Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 Next
Comments 59201 to 59250:
-
KR at 23:34 PM on 3 May 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
johnd2 - The rate of ocean warming is actually fairly steady, as discussed in multiple threads here, such as The Earth is Warming. But if the ocean heat absorption varies only a tiny bit (proportionally) in the presence of an ongoing forcing imbalance, that amount of energy can cause a quite large variation in the atmosphere. The atmospheric temperature delta then becomes the 'tail' on the ocean variation 'dog'. -
DSL at 23:09 PM on 3 May 2012GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
Why look, scaddenp, even the far right has no problem with being green. In a few years, in fact, we'll undoubtedly see them come out with their own final solution to global warming. -
John Russell at 21:49 PM on 3 May 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
@Dan #4 Mine is a layman's comment; but the way I've always thought of model predictions is not -- as fake sceptics like to portray them -- scientific fortune telling where success is measured on how close they prove to be to reality; but rather as useful indicators, which might or might not work out depending on whether the parameters that they are built on, change. It's therefore possible for a model prediction to 'get lucky' -- like picking the Derby winner -- but not technically be as useful as another model where a base parameter changed after publishing but the model usefully predicted what could have happened. I guess what I'm saying is that it's probably best not to trumpet the 'success' of models that happen to 'get lucky' because it then makes it more difficult to defend models that didn't. The truth is, 'right' or 'wrong', they're all useful in their own way. Have I got this right? -
robin6721 at 21:05 PM on 3 May 2012We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
muoncounter " Perhaps a look at the thread, 'Its the Sun' (#2 on the Most Used Myths) is in order." That proves my point perfectly, not a single mention of the very large solar wind variations.Moderator Response: TC: Nor is there anywhere I have come across a single plausible mechanism explaining how variations in solar wind could influence the Earth's temperature. However, if you are aware of such a mechanism, by all means discuss it on the relevant thread. Of course, if your "plausible mechanism" is the modulation of Cosmic Galactic Rays, I note that that is discussed under the "It's the Sun (advanced)" article; but that the most appropriate thread is here. In either event, further pursuit of either argument is of topic on this thread, and may result in summary deletion of your posts. -
Dan Olner at 20:20 PM on 3 May 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
I hope you'll know I'm not being 'skeptic', in the climate sense of that word, but I am a bit confused. This appears to be saying that Hansen's 1981 work is good because it made a reasonably accurate prediction. But the previous take on his later 1988 work doesn't make sense to me: "Hansen's 1988 projections were too high mainly because the climate sensitivity in his climate model was high. But his results are evidence that the actual climate sensitivity is about 3°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2." So I don't really know what's being said. If predictive success is the criteria, didn't Hansen get something wrong in the later work? If so, what changed? If, as I think the 1988 analysis is saying, the point is rather that Hansen's model structure was correct, but he just got some parameter values a bit skewy, *why* were they skewy? How did his work make worse predictions later? Don't we want predictive success to be the criteria for climate models, and shouldn't that include asking how incorrect sensitivity estimates were arrived at? I'm imagining the answers are in the papers somewhere, based on what kind of modelling each was doing, so apologies - this is just a first-glance reaction. -
Rob Painting at 20:06 PM on 3 May 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
johnd2 - the transfer of heat into the ocean is through one means only - sunlight. Greenhouse gases trap heat in the ocean in much the same way that they trap heat in the atmosphere - via slowing the loss of energy (heat) out of the ocean. It is by this mechanism that the oceans warm over time. See SkS post: How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean As counter-intuitive as it may seem, El Nino is when the Earth loses energy -as heat is given up to the atmosphere and is eventually radiated away to space, and La Nina is when the Earth gains energy - as heat is buried in the subsurface layers of the western tropical Pacific and upwelled cold water, on the other side of the ocean, is brought to the surface to be heated by the sun. The global picture is more complex, but that's the basic gist of ENSO's effects. -
