Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

rogerpielkejr.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 141 posts

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#111

Post by psychiatrist24 »

bildung wrote: post #110
psychiatrist24 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly was done because of pressure? More solar cells and wind mills? Have those even crossed the point where they produced more energy than what was used in their production yet? In my country, they are shutting down nuclear power plants, relying on coal instead. Electric cars are still a rarity, and global car use seems to be rising still. I find your line of reasoning maddening. While it is possible that pre…

> Have those even crossed the point where they produced more energy than what was used in their production yet? Yes, and they do so since the 1980s. Pardon the snark, but did you try to illustrate the article's topic?

The wind mills that were built in the 80ies are already scrapped, afaik they only last 20 years.

How long does it take for a modern wind mill to produce as much energy as it took to produce it?

Edit: a lot of estimates for 6 to 9 months seem to be floating around, but this one cites several years at least for economic break even (not exactly the same as CO2 break even, but perhaps an approximator) https://weatherguardwind.com/how-much-does-wind-turbine-cost...

Of course, pick the estimate that suits your ideology!

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#112

Post by bachmeier »

vixen99 wrote: post #104
julienchastang wrote: post #72

Note that Roger A. Pielke Jr. is a political science professor not an atmospheric scientist and has, in the past, been involved in a number of climate science controversies. The analogy to outdated breast cancer research feels like a straw man. Anyway, I cannot claim that he is wrong, but I would regard this piece with some skepticism.

Somehow, 'feels like' and 'some skepticism' doesn't add up too much of a critique. He says Evidence indicates the scenarios of the future to 2100 that are at the focus of much of climate research have already diverged from the real world and thus offer a poor basis for projecting policy-relevant variables like economic growth and carbon dioxide emissions . The question is: is he right or wrong and if the latter, why?…

> Somehow, 'feels like' and 'some skepticism' doesn't add up too much of a critique.

This is not helpful. Pielke has been heavily involved in one side (and only one side) of the political debate on this topic. It's dishonest to pretend that information isn't relevant in the context of a post like this. He's not a neutral academic that decided to look at the evidence and was shocked to see issues.

> How would atmospheric scientists be especially competent to assess 'key variables in climate scenarios compared with data from the real world'? Would they really want to skip their core science to put economic hats on to study how 'population, economic growth, energy intensity of economic growth and carbon intensity of energy consumption' relate to these key variables? Pielke's competence is in this field and climate policy generally.

While technically this is correct, it's deeply misleading (or whatever is the next step above that). Economists study those issues and have their own journals for publishing those results. Pielke, on the other hand, is trained as a political scientist. Trying to make it sound like he's the only one with the qualifications is, as they used to say, not cool.

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#113

Post by sgt101 »

roenxi wrote: post #92
perrygeo wrote: post #75

The emission scenarios were developed decades ago and are proving to be over-estimates. The author interprets that as outdated science which is a rather pessimistic view. I interpret it differently: Scientists make a spread of climate predictions and their potential consequences. Those listening mustered significant market/public/government pressure and ... it worked. We pushed the outcome towards the low end of the…

Having consulted a graph [0] of coal production in the UK, it seems a difficult sell to argue that there have been any policy changes in the last century. It seems likely oil will follow the same trajectory. We've been due to hit the global peak sometime soon, more oil has been consumed than discovered for a while now. If people persist in using the stuff until it runs out, it is hard to see what the effect of all th…

I don't understand your comment - there have been many policy interventions that have changed coal consumption in the UK in the last 100 years. There is a large amount of coal still available for mining in the uk - but lack of demand and low prices coupled with high extraction costs have destroyed the industry.

- The clean air act made it illegal to burn many forms of coal and required coal producers to use higher standards. Many areas were banned from coal burning of any sort. This drove the adoption of gas central heating. - Safety measures introduced after many mining tragedies drove up the costs of the industry significantly. - The attack on organised labour in the 1980's resulted in the shuttering of large parts of the UK coal industry. - The development of the EU single market drove the importation of cheap coal from Germany and Poland, dealing a further blow to the domestic industry. - Many initiatives on home insulation driving down utilization.

But you may be making a point I just haven't understood - can you clarify?

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#114

Post by alexgmcm »

est wrote: post #101

Some what offtopic, but I think there will be a limit when human have generated so much knowledge, that our offsprings might in one day never been able to catch up, e.g. having to learn to a very old age to get the cutting edge stuff.

We develop better abstractions and tools though.

I can write programs without needing to know how the CPU chip works, an engineer can build a new device without having to understand every detail of the new cutting edge materials science etc.

As such we can still effectively divide the labour between people, and people can start from further along the track than before. I mean, most people learn calculus but they don't have to spend years deriving and proving it.

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#115

Post by kgwgk »

skybrian wrote: post #82
stijlist wrote: post #58

The text says one thing, but the graph they display to support their argument does not say what I thought it said. The purple line is supposed to be our "real" emissions, and the impression you get from the image and text is that our real emissions are much lower than the projected emissions. But if you actually look at the values of the purple line vs the other lines now , in 2020/2021, the values are almost exactly…

I don’t understand the graph at all. Which line is the purple line? Is it labeled? It seems like real emissions should end at or before 2020 and none of them do that. They all seem to be projections of some sort?

