Arguments
Recent Comments
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Comments 1 to 50:
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:57 AM on 11 October 20244 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second
I forgot a link in my message @55,
Based on NOAA (see here) ...
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:55 AM on 11 October 20244 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second
MA Roger @54,
Thank you for the detailed explanation. I now appreciate that the ‘reason’ or attribution for the EEI rate appearing to have increased from 4 bombs to 9 bombs (or higher) is still not fully understood.
The annual CO2 level increase now appears to be about 40% higher than the average from 1980 to 2010 (see below). That does not appear to reasonably explain the more than doubling of the EEI in a way that is reasonably consistent with the expectation that no significant warming will occur after human impacts on GHG levels are effectively ‘net-zero’.
Could it be that the magnitude of annual GHG increase is significantly exceeding the rate of annual EEI to achieve the new balanced state? That would mean that there is a growing amount of ‘yet to be realized’ global warming. However, if the wind-down of GHG impacts is able to be slow enough, the reduction happens sooner and a more significant reduction happens earlier, then that excess warming could be realized by the time that human impacts become effectively net-zero. That would be seen by the EEI not declining at the time that the rate of CO2 increase begins to significantly decline.
Based on NOAA (see here) the approximate 10 year average annual increases of CO2 levels were as follows:
0.8 ppm - in the 60s (1960 to 1970)
1.3 ppm - 70s
1.6 ppm - 80s
1.5 ppm - 90s
1.9 ppm – 2000s
2.4 ppm - 2010sAverage annual increase from 1980 to 2010 = 1.7 ppm
Average of 2010 to 2020 = 2.4 (with 2018 at 2.4 and 2019 at 2.5), an increase of about 40% compared to the period used to calculate the 4 bomb per second rate.
-
prove we are smart at 10:23 AM on 10 October 2024You will not escape the climate crisis
Yes, mitigation policies are 100% better than forced adaptation measures and surely educated people can elect educated leaders-( I wish).
-
MA Rodger at 21:14 PM on 9 October 20244 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second
One Planet Only Forever @52,
The difference (4 bombs & 9 bombs) is indeed due to a different EEI numbers which are increasing with time. The OP uses 8Zj/y. The 1.12Wm^-2 quoted by philalethes @48 is 18Zj/y. But even that could be now out-of-date.
The actual EEI wobbles a lot and through 2019 12-month average CERES number is 1.30Wm^-2.
The quoted 'EEI (from 2019) = 1.12 W/m²' value presumably comes from Loeb et al (2021) 'Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth’s Heating Rate' which puts it as "1.12 ± 0.48 W m−2 in mid-2019," this based on a linear (OLS) fit through CERES data, a linear rise 2000-19 backed by the OHC data for the same period. The CERES linear fit gave a +0.05Wm^−2/year increase in EEI, the OHC +0.04Wm^−2/year, both with big error bars (making the results barely statistically significant at 2sd).
While we now have had a few more years of looking at EEI, the 2000-to-date OLS thro' the CERES data is still yielding the same basic result suggesting today a value of 1.37Wm^-2/y. But the point of such an analysis (which as a strict linear value would point to AGW starting only in 1995) is to work towards an attribution of the increasing EEI.
(The EEI numbers presented by the ClimateChangeTracker EEI page stretches back to 1985 when estimates of EEI were cooling due to volcanic eruptions (El Chichón 1982 & Pinatuba 1991). Within the wobbles, the latest 12-month average (to June 2024) is +0.95Wm^-2.)
Reconciling CERES numbers with longer in-situ OHC data isn't entirely achieved with such OHC data significantly lower, although OHC calculated from sea level (geodetic) data gives a good match to CERES. The graphic below is from Cheng et al (2024). Note numbers in the insert in graph suggests 2020-23 OHC rising at 17.7Zj/y.
-
nigelj at 14:56 PM on 9 October 2024You will not escape the climate crisis
I suspect the world will only take climate change seriously when a heatwave kills something way out of the boundaries of normality maybe 300,000. It's like covid when it was a small thing in China nobody was too worried but when large numbers started dying in Italy the world woke up. But I could be wrong so it's still Important to promote mitigation policies.
-
prove we are smart at 07:59 AM on 9 October 2024You will not escape the climate crisis
Of course no life will escape the increasing effects from climate change and we know dealing with its consequences will vary from annoyance to survivability depending on many factors - especially your bank account.
Further checking out Mr Dressler's re-post and his informative articles, i could particulary relate to this comment ...
John Hardman
John’s Substack
Aug 4, 2023
Liked by Andrew Dessler"I am reminded of the silly Monty Python skit where the knight confronts the king and is progressively dismembered while staying defiant. “It is but a flesh wound!” he bellows as his dismembered arm lies at his feet. Denial is not bound by sanity.
