There is a secular warming trend upon which the ENSO cycle is superimposed. The secular trend is global warming. Global warming trains the boxer. El Nino throws the punches: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/...
Dyson doesn't believe that humans are contributing to atmospheric CO2 or that the Earth is warming. These are not things that can be reasonably denied. - http://www.independent.co.uk/e...
For instance, for any mission critical component NASA may have three different programs, each written in a different language and running on a unique platform. If at any time one of the programs gives an answer that is not consistent with the other two then the minority report is discarded and the other two are presumed to be correct. No need to halt the proceedings and debug at that point.
In this case there is only one program that finds a match. It should be considered unreliable and discarded.
Best practice is to discard the minority report. No need to review the source code since there is probably no practical way to prove it correct anyway.
Does it take into account the availability of installed/imported replacement power
This analysis reports on cost, not availability.
as well as the opportunity cost of those sources when they are not needed?
Yes. This is primarily what is hurting the older technologies that have fixed costs, but also fuel costs. When the price of power drops the fossil fuel generators shut down as they are no longer economically viable, but their fixed costs still accumulate.
infrastructure is being installed so irresponsibly
It doesn't say anything of the sort. If the generator is only running 70% of the time, then the capacity (not the efficiency) is 70%. What we are seeing is that renewables are displacing non-renewables. That's generally what we want if we hope for our kids to inherit the climate and fuel stocks that we've enjoyed. You have suggested some nefarious plot. That's crazy.
"The BNEF report analyzes thousands of data points culled from individual deals and projects around the world to estimate the actual costs associated with each type of energy, excluding subsidies. "
"takes into account not just the cost of generating a marginal MWh of electricity, but also the upfront capital and development expense, the cost of equity and debt finance, and operating and maintenance fees." - http://about.bnef.com/press-re...
"A German chemical company, BASF, and a US company, Novomer, are capturing CO2 from power plants or other waste sources, using novel catalysts to make polypropylene carbonate. This plastic can be used for coatings, adhesives, foams and packaging and can replace other plastics in these applications that are currently made from oil. Both companies are moving towards commercial processes. Bayer, another large German chemical company, is also advancing a process to make polyurethane foams using carbon dioxide."
"A more brute force approach is that taken by the Solar Jet programme in Switzerland, led by Dr Aldo Steinfeld of ETH-Zurich collaborating with Shell. They designed a clever reactor that generates very high temperatures from solar energy to break down carbon dioxide and water, converting them to hydrogen and carbon monoxide. From this mixture they can make kerosene for jet fuel using well-known chemical processes. This is still at an early stage – so far they have made one litre of fuel – but sometimes these high temperature processes are more straightforward to scale up than catalyst-based approaches."
Rush Limbaugh may be one such agent. Here's what he thinks of the "Water on Mars" story: There’s so much fraud. Snerdly came in today ‘what’s this NASA news, this NASA news is all exciting.’ I said yeah they found flowing water up there. ‘No kidding! Wow! Wow!’ Snerdly said ‘flowing water!?’ I said ‘why does that excite you? What, are you going there next week? What’s the big deal about flowing water on Mars?’ ‘I don’t know man but it’s just it’s just wow!’ I said ‘you know what, when they start selling iPhones on Mars, that’s when it’ll matter to me.’ I said ‘what do you think they’re gonna do with this news?’ I said ‘look at the temperature data, that has been reported by NASA, has been made up, it’s fraudulent for however many years, there isn’t any warming, there hasn’t been for 18.5 years. And yet, they’re lying about it. They’re just making up the amount of ice in the North and South Poles, they’re making up the temperatures, they’re lying and making up false charts and so forth. So what’s to stop them from making up something that happened on Mars that will help advance their left-wing agenda on this planet?’ And Snerdly paused ‘oh oh yeah you’re right.’ You know, when I play golf with excellent golfers, I ask them ‘does it ever get boring playing well? Does it ever get boring hitting shot after shot where you want to hit it?’ And they all look at me and smile and say ‘never.’ Well folks, it never gets boring being right either. Like I am. But it doesn’t mean it is any less frustrating. Being right and being alone is a challenging existence. OK so there’s flowing water on Mars. Yip yip yip yahoo. You know me, I’m science 101, big time guy, tech advance it, you know it, I’m all in. But, NASA has been corrupted by the current regime. I want to find out what they’re going to tell us. OK, flowing water on Mars. If we’re even to believe that, what are they going to tell us that means? That’s what I’m going to wait for. Because I guarantee, let’s just wait and see, this is September 28, let’s just wait and see. Don’t know how long it’s going to take, but this news that there is flowing water on Mars is somehow going to find its way into a technique to advance the leftist agenda. I don’t know what it is, I would assume it would be something to do with global warming and you can — maybe there was once an advanced civilization. If they say they found flowing water, next they’re going to find a graveyard.
