isn't entirely unbiased, as some claim.

You're right that forming another panel isn't the way to go. It would be really obvious political maneuver in an attempt to change the result of the science. Science is supposed to be the driver of policy, not the other way around, but it shouldn't seek to define that policy - that's the job of politics. The real answer is for the current panel to be more transparent and amenable to criticism. There is evidence that what makes up the IPCC report isn't entirely unbiased. They don't appear to mind where the results come from as long as it looks like the right answer and keeps the report "on message". (See GlacierGate for a good example). I think that the attempts by members of the IPCC to define policy rather than just present an honest picture of the science is a great deal of what Climate Audit is all about.

Re: PNAS Review

I'm not denying the consensus. Just your evidence for it.

So I can't suggest a better metric. Doesn't mean the one used in the paper is any good. It doesn't mean their conclusions are sound either.

Imagine two researchers tossing coins. Each time they perform the experiment they write a paper. One researcher always gets "heads", the other always "tails". If there was an editoral bias towards publishing "heads" papers (it sells more journals for instance) then the first researcher would appear to have greater expertise due to having more papers published. Do you see how the bias has obviously affected the link between getting published and expertise?

For the conclusion of the paper to be valid it must prove that the result is not affected by any potential bias. It's an obvious source of error that must be accounted for.

Do you think we can solve the problem of wave-particle duality by looking at how many papers were written about each? Quantity does not equal quality.

Re: What if its a hoax

Your post is very similar to Dave 126's post earlier. Have you guys been comparing notes or something?

Re: Think of it as insurance...

You don't mind because the amount you pay for your insurance is relatively small. If you had to pay a life changing amount for your home insurance because the insurance company says your house is very likely to get flooded in the near future, you'd be quite annoyed if they turned round ten years later and said "whoops, sorry we got it wrong". You'd be asking for your money back. (with a pitchfork.)

Your second point is an interesting one. I was thinking long the same lines.

Dogma

I think you got the definition of dogma wrong. It should be:

Dogma - writing a definition of the word "dogma" on a forum that is obviously biased by your own political viewpoint.

amanfromearth asked a perfectly reasonable question (which still hasn't been addressed in any sensible level of detail) and as was swiftly set upon by a pack of wild dogs.

It is this kind of argument that makes me not want to take my climate change medicine and instead ask awkward questions. Lots of very awkward questions.

Some people seem to think it's correct to distort and exaggerate in order to close the door on the argument because they believe they're right. This is very dangerous. It is important for science that there is an open and mature discussion about these very important issues.

593ºC or more. Sounds pretty hot to me.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/faa-issues-safety-alert-on-lithium-batteries-after-ups-crash-348306/

Apologies

@Suspicious Git: Actually I have to apologise. In turns out that Germany has 4 times as much autobahn as the UK has motorway. That makes the accident rates pretty much the same.

On relfection, looks like I should concede the aerodynamics point as well. The effect isn't significant enough to argue against raising the limit by 10-20 mph. And the motorway design should cope without any trouble.

Let's go for it. 80mph for the win! That's what everyone is doing anyway.

Mines the one with humble pie recipe in the pocket.