Change happens using the same path as the grief cycle: denial, bargaining, anger, surrender, and acceptance. Logically we should be feeling the pain of climate change wounds and the financial pinch of accruing costs, but we are looping in a cycle of denial, bargaining, and anger. The question becomes what level of pain will knock us (and the rest of the natural world) to our knees and accept responsibility for our fate?
Looping in the first three stages of change allows us to play the victim and shift the blame to others which is easy and addictive. But, inevitably a reckoning happens where the wound is felt deeply and personally. The pain sears through the fog of illusion bringing us out of the clouds and back into our humanity. I shudder to think what must happen to bring us down to earth but the power of denial is formidable and we now have a lot of distractions from our pain. Monty Python showed us the bounds of our absurdity. We may just exceed them."
The distractions are increasing and I have always believed when we are faced with a common "enemy", the whole tribe would unite-put our differences to one side and work together- people, how bad does it have to get before this happens? Are we just too de-sensitized to human suffering now?
-
Bob Loblaw at 07:52 AM on 9 October 20244 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second
OPOF @ 52:
The difference? At a guess, time. The OP is a dozen years old. Currently, the planetary energy imbalance is probably that much higher now.
If someone has current numbers, please post.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:31 AM on 9 October 20244 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second
Bob Loblaw @51,
Thank you for the correction and clarification.
What is the reason for the difference of 9 bombs per second as calcualed @48 and the 4 bombs per second rate?
-
Bob Loblaw at 03:51 AM on 9 October 20244 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second
The earth being half-lit only applies to solar radiation. The 1.12 W/m2 net radiation value is global average (night and day), and already accounts for the periods of daylight and darkness.
The difference between Philalethes (comment 48) and Eclectic (comment 49) is simple units: 63GJ vs. 63TJ. In the original post, we see the Hiroshima bomb was 6.3 x 1013 Joules. That is 63 x 1012 J, 63 x 109 kj, 63 x 106 MJ, 63 x 103 GJ, or 63 TJ.
Philalethes simply mixed up TJ and GJ to end up off by 1000.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:49 AM on 9 October 20244 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second
Philalethes @48,
In addition to Eclectic's repsonse, only half of the Earth's surface receives sunshine energy at any moment in time.
-
Eclectic at 21:26 PM on 8 October 20244 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second
Philalethes @48 :-
My quick glance at Wiki suggests Hiroshima yield roughly 63 TJ
leaving you with 9 bombs per second.
And planetary heat gain might actually be less than 1.12 W per m2.
-
philalethes at 08:07 AM on 8 October 20244 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second
I've been looking at updated versions of this figure, but I seem to be getting around a factor of 1000 wrong, so if someone could point out what mistake I'm making, that'd be great.
EEI (from 2019) = 1.12 W/m²
surface area of Earth = 5.1 * 10^14 m²
1.12 W/m² * 5.1 * 10^14 m² = 571.2 TW
This means 571.2 TJ every single second.
energy released by the Hiroshima bomb as per what I found = 63 GJ
So the number of bombs per second would be:
571.2 TJ / 63 GJ = 9067
As mentioned in the beginning, this seems to be a factor of 1000 too much; what am I doing wrong here?
-
BaerbelW at 20:10 PM on 6 October 2024Skeptical Science News: The Rebuttal Update Project
Cedders @21
Thanks for your comment! Without going into too many details just yet, I can tell you that we are currently working on expanding the "It's too hard" section considerably and plan to publish many additional rebuttals later this month. So - as the saying goes - "watch this space"!
-
Cedders at 19:44 PM on 6 October 2024Skeptical Science News: The Rebuttal Update Project
I would also welcome any expansion of the 'it's too hard' section of myths, as this has been such a boom area since about 2015. Generally industry and society has moved from denial that climate change is a human-caused threat, to delay and sometimes fatalism ('it's too late' could be a whole new top level of the taxonomy). While there are a small rump of people with 'dismissive' attitudes to climate science, a majority of people accept there is a major problem, but are helped to feel powerless to do anything (per Michael Mann's The New Climate War).
Addressing this trand could be seen as straying into technological and economic and policy questions, but objectivity is still possible (eg citing whichever economic opinions are expressed and a range of informed views where there are no scientific facts).
This would be very helpful to deal with in the same format as there are certainly a lot of myths circulating in political circles and media. Typically the misguided arguments concern technology and what can be permitted within remaining carbon budgets, but also sometimes groups of scientists and activists. For example in the context of a climate mitigation conversation, policy-makers can express a preference for hydrogen cars over EVs or even public transport. At that point someone lie Auke Hoekstra or Michael Liebreich can explain simple facts about energy losses in electrolysis and fuels cells or combustion engines. This makes it clear that the most efficient use of renewables will not be hydrogen cars or heating, so investmeet in some hydrogen infrastructure would be a misguided dead end, rather like 'low tar' cigarettes or diesel engines. This is also a consequence of understanding from about 2009 that carbon pollution has to be cut to ('net') zero.