johnd2 at 18:59 PM on 3 May 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
These El Nino-related arguments seem quite plausible at explaining year-to-year variations in warming trends. But one thing puzzles me as a relative layman in this field: It seems like the oceans have a huge capacity to buffer and blunt the effects of GW, potentially for many years to come. But the kinetics of heat transfer into the oceans seem slow and variable - otherwise why would these ENSO patterns have such an effect on apparent warming. So why is heat transfer into the oceans apparently so slow and inconsistent? (I know there's probably not a simple answer to this, but if anyone is looking for a subject for a future topic post...) -
Michael Whittemore at 17:56 PM on 3 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
@ Tom Curtis, I wanted to ask if you know of a way to ask a question about a paper here at skeptical science. -
Paul Magnus at 15:53 PM on 3 May 2012ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
It would be grat if you had a db also about ways to discuse reasons for reducing ff directly aand specificlly like arguments for coal reduction or what we shouldn't ship the stuff to china because some one else will etc etc. See here .... http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/02/475761/climate-change-message-objective-reality-urgent-crisis-we-must-talk-about-it/#comment_link -
DSL at 12:56 PM on 3 May 2012New research from last week 17/2012
Nice, Ari. In a lovely world, we would pick one of the articles and coax the author(s) on for a little Q&A. -
Tom Curtis at 12:40 PM on 3 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Realist @59, I agree. However, that is just another way of saying the cost of the energy lost as waste heat in the production process is small relative to the total production costs. If that remains the case into the future, then the energy costs continue to be small, so that waste heat is not a significant problem. On the other hand, if energy costs increase as Dave 123 expects, then recovering waste heat will be economical, and most of the waste heat will be recoverable as energy. In either event, waste heat from steel manufacture does not shown any particular impediment to conversion to a renewable economy. -
muoncounter at 11:56 AM on 3 May 2012We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
robin#53: "Given the minimal cooling following Krakatau (VEI6)," Given? Perhaps you could offer a citation for that 'given,' hopefully someone more substantial than Eschenbach. But here's a USGS study comparing Tambura, Krakatoa and Agung: ... decreases in surface temperatures after the eruptions were of similar magnitude (0.18-1.3 °C). The amount of material injected into the stratosphere, however, differed greatly. By comparing the estimated amount of ash vs. sulfur injected into the stratosphere by each eruption, it was suggested that the longer residence time of sulfate aerosols, not the ash particles which fall out within a few months of an eruption, was the paramount controlling factor (Rampino and Self, 1982). "so few people consider the large changes in the particular output of the Sun" Perhaps a look at the thread, 'Its the Sun' (#2 on the Most Used Myths) is in order. -
scaddenp at 11:39 AM on 3 May 2012We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
robin - well Maunder minimum, being the description of a solar event, has nothing to do with volcanic activity. If you meant that LIA was caused by volcanic activity, then no, the science doesnt believe that either. Instead, it is postulated that solar variation, compounded by volcanic activity were cause of LIA. Explanations for LIA have to account for response of climate to other variations on solar activity; and to spatial pattern of LIA temperatures (much more pronounced in NH). -
Realist at 11:23 AM on 3 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
I think for a slag waste heat recovery system the economics might come down to risk. Even with a reasonable heat recovery and generation ability, the savings are small compared to the production costs of a steel furnace. If the generation system caused 1 day of lost steel production through slag blockages or any other reason and such reasons cannot be eliminated, it may be a very long while before the losses are made up. -
Lazarus at 11:01 AM on 3 May 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
I looked at this paper myself after Hansen's TED talk and featured it on my own blog; What Hansen et al got right decades ago. http://reallysciency.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/what-hansen-et-al-got-right-decades-ago.html -
robin6721 at 09:16 AM on 3 May 2012We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
