Recent Comments

Prev  1106  1107  1108  1109  1110  1111  1112  1113  1114  1115  1116  1117  1118  1119  1120  1121  Next

Comments 55651 to 55700:

55651. Rob Painting at 22:20 PM on 10 August 2012
       Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
       Pielke Jnr obviously expects readers of his tweet to not actually fact-check what he was writing about. Clearly he felt the SkS-imposed rules of sticking to the facts too onerous a burden for him.
55652. Daniel Bailey at 21:40 PM on 10 August 2012
       Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
       While I certainly sympathize, I must point out that we all, as human beings, must remain true to that inner nature we are born & raised with. Thus, those who participate in SkS have remained true to our natures, as evidenced by our measured & thoughtful responses to RPJr. The tweet likewise speaks self-evidently, without any further inferences needed.
55653. funglestrumpet at 21:00 PM on 10 August 2012
       Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
       All who replied to my post @ 33 (-Snip-). What is surely far more likely for one of the so-called 1% to cotton on to the fact that climate change stands a very good chance of ruining their wealth, especially if some of the more dire predictions come to pass and we have a societal breakdown as a possibility. That this could have been averted had we acted sooner is obvious and therefore those responsible in any way for hindering that action are liable to at least a civil case being brought against them. Obfuscation of the science has surely played a major part in persuading many politicians from taking the necessary action to avert it and who can blame them? While this site’s goal is to educate I don’t see much evidence that this is being effective in changing political opinion or that of the public generally. Professor Christy is not the only scientist to repeatedly promulgate long de-bunked myths and while the public can see scientific disagreement, they are entitled to sit on the fence, alongside the politicians. Sadly, all I see is climate change continuing to make its inexorable progress to more and more unbearable conditions and the scientific community on this site and on other similar sites eventually saying: “Told you so!” If such a Pyrrhic victory would provide satisfaction, carry on, because that is where the planet is currently headed. If Professor Pielke’s behaviour in response to this article does not give you pause then I seriously suggest that you drop the science for a while and get out more. He gave us all the finger and didn’t care a hoot what we felt about it. Effectively saying sks is not of any real importance. I have been following climate change since the 1980s and as the years go by have become more alarmed by the lack of political action to combat it and what that means for my family. Yet even I, when I look at Professors Pielke and Cristy’s credentials, am forced to ponder why such eminent scientists should be so much at odds with the views of the scientists on this site. Perhaps it is the result of obfuscation. If so, then simply saying “We are here to teach” will only lead to the above Pyrrhic victory.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic and inflammatory snipped.
55654. Gustafsson at 20:31 PM on 10 August 2012
       Sequestering carbon nature's way: in coal beds
       First, i think the article could benefit from having it's context more clearly described. The context seems to be (from comments above) that coal companies are portraying CCS as the only solution needed and that is what the article is "debunking". This article was actually the first time it was put forward to me as such. From my personal experience talking to people working with CCS this has never really been the goal. CCS is rather seen as a step in the right direction. The tone of the article together with the picture and without that context (it is only mentioned very briefly) makes the article feel like it is ridiculing all uses of CCS. Bernard J @ 20 I agree with you that storing carbon in a solid form after burning it would probably give very litle energy (if any) for any other process. I however do not agree with you that effective sequestering of carbon implies a solid phase. Note, I am not talking about a permanent solution but one for the next hundred years or so. sauerj @ 17 yes CCS will definitely reduce the "efficiency" of coal power (or increase costs if you wish), but the possible rate of change of our system using CCS is also very high compared to alternative technology. Widespread CCS (i assume by regulation) would drive up marginal prices, making renewable alternatives more competitive and increasing rates of investment without making the companies previous investments into coal completely without value. If we didn't have coal plants CCS wouldn't make much sense, but we do and that forces us to take that into account.
55655. JasonB at 20:26 PM on 10 August 2012
       Sequestering carbon nature's way: in coal beds
       I saw a keynote address by Mark Zoback recently, and his assessment of the feasibility of large-scale CCS was sobering, to put it mildly. The scale of injection that would be required to offset the use of fossil fuels is simply mind-boggling and my impression is that he thinks it's completely impractical for it to make a meaningful contribution. On top of that you have the very real problem that there simply aren't that many "good" places available to inject it, and even when you do have a "good" one, the extremely large changes in pressure you get when you first deplete an oil or gas reservoir and then again when you inject CO2 back in trigger seismicity; if a large reservoir's containment was compromised by ongoing fracturing -- which he seemed to think was only a matter of time -- then what? Not only have you wasted all the energy spent putting the carbon in there in the first place, you now have to deal with the consequences of it coming back out again all at once. My take from the post-talk discussion I had was that the experts in the field -- which is who these guys were -- saw CCS as a very high-risk solution to the problem.
55656. MA Rodger at 18:43 PM on 10 August 2012