Essentially to get a major policy through needs people to agree it is fair, effective and beneficial. Incumbent industries want to preserve their business model and deny access to new entrants by influencing regulation. So they need to suggest clean technology uptake is inherently unfair, or that it has inherent environmental costs. Informing people about not just why stopping fossil fuels is fundamental but that the transition can generally improve equity and have environmental co-benefits is the hard task ahead.
I hope this take wasn't too off-topic. My thanks to all the SkS authors and editors for their continuing work.
-
Cedders at 19:08 PM on 6 October 2024Skeptical Science News: The Rebuttal Update Project
I'm glad to read that the articles are getting a systematic refresh. Anything to make the rebuttals more accessible can help effectiveness in countering myths, misunderstanding and misinformation.
There are two reasons I can think of for the new intros. People are looking for shorter tl:dr abstracts. Secondly, information can be too technical for some audiences. Unfortunately it's hard for scientifically literate writers to know what is likely to be misunderstood, deliberately or accidentally (we know frequent examples like Greenland surface mass balance). Is the new text being tested against actual occurrences of myths?
I hope there's no need to delete much text from the passage of time and it can be edited instead. Historical perspectives can help transparency. As a hypothetical example: 'Loss of Arctic sea ice seemed in the early 2010s to be happening far faster than projections, leading some people to conclude at the time that summer sea ice would be virtually gone by 2020/whenever and headlines. Ice loss has since slowed bringing it more into line with projections.'
-
Cedders at 18:49 PM on 6 October 2024Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
BTW spelling: is 'exogenic' in para 2 of basic full text intended to be 'exergonic'?
-
Doug Bostrom at 15:02 PM on 6 October 2024Remembering our friend John Mason
Thank you for that, hairbear.
-
michael sweet at 06:12 AM on 6 October 2024Correcting myths about the cost of clean energy
David-acct at 8:
I do not need you to explain how electricity was generated in the 20th centuary. We are now replacing obsolete, polluting energy sources with cheaper, cleaner renewable sources. We need to evaluate how energy resources will contribute to a future renewable system. At the same time we want to keep prices down.
We currently have a hybrid system while the renewable system is being built. Renewable wind and solar can generate most needed power using existing peaker plants as storage. Old baseload plants cannot compete economically with cheap renewable energy. As more wind and solar is built obsolete plants are closing. Expensive coal and nuclear have closed first.
Batteries are now cheaper, more versatile and provide more grid support services than peaker plants. Batteries store extra power on sunny, windy days. As demonstrated by the EIA report you cited, (I note the EIA has always been biased against renewable energy in he past) the market is planning on building a lot of wind, solar and batteries in the next four years. Very litle, heavily subsidized, gas is planned. Everyone in the market can see the handwriting on the wall. The market is building out cheap renewables virtually everywhere in the world.
The professionals at Lazard. have chosen LCOE as the best metric to compare different technologies. The EIA report does not support your claim that obsolete technologies are cheaper than renewable energy. You have cited no authoritative sources to support your argument that Lazard is incorrect. Your argument that obsolete technology should be promoted is simply wrong.
In any case, the website Oil Price says all the best fracking sites in he USA have been tapped. Fracked wells decline in production very rapidly (just two or three years). Oil, gas and coal are finite resources that are declining. We have to build out a renewable system now before those nonrenewable sources run out.
I am surprised that someone with a background in cost accounting is so supportive of expensive, polluting, obsolete technologies when cheaper alternative sources are readily svailable.
-
michael sweet at 05:34 AM on 6 October 2024Correcting myths about the cost of clean energy
David-acct at 7:
As Nigelj has pointed out, other energy sources besides renewable energy are heavily subsidized. Fossil fuel subsidies in 2022 were estimated at $7 Trillion, far more than subsidies for renewable energy.
Zero nuclear power plants world wide have been built without enormous subsidies since they are not economic.
-
Cedders at 20:47 PM on 5 October 2024Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
This is my attempt to contrast biogenic CO₂ and fossil CO₂ in one figure, referring back to this page. The diagram already seems too complex without all the ocean carbon cycles and weathering details. One implication: Bill Gates's recent comment about ineffectiveness of tree-planting is not far off the mark.
The animal carbon cycle estimate is based on rough caloric intake and vertebrate biomass estimates; I'd be interested in any better sources. Also notable from IPCC figure: ocean-air fluxes are up nearly 50% owing to human activity, and photosynthesis up 25%.
I'm not sure what the image constraints are here, but playing it safe: this is half-width the graphic is intended for.
-
Charlie_Brown at 04:44 AM on 5 October 2024CO2 effect is saturated
JockO @ 711 This is a long and convoluted thread, but your question is a very good one. Recently I had another occasion to find the answer. Upon reviewing the many comments since 2019, the concept of saturation has been discussed thoroughly and does not need to be repeated. I also got involved with that between @669 and @679. However, the specific problem with Wijngaarden & Happer has not been pinpointed previously.