Given the minimal cooling following Krakatau (VEI6), I don`t believe for a moment that Maunder was caused by volcanic activity. I am staggered how so few people consider the large changes in the particular output of the Sun in relation to Earth`s temperature variations. -
pvincell at 05:28 AM on 3 May 2012New research from last week 16/2012
Interesting post, Sphaerica. Thanks. -
KR at 23:57 PM on 2 May 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
Glenn Tamblyn - Quite right, ENSO shifts generally have shorter time-scales, although over the last decade the ENSO pattern matches the apparent decadal slowdown in surface temperatures. Reminds me of grad school - Not ready to graduate? Read another paper! Clearly I need to read some more... -
Glenn Tamblyn at 23:19 PM on 2 May 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part two - Hulburt to Keeling, 1931- 1965
Roger Revelle actually did the fundamental chemical analysis that cracked the question of how much CO2 the oceans would absorb in the late 30's. Howeverthis didn't come to prominence until his paper with Suess in 1957 - Busy year 1957, the International Geophysicl Year. Spencer Weart also comments that the recognition if the implications of Revelle's earlier work in R & S 1957 seems like an after thought, perhaps added at the prompting of reviewers. Perhaps R & S didn't quite want to bite the bullet initially on what their findings meant. Also during this same period Revelle was involved in another study that serendipitously shed light on ocean mixing or the lack thereof. After a US test in the 50's of a Depth Bomb - an atomic depth charge designed to destroy a submarine no matter what - Revelle was on an oceanographic research ship that went back to the test area months later. They took water samples in the region around the balst site. Remnants from the blast had spread out over an area of over 100 sq miles. Not that far when you consider it was months later. But the real find was the vertical distribution of blast products. They were found in a layer in the water only meters thick. Months later! That is a patch of ocean that really, really doesn't want to engage in vertical mixing, even after a Nuclear blast. Strongly suggesting that vertical mixing of heat, chemical changes, dissolved gases etc is quite slow except in regions where vertical currents facilitate mixing. The oceans don't mix things up as much as might be imagined. -
Bob Lacatena at 23:03 PM on 2 May 2012New research from last week 16/2012
12, pvincell, Just as a note... despite all of the brouhaha created by the denialsphere, the right way to look at things is not through the prism of supports vs. refutes. The paper you cited, no matter what the results, adds to the body of knowledge on the subject. As such, it does support the model of anthropogenic climate change because everything supports that model, as in "refines and improves" it. The whole problem with the denialsphere is that they keep looking for the "one paper" that will knock the foundation out from under all of the science. They keep hoping it's GCRs or clouds or low sensitivity or whatever, and nothing ever sticks, because even such a paper only serves to "refine and improve" the current theory, not to devalue it. So that is never, ever going to happen. The science is too deep, too broad, and too well founded. At this point one would need a thousand papers overturning a thousand facets of the science. And in the end we're left with what you see... a regular production of papers, each adding incrementally to our knowledge and helping us to sort out exactly what is what. -
les at 21:59 PM on 2 May 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part two - Hulburt to Keeling, 1931- 1965
5 - supak Hummm... for the US voting and the Oscars results, the 'truth' is identically people think; whereas the "Global Temperature Anomaly" is what physics does. Just because asking people what they think people think is quite accurate, doesn't mean that asking people what they think physics does will be accurate! Mind you, you should expect a better spread for the latter and therefore better betting options. -
pvincell at 20:27 PM on 2 May 2012New research from last week 16/2012
Just a note to laud Skeptical Science for posting citations to the occasional papers that seem to not support the model of anthropogenic climate change (the example above being "Tropical Pacific spatial trend patterns in observed sea level: internal variability and/or anthropogenic signature?"). I accept the scientific consensus--I am not disputing the key role of human activities in climate change. I am just acknowledging the scientific integrity of this excellent web site. Scientific credibility depends on open-mindedness to peer-reviewed reports challenging any prevailing consensus. Skeptical Science is a remarkable resource, in part because of it's openness to all relevant peer-reviewed scientific research. You folks have my deep gratitude and respect. -