No. That's called racketeering, and it is also quite illegal. The tobacco industry was caught and charged for doing the same thing. Their defense was that they"believed that their economic survival depended on their scheme to defraud," - http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09...
I think that's key here. They spent a small sum of money to determine the negative impact of their product. Once they learned the truth they then decided to invest orders of magnitudes more in FUD to convince the world otherwise.
I think the issue is that internally they knew that their product would cause global warming, but at the same time were funding think tanks to push the message that their product would not cause global warming.
They asked 18 economists who were appointed to the GAO by Democrats (remember, this is 2009)
I guess now that you know that the GAO survey was from 2007 you must realize that Bush held office at that time. You were suggesting that the GAO is just a mouthpiece for the party in power? That the survey is clearly biased towards the policies of the party (Republicans) in power ? Possibly you are right, but I prefer to believe that this was not just a partisan exercise.
They asked 18 economists who were appointed to the GAO by Democrats
This is getting tiresome. According to the very paper that I linked (please read it through before commenting again. Better yet, pick up an econ 101 text book. There's no point in continuing to write unfounded nonsense and expecting me to continue to humour you.)
The pool of economists was selected by searching the top twenty-five economics journals over the past fifteen years and identifying all related to climate change. The roughly 300 authors of those articles were contacted and sent a survey, and more than half replied. The GAO survey is referenced, but that is from 2007. That the more recent survey is largely consistent with the findings of the Government Accountability Office is not surprising. It would be surprising If you could cite a survey of economists that found solutions based on the market were not market based solutions.
Economists disagree with you... do you know something they don't?
"There is a strong consensus among the top economic experts that, in fact, climate change represents a real danger to important sectors of the U.S. and global economies. Moreover, most believe that the significant benefits from curbing greenhouse gas emissions would justify the costs of action." - http://resources.ofdan.ca/docs...
"91.6% preferred or strongly preferred “market-based mechanisms, such as a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system” over command-and-control regulation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." - http://resources.ofdan.ca/docs...
If one re-defines the cost of energy to include things like the impact on the environment, the relative cost of fossil versus other fuels changes
You are exactly right. The key to allowing the market to function optimally is to include these costs. The market will find the optimal solution once the costs are included.
Regarding kick-starting emerging technologies, there is possibly a place for that, but probably not for solar or wind. These are already becoming competitive without government incentives - http://www.wsj.com/articles/ne....
You only reach maximal efficient outcome if the government sets the Pigovian tax exactly correctly
We agree. By default the tax is set at $0. That is not the "exactly correct" value and keeps us from the "maximal efficient outcome". Anything other that $0 will probably still be incorrect, but a modest and revenue neutral tax would be less incorrect and would allow the markets to function more efficiently, even if not at maximal efficiency.
Slashdot Mirror
Any finding that may server to undermine the governments agenda was kept on a tight leash.
XD One massive conspiracy isn't it.
African Academy of Sciences
American Geophysical Union
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
European Physical Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Meteorological Society
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Science Foundation
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
InterAcademy Council as the representative of the world’s scientific and engineering academies
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
United States National Research Council
Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
American Society of Agronomy (ASA),
Crop Science Society of America (CSSA),
Soil Science Society of America (SSSA)
Well, the list goes on and on... It would be much easier to list dissenting organizations: NONE - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Are you sure? Here's a NASA paper from 2012 that says: Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses. Same title as the current study. You may be thinking of the Arctic, which is losing volume at an accelerating rate: http://neven1.typepad.com/blog...