W&H describe the physics of radiant energy and the effect on the spectrum of outgoing infrared radiation very well, not withstanding a complex and distracting diversion into the atmospheric temperature profile. However, they make a misleading comparison to reach a false conclusion that “at current concentrations, the forcings from all greenhouse gases are saturated.” They compare the effect from 0-400 ppm with 0-800 ppm, both of which include the very steep initial slope of the band saturation effect, to conclude that the current rate of global warming is negligible. But the initial steep slope is irrelevant to anthropogenic global warming. In W&H Figure 4, they illustrate and compare the difference in the green line (0 ppm) and the black line (400 ppm) to the difference between the green line and the red line (800 ppm). To describe global warming, they should be comparing the difference between the black line and the red line. Thus, they use an irrelevant comparison to reach an incorrect conclusion “at current concentrations, the forcings from all greenhouse gases are saturated.” Saturated should mean no change as it would to a lay person, not diminishing change, although even the semantics of the definition are debated and misleading. In any case, anthropogenic global warming is not negligible.
-
nigelj at 04:38 AM on 4 October 2024Correcting myths about the cost of clean energy
David-acct @7
"Nuccitelli as you noted, uses the after tax credit LCOE cost for renewables. Those tax credits get paid by the consumer in the form of higher income taxes to cover the subsidy.
Yes but it should be noted that gas and coal fired powered generation and nuclear power also get very substantial tax credits or subsidies with costs passed onto consumers. All effects their LOCE numbers as well.
David-acct 8
I think M Sweets point about the electricity system might have been that criticising renewables based on the reliance on gas peaker plants is ultimately flawed because a fully renewables system would be generation and storage without a need for gas peaker plants. So your response quoting baseload and peaker plants doesnt address the point. We are talking about two completely different operating systems. Interesting though how the current system operates so good information in that respect.
-
David-acct at 11:04 AM on 3 October 2024Correcting myths about the cost of clean energy
Without addressing your last paragraph directly, it should be pointed out the need to understand the fundementals of electric generation. Electric generation has three major tranches of electric generation demand. First there is baseload power demand, second there is intermediate level demand and third peaker level demand. Peaker demand is the most expensive tranche of demand because it is only needed when demand is high, Peaker has low fixed costs, but high marginal costs. That is generally okay since the peaker demand is infrequent. Baseload has high fixed costs though low marginal costs. Intermediate demand is the lowest cost of the three tranches.
Its also important to understand the fossil fuel, hydro, nuclear electric generation are all Demand constrained generation sources. Wind and Solar on the other hand are resource constrained, ie electric generation limited resources ie amount of wind.
It should be noted that Wind and solar perform very well in middle intermediate tranche of electric generation demand, while performing very poorly in the peaker demand tranche precisely due to their resource limitations.
With that background, when comparing costs across each type of electric generation source, it important to compare Baseload LCOE for gas, coal, nuclear against baseload LCOE cost for Wind and solar. Same with comparing Peaker LCOE cost for Gas, coal, against peaker LCOE cost for Wind and Solar. Its telling that Lazard's doesnt compare across each of the demand tranches.
As noted in the EIA article, its also quite telling that the industry does not use LCOE in plant generation planning because the LCOE doesnt provide any meaningful information for purposes of cost analysis.
lastly, my background is accounting and cost accounting, as such, it is much easier to spot and recognize inconsistencies in the presentations and representations than the layman.
-
David-acct at 11:00 AM on 3 October 2024Correcting myths about the cost of clean energy
The point of the article is "correcting myths about the cost of clean energy"
When compare costs of each type electric generation it is important to compare apples to apples.
Nuccitelli as you noted, uses the after tax credit LCOE cost for renewables. Those tax credits get paid by the consumer in the form of higher income taxes to cover the subsidy (subsidies arent free in macro economics) or paid by the consumer in the form of higher prices due to inflation which is the result of deficit spending. Thus using the after credit LCOE cost is hiding the full LCOE cost.
-
hairbear at 20:35 PM on 1 October 2024Remembering our friend John Mason
I first met John just over 43 years ago on our first day at Aberystwyth University in 1981. We've kept in touch on and off over the years and was in contact with him just weeks before he died. It was a real shock to the system that someone so young should die so suddenly. I'm going to the funeral but will have to ask Johns sister if it's OK to post the details here in case anyone wants to go.
-
michael sweet at 13:19 PM on 1 October 2024Correcting myths about the cost of clean energy
Sorry about all the typos, I am out of town and it is difficult to type on my tablet.
