Coal barons take on Al Gore 01 August 06

Hi, I’ve only just registered here and I’m totally behind the cause, but I always get annoyed by stats like: “The dirtiest plant of all is the Scherer coal plant in Georgia, which spewed out 26 million tonnes of CO2 last year.”

Now I don’t know anything about this plant. It could produce electricity really inefficiently or it could be better than other coal power stations. There could be another which produces 25 million tonnes of CO2 a year but only half as much electricity, which would be far worse. It would be better to know the plants that produce most CO2 per KWh of electricity generated.

Obviously renewables are far better, but the electricity produced by these coal-fired power stations is used to boil kettles, power computers and so on. Fossil fuel stations are always going to be huge CO2 emitters, but it’s not like the CO2 produced by, say, F1 cars driving in circles.

To get anywhere significant in cutting CO2 output we need to: reduce the amount of end services we use (light, cool air, etc.); use more efficient devices to produce these services; lose less energy in transmission by decentralisation; and generate the electricity more carbon efficiently too.

Sorry that got a bit ranty.

Keep up the good work, Mark!

The US House Committee on Energy and Commerce appointed a group of statisticians of impeccable qualification and independence, under the leadership of Dr Edward Wegman, Professor of Statistics at George Mason University , who chairs the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics. They reviewed the Mann Hockey Stick Report and have now produced an assessment of Mann’s work that devastatingly demonstrates what the sceptics knew all along, that McKitrick and McIntyre have been correct; the hockey stick is pure nonsense. Of course, the language is much more diplomatic than that, but the effect is no less dramatic. The full report is at ( http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf)

Among the conclusions in the summary (http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_fact_sheet.pdf) are:

”• Mann et al., misused certain statistical methods in their studies, which inappropriately produce hockey stick shapes in the temperature history. Wegman’s analysis concludes that Mann’s work cannot support claim that the1990s were the warmest decade of the millennium.

”•A social network analysis revealed that the small community of paleoclimate researchers appear to review each other’s work, and reuse many of the same data sets, which calls into question the independence of peer review and temperature reconstructions.

”•Although the researchers rely heavily on statistical methods, they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community.

”•Authors of policy-related science assessments should not assess their own work.

”•Policy-related climate science should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review involving statisticians.

”•Federal research should involve interdisciplinary teams to avoid narrowly focused discipline research.

”•Federal research should emphasize fundamental understanding of the mechanisms of climate change, and should focus on interdisciplinary teams to avoid narrowly focused discipline research. “

The report itself is a remarkably thorough piece of work, the implications of which will take some time to digest. It finds the criticisms of the McCritics compelling and valid.

“The papers of Mann et al. in themselves are written in a confusing manner, making it difficult for the reader to discern the actual methodology and what uncertainty is actually associated with these reconstructions. Vague terms such as “moderate certainty” (Mann et al. 1999) give no guidance to the reader as to how such conclusions should be weighed. While the works do have supplementary websites, they rely heavily on the reader’s ability to piece together the work and methodology from raw data. This is especially unsettling when the findings of these works are said to have global impact, yet only a small population could truly understand them. Thus, it is no surprise that Mann et al. claim a misunderstanding of their work by McIntyre and McKitrick.

“In their works, Mann et al. describe the possible causes of global climate change in terms of atmospheric forcings, such as anthropogenic, volcanic, or solar forcings. Another questionable aspect of these works is that linear relationships are assumed in all forcing-climate relationships. This is a significantly simplified model for something as complex as the earth’s climate, which most likely has complicated nonlinear cyclical processes on a multi-centennial scale that we do not yet understand. Mann et al. also infer that since there is a partial positive correlation between global mean temperatures in the 20th century and CO2 concentration, greenhouse-gas forcing is the dominant external forcing of the climate system. Osborn and Briffa make a similar statement, where they casually note that evidence for warming also occurs at a period where CO2 concentrations are high. A common phrase among statisticians is correlation does not imply causation. The variables affecting earth’s climate and atmosphere are most likely to be numerous and confounding. Making conclusive statements without specific findings with regard to atmospheric forcings suggests a lack of scientific rigor and possibly an agenda.