       Massive Arctic storm batters sea ice
       @4 Ooops. Make that Week 22= start of June (red triangle). Week 26= start of July (pink outline square).
55657. MA Rodger at 18:38 PM on 10 August 2012
       Massive Arctic storm batters sea ice
       Regarding snow cover anomalies, a subject that gets less headline attention than sea ice anomalies. I will be bolder than Neven and assert that the anomalise for May and for June (graphed in the post) will get more negative. But the anomaly for July will not. This is because the melt has been getting earlier each year and can only continue to do that, reducing May & June snow cover. But by July, the only significant NH 'snow' cover left is now Greenland. See Rutgers map for early July here A graph using Rutger weekly data here (usually 2 clicks to 'download your attachment') shows the beginning of July (week 30) 'minning' out with the beginning of June (week 26) starting it's decline to the same place.
55658. Sceptical Wombat at 17:44 PM on 10 August 2012
       Sequestering carbon nature's way: in coal beds
       First let me say I think the chances of getting an economically viable scalable CCS system are very small. However if one is developed it will certainly not be as a result of producing artificial coal. The most likely way of making it work would be storage in saline aquifers. This is dismissed out of hand in the post on the grounds that it would require monitoring. The post then moves straight on to arguing that artificial coal is not going to work. To me this looks like switch and bait. Further while the second law would certainly preclude producing a product as reactive as coal, I don't see a theoretical reason why it is not possible to incorporate it into a non reactive solid and still have some energy left over. And before you write me off as a false skeptic I suggest you try googling my pseudonym. I think a very good argument can be made for believing that CCS is unlikely to work. I doubt that it is possible to prove that it cannot be made to work.
55659. Bernard J. at 17:12 PM on 10 August 2012
       Sequestering carbon nature's way: in coal beds
       There's been a bit of focus on the Second Law, but in the context of effective sequestering of carbon (which implies a solid phase as char or similar), it's the First Law that has rather a lot to say. As Alex C notes, no-one's saying that sequestration is thermodynamically impossible. It is, but when all costs are tallied it is apparent that sequestration comes at great expense - and the sort of budgeting that one might expect of a Ponsi scheme. Perhaps something to keep in mind is that the energy-availability/ease-of-execution relationship is not fractal: at small scales execution of sequestration is almost trivially attainable, but of course to no appreciable effect. At large scales the relationship heads more toward Escher territory, to the point where at the scale required to reverse global atmospheric carbon increase, the task requires a lot of energy other than that sourced from the combustion of carbon. To attempt it with only fossil carbon as an energy source would be in practice little different to expectation of perpetual energy, as the residual energy available for non-sequestration use would be abjectly insufficient to fuel humanity's current appetite.
55660. jimspy at 16:08 PM on 10 August 2012
       Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
       The drought is not Climate Change. The heat wave is not Climate Change. The flooding is not Climate Change. The derecho was not Climate Change. The tornado outbreaks were not Climate Change. Snowmageddon was not Climate Change. Irene was not Climate Change. The drought and the heat wave and the floods and the derecho and the tornado outbreaks and the snowstorms and the hurricanes? All within a YEAR? THAT'S Climate Change.
55661. Ari Jokimäki at 15:45 PM on 10 August 2012
       New research from last week 31/2012
       Good catch, thank you. I fixed it. There was some malfunction in the HTML editor relating to characters < and > which removed all the text between those characters.
55662. Alex C at 15:39 PM on 10 August 2012
       Sequestering carbon nature's way: in coal beds
       Perhaps to clarify my last comment, the post did not invoke the second law to dismiss CCS but instead to dismiss the notion that you can simply put carbon that you emit into the atmosphere back into the ground in as stable and reduced a form as it was when you took it out, since that process would require more energy than we get out of coal burning in the first place. I suppose it is, in a way, an application of the second law (and I more or less retract my statement in the previous comment). But it's correctly applied, as opposed to the ridiculous arguments pseudo-skeptics make regarding the greenhouse effect.
55663. Alex C at 15:31 PM on 10 August 2012
       Sequestering carbon nature's way: in coal beds
       @Skeptical Wombat #16: Neither the second law nor perpetual motion WRT the second law was invoked. The statement was meant as an analogy for the proposed chemical emit-sequester system, that's why the article said "chemical equivalent" and not "is perpetual motion." The thermodynamic points also still stand and have not yet been addressed by you or any of the other detractors to this article: if you want carbon that is stored in as reduced a state as it was when you oxidized it you will have to expend net energy.
55664. skywatcher at 15:11 PM on 10 August 2012
       Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
       I'm very disappointed by this tweet. Readers can see for themselves the awful, venomous vitriol that Poor Dr Pieke Jr was subjected to in his one hour and 47 minutes between his first (#7) and last (#13) post on this thread. Clearly it is a dreadful example of a way to hold a debate:

       #7 Moderator Response: [RH] Thanks for coming by, Roger. We would also hope that you take a moment to read through our comments policy. We try to keep a tight ship here with regards to commenting. Staying close to the topic of the article is very important. We've very glad you stopped in, and you should be getting responses very soon. Thx!