-
michael sweet at 13:18 PM on 1 October 2024Correcting myths about the cost of clean energy
David-acct:
rn
You appear to have cited the incorrect page in the EIA report. Page 9 does not discuss LCOE as you suggest. LCOE is discussed on page 7. The EIA has a metric called LACE which. I do not remember seeing this metric before. It appears to me that the graph on page 7 shows that most of the wind and solar projects have good to outstanding LACE while none of the as projects have good LACE.
rn
I note that on page 6 the EIA estimates that in 2028 approximately 30 GW of wind will be built, 20 GW of solar, 2 GW of gas and zero nuclear. I thought that was interesting because there is cursors solar under construction than wind. Obviously gas is on the way out.
rn
I note that in the past the EIA has grossly underestimated the amounts of renewable energy to be built. The EIA cost of nuclear is half the Hazard cosr. The EIA has consistently underestimated nuclear costs in the past.
rn
Nuccitelli clearly labels his graph as "Levelized cost of energy with IRA tax credits". You list the cost without the tax credits. Your assertion that Nuccitelli used the low end of the range for solar and wind LCOE is false. The comparable graph in the Lazard report (which does not include the taxes) states that the average of the high and low values are used. Nuccitelli used the average of the high and low values from the tax included table. The EIA report states that the average cost of construction of wind and solar is less than the average of the high and low
rn
If you read the sources that you cite more carefully you will stop making obviously false claims. Please try to read more carefully, it is very time consuming for me to read all the citations to find errors.
rn
Baseload plants cannot generate peak power and require back-up by peaker plants. Electricity in a traditional system always costs a lot more than the costs of the base load plants since during the day everyone is paid the peaker plant rate. Baseload plants make all their money during the day and often operate at a loss at night.. Renewable energy systems can supply all required power and require storage for times of low generation. Since the two systems work completely differently Lazzad has to compare the costs they think are most comparable
-
michael sweet at 13:18 PM on 1 October 2024Correcting myths about the cost of clean energy
David-acct:
You appear to have cited the incorrect page in the EIA report. Page 9 does not discuss LCOE as you suggest. LCOE is discussed on page 7. The EIA has a metric called LACE which. I do not remember seeing this metric before. It appears to me that the graph on page 7 shows that most of the wind and solar projects have good to outstanding LACE while none of the as projects have good LACE.
I note that on page 6 the EIA estimates that in 2028 approximately 30 GW of wind will be built, 20 GW of solar, 2 GW of gas and zero nuclear. I thought that was interesting because there is cursors solar under construction than wind. Obviously gas is on the way out.
I note that in the past the EIA has grossly underestimated the amounts of renewable energy to be built. The EIA cost of nuclear is half the Hazard cosr. The EIA has consistently underestimated nuclear costs in the past.
Nuccitelli clearly labels his graph as "Levelized cost of energy with IRA tax credits". You list the cost without the tax credits. Your assertion that Nuccitelli used the low end of the range for solar and wind LCOE is false. The comparable graph in the Lazard report (which does not include the taxes) states that the average of the high and low values are used. Nuccitelli used the average of the high and low values from the tax included table. The EIA report states that the average cost of construction of wind and solar is less than the average of the high and low
If you read the sources that you cite more carefully you will stop making obviously false claims. Please try to read more carefully, it is very time consuming for me to read all the citations to find errors.
Baseload plants cannot generate peak power and require back-up by peaker plants. Electricity in a traditional system always costs a lot more than the costs of the base load plants since during the day everyone is paid the peaker plant rate. Baseload plants make all their money during the day and often operate at a loss at night.. Renewable energy systems can supply all required power and require storage for times of low generation. Since the two systems work completely differently Lazzad has to compare the costs they think are most comparable
-
scaddenp at 05:36 AM on 30 September 2024Remembering our friend John Mason
In a world that badly needs both accurate information and hope, John provided both. His passion will be sadly missed.
-
Eclectic at 04:22 AM on 28 September 2024Just have a think: Arctic Sea Ice minimum 2024. Three degrees Celsius warming now baked in?
Jim Hunt @4 :
Yes, you won't get much sense from yer average WUWT-er in the comments columns. As you know. Still, your good self plus Tony Banton, Nick Stokes, and a few others all do contribute a modicum of amusement to the columns ~ when you stoop to tweak the noses of the regular "attack dogs" at WUWT.
But your term "attack dogs" is being overly generous to what is really more like a pack of rabid Chihuahuas with blunt teeth.
Keep up your good work, Jim. And ankle boots will be enough protection against the rabies at WUWT.
.
-
Jim Hunt at 23:10 PM on 27 September 2024Just have a think: Arctic Sea Ice minimum 2024. Three degrees Celsius warming now baked in?
Eclectic @3,
I was indeed, but the UKMO's Tony Banton described Anthony's flock of faithful followers as "attack-dogs"!