“Specifically, global warming and its potentially negative consequences have been central concerns of both governments and individuals. The ‘hockey stick’ reconstruction of temperature graphic dramatically illustrated the global warming issue and was adopted by the IPCC and many governments as the poster graphic. The graphics’ prominence together with the fact that it is based on incorrect use of PCA puts Dr. Mann and his co-authors in a difficult face-saving position.”

I find myself concerned for your well-being when you don’t post for a while … !

I think what would be really interesting is a study into how you manage to maintain your idelogical position in this discussion. Denial is fascinating (and infuriating) and you have it in spades.

The Hockey Stick has been discussed recently at various places. I don’t expect you Norb to be convinced by any of the following but for those who want some reliable information check out

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/#more-328 a recent Real Climate discussion.

http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2006/07/the_hockey_stick_debate_as_a_f.php The Hockey Stick Debate as a form of Torture a debate on Chris Mooney’s site.

And this and other posts from William M. Connolley (it’s quite technical) http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2006/07/von_ss_testimony.php#more

Norb – the debate has moved on. For an indication of the consensus check out this from the BBC recently. Click on extended interview – climate change here http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/

Happy listening!!

Douglas Coker

Just read at ClimateArk about SFrancisco starting a tidal power project.

What we need is some direction to make/encourage power companies to get into alt energy. They should certainly all be required to offer alt energy to any customer who wants it, even if it might cost a bit more. Then people “rich in heart” can do the right thing, and the stingy can go on harming the earth to their heart’s content.

I do not have an ideological position on AGW. I have a technical position that I base on my interpretation of the facts and data. My position is that there is no observational evidence that carbon dioxide is causing a significant portion of the climate warming that we appear to be observing. I caveat that last sentence because I do not believe that IPCC has addressed the problems of the urban heat island effect and the effects of the discontinuation of many rural stations on the temperature record.

In my view, Michael Mann started the RealClimate blog in an attempt to avoid the fate that befell Steven F. Austin, formerly of Tulane University.

To claim that the criticisms of the Mann paper because of its “gaps, shortcomings and uncertainties” as Chris Mooney did, is disingenuous. My disagreement with the Mann paper is not just that it is inaccurate; I believe that it is scientific fraud.

Mann et al. clearly cooked the data so they could provide evidence for their foregone conclusion; that AGW is happening.

The most important criticism that McIntyre and McKitrick leveled against the paper was that IPCC obviously endorsed it wholeheartedly without any attempt to document that it was accurate. The TAR was all over the study, like white on rice; the study was the main feature of the TAR. I can understand why; the Mann study was the first study of observational evidence that appeared to confirm the AGW hypothesis. None has appeared since. The eagerness of IPCC to jump aboard without any critical evaluation reveals a major shortcoming in the IPCC process and leads one to ask how many other such inaccurate studies has IPCC included in their proof of the existence of AGW. None of your references addresses that issue.

The proof of AGW consists entirely of the output of computer models, none of which has proven accurate and no two of which agree to any substantial degree. I remain skeptical. Visit http://mahalanobis.twoday.net/stories/264091/comment, to read an interesting discourse on the use of arbitrary parameters in curve fitting. Remember, the IPCC models contain far more that 36 parameters.

I do not have an ideological position on AGW. I have a technical position that I base on my interpretation of the facts and data. My position is that there is no observational evidence that carbon dioxide is causing a significant portion of the climate warming that we appear to be observing. I caveat that last sentence because I do not believe that IPCC has addressed the problems of the urban heat island effect and the effects of the discontinuation of many rural stations on the temperature record.

In my view, Michael Mann started the RealClimate blog in an attempt to avoid the fate that befell Steven F. Austin, formerly of Tulane University.

To claim that the criticisms of the Mann paper because of its “gaps, shortcomings and uncertainties” as Chris Mooney did, is disingenuous. My disagreement with the Mann paper is not just that it is inaccurate; I believe that it is scientific fraud. Mann et al. clearly cooked the data so they could provide evidence for their foregone conclusion; that AGW is happening.