       #9 [vrooomie] Roger, allow me to welcome you here [...] I will look forward to your participation in what I feel is one of the most rational, reality-based climate change blogs today, regarding this complex subject.

       #11 [DB] On[e] helpful (hopefully) interjection: Skeptical Science is comprised of quite literally thousands of blog posts covering all facets of climate science, from the denial to debunking to exposition on the science to solutions. [...]

       #12 [Dana] Skeptical Science welcomes any input you have into that conversation, as long as such input stays on topic (and, as with all commenters, within the constraints of the Comments Policy). Note to other commenters - let's please try not to overwhelm Pielke Jr. with too many comments, which became a problem for Pielke Sr. when he commented on SkS. [...]

       I wonder which of these dreadful posts Roger Pielke Jr was objecting to? The gentle requestes to remain on topic? Was it the fact he was being welcomed? Or the fact that he was going to be accorded especially friendly treatment, not accorded to his father? His departure in #13 was even apparently civil!! Would the real Roger Pielke Jr please stand up - the one that appeared open to discuss at least some issues in his two communications on this thread, or the one who is willing to be rude and fabricate divisive nonsense in a tweet?
55665. DSL at 14:25 PM on 10 August 2012
       Massive Arctic storm batters sea ice
       Haven't you been to Arctic Sea Ice blog, From Peru? Neven is the future. Let me try that again . . . Don't you know that the accelerated sea ice loss has caused a shift in the space-time continuum (new acrocliche: SSTC) centered around the Beaufort Gyre? Neven's post must have traveled through the rift.
55666. DSL at 14:20 PM on 10 August 2012
       Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
       Par for the course, really. I would have been more surprised if he hadn't used "the climate debate" somewhere in the tweet. I was hoping for a little more engagement, ala RPS.
55667. From Peru at 14:14 PM on 10 August 2012
       Massive Arctic storm batters sea ice
       Posted on 11 August 2012 by Neven Huh? Today is August 9!
       Moderator Response: [DB] Oops. Fixed.
55668. Tom Curtis at 14:12 PM on 10 August 2012
       Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
       Roger Pielke Jnr tweeted: "I visited the SkepticalScience website today, not impressed - like a caricature of the worst aspects of the climate debate." Now, to my mind the worst aspect of the "climate debate" is the death threats and abusive emails being directed at working climate scientists. After that would have to come the endless, baseless accusations of fraud, often with conspiracy theory attached that come from denier ranks. Then we have the countless times various deniers have doctored graphs, made up their data or repeatedly asserted easily checkable untruths as fact. I see nothing above that even remotely resembles these features of the climate debate, whether caricatured or not. Pielke's tweet, in other words, is at best a vacuous insult designed to cover his disinclination to defend what are, after all, his indefensible comments regarding Fielding. Still, the tweet is not all loss. While adding nothing to the debate, it certainly serves admirably to reveal Pielke's character.
55669. DSL at 12:39 PM on 10 August 2012
       Massive Arctic storm batters sea ice
       GAC12 The 60-day drop in CT area is still above 6 million km2 -- the 20th time this has occurred during this most amazing melt season. CT area is currently 424km2 below the 1979-2011 linear trend for this date. The DMI animation shows all that Beaufort warmth getting spread out by the storm.
55670. sauerj at 10:54 AM on 10 August 2012
       Sequestering carbon nature's way: in coal beds
       Concentrating flue gas CO2 thru membrane technology, purifying the CO2 for pipeline transport and pressurizing the CO2 to supercritical pressures for long-term underground storage (the most viable form of CCS technology) consumes 10 – 40% of the energy released from combustion of the fossil fuel (per source). Though this is not a perpetual machine, it certainly pushes the cost of coal or gas generated power up to or above current renewable cost levels (especially if this range is nearer the 40% mark which, as a combustion engineer, I believe to be more likely the case). It would seem to be ludicrous to divert investments away from renewable solutions in order to build 67% more fossil fuel power plants to make-up for the ~40% loss in output power due to CCS. But installing CCS technology on the EXISTING power plants deemed acceptable for “bridging the gap” is something I, personally, would have trouble finding fault in, all with the understood goal of not letting up on pushing toward ZERO GHG emissions.
55671. Sceptical Wombat at 10:35 AM on 10 August 2012
       Sequestering carbon nature's way: in coal beds
       I agree with Mike @5. There is nothing in principle about CCS that defies the second law of thermodynamics or implies the invention of perpetual motion. There is enough nonsense spouted about the second law by fake sceptics without SkS adding to it. I am extremely doubtful that CCS can be done economically, given that burning coal produces between two and three tonnes of CO2 for every tonne of coal burnt and the cost of transportation and pressurisation. However neither my doubts nor this article prove that it is impossible. Overall I think that this post detracts from the normal high standard of this site.
55672. jmorpuss at 10:13 AM on 10 August 2012
       It's the sun
       How does the atmosphere generate electricity ?
55673. Tom Curtis at 10:08 AM on 10 August 2012
       It's the sun
       h-j-m @1009, the approximate increase in solar forcing, globally averaged and adjusted for albedo, from the minimum to maximum TSI on the chart above is 0.15 W/m^2. Assuming the central estimate of climate sensitivity of 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2,ie, per 3.7 W/m^2, that means we would expect a 0.12 degree C increase in temperature from that increased insolation. Therefore, quite clearly, and contrary to your analogy, the Earth's atmosphere has reached and exceeded the equilibrium change in temperature expected from the peak TSI and would be expected to decrease with decreasing TSI where it not for other factors. Indeed, even if the Sun where to remain constant at 1950 levels, or even continue increasing, there would be a substantial disequilibrium which would lead us to expect the Earth to be cooling. You claim to be able to make a significant point despite these facts because you are, you claim, making a purely formal point about the argument supposedly used in the basic rebutal (but not the intermediate or advanced rebutals) above. However the formal argument you claim to be disproving was not made above. What was claimed was that:

