It includes Rayner’s final essay, “Policy Making in the Post-Truth World,” published posthumously with Daniel Sarewitz. In the essay, Rayner and Sarewitz offer a valedictory of Rayner’s thinking about the demands and perversities of “post-normal” science, how normative views about nature inform science as it relates to risk, technology, and the environment, and the ways in which so much of what we call science today does not actually describe nature but rather artificial simulacrums of the natural world that are increasingly removed from anything we can observe or test.
Store a very low density high cost source of electricity with an even more expensive, lower density, leaky and dangerous in confined spaces fuel source. Yep. Way to go. Love those garage explosions. Will we see the return of the carriage house with a vented ceiling with a retaining wall between it and the residence?
He talks about a push to switch to hydrogen instead of coke for reducing iron ore, so I looked it up.
It can kind of work in the lab, with increased energy inputs, because the hydrogen reaction is endothermic instead of exothermic, plus a bunch of other problems. The reaction of course produces steam, which drastically reduces the reaction rate. Frankly, I would use steam to turn finely powdered hot iron into iron oxides like hematite.
But it does sound like a great way to move all Australian steel production to China, where they’ll make steel the old-fashioned way.
With Australian metallurgical coal, the Chinese “beef” with Australia not withstanding?
How about some hydrogen storage tanks and associated plumbing to run your home fuel cell power source?
Nothing like experiencing the SN10 backflip from your bed at 4am!!
I took a look at the link. 35 ton blocks are interesting but why not just build big water towers instead? Pump the water up into the tower when there is excess and flow it down through a turbine into a supply tank when there isn’t? Worked ‘well’ enough to supply my old hometown with water. Last I checked it still does.
Okay okay it’s not an sexy as a plan with an R. Goldberg imprimatur I’ll admit.
“Not everything which is scientifically and technologically doable makes economic sense. ”
Economic sense isn’t the motivating factor. Tell someone it costs more to recycle a bottle than to make a new one. Many people will respond that the added cost is ok. Inform them there are mountains of bottles because no one wants to do the work and they can’t stay in business and their eyes go blank.
This all started back before we were humans. Dealing with the evolutionary fear of an uncertain future is one of our key traits. It can lead to the marvels of modern agriculture or like when your immune system attacks your own body, the backwards global warming alarmist movement of today.
Promising to control nature is the perfect long con because nature is always changing and each change gives you justification to support your religion.
+42E42
Promising to control nature is the perfect long con because nature is always changing and each change gives you justification to support your religion.
Love it. Can I quote you on that?
Another religion thing is the idea that you’re doing good, if and only if, you’re sacrificing – and not necessarily sacrificing yours either. I find it remarkable how all these people carefully sort their recycling and then don’t care where those products go (such as mountains of plastic bottles going to the landfill). The town managers do the same. There’s this costly ritual and nobody cares to look under the hood to see if it’s running.
As far as models are concerned, isn’t Twiggy a bit out of date? Just sayin’…
They look at the high-sensitivity models that compensate by also assuming high aerosol sensitivity, which is basically a matter of tweaking fudge factors until the late 20th century trend looks right. But those screw up the difference between the northern and southern hemispheres. The conclusion is that most of the models are overly-sensitive by about a factor of two.
Of course I’m sure the alarmists’ solution would be to move industry from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere to “rebalance” the climate.
Linked article final paragraph:
Only five out of the thirty CMIP6 models analysed are B9 models (those which are consistent with the evolving interhemispheric surface temperature contrast) that are also in the top 15 models for consistency with historical GMST warming.[9] Their range of estimated ECS is 1.81–2.86 K, with a mean of 2.5 K, far lower than the mean of 3.7 K for all the models. Those institutions that have developed CMIP6 models with ECS values comfortably above 4.5 are increasingly looking as if they may have taken a wrong turn somewhere. Somewhat surprisingly, they include several highly regarded modelling centres, such as NCAR and the UK Met Office.
Nicholas Lewis 5 March 2021
This is my shocked face. Maybe NCAR, for one, needs to go back and tweak the observed record some more. For sea surface temperature measurements for example; maybe instead of using ship cooling water inlet temperatures, they use the outlet temperatures instead?
Maybe its just me, but it would seem that it should be much bigger news that 15,000+ peer-reviewed climate research papers published since 2000 are based on a non-existent phenomena & thus are now discredited …
Apparent Atlantic warming cycle likely an artifact of climate forcing
Volcanic eruptions, not natural variability, were the cause of an apparent “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation,” a purported cycle of warming thought to have occurred on a timescale of 40 to 60 years during the pre-industrial era, according to a team of climate scientists who looked at a large array of climate modeling experiments.
Well, climate scientists publish tons of papers about things that don’t exist, so I’m not sure why the 15,000+ papers would really stand out.
You may recall this from last year:
“100.4 degree Arctic temperature record confirmed as study suggests Earth is warmest in at least 12,000 years”
“The warmest 200-year-long interval took place around 6500 years ago when GMST was 0.7 °C (0.3, 1.8) warmer than the 19th Century (median, 5th, 95th percentiles).”
In other words, according to the sighted paper the warmest block of 200 years occurred 6500 years ago; when the contribution of mankind to global temperature would have been negligible. Unless they were putting out greenhouse gas emissions from their Flintstone cars. With practically non-existence help from the human race the earth managed to reach its warmest two centuries; wouldn’t that irrevocably imply that our current warming is likely natural climate variation with perhaps a small contribution from man-made greenhouse gas emissions?
When modeling replaces experiment….
The Simulation is settled.