Even when I point them at scientific explanations for the alleged "hiatus" in the wiggly line of Arctic sea ice extent they respond with "ROFLMAO" and similar astonishing insights:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2024/09/the-2024-arctic-sea-ice-minimum-extent-in-the-cryodenialosphere/
I'll be publishing a more "scientific" article on the subject, as and when the overdue sea ice age data for August are released. In the meantime, there wasn't much "thick, old ice" left in the Arctic Ocean at the beginning of August:
-
Sarah at 22:57 PM on 27 September 2024Remembering our friend John Mason
I'm very sad to learn of the passing of this dedicated climate hawk and prolific SkS contributor. A blessing and a curse of the internet is "meeting" amazing people online whom we never meet in person. All of us who "e-met" John have been touched by his passion and energy.
May his memory be a blessing. -
Eclectic at 12:50 PM on 27 September 2024Just have a think: Arctic Sea Ice minimum 2024. Three degrees Celsius warming now baked in?
Jim Hunt @2 ,
you were, two or three days ago, crossing swords with the amiable skeptics at WUWT blog, about Arctic ice.
It seems they feel that a sort-of flat-lining of minimum Arctic sea-ice extent during the past decade . . . is a disproof of the contemporary reduction in Arctic sea-ice volume . . . which in turn demonstrates that there will be no further ice melt as sea-level continues to rise ~ the ongoing rise which in turn disproves that global warming is occurring. (If I have understood their argument correctly.)
And since global warming is not continuing, despite rising measurements by worldwide thermometers, then the whole AGW thing is a hoax and can be ignored.
Or something like that.
And if Plan Denial eventually crumbles, then the WUWT skeptics will develop "concepts of a plan" to deal with the non-problem. [Please excuse contemporary 2024 political joke.]
-
Jim Hunt at 10:28 AM on 27 September 2024Just have a think: Arctic Sea Ice minimum 2024. Three degrees Celsius warming now baked in?
"Ice of this age is now mostly confined to a narrow strip extending from north of Greenland along the north-west edge of the Canadian archipelago."
The most recent PIOMAS thickness data suggests that it is now mostly confined to a small area within the CAA:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2024/09/facts-about-the-arctic-in-september-2024/#Sep-21
-
Eclectic at 17:19 PM on 26 September 2024Correcting myths about the cost of clean energy
David-acct @2 ,
you are quite correct, in that pricings ought to cover external costs.
Also, the projected future costs.
Thus the costs should be shown in several categories :-
(A) The immediate LCOE, and projected costs at 5, 10, and 20 years.
(B) Immediate and projected total grid costs.
(C) A range of amortisations regarding environmental and projected societal costs.
*
Of course, (C) is the most difficult to estimate. Yet important, in both dollar and non-dollar terms.
And (A) ventures into guesstimations of changes in technology.
But we should always be looking at the bigger picture.
-
David-acct at 13:06 PM on 26 September 2024Correcting myths about the cost of clean energy
US energy Information Adminstration has an excellent comment on why LCOE is not used by the electric generation industry in planning for plant expansion, primarily because LCOE doesnt capture all the costs and value of the different sources of generation
"LCOE is limited because it only reflects the cost to build and operate a plant, but not the value of the plant to the grid"
See page 9 of the pdf in the attached link.
www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation/
A couple of other observations with Chart created by Nuccitelli =
Lazards report shows the LCOE range for the various types of electric generation sources
Wind Onshore $27-$73
Solar utility $29-$92
Gas combined $45-$108 (which includes base gas generation and peak generation)
Coal $69-$168The two observations are why does Nuccitelli's chart use the low end of the range for solar and wind LCOE while showing the upper mid range for gas?
The second question is why the LCOE computation used by lazards for gas include both baseload costs and peaker costs (peaker costs being the highest cost for all sources of electric generation) and then comparing to the LCOE for wind and solar when they dont perform in that space?
thanks for an explanation
-
sailrick at 13:16 PM on 25 September 2024Just have a think: Arctic Sea Ice minimum 2024. Three degrees Celsius warming now baked in?
From the World Meteorology Organization's report; The Global Climate 2011-2020
"Reduced sea ice extent was accompanied by a decrease in thickness and volume, although data for these indicators are more limited. There has also been a marked decrease in the extent of ice which lasted for
more than one year.
In March 1985, old ice (four years or more) accounted for 33% of the total ice cover of the Arctic Ocean, but that figure had fallen below 10% by 2010, and in March 2020 it had dropped to 4.4%..
Ice of this age is now mostly confined to a narrow strip extending from north of Greenland along the north-west edge of the Canadian archipelago." -
RedRoseAndy at 01:41 AM on 25 September 2024Correcting myths about the cost of clean energy
The Labour Government in the UK are in a rush to get to get clean energy by 2030. Due to the last Conservative Government there are few onshore wind turbines in the UK, but their planning permission allows them to be made taller to take bigger blades, and if we add the maximum height allowed by the planning permission we can approximately triple the amount of electricity generated. And of course the infrastructure is already built so we can triple onshore wind turbine electricity in months. This is a win win as infrastructure takes a long time to put in, and at great expense. Great British Energy can hit the ground running by picking the lowest hanging fruit. Octopus Energy is already buying up 10% of our onshore wind turbines to heighten our onshore wind turbines, and we can do the other 90% by paying the owners to do the work, or nationalizing them.