       "Over the last 30 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate are going in opposite directions. This has led a number of scientists independently concluding that the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming."

       (My emphasis) That claim is true. Further, as scientists they examined a range of evidence, one key fact of which is the oppositely trending series of TSI and temperature. The validity of those scientists reasoning cannot be assessed by simply ignoring all other empirical facts, including those additional facts presented above. Claiming a purely formal refutation of scientific reasoning while ignoring the great body of evidence presented is rather silly, IMO.
55674. Dale at 09:30 AM on 10 August 2012
       Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
       I thank those who helped me to find the info I was after, and to those who felt derision was more appropriate let me just suggest it is not a wise path to take to educate lay-people on climate change.
55675. chuckbot at 08:24 AM on 10 August 2012
       Sequestering carbon nature's way: in coal beds
       A further, slightly tangential consideration is whether or not massive coal deposits like those we mine now could ever be laid again - right now I'm reading through a really interesting article which attributes the end of the Carboniferous era to the evolution of lignin-digesting fungi. I wonder how this effects biomass sequestration - would it have been easier to bury carbon before the rise of white rot? http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6089/1715.abstract
55676. Tom Curtis at 07:25 AM on 10 August 2012
       Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
       funglestrumpet @33, however emotionally satisfying the concept of some sort of (-snip-) for AGW deniers and their enablers may be, it is a morally and legally repugnant concept. We are not gathering evidence to be used against perpetrators. We are exposing the illogicality and the lack of evidential basis of the veiws presented by certain people so that others will not be mislead. We are educating, not preparing a brief. Never forget that for the great majority of deniers and their enablers, including A Watts, their views are sincerely held, no matter how poorly related to actual evidence.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Reference to snipped comment snipped.
55677. Tom Curtis at 07:20 AM on 10 August 2012
       Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
       Philippe Chantreau @35, if Dr Pielke is claiming that there is no right answer to the dispute between him and Dana, then logically he is admitting that he had no basis to accuse Field of misrepresenting the SREX, ie, that Dana is right. I believe, however, we should only interpret his "agree to disagree" as indicating that he does not think that either he will persuade Dana, nor Dana him of the respective correctness of their positions. Of course, the fact is that he consistently claims Field has misrepresented the SREX when Field correctly represented the SREX claims about hazards because the SREX was unable to attribute part of the very large increases in costs from natural disasters. These are conceptually very different things. What is worse, these are key conceptual distinctions in Pielke's area of expertise, so he cannot be unaware of them. Therefore he cannot reasonably have been assumed to mistake one for the other. The only way Pielke can escape the charge of deliberately slandering Field is if he presents an argument that direct costs of natural disasters are the only thing of concern to policy makers in determining a response to global warming. In fact, the only way his original post would not have been disingenuous is if he had explicitly made that argument. But his is wise to not have attempted that argument because it is blatantly false. In a world of increasing hazards, increasing disasters and costs from disasters can only be avoided by taking explicit measures to prepare for the eventuality of those hazards affecting large populations, either by engineering works, upgrading building codes or preparing for emergency responses. Therefore increasing hazards impose increasing costs, and possibly the requirement for increasing regulation - matters certainly of concern to policy makers.
55678. Paul D at 07:03 AM on 10 August 2012
       Sequestering carbon nature's way: in coal beds
       my take home was... It's silly taking out coal in the ground when we can use other energy sources and Coal is sequestered carbon. The article is quite clear and Sarahs 'vision' is quite clear and logical. I don't understand Gustafssons problem. Is the article scientific?? Not exactly, but then it is logical if you detach energy from carbon. If the problem is carbon then it makes sense. If you are only interested in energy, then sure manipulate the worlds carbon and mess around with natural processes. But the point is you can get energy with the minimum impact on what nature has produced.
55679. Bob Lacatena at 04:19 AM on 10 August 2012
       It's the sun
       h-j-m, Forgive my confusion, but what are the analogues for the stove, heating plate, pot and water in your analogy? If the stove is the sun, and the water is the atmosphere (or ocean + atmosphere, or earth climate in general), what the heck are the heating plate and the pot itself? What makes you think that somewhere in the system is this interval component or components that stores up solar energy in particular and then releases it more slowly? Your analogy makes no sense to me. [Mind you, the oceans themselves can take the role of the heating plate + pot, if the water in the pot is the atmosphere, and we are in fact seeing this. A lot of the energy is going into the oceans as the earth warms, so that warming of the atmosphere is not as apparent as one might expect. But the source of the warming is all of the components of the climate system -- sun, GHGs, aerosols, albedo -- not just the sun. So in that aspect, your analogy shows nothing with respect to the issue under discussion. And as Dan Bailey already pointed out, the oceans are continuing to warm as the output of the sun has decreased, so in that aspect your analogy again fails. Both the water and the heating plate continue to rise in temperature after the stove has been turned off. Don't you think that then implies that perhaps there's another, dangerous fire you should look for?]
55680. Bob Lacatena at 04:11 AM on 10 August 2012
       Sequestering carbon nature's way: in coal beds