michael sweet at 20:16 PM on 2 May 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
Dana, Good job. It is remarkable how accurate this paper was. As you show, it is difficult now, 30 years later, to determine if Hanasen was right on with his prediction or slightly low. Realclimate recently posted a similar analysis of Hansen 1981. They have similar conclusions to yours. Of course we will get skeptics (on other threads) claiming Climate Theory does not make predictions that can be falsified! Link them to this one! -
Tom Curtis at 19:19 PM on 2 May 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part two - Hulburt to Keeling, 1931- 1965
An amendment to my comment @3. On checking my claims, I noticed that the surface temperature of Venus is 735 degrees, K, making it just 447 degrees K (or C) warmer than the Earth. Consequently, if we were to determine climate sensitivity by a simple comparison with Venusian temperatures, we would find a climate sensitivity between 26 and 34 degrees C per doubling of CO2. The 26 degrees is from the fact that it takes 17 doublings of CO2 to exceed the CO2 concentration of Venus if other atmospheric components are held constant, and not simply replaced by CO2. At the 17th doubling, the Earth's atmosphere would have 37 times its current mass, compared to the Venusian atmosphere which has 93 times the mass of Earth's atmosphere. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 18:46 PM on 2 May 2012John Nielsen-Gammon Comments on Continued Global Warming
dagold/KR I don't think KR's reply is quite accurate. El Nino/La Nina is associated with changes in warm and cool water, particularly across the Pacific, down to depths of several hundred meters. The Hiatus periods identifed by Meehl et al and showing up in OHC data are comparing roughly 0-700 M vs 0-2000 m. And they operate over timescales longer than ENSO - a decade rather than a year or so. So it is better to regard the hiatus periods as being akin to a deeper and slower ENSO cycle. And that this isn't confined just to the Southern Pacific. They may be related. The Hiatus period cycle could certainly impact on the ENSO cycle, changing the dynamics of it. But they aren't the same thing. But related, possibly. -
bill4344 at 18:26 PM on 2 May 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
Thanks Dana! Fascinating stuff, and I wonder if Hansen in '81 had any inkling as to what lengths some would be prepared to go to keep the 'fascinating global geophysical experiment' running! I've yet to receive a reply to a related question from any self-described 'conservative' contrarian: 'What is the conservative position on conducting a radical experiment with the one atmosphere we possess?' I'm surprised this post has been up for so long without receiving flak, given it's about Hansen's projections, which are second only to the hockey stick, surely, as a target of 'skeptic' ire! But no doubt it's coming... -
70rn at 18:12 PM on 2 May 2012New research from last week 17/2012
Cheers for that dude. -
Ari Jokimäki at 15:03 PM on 2 May 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part two - Hulburt to Keeling, 1931- 1965
I also have written about this time period. -
John Mason at 14:55 PM on 2 May 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part two - Hulburt to Keeling, 1931- 1965
re - above: Done! -
John Mason at 14:52 PM on 2 May 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part two - Hulburt to Keeling, 1931- 1965
Indeed, Barry. I'll see if we can place the same link at the end of each of the three parts. Weart's attention to detail is first-rate and if anyone wants to study this story in depth, I can't think of a better place to go. Cheers - John -
Dave123 at 13:12 PM on 2 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Tom, As I understand it, no one has implemented these methods. The problem continues to be that slag is produced on a semicontinuous basis, and you don't want any screwup in energy extraction to affect the production of the steel itself. From my own perspective, the chemical route is interesting, but the kinds of endothermic reactions that could use this degree of heat are best managed in a fully continuous operation. A carousel of tundish operations comes to mind...and it's conceptually not dissimilar to the use of ion-exchange columns in a continuous process. (One is exchanging, one on standby, the third regenerating). (Of course it's not the same, hence the tortured formulation of conceptually not dissimilar). -
barry1487 at 12:55 PM on 2 May 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part two - Hulburt to Keeling, 1931- 1965
Jim @ 1 linked at the bottom of part 1 is the online version of "The Discovery of Global Warming," which is more detailed than the book, and I believe Weart updates it annually. I'm sure you're aware of it, but for anyone else, it's an excellent chronological primer on the subject. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm -
muoncounter at 11:59 AM on 2 May 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part two - Hulburt to Keeling, 1931- 1965
Jeff18: Venus' atmospheric pressure at the surface is 90x that of earth. Supak: What do you mean by 'adding .02 to the yearly temp anomaly'? Is that .02 degrees? That works as a decadal scale average, but annual variation can be much more. -
supak at 11:41 AM on 2 May 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part two - Hulburt to Keeling, 1931- 1965
I have seen it noted on this site that CO2 is adding about .02 to the yearly temperature anomaly. I am counting on this effect to power my winnings in the Global Temperature Anomaly prediction markets at Intrade. They have monthly and yearly, plus some other climate bets. Intrade is notoriously good on predicting things. For example, the markets correctly predicted the Oscars, getting 93 out of 95 predictions correct. Intrade was correct 92% on Super Tuesday. I encourage everyone to join in as the more people mean better predictions, but be sure to get the deniers you argue with to put their money where their mouths are too, as there just aren't that many sellers. Seems many of them don't believe their own theories enough to bet on it. I thank Neil Degrasse Tyson for pointing out that you can bet on this, when he was on Bill Maher's show. After all, what's the sense in arguing with them if they don't really believe what they're saying. -
scaddenp at 10:55 AM on 2 May 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part two - Hulburt to Keeling, 1931- 1965
Jeff, I don't know whether you were looking over those years, but you should try IPCC WG1 report for starters. How much temperature change for given much change in CO2, is known as climate sensitivity. Search here for that. Remember that radiative response is to log(CO2). Ie you get the same response as going from 200 to 400, as you get from 400 to 800 (or 100 to 200). Secondly, the instantaneous change in forcing directly from CO2 can be directly calculated from the Radiative Transfer Equations but tells only part of the story. The change in temperature from the CO2 induces feedbacks (particularly water vapour, albedo) which further increase temperature. The same physics works for Venus but its not a good analogue because the feedbacks are so different. The feedbacks work over different timescales up to hundreds of years for equilibrium. The IPCC report goes into the detail and links back to the relevant papers. -
Tom Curtis at 10:51 AM on 2 May 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part two - Hulburt to Keeling, 1931- 1965
Jeff18: 1) The albedo of Venus is much higher than that of Earth, with the result that Venus absorbs less energy from sunlight than does the Earth; 2) Temperature does not increase linearly with CO2 concentration, but rather it increases linearly for each doubling of CO2 concentration. 100% atmospheric concentration represents 12 to 13 doublings of CO2. Therefore based on your simple method, one doubling of CO2 should result in 800/13 = 61.5 degrees C temperature increase. 3) The actual figure for doubling CO2 is the far less disastrous 3 degrees C. The figure is much lower because: a) The more even temperatures on Venus also contribute slightly to increased temperature; b) (more importantly), the much greater atmospheric density on Venus contributes significantly to increased temperatures; and c) The greenhouse effect contributes significantly more to the temperature of Venus than the simple formula for the radiative forcing of CO2 would indicate, that formula only being accurate for a few doublings or halvings of CO2 concentration relative to current levels on Earth. Despite the difficulties represented by (a), (b), and (c) above, models of the greenhouse effect have been shown to predict Venutian surface temperatures for Venutian atmospheric conditions since 1980. -
Realist at 10:16 AM on 2 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Dana1981 That may be purpose of a climate conference, but as Copenhagen was not a success we are back to the situation i described where nations are clearly making decisions to optimise their own position ie doing nothing, or lobbying for grants -
Jeff18 at 10:12 AM on 2 May 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part two - Hulburt to Keeling, 1931- 1965