The most important criticism that McIntyre and McKitrick leveled against the paper was that IPCC obviously endorsed it wholeheartedly without any attempt to document that it was accurate.  The TAR was all over the study, like white on rice; the study was the main feature of the TAR.  I can understand why; the Mann study was the first study of observational evidence that appeared to confirm the AGW hypothesis.  None has appeared since.  The eagerness of IPCC to jump aboard without any critical evaluation reveals a major shortcoming in the IPCC process and leads one to ask how many other such inaccurate studies has IPCC included in their proof of the existence of AGW.  None of your references addresses that issue.

The proof of AGW consists entirely of the output of computer models, none of which has proven accurate and no two of which agree to any substantial degree.  I remain skeptical.  Visit http://mahalanobis.twoday.net/stories/264091/comment, to read an interesting discourse on the use of arbitrary parameters in curve fitting.  Remember, the IPCC models contain far more that 36 parameters.

I do not have an ideological position on AGW. I have a technical position that I base on my interpretation of the facts and data. My position is that there is no observational evidence that carbon dioxide is causing a significant portion of the climate warming that we appear to be observing. I caveat that last sentence because I do not believe that IPCC has addressed the problems of the urban heat island effect and the effects of the discontinuation of many rural stations on the temperature record.

In my view, Michael Mann started the RealClimate blog in an attempt to avoid the fate that befell Steven F. Austin, formerly of Tulane University.

To claim that the criticisms of the Mann paper because of its “gaps, shortcomings and uncertainties” as Chris Mooney did, is disingenuous. My disagreement with the Mann paper is not just that it is inaccurate; I believe that it is scientific fraud. Mann et al. clearly cooked the data so they could provide evidence for their foregone conclusion; that AGW is happening.

The most important criticism that McIntyre and McKitrick leveled against the paper was that IPCC obviously endorsed it wholeheartedly without any attempt to document that it was accurate.  The TAR was all over the study, like white on rice; the study was the main feature of the TAR.  I can understand why; the Mann study was the first study of observational evidence that appeared to confirm the AGW hypothesis.  None has appeared since.  The eagerness of IPCC to jump aboard without any critical evaluation reveals a major shortcoming in the IPCC process and leads one to ask how many other such inaccurate studies has IPCC included in their proof of the existence of AGW.  None of your references addresses that issue.

The proof of AGW consists entirely of the output of computer models, none of which has proven accurate and no two of which agree to any substantial degree.  I remain skeptical.  Visit http://mahalanobis.twoday.net/stories/264091/comment, to read an interesting discourse on the use of arbitrary parameters in curve fitting.  Remember, the IPCC models contain far more that 36 parameters.

Norb, in a very public place you accuse Mann of “scientific fraud” and deny you “have an idelogical position on AGW”. You take my breath away! You are an odd one.

Douglas Coker

I had hoped that you would give some thought to the issue of quality control at the IPCC.

I do not believe that computer models can discover new science. I believe that models can incorporate the findings of physical observations and experiments into mathematical constructs that can interpolate between data points. I believe that models can indicate what might happen beyond the limits of the experimental conditions, but such extrapolations always require corroboration.

I do not believe that any model has successfully reproduced present-day climate conditions from a 1900 starting point, or even from a 1960 starting point. If the models are so accurate, why are there over 30 of them and why do they project temperature increases during the next 100 years from a low of about 0.5 C degrees to a high of about 6 C degrees. Which extreme, if either are we to believe? Why do you believe any of them?

I say that I will not believe the models until they demonstrate the capability to reproduce existing conditions.

You appear willing to accept on faith that the models are accurate.

Whose position is ideological?

Norb

Mark,

Mark Taylor is absolutely correct, Scherer is the third largest plant in the USA according to the Energy Information Administration.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/plantsbycapacity.htm

Emissions as a tonnage also depend how many hours a plant is running per year, at what load and what type of coal is used.

CO2 per kWh sent out is the only reasonable grounds to make such a statement as you have made.