There is a blueish wider line which is below all the others, shows the effect of the 2008 recession, and splits into multiple forecasts around 2019.

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#116

Post by psychiatrist24 »

brabel wrote: post #93
psychiatrist24 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly was done because of pressure? More solar cells and wind mills? Have those even crossed the point where they produced more energy than what was used in their production yet? In my country, they are shutting down nuclear power plants, relying on coal instead. Electric cars are still a rarity, and global car use seems to be rising still. I find your line of reasoning maddening. While it is possible that pre…

Counter anecdote: South Australia had almost 100% of its energy from coal burning just a few years ago... Today, it's nearly entirely solar-powered: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-25/all-sa-power-from-sol... Another one: in Norway, most cars being sold right now are electric: https://www.voanews.com/europe/norway-says-more-50-new-cars-... These are huge local achievements, but it shows that at least in some part…

Australia has a lot of land and few people. Norway pays its citizens to buy electric cars with the money they make from their oil fields. So I guess the oil is still being burnt.

Not saying it is not nice progress, but I am not convinced those are making a dent.

Overall I think technology also progresses without government pressure or climate panic. For example batteries became cheaper because people don't want to charge their phones so often. In general people like more efficient technology and appreciate an unpolluted environment.

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#117

Post by xibalba »

Having done some modeling myself, I am always stupefied and rankled when I read and hear the certitude with which people, mostly in the media, make claims about future climate scenarios. I am not at all surprised by Burgess' results. This is an extremely complex system being modeled, with the inputs to the model also being modeled...

Also, is it just me or does this article bend over backwards to avoid the simple, obvious lede?: climate change scenario estimates are too high and it's even possible CO2 emissions are in decline.

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#118

Post by roenxi »

sgt101 wrote: post #113
roenxi wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having consulted a graph [0] of coal production in the UK, it seems a difficult sell to argue that there have been any policy changes in the last century. It seems likely oil will follow the same trajectory. We've been due to hit the global peak sometime soon, more oil has been consumed than discovered for a while now. If people persist in using the stuff until it runs out, it is hard to see what the effect of all th…

I don't understand your comment - there have been many policy interventions that have changed coal consumption in the UK in the last 100 years. There is a large amount of coal still available for mining in the uk - but lack of demand and low prices coupled with high extraction costs have destroyed the industry. - The clean air act made it illegal to burn many forms of coal and required coal producers to use higher st…

They've been in a steady linear downtrend of coal production for more than a century. Then stopped producing the stuff roughly on schedule for a prediction made in 1970 or 1980.

Occam's razor here is they stopped producing coal because they ran out of coal, rather than because of any political will.

> There is a large amount of coal still available for mining in the uk - but lack of demand and low prices coupled with high extraction costs have destroyed the industry.

That is what running out of coal looks like. Based on the 100 year trendline, Occam's razor is they can't sustain their lifestyle using coal. It wouldn't surprise me if they struggled even with new forms, their energy use figures [0] are eye watering.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_Kingdom#O...

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#119

Post by bildung »

psychiatrist24 wrote: post #111
bildung wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Have those even crossed the point where they produced more energy than what was used in their production yet? Yes, and they do so since the 1980s. Pardon the snark, but did you try to illustrate the article's topic?

The wind mills that were built in the 80ies are already scrapped, afaik they only last 20 years. How long does it take for a modern wind mill to produce as much energy as it took to produce it? Edit: a lot of estimates for 6 to 9 months seem to be floating around, but this one cites several years at least for economic break even (not exactly the same as CO2 break even, but perhaps an approximator) https://weatherguar…

"We examine 119 wind turbines from 50 different analyses, ranging in publication date from 1977 to 2007. We extend on previous work by including additional and more recent analyses, distinguishing between important assumptions about system boundaries and methodological approaches, and viewing the EROI as function of power rating. Our survey shows an average EROI for all studies (operational and conceptual) of 25.2 (n = 114; std. dev = 22.3)." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09601...

Even a quick glance at Wikipedia would have helped: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment#Wi...

TL;DR: Wind Mill EROI is at least about 20, i.e. they produce about 20x the energy that production and maintenance consume.

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#120

Post by psychiatrist24 »

bildung wrote: post #119
psychiatrist24 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wind mills that were built in the 80ies are already scrapped, afaik they only last 20 years. How long does it take for a modern wind mill to produce as much energy as it took to produce it? Edit: a lot of estimates for 6 to 9 months seem to be floating around, but this one cites several years at least for economic break even (not exactly the same as CO2 break even, but perhaps an approximator) https://weatherguar…

"We examine 119 wind turbines from 50 different analyses, ranging in publication date from 1977 to 2007. We extend on previous work by including additional and more recent analyses, distinguishing between important assumptions about system boundaries and methodological approaches, and viewing the EROI as function of power rating. Our survey shows an average EROI for all studies (operational and conceptual) of 25.2 (n…

Wikipedia doesn't really prove anything, and I already mentioned that there are many claims of 6 to 9 months. Your paper seems to suggest 12 months (assuming a lifetime of 20 years).
Post reply on HN