Greenland ice is not growing. In fact the decline in volume is accelerating: https://andthentheresphysics.f...
I think maybe the article you were looking at was regarding antartica?
Here's an interesting video where scientists explain why global warming intensifies storms and precipitation: https://youtu.be/2K2s2EjsXJI
There is a secular warming trend upon which the ENSO cycle is superimposed. The secular trend is global warming. Global warming trains the boxer. El Nino throws the punches: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/...
Dyson doesn't believe that humans are contributing to atmospheric CO2 or that the Earth is warming. These are not things that can be reasonably denied. - http://www.independent.co.uk/e...
For instance, for any mission critical component NASA may have three different programs, each written in a different language and running on a unique platform. If at any time one of the programs gives an answer that is not consistent with the other two then the minority report is discarded and the other two are presumed to be correct. No need to halt the proceedings and debug at that point.
In this case there is only one program that finds a match. It should be considered unreliable and discarded.
Best practice is to discard the minority report. No need to review the source code since there is probably no practical way to prove it correct anyway.
Your neurosis, in the absence of any facts, does not trump an analysis by Bloomberg.
Does it take into account the availability of installed/imported replacement power
This analysis reports on cost, not availability.
as well as the opportunity cost of those sources when they are not needed?
Yes. This is primarily what is hurting the older technologies that have fixed costs, but also fuel costs. When the price of power drops the fossil fuel generators shut down as they are no longer economically viable, but their fixed costs still accumulate.
infrastructure is being installed so irresponsibly
It doesn't say anything of the sort. If the generator is only running 70% of the time, then the capacity (not the efficiency) is 70%. What we are seeing is that renewables are displacing non-renewables. That's generally what we want if we hope for our kids to inherit the climate and fuel stocks that we've enjoyed. You have suggested some nefarious plot. That's crazy.
"The BNEF report analyzes thousands of data points culled from individual deals and projects around the world to estimate the actual costs associated with each type of energy, excluding subsidies. "
"takes into account not just the cost of generating a marginal MWh of electricity, but also the upfront capital and development expense, the cost of equity and debt finance, and operating and maintenance fees." - http://about.bnef.com/press-re...
"A German chemical company, BASF, and a US company, Novomer, are capturing CO2 from power plants or other waste sources, using novel catalysts to make polypropylene carbonate. This plastic can be used for coatings, adhesives, foams and packaging and can replace other plastics in these applications that are currently made from oil. Both companies are moving towards commercial processes. Bayer, another large German chemical company, is also advancing a process to make polyurethane foams using carbon dioxide."
"A more brute force approach is that taken by the Solar Jet programme in Switzerland, led by Dr Aldo Steinfeld of ETH-Zurich collaborating with Shell. They designed a clever reactor that generates very high temperatures from solar energy to break down carbon dioxide and water, converting them to hydrogen and carbon monoxide. From this mixture they can make kerosene for jet fuel using well-known chemical processes. This is still at an early stage – so far they have made one litre of fuel – but sometimes these high temperature processes are more straightforward to scale up than catalyst-based approaches."
- http://www.theguardian.com/sus...