Didn’t find a breakdown by plant in my very brief search, but by region in the USA (see table 4 of link):

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html#table_4

1999 equivilents in metric units are:

New England (best) 829 g/kWh

USA average 950 g/kWh

West North Central USA (worst) 1020 g/kWh

for reference, a modern supercritical plant (i.e. new build plants in Europe & Japan) would achieve around 750 g/kWh

Coal Plant with Carbon Capture and storage ca. 100 g/kWh

These could all be reduced by 50-200 g/kWh by co-firing biomass with the coal – as is done by most, if not all, UK coal fired stations. (range depending on ability of boiler to handle biomass and biomass resource availability)

Modern gas combined cycle is something like 350 ish g/kWh

All the best Martin

for the stats and the links. This information is useful to me!

I am creating a massive workbook of Excel spreadsheets on just about everything to create a way to sum up various aspects of the problem and solutions, where we are and going, plus climate factors as well including positive feedbacks and albedo.

Not a GCM, but using information from GCMs coupled with spreadsheets can help me know how to assess both the big and small picture. I wonder how much biomass and carbon capture plus other ideas can mitigate coal carbon.

I also wonder the feasibility to retrofit existing plants versus new plants on these ideas. New plants are being built in China and in the USA. The time frame is important since the decision to build a power plant or retrofit biomass, or create a CHP take time and money and so benefits would be delayed.

I also wonder about how one would know about their own g of CO2 per KWh? Could a precise number be calculated based on a person’s location? The electricity we get is from a mix of sources with various efficiencies and special considerations.

I ask this Martin because individual people need to make decisions on appliances and their CO2 emissions. Knowing the CO2 per KWh can help make comparisons to other appliances using alternatives other than central electricity.

BTW, I do appreciate your feedback on the interplay of macro and micro grids. If the transformer losses have a significant energy penalty, then selling power back to the grid may be less desirable in the inverter/voltage step-up process than storing the energy as heat or in a battery. The analysis needs refinement.

If you want to have a direct contact with me by email, then have Mark forward an email to me. I have a few others from Mark’s blog whom I have a dialogue with. If I have a question or want some input, you could be a good source and direct me to other sources. I can attach spreadsheets to get you opinion on the accuracy of formulations. Also, I am engaged with people promoting policy changes here in the USA.

My intention is to develop myself to better inform and help people make the best decisions regarding their energy use and what options help the climate the most. I also may be of help in return. Some things cannot be done through a public blog.

Kind Regards,

Dan

What you say is true. I posted more comments below which you might find helpful.

http://www.marklynas.org/wind/message/3330.html

Also, Good Energy markets a device called electrisave which is not available in the USA and I have an interest in the product. I hope it can work with our voltage. I have a more laborious way of measuring using the rotating disk on the watt meter and a formula. I also use smaller meters called KILL A WATT available in the USA for our voltage but they measure individual appliances. I encourage you to do a few web searches.

Also, I just read Lovelock’s book recently called the Revenge of Gaia and sadly, we may have overestimated methane as a fuel. It has to do with leakage and I would like to learn more about where the leaks are in the entire system from well head to the end user. This can help.

The reason for the concern is methane’s larger GWP makes it 23 times more potent than CO2. With that said, a 4 percent leakage rate will make methane equivalent to coal. The leakage rate is not assumed when calculating emissions from methane fuel. It needs to be if emission accounting is to reflect what is required to reduce in the atmosphere. LNG has a 20 percent penalty and the likelihood of more leakage.

These are some areas of research interest to me and if you discover anything of merit, please let me know.

Apollo 13 was on our network TV the other day. I never get tired of the film. The movie never fails to inspire optimism in the face of difficulty and discouragement. No matter what the future holds, we have no choice but to deal with this problem. Other than the mantra of “Failure is Not an Option” from the film, the line which resonates with me now is “Work the problem! Do not make matters worse by guessing!”. So, that’s what we must do. Keep working the problem until we get it right despite the odds. Getting it right is simply developing and implementing the best plan we can.

Another line from an old book “Think and Grow Rich” which had more to do with having a positive mental attitude than making money said this about the never giving up:

“Supernatural forces come to the rescue of those who fight on in the face of discouragement”

Blind optimism is based on denial or not understanding and/or dealing with the magnitude of the problem. I never support that. It takes extreme courage to deal with reality and fortitude to work under the pressure that failure can happen despite our best efforts. We need to have to have a strong desire to succeed, a dedication to reality, and a defiance not to give in to despair by keeping busy working the problem!

Kindest Regards to All, Dan