       Gustafsson, I understand your misconception in looking at the Escheresque picture (about renewables), but the intent is not I think to take out the same carbon, but rather to use sequestration as an excuse to keep taking out other carbon. In this way you are right, it's like nuclear fuel in that you burn it and then you're left with a nasty, hard to dispose of waste product. But the point was never to imply using up the same carbon as was sequestered, but instead to use the technology as an excuse to create an infinite loop (limited of course by FF availability) which keeps taking new carbon sources out of the ground and then burying them again. As far as Mike's and your sentiments... I think you are getting lost in a gray area. No one is saying "don't do it at all." Clearly every bit of sequestration we can manage will be needed just to draw down CO2 levels from the heights to which we've already pushed them. But using CCS as an excuse to keep burning FF and ignoring the problem is insanity. It is similarly ill-advised to keep pushing CC2 as a solution, rather than as a mere stop gap at first and maybe as a way back from the brink later, when we have our emissions under control through other means.
55681. jimb at 03:23 AM on 10 August 2012
       Sequestering carbon nature's way: in coal beds
       Gustafsson @ 8- Who said anything about recycling or renewables?
55682. ranyl at 03:06 AM on 10 August 2012
       Sequestering carbon nature's way: in coal beds
       Don't that CCS stuff reduce the efficiency of thos ethere powerstations meaning you have burn a hold lot extra of that there coal gas to get the same energy out? And as CO2 captured is always directly related to fuel in, isn't this slightly self defeating and mean that CCS captures not very much at all. 2%? "Post-combustion capture Capture of carbon dioxide from flue gas streams following combustion in air is much more difficult and expensive than from natural gas streams, as the carbon dioxide concentration is only about 14% at best, with nitrogen most of the rest, and the flue gas is hot. The main process treats carbon dioxide like any other pollutant, and as flue gases are passed through an amine solution the CO2 is absorbed. It can later be released by heating the solution. This amine scrubbing process is also used for taking CO2 out of natural gas. There is a significant energy cost involved. For new power plants this is quoted as 20-25% of plant output, due both to reduced plant efficiency and the energy requirements of the actual process. No commercial-scale power plants are operating with this process yet. At the new 1300 MWe Mountaineer power plant in West Virginia, less than 2% of the plant's off-gas is being treated for CO2 recovery, using chilled amine technology. This has been successful. Subject to federal grants, there are plans to capture and sequester 20% of the plant's CO2, some 1.8 million tonnes CO2 per year." http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf83.html Sequesters at best 20% as of now, and reduces efficencies by 20%, so overall about 2% CO2 sequestered. CCS is however attracting lots and lots and lots of funding though and Biomass CCS is grwoing in popularity. Maybe in time.....Oh yeah we don't have any time do we!! And what about all those re-agents and all the process needed to make them?
55683. Philippe Chantreau at 02:47 AM on 10 August 2012
       Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
       "let us agree to disagree." Indeed that is a poor rethorical artifice that one with academic background such Dr Pielke should avoid,especially when talking about science with plenty of references that are plain to see for all. It amounts to trying to establish that there is no right answer and in any case does not address any of the substance in the OP.
55684. Bernard J. at 02:37 AM on 10 August 2012
       Sequestering carbon nature's way: in coal beds
       Hn... I'm somewhat startled to see the technotopian response to what is really a very straightforward consequence of accounting for thermodynamics. I'll repeat my earlier question, and note that it's the same question I put to those who think that humans can solve their planetary degradation problems by travelling to the stars... ...where are your energy-budget numbers that show that the concept(s) will work, in the face of thermodynamics? For reference, it's informative to consider some of Tom Murphy's BotE estimations. Tom himself admits that they're rough figures, but I have yet to see anyone who can demonstrate that Tom is off the mark, and that humans can efficiently put their carbon toothpaste back into the tube. And where the burial of vast quantities of naturally-fixed carbon is proposed as a solution, no-one has explained why it is not more efficient to use these as energy sources themselves, rather than the fossil carbon that they are to replace underground. Of course, the answer to that is rather obvious. No, the numbers simply do not add up in the context of humanity's current energy appetite. Sequestration in any way currently understood will be no more than tinkering at the edges of the problem.
55685. CBDunkerson at 02:36 AM on 10 August 2012
       It's the sun
       I think h-j-m is saying that the argument that, 'the Sun has not caused the observed warming because solar energy has been decreasing' is contradicted by his example of the pot continuing to warm after the hot plate is turned down. The most immediate problem with that chain of logic is that it is only true if we didn't run the hot plate at full power long enough for the pot of water to pass the equilibrium temperature for half power... if we did then the pot does not continue warming when we turn the power down... it is already warmer than can be maintained by the new half power setting and thus would begin cooling. Applying that issue to changes in solar output and earth temperature equilibrium we have to consider what the temperature response time to changes in solar output is... and there is this thing called 'night' which I'm going to suggest makes a very strong case for the response time being pretty darn fast. Ergo, no... we aren't still experiencing residual warming from an increase in solar activity fifty years ago.
55686. Jeffrey Davis at 02:31 AM on 10 August 2012
       Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
       "Let us agree to disagree ... " Ah, the rhetorical pixie dust to try to cover a multitude of sins.
55687. ajki at 02:24 AM on 10 August 2012
       It's the sun
       Isn't this stove/pot thing [WUWT] pure and debunked Spencerism [SkS]?
55688. Bernard J. at 02:06 AM on 10 August 2012
       Sequestering carbon nature's way: in coal beds
       

