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The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science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

121–130 of 141 posts

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#121

Post by T-A »

roenxi wrote: post #118
sgt101 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> they stopped producing coal because they ran out of coal

"The UK has identified hard coal resources of 3 910 million tonnes, although total resources could be as large as 187 billion tonnes."

https://euracoal.eu/info/country-profiles/united-kingdom/

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#122

Post by topkai22 »

xibalba wrote: post #117

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, ob…

It’s the right move rhetorically- the issue is too emotional and tied up with identity, at least in the US. This article delivers a message that could be treated as supporting climate denialism in a package that lets people on both of the issue read it without emotional triggers.

I’d love to have seen my take away though- current and past investments in regulation and technology have had an effect on carbon emissions. Future investments in regulation changes and technology may reduce it more. The flattening of the emissions curve didn’t just happen by itself.

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#123

Post by rbanffy »

bigiain wrote: post #42
ChuckMcM wrote: post #19

This is a good read, although somewhat depressing. When you have a topic that has been weaponized politically, as climate change has, people who use that weapon actively work against information they perceive would make the weapon less effective. The author sums it up as follows: ---- from the article: According to Rayner, in such a context we should expect to see reactions to uncomfortable knowledge that include: de…

The entire opening of the article discussing 2020 papers erroneously using skin cancer data in breast cancer research papers which was a known error for at least 13 years - makes the point very strongly that " ... but these studies/experiments have shown that understanding to be incorrect. Now we believe this." happens much slower than perhaps people expect. I understand science "is expected to be wrong" sometimes, b…

> I wonder what _else_ all those peer reviewers let slide or didn't know when reviewing other papers?

Peer-review is only one layer for identifying errors. Some things will pass through it. Then there will be retractions if the paper proves to be flawed, but, for that to happen, someone needs to identify the flaw and reach out to the authors.

It's a slow process.

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#124

Post by rbanffy »

Sebb767 wrote: post #45
rbanffy wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now we must imagine what the impact on policies would be to prematurely say we managed to cut emissions more effectively than predicted.

But what's the alternative? Ignoring the fact that our data is based on wrong assumptions? Act as if nothing has changed? Sure, this is not good in the short time. But this is already a smoking gun for climate change deniers; if we were to put this under the rug for another decade, it would become a smoking nuke. And imagine the impact of that .

We know the assumptions are incorrect. Based on that, do we change course or not?

My understanding is that we are reducing emissions faster than predicted and will hit our politically agreed targets sooner than we expected. The political decision to change targets at any given point will be revisited based on what we understand at that time.

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#125

Post by pdm55 »

rini17 wrote: post #99
adrianN wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You get enough energy out to sequester that CO2 back.

I'd prefer pointers to non-handwavy estimations of energy surplus/EROI of solar+batteries+sequestering system.

The effort, in terms of time and money, required to move to greener power generation will continue to be substantial as evidenced by this extract from the Berkshire Hathaway 2020 Annual Report:

"[O]ur country’s electric utilities need a massive makeover in which the ultimate costs will be staggering. The effort will absorb all of [Berkshire Hathaway Energy's] earnings for decades to come. We welcome the challenge and believe the added investment will be appropriately rewarded. Let me tell you about one of BHE’s endeavors – its $18 billion commitment to rework and expand a substantial portion of the outdated grid that now transmits electricity throughout the West. BHE began this project in 2006 and expects it to be completed by 2030 – yes, 2030. The advent of renewable energy made our project a societal necessity.

Historically, the coal-based generation of electricity that long prevailed was located close to huge centers of population. The best sites for the new world of wind and solar generation, however, are often in remote areas. When BHE assessed the situation in 2006, it was no secret that a huge investment in western transmission lines had to be made. Very few companies or governmental entities, however, were in a financial position to raise their hand after they tallied the project’s cost.

BHE’s decision to proceed, it should be noted, was based upon its trust in America’s political, economic and judicial systems. Billions of dollars needed to be invested before meaningful revenue would flow. Transmission lines had to cross the borders of states and other jurisdictions, each with its own rules and constituencies. BHE would also need to deal with hundreds of landowners and execute complicated contracts with both the suppliers that generated renewable power and the far-away utilities that would distribute the electricity to their customers. Competing interests and defenders of the old order, along with unrealistic visionaries desiring an instantly-new world, had to be brought on board.

Both surprises and delays were certain."

https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#126

Post by lstmemery »

I'm not sure if I understand this graph. The cone seems to represent "no climate policy". Why should we be surprised that we are currently trending out of the "no climate policy" cone since we are implementing climate policy?

Taking a second look, that plot is only CO2 from energy and the the plot y scale has a discontinuity. If we need to get to net 0 emissions and the rate of CO2 production is still increasing that would suggest we are still a far ways off from the goal.

I just checked and the IPCC 5th assessment was made in 2014. The 6th assessment is scheduled for 2022. Does anyone know if the baselines get updated with each IPCC assessment?

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#127

Post by pdm55 »

pdm55 wrote: post #125
rini17 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd prefer pointers to non-handwavy estimations of energy surplus/EROI of solar+batteries+sequestering system.

The effort, in terms of time and money, required to move to greener power generation will continue to be substantial as evidenced by this extract from the Berkshire Hathaway 2020 Annual Report: "[O]ur country’s electric utilities need a massive makeover in which the ultimate costs will be staggering. The effort will absorb all of [Berkshire Hathaway Energy's] earnings for decades to come. We welcome the challenge and…

As of 2019, oil, gas and coal were still king. They provided 84% of the world's energy needs. There were some exceptions: France: used nuclear for 38% of its needs; Canada: hydro for 24%; and Denmark: wind for 18%.

See graphs from

https://bourne2learn.com/math/energy/consumption-totals.php

https://bourne2learn.com/math/energy/consumption-fuels.php

using data from

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-sou...

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#128

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

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…

Good catch. -1 point to me for not staring hard enough at the x axis also.

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#129

Post by blippage »

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…

> The attack on organised labour in the 1980's resulted in the shuttering of large parts of the UK coal industry.

My understanding is that Thatcher closed down coal because production was uneconomical and she didn't want government coffers propping it up. Your use of the word "attack" is emotionally charged, as if Thatcher was just doing it for evil lulz.

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#130

Post by sgt101 »

blippage wrote: post #129
sgt101 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The attack on organised labour in the 1980's resulted in the shuttering of large parts of the UK coal industry. My understanding is that Thatcher closed down coal because production was uneconomical and she didn't want government coffers propping it up. Your use of the word "attack" is emotionally charged, as if Thatcher was just doing it for evil lulz.

>My understanding is that Thatcher closed down coal because production was uneconomical and she didn't want government coffers propping it up. Your use of the word "attack" is emotionally charged, as if Thatcher was just doing it for evil lulz.

I don't think she was doing for "evil lulz" but it was clearly an attack, the government developed the "Ridley Plan" some years before to prevent and curtail the power of organised labour in the UK. The motivation for this was the capitulation of the Heath Government to the NUM in 1972 and the fear of the use of strike action as a military weapon by the Soviet Union - the British Unions had extensive ties to the Soviets. The industry wasn't uneconomic but the installation and development of subsidized oil and nuclear plants and the willingness of the British to import coal made uncompetitive. There was a prospect of another 50 or 70 years of deepmined coal for Britain - a highly undesirable prospect, but there is an alternative universe in which the NUM won and we would be trying to deal with this now.

Post reply on HN