Rush Limbaugh may be one such agent. Here's what he thinks of the "Water on Mars" story: There’s so much fraud. Snerdly came in today ‘what’s this NASA news, this NASA news is all exciting.’ I said yeah they found flowing water up there. ‘No kidding! Wow! Wow!’ Snerdly said ‘flowing water!?’ I said ‘why does that excite you? What, are you going there next week? What’s the big deal about flowing water on Mars?’ ‘I don’t know man but it’s just it’s just wow!’ I said ‘you know what, when they start selling iPhones on Mars, that’s when it’ll matter to me.’ I said ‘what do you think they’re gonna do with this news?’ I said ‘look at the temperature data, that has been reported by NASA, has been made up, it’s fraudulent for however many years, there isn’t any warming, there hasn’t been for 18.5 years. And yet, they’re lying about it. They’re just making up the amount of ice in the North and South Poles, they’re making up the temperatures, they’re lying and making up false charts and so forth. So what’s to stop them from making up something that happened on Mars that will help advance their left-wing agenda on this planet?’ And Snerdly paused ‘oh oh yeah you’re right.’ You know, when I play golf with excellent golfers, I ask them ‘does it ever get boring playing well? Does it ever get boring hitting shot after shot where you want to hit it?’ And they all look at me and smile and say ‘never.’ Well folks, it never gets boring being right either. Like I am. But it doesn’t mean it is any less frustrating. Being right and being alone is a challenging existence. OK so there’s flowing water on Mars. Yip yip yip yahoo. You know me, I’m science 101, big time guy, tech advance it, you know it, I’m all in. But, NASA has been corrupted by the current regime. I want to find out what they’re going to tell us. OK, flowing water on Mars. If we’re even to believe that, what are they going to tell us that means? That’s what I’m going to wait for. Because I guarantee, let’s just wait and see, this is September 28, let’s just wait and see. Don’t know how long it’s going to take, but this news that there is flowing water on Mars is somehow going to find its way into a technique to advance the leftist agenda. I don’t know what it is, I would assume it would be something to do with global warming and you can — maybe there was once an advanced civilization. If they say they found flowing water, next they’re going to find a graveyard.
No. That's called racketeering, and it is also quite illegal. The tobacco industry was caught and charged for doing the same thing. Their defense was that they"believed that their economic survival depended on their scheme to defraud," - http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09...
The former is called good business the latter is called advertising.
If it is advertising, and it is known to be false by the advertiser, then it is called "false advertising" and it is illegal.
I think that's key here. They spent a small sum of money to determine the negative impact of their product. Once they learned the truth they then decided to invest orders of magnitudes more in FUD to convince the world otherwise.
I think the issue is that internally they knew that their product would cause global warming, but at the same time were funding think tanks to push the message that their product would not cause global warming.
They asked 18 economists who were appointed to the GAO by Democrats (remember, this is 2009)
I guess now that you know that the GAO survey was from 2007 you must realize that Bush held office at that time. You were suggesting that the GAO is just a mouthpiece for the party in power? That the survey is clearly biased towards the policies of the party (Republicans) in power ? Possibly you are right, but I prefer to believe that this was not just a partisan exercise.
They asked 18 economists who were appointed to the GAO by Democrats
This is getting tiresome. According to the very paper that I linked (please read it through before commenting again. Better yet, pick up an econ 101 text book. There's no point in continuing to write unfounded nonsense and expecting me to continue to humour you.)
The pool of economists was selected by searching the top twenty-five economics journals over the past fifteen years and identifying all related to climate change. The roughly 300 authors of those articles were contacted and sent a survey, and more than half replied. The GAO survey is referenced, but that is from 2007. That the more recent survey is largely consistent with the findings of the Government Accountability Office is not surprising. It would be surprising If you could cite a survey of economists that found solutions based on the market were not market based solutions.
Economists disagree with you... do you know something they don't?
"There is a strong consensus among the top economic experts that, in fact, climate change represents a real danger to important sectors of the U.S. and global economies. Moreover, most believe that the significant benefits from curbing greenhouse gas emissions would justify the costs of action." - http://resources.ofdan.ca/docs...
"91.6% preferred or strongly preferred “market-based mechanisms, such as a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system” over command-and-control regulation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." - http://resources.ofdan.ca/docs...
If one re-defines the cost of energy to include things like the impact on the environment, the relative cost of fossil versus other fuels changes
You are exactly right. The key to allowing the market to function optimally is to include these costs. The market will find the optimal solution once the costs are included.
Regarding kick-starting emerging technologies, there is possibly a place for that, but probably not for solar or wind. These are already becoming competitive without government incentives - http://www.wsj.com/articles/ne....
You only reach maximal efficient outcome if the government sets the Pigovian tax exactly correctly
We agree. By default the tax is set at $0. That is not the "exactly correct" value and keeps us from the "maximal efficient outcome". Anything other that $0 will probably still be incorrect, but a modest and revenue neutral tax would be less incorrect and would allow the markets to function more efficiently, even if not at maximal efficiency.