       Sarah is entitled to her opinion. But that is all it is, there is nothing remotely scientific about this post.

       Really? Perhaps you can demonstrate the validity of your claim and show your calculations for the energy required to sequester carbon in reduced form, compared and contrasted with the energy obtained by combustion of solid carbon. You must be aware of some thermodynamic loophole that has escaped most of the world's physical chemists, if you attach no scientific credibility to Sarah's discussion. For gaseous and liquid carbon, you might show similar calculations. And where you intend that carbon be sequestered as CO₂ rather than as solid carbon, perhaps you will demonstrate numerically how successfully humans will return CO₂ to subsurface reservoirs, both in terms of total energy return on energy expenditure and of centuries/millenia scales of effective reservoir integrity. The only way that carbon sequestration can work effectively in the short time period required is if humans have aburdly abundant renewable energy available: there is no way to drive effective sequestration with carbon-sourced energy. Without such spare energy sequestration is nothing like "an option" - the laws of thermodynamics don't permit cheating.
55689. Daniel Bailey at 02:06 AM on 10 August 2012
       It's the sun
       

       "So that in the experiment I can be reasonably sure that the heating water has to be caused by the heating plate (energy source). Now simple applied logic demands that you need to allow for that as well if you talk about the sun and the earth."

       What makes you think that this hasn't already been allowed for? Seriously? We see a decline in TSI. There exists an energy imbalance at the TOA, causing the system to warm. We know that the documented rise in CO2 is responsible for that TOA energy imbalance. The energy budget accounting for the various air/water/land components of the system closely sums to what we see at the TOA. Where's the problem?
55690. Gustafsson at 01:54 AM on 10 August 2012
       Sequestering carbon nature's way: in coal beds
       I just registered, just to see that Mike had said most of what i wanted to say, but i will elaborate a bit. I usually enjoy reading SkS articles because they are well written and based on research but this one is mainly an opinion and the final conclusion isn't much more than wishful thinking. "Of these, storage of CO2 in deep geological formations is considered to be the most technologically feasible (IEA). Since the carbon would be stored as CO2, not as fixed carbon, these reservoirs (and CO2 pipelines) will require continuous monitoring for leaks." So, the most technically feasible way to store CO2, that could help reduce CO2 in the atmosphere and be one of the many combined ways we reach a carbon neutral future as fast as possible is dismissed because it would require monitoring? Really? Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is in my opinion not a goal, but a bridging technology. We have coal, natural gas and oil power plants now and as much as we want a non-fossil alternative, changing the entire system is not going to happen over night. While the system is changing we can use CCS to mitigate the damage of our current system by retro-fitting old plants or even burning bio-fuels in CCS-plants to reduce CO2 concentrations in the apmosphere. jimb @ 6 - CCS has never been about making fossile coal into a "renewable" as is shown in the picture. It is not recycling. Think of it more like nuclear waste management: We can either spread the nuclear waste in the atmosphere or we can bury it in the ground where it wont hurt us as much. The later alternative is more expensive but as it wont hurt society as much it is still more cost efficient, which is why we have regulations. The only difference is that nobody argues with the scientists when they say nuclear waste is dangerous.
55691. Slioch at 01:40 AM on 10 August 2012
       Sequestering carbon nature's way: in coal beds
       Another method of sequestrating carbon not mentioned here is via the weathering of silicate rocks, particularly those of an ultrabasic composition, that is, those containing a relatively high percentage of iron, magnesium, calcium and other non-alkali metals. This occurs naturally, of course, but at a rate far too slow to counteract significantly the spike in atmospheric CO2 caused by human actions. However, ultrabasic rocks such as serpentinites, if finely ground and spread upon the ground will weather rapidly and moreover and are said to assist plant growth and possibly carbon storage in soils. Clearly, there will be substantial energy costs during the mining, crushing, transportation and spreading procedures, but the end result may be enhanced fertility, increased crop yields and a modest contribution to carbon sequestration. Unfortunately, I am unaware of any quantitative studies into this possibility.