-
MA Rodger at 00:07 AM on 23 September 2024The doom spiral
Jan @4,
I don't think I can agree with your assertion that with AGW, "we are now flying blind."
Climate scientists are well aware of the potential for nasty surprises being stoked by humanity's greenhouse gas emissions. For some time now, the message has been that anything warmer than a +1.5ºC world is running the risk of bringing on some of those nasty surprises. (This safety limit was originally +2.0ºC prior to ~2010.) Mind, extinction of the human race will be far from the first nasty surprise to arrive. Of course, logically it would be the last but, that said, it would be a long long way down the road in terms of global tmperature rise.
The big risk we face not addressing AGW (which is where we are today) is messing the climate enough to bring the global economy crashing down around our ears, an economy the vast majority of humanity rely on to keep them fed and watered.You do make some very brave assertions which I consider are difficult to support.
As an example, I would question some of your comment on the "methane feedback."
Present natural methane emissions have not been easily quantified but they are included in the climate modelling and their growth has been a part of the projected methane forcing. Certainly recent work suggests the modelled natural emissions are running behind the assessed natural emissions and projections are not capturing the full picture. But this is not to the extent that natural methane would become a significant feedback mechanism. (See for instance Kleine et al (2021) or Zhang et al (2023).) However, the increase in natural methane emissions is one of the potential nasty surpises.One area of natural methane emissions where people often express great concern is the Arctic emissions, an understandable concern but one which is misplaced. Years ago I went down this road myself.
But it should be said that your brave assertions do require supporting evidence.
-
emerlin at 21:08 PM on 22 September 2024Veganism is the best way to reduce carbon emissions
Guilhem,
thanks for your detailed post! Very compelling and thorough.
-
Eclectic at 05:07 AM on 21 September 2024The doom spiral
Jan @4 , your ideas are all very fine.
But rather than basing your thoughts on climate models and/or on speculations ~ you could look at the Earth's geological history. Such as what happened during the warmer period of the Eemian, around 120,000 years ago.
-
The doom spiral
Sadly, climate scientist have no time to follow the path single discussions on feedbacks take. Therefore, they think models can in anyway predict what is comming. Unfortunately they can't! So many models errors of Earth system developments now amerging that one can only vomit.
Thererby, models miss way too many feedbacks which are now soming into motion.
The Amazon is now trapped in the vicious cycle, speeding up its collapse decades earlier then predicted. Antarctic heatwaves and see ice losses also happens decades earlier then predicted.
The methane feedback has started while models did not see a significant signal till 2100 to emerge. The methane modul of models is crap! But do not know if the new one is already deployed.
Be it as it may, the warmings of the Arctic methane bomb are now out and will increase the comming years as recent observational studies are quite worring. Not only Yedoma permafrost emits much more, but the real danger will be geological methane from methane hydrates and gas rich sediment layers, which is a wild card, which is ever more observed and documented - methane of thermogenic origion reaches the atmosphere where measurements have been made, while ground water melts its way downward through cracs driven by osmosis.
Marine heatwaves, a feedback of oceans warming too fast, are also not predicable by models as they are driven by small scale to global circulation patterns in the oceans and atmosphere. We have now the first MHW in the North Pacific reaching in its peak regions some 7-8°C above the 1981-2011 average (one cause: Asian flooding amplifying the subtropical North Pacfic high via hot upper air currents).
Not only that marine heatwaves expanded non-linear, they are also a game changer in terms of ocean heat uptake, circulation patterns, and extreme events. Models were not able to predict their spread which can only be described as nuts.
Next problem we face is that over the oceans first 300m ocean heat is now building up, in the mode water and intermediate water mass regions the heat buildup spreads to deeper layers with subsurface water masses warming, freshening, and expanding. Very bad sign indeed!
First study came now out that vertical mixing of the oceans could already be suppresed by increasing stratification. Further, we see worrying changes in mode water masses in the Northern Hemisphere. At the same time recent changes around Antarctica (e.g. warming and hemispheric temperature gradient declining -oops!) are also worrying as it has been the Southern Ocean that had been mostly responsible for the monotoic trend of incrasing heat uptake the last 20 years - intensfying winds around Antarctica the major reson (Ozone hole supported that development of increasing hemispheric temeprature gradient).
Just now the experts of ocean mxing and ocean heat uptake trying frantically to find out which processes controlls heat uptake of the oceans as we did never really loocked into it. But now the changes become so worrying that our simple assumption that the oceans would continue their monotoic trend in increasing heat uptake like nothing was amiss doesn't matter how fast we warm our planet had been way too simple.