Or as Judith Curry calls: uncomfortable knowledge
It includes Rayner’s final essay, “Policy Making in the Post-Truth World,” published posthumously with Daniel Sarewitz. In the essay, Rayner and Sarewitz offer a valedictory of Rayner’s thinking about the demands and perversities of “post-normal” science, how normative views about nature inform science as it relates to risk, technology, and the environment, and the ways in which so much of what we call science today does not actually describe nature but rather artificial simulacrums of the natural world that are increasingly removed from anything we can observe or test.
Store a very low density high cost source of electricity with an even more expensive, lower density, leaky and dangerous in confined spaces fuel source. Yep. Way to go. Love those garage explosions. Will we see the return of the carriage house with a vented ceiling with a retaining wall between it and the residence?
He talks about a push to switch to hydrogen instead of coke for reducing iron ore, so I looked it up.
Reduction of Iron Oxides with Hydrogen—A Review
It can kind of work in the lab, with increased energy inputs, because the hydrogen reaction is endothermic instead of exothermic, plus a bunch of other problems. The reaction of course produces steam, which drastically reduces the reaction rate. Frankly, I would use steam to turn finely powdered hot iron into iron oxides like hematite.
But it does sound like a great way to move all Australian steel production to China, where they’ll make steel the old-fashioned way.
With Australian metallurgical coal, the Chinese “beef” with Australia not withstanding?
Hydrogen, then there is this:
https://catallaxyfiles.com/2021/03/02/david-bidstrup-guest-post-st-a-35-tonne-brick/#comments
Please don’t send us any scammers, we have plenty of our own in Australia.
As for danger, our car is parked under our bedroom. No way would I park a Tesla or other electric car there.
How about some hydrogen storage tanks and associated plumbing to run your home fuel cell power source?
Nothing like experiencing the SN10 backflip from your bed at 4am!!
I took a look at the link. 35 ton blocks are interesting but why not just build big water towers instead? Pump the water up into the tower when there is excess and flow it down through a turbine into a supply tank when there isn’t? Worked ‘well’ enough to supply my old hometown with water. Last I checked it still does.
Okay okay it’s not an sexy as a plan with an R. Goldberg imprimatur I’ll admit.
“Not everything which is scientifically and technologically doable makes economic sense. ”
Economic sense isn’t the motivating factor. Tell someone it costs more to recycle a bottle than to make a new one. Many people will respond that the added cost is ok. Inform them there are mountains of bottles because no one wants to do the work and they can’t stay in business and their eyes go blank.
This all started back before we were humans. Dealing with the evolutionary fear of an uncertain future is one of our key traits. It can lead to the marvels of modern agriculture or like when your immune system attacks your own body, the backwards global warming alarmist movement of today.
Promising to control nature is the perfect long con because nature is always changing and each change gives you justification to support your religion.
+42E42
Promising to control nature is the perfect long con because nature is always changing and each change gives you justification to support your religion.
Love it. Can I quote you on that?
Another religion thing is the idea that you’re doing good, if and only if, you’re sacrificing – and not necessarily sacrificing yours either. I find it remarkable how all these people carefully sort their recycling and then don’t care where those products go (such as mountains of plastic bottles going to the landfill). The town managers do the same. There’s this costly ritual and nobody cares to look under the hood to see if it’s running.
As far as models are concerned, isn’t Twiggy a bit out of date? Just sayin’…
That and CMIP5 mini-skirting a disaster….
Interesting new post at Climate Etc
They look at the high-sensitivity models that compensate by also assuming high aerosol sensitivity, which is basically a matter of tweaking fudge factors until the late 20th century trend looks right. But those screw up the difference between the northern and southern hemispheres. The conclusion is that most of the models are overly-sensitive by about a factor of two.
Of course I’m sure the alarmists’ solution would be to move industry from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere to “rebalance” the climate.
Linked article final paragraph:
Only five out of the thirty CMIP6 models analysed are B9 models (those which are consistent with the evolving interhemispheric surface temperature contrast) that are also in the top 15 models for consistency with historical GMST warming.[9] Their range of estimated ECS is 1.81–2.86 K, with a mean of 2.5 K, far lower than the mean of 3.7 K for all the models. Those institutions that have developed CMIP6 models with ECS values comfortably above 4.5 are increasingly looking as if they may have taken a wrong turn somewhere. Somewhat surprisingly, they include several highly regarded modelling centres, such as NCAR and the UK Met Office.
Nicholas Lewis 5 March 2021
This is my shocked face. Maybe NCAR, for one, needs to go back and tweak the observed record some more. For sea surface temperature measurements for example; maybe instead of using ship cooling water inlet temperatures, they use the outlet temperatures instead?
This Tweet from Roger Pielke Jr about the AMO is hilarious.
Well, climate scientists publish tons of papers about things that don’t exist, so I’m not sure why the 15,000+ papers would really stand out.
You may recall this from last year:
“100.4 degree Arctic temperature record confirmed as study suggests Earth is warmest in at least 12,000 years”
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/arctic-temperature-record-100-4-degrees-earth-warmest-12000-years/
This is from the link within the link the Nature submitted paper above is referring to:
Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7
From such:
“The warmest 200-year-long interval took place around 6500 years ago when GMST was 0.7 °C (0.3, 1.8) warmer than the 19th Century (median, 5th, 95th percentiles).”
In other words, according to the sighted paper the warmest block of 200 years occurred 6500 years ago; when the contribution of mankind to global temperature would have been negligible. Unless they were putting out greenhouse gas emissions from their Flintstone cars. With practically non-existence help from the human race the earth managed to reach its warmest two centuries; wouldn’t that irrevocably imply that our current warming is likely natural climate variation with perhaps a small contribution from man-made greenhouse gas emissions?