55692. jimb at 01:39 AM on 10 August 2012
       Sequestering carbon nature's way: in coal beds
       Mike @ 5- I understood the cartoon to not be focussed on the final storage of the carbon dioxide that is released from the burning of coal, but that the process, like a perpetual motion machine, can never be 100% efficient. The efficiency will be determined by (i) the percentage of carbon dioxide captured and (ii) the amount of carbon dioxide created by the various processes and equipment used to capture and store the gas.
55693. h-j-m at 01:37 AM on 10 August 2012
       It's the sun
       Sorry, but both of you seemed to miss the point of my remarks. I was not appealing at some thermal flywheel effect nor to the energy balance of earth. I was simply appealing to the logic of the argument heading this thread. What was the described experiment for? Just compare it with sun-earth interaction. There is an energy source constant or declining in energy intensity ( sun - heating plate) and an energy receiver ( earth - pot of water) constantly heating up. The difference is that in my experiment I can make sure to exclude any other possible influence. So that in the experiment I can be reasonably sure that the heating water has to be caused by the heating plate (energy source). Now simple applied logic demands that you need to allow for that as well if you talk about the sun and the earth. In short I doubt that logic of the given argument is sound.
55694. Mike3267 at 00:57 AM on 10 August 2012
       Sequestering carbon nature's way: in coal beds
       Sarah is entitled to her opinion. But that is all it is, there is nothing remotely scientific about this post. A lot CH4 is stored safely under ground. CO2 can be too. Whether this will prove cost effective remains to be seen. Clearly, IMO, this is a long shot. Efficiency, conservation and non fossil fuel energy sources are our best bets, but we should keep all options open.
55695. chriskoz at 00:17 AM on 10 August 2012
       Sequestering carbon nature's way: in coal beds
       Very nice cartoon, Sarah. It gave me a healthy dose of laugh, especially the guy catching CO2 molecules like butterflies. That picture is doubling the informative value of all the words of the article.
55696. Tom Curtis at 00:10 AM on 10 August 2012
       It's the sun
       Bernard J. @1007, I believe h-j-m is actually suggesting that the Outgoing Lonwwave Radiation (OLR) was much less than the incoming shortwave radiation from the Sun (TSI) circa 1950 such that a small reduction in TSI still leaves TSI > OLR and the Earth with a lack of balance between incoming and outgoing energy that would warm the Earth. This notion is refuted by the very small changes in TSI over the course of the century which are insufficient to generate the large initial energy imbalance on which his implicit argument depends. Despite my disagreement on interpretation of his argument, I think he would still do well to examine the different warming rate between the two hemispheres.
55697. Bernard J. at 23:59 PM on 9 August 2012
       It's the sun
       h-j-m. You're appealing to what is often colloquially referred to as the thermal flywheel effect. However, with a little cerebral activity you should be able to grasp why the sort of disparity between solar output and climatic response is not as temporally shifted as you seem to think. There are several quite separate avenues that demonstrate this but sticking with just one for now, you might like to think what happens to the two hemispheres of the planet in its annual orbit around the sun. Is that sufficient nudging?
55698. h-j-m at 23:39 PM on 9 August 2012
       It's the sun