If ocean heat uptake declines from 90% of the extra energy to 80%, the whole goes fast bam, as a too fast warming had been the problem in the first place.
And if oceans should start to take less than 90% of the extrem energy kept in the system, all the other feedbacks will be triggered.
This can go very fast! Doomer? Stupid framing of the system, as the above is in all points a real possibility as we do not know when and how fast feedbacks could start to synchronize.
And if this should happen the only chance humanity will have, will be to reduce GHG conrentrations in the atmsphere as fast as we can do it united as a species figthing for its own survival!
Sadly, many climate scientist have become statisticans and thereby they have lost contact with reality as the discussions deep in the mechanics of our climate systems point something very clear out:
We are now flying blind and even an extinction level event is a possibility whch can progress fast!
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:34 AM on 20 September 20242024's unusually persistent warmth
Pattimer @ 6:
A change in salinity would be something I would consider to be a change in chemistry, and the resulting change in density would be something I would consider to be a change in physics. As salinity and density are important considerations in global ocean circulation patterns, yes a major shift in salinity could result in changing ocean circulation and changing where in the system (deep ocean, shallow ocean, atmosphere) thermal energy is stored.
In terms of process, higher temperatures usually means more evaporation, which increases salinity. Higher salinity means higher density. But a lot of the small-scale circulation in the upper ocean (60-100m) is wind-driven. Salinity does play a role in larger/deeper ocean circulation.
You may wish to read this SkS repost from RealClimate, from last February, on the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation.
I think we're in agreement that time will tell, as more data comes available and more analysis is done.
-
pattimer at 07:13 AM on 20 September 20242024's unusually persistent warmth
.... however IF there were enough changes in the surface salinity of the oceans for example resulting in circulation changes with less heat sinking would this be classified as a physical or chemical change? Would it matter anyway what we called it?
-
pattimer at 06:07 AM on 20 September 20242024's unusually persistent warmth
Bob:-
Thank you for your reply.
I cannot explain a mechanism for my speculation. It is because I am both concerned and puzzled by these observations that I ask these questions and will keep a look out to see how this pans out as undoubtedly many experts will be following this up.
-
Bob Loblaw at 05:21 AM on 20 September 20242024's unusually persistent warmth
pattimer:
To have chemistry or biology affect atmospheric temperatures, you need to argue that there is a mechanism by which those changes in chemistry and/or biology lead to a physical change in atmospheric heat storage.
For ocean chemistry, you would need to have chemical reactions that release enough energy to lead to increased ocean temperatures, which would then lead to increased atmospheric temperatures. This seems highly unlikely, but I'm open to suggestions.
For biological activity, the same applies. Photosynthesis is a possible suspect, as that consumes energy at the surface. The energy that goes into photosynthesis would otherwise go into the other energy transfers that occur at the surface: emission of IR radiation back to the atmosphere, transfer of heat (thermal energy) into the atmosphere, transfer of heat into the ocean or land, or the evaporation of water (which then goes into the atmosphere in the form of latent heat, and is released to thermal energy when the vapour condenses again). If there is less photosynthesis, then more energy would go into the other fluxes, but where?
...but photosynthesis is already part of the system (as is heat released as carbon is oxidized), and you'd have to argue a change in biological activity that is pretty large.
-
pattimer at 20:19 PM on 19 September 20242024's unusually persistent warmth
Bob Loblaw:
You may be right, and probably so. However the chemistry of the oceans is changing and changes in biology will affect this outwith photosynthesis. The oceans are becoming more acidic for example (although I am not saying that changes in air borne fraction of CO2 is involved here as that presumably would have been accounted for).
We will see if this pattern of unexplained increased air temperatures persist on the long term or not, through the different phases of the El Nino La Nina.
Certainly worrying regardless.
-
Mal Adapted at 23:10 PM on 18 September 2024The doom spiral
Thank you!
-
BaerbelW at 15:24 PM on 18 September 2024The doom spiral
Mal Adapted @1
Thanks for the heads-up. I just now sent an email to Zeke to let him and Andrew know about the issue.
-
Mal Adapted at 07:14 AM on 18 September 2024The doom spiral
Hi, Andrew,
I'm not on X, but I saw this fresh post by you here! Do you know why DNS lookup currently fails for theclimatebrink.com?
$ nslookup skepticalscience.com 8.8.8.8
Server: 8.8.8.8
Address: 8.8.8.8#53Non-authoritative answer:
Name: skepticalscience.com
Address: 192.73.240.141$ nslookup theclimatebrink.com 8.8.8.8
Server: 8.8.8.8
Address: 8.8.8.8#53Non-authoritative answer:
*** Can't find theclimatebrink.com: No answerI first noticed it about an hour ago.
TIA.
Your Bulldog, Mal