       For some years now at this topic I still see the same argument stated as refutation of the claim that the sun might play a significant role. Now, I have serious problems accepting the argument. I will try to explain with a simple experiment. I take an electric stove and a pot of water and thermometers to measure the temperature of the heating plate and the water. Now I place the pot of water on the heating plate and turn the stove to full power. Measurements show the temperature at the heating plate rising fast and water temperature rising slowly. After 5 minutes I turn the stove down to half power and in response I can measure the temperature of the heating plate first stalling and the dropping significantly. But the temperature of the water keeps rising and even more rising faster. If I follow the argument given here then the rising water temperature in my experiment can not be explained by the fact that the thermal energy transmitted from the heating plate, though dropping, still exceeds the capacity of the pot with water of emitting energy. Somehow I have severe doubts about that.
55699. funglestrumpet at 22:40 PM on 9 August 2012
       Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
       I assume that most sks subscribers have as a goal that of combating climate change. The chances of achieving that goal are bound to be hindered by any obfuscation such as that exposed herein. While it might be that the views these people express are genuinely held, it is difficult to believe that when one studies the tactics employed, as so clearly exposed by this excellent article. One wonders if Professor Pielke Jr would take this article’s exposure of his tactics so lightly as to breeze in to the comments section, say “Hello!” and then breeze out again after making little or no contribution to an article that questions his ethics if he were to consider that the article would form part of a body of evidence against him in the event of there being a commission or tribunal to apportion blame when climate change starts to really bite. When the events of this year will be seen as ‘rosy’ in comparison. When the public cotten on to how much they have been duped and demand punishment of those concernded. To this end, can I suggest that instead of having just a few persons selected for exposure, as in Christy’s Crocs (top left of the page), we simply have a link entitled: EVIDENCE AGAINST leading to a separate thread for each specific misinformation by each person considered to have deliberately mis-informed the public generally and the policy makers in particular. That thread should open for all to see, but only the named person and sks authors allowed to comment to the point where the evidence stands or falls or, I suppose, an ‘agree to differ’ point is reached. The comments policy would be different and I am not in a position to be specific, but I think one policy should be that deliberate denial of having said something when the evidence is clear that they have indeed said such a thing should lead to automatic termination with a ‘PROVEN’ note as the closing comment (no prizes for guessing which British peer I have in mind). There should be one thread for each transgression with the date and place of transgression recorded, unless it is repeated, when all that would be needed is a note to that effect with the date and place noted. Out of courtesy, we should inform the person concerned of the fact that the evidence is being gathered and offer them the opportunity to defend their position. I assume that not all misinformation is deliberate even if we think it is and there has to the opportunity for the individual to effectively cancel it by posting AGREED as their final comment on it. While it might seem like a lot of work, in truth there are only so many myths and they have all been debunked by reference to the known science, so the sks comment would in the main be a link to the myth-busting section. Who knows, the comments in response might assist this site in refining its myth-busting explanations, providing links to the sources, something of an omission currently. If one considers the times people continue to push mis-information, despite being in the mis-informers (should that be ‘myth-informers’?) hall of fame on this site, one wonders just how effective the current policy is.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Note that references to "tribunals" are considered inflammatory on this website.
55700. Daniel Bailey at 21:37 PM on 9 August 2012
       Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
       I think that most who have actually taken the time to study the literature and to learn for themselves the science would be uncomfortable resting the fate of the planet in the hands of those who obviously have not. Diversion over; let us please return to the OP of this thread, Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation.

Prev  1106  1107  1108  1109  1110  1111  1112  1113  1114  1115  1116  1117  1118  1119  1120  1121  Next