I have been looking for answer to this carbon dioxide question for a few years. Exactly how much CO2 change will cause how much temperature rise? The only real data I could find is the planet Venus. Let us assume the atmosphere is 100% CO2. (It is almost). For round numbers, the temperature is 800 degrees warmer than earth. Let us ignore for now the fact that Venus is closer to the sun and atmospheric pressure (thus CO2 content) is 15 time greater than earth. I will also assume the rate of change of temperature and CO2 is linear. If anyone has any data that differs, I would like to know about it. So, 100% is 800 degrees warmer, 1% would be 8 degrees warmer. And, .01% (100ppm) would be .08 degrees warmer. If you consider that Venus is closer to the sun and the pressure is higher, that further reduce the effect of CO2. It would seem by the above that the effect of CO2 is small. Comments Please. -Jeff -
Tom Curtis at 09:22 AM on 2 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
steve from virginia @45, in fact the system of dumping waste into the streets did involve an enterprise, and Alley clearly states. Specifically, "In the early 1800s, night-soil haulers in places such as London, Paris and Edinburgh removed the human output to the countryside, where it was used as fertilizer." (p216) He later goes on to discuss the potential implications this had on decision making to switch to modern sewage systems. It speaks ill for your case that you must continually misrepresent the contents of Alley's video and book in order to make it. More directly to your case, the loss of asset value following new inventions is never a consideration in the deployment of that invention, or at least it should not be. The invention of electronic calculators made the technology for mechanical adding machines largely obsolete. That was not a reason to forbid the manufacture and sale of electronic calculators, despite the loss of asset value for patent holders and makers of mechanical adding machines. Nor, in an earlier period, was the potential loss of employment to stable hands, and loss in asset value for horse breeders a reason for Henry Ford to not make the model T. In like manner, the loss of "asset value" of fossil fuels is no reason to not shift to renewables. This is particularly the case in that the supposed asset value of those fossil fuels consists largely in the fact that private enterprise gets to internalize the value of the benefits of the fossil fuels, while society at large is expected to pay the costs. Where the costs, including the costs of the full impact of global warming, where internalized to the producers of fossil fuels, the "asset value" of their reserves would be much smaller, and possibly even constitute a net debt, with each gallon of oil pumped impoverishing the oil producer, even before the costs of pumping it were included. People would be a lot wiser in economic decisions if they realized that "assets" and "debts" are mutually agreed upon fictions. They have no material existence, but rather consist solely of agreements made between people. Those fictions are often very useful fictions, but if you reify them you get Great Depressions, Global Financial Crises, and if we accept steve from virginia's analysis, the persistence in a ruinous policy because people with poor foresight, and a poorer conscious, decided to invest in fossil fuels rather than renewables. Well, the economic consequences of their unwise investment are their problems, not ours. -
dana1981 at 09:00 AM on 2 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Realist @52:"Surely you are not suggesting Copenhagen was a success?"
No, if I was going to suggest it was a success, I would call it a success. I'm talking about the purpose of international climate conferences, not their success rate. Realist @53:"Tragedy of the commons is the same as what economists describe as a competitive marketplace."
No, it's not. You could argue that it's an unfortunate aspect of a competitive marketplace, but the two are not equivalent. -
Tom Curtis at 08:54 AM on 2 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Dave123, thanks for the reference. Here is the abstract of Barati et al:"Molten slags represent one of the largest untapped energy sources in metal manufacturing operations. The waste heat of slags amounting to ∼220 TWh/year at temperatures in the range of 1200–1600 °C, presents an opportunity to lower the energy intensity of metal production. Currently, three types of technologies are under development for utilizing the thermal energy of slags; recovery as hot air or steam, conversion to chemical energy as fuel, and thermoelectric power generation. The former route is most developed with its large scale trials demonstrating recovery efficiencies up to 65%. The latter two are emerging as the next generation methods of waste heat recovery. An evaluation of these methods shows that for both thermal and chemical energy recovery routes, a two-step process would yield a high efficiency with minimal technical risk. For thermoelectric power generation, the use of phase change materials appears to solve some of the current challenges including the mismatch between the slag temperature and operating range of thermoelectric materials."
The current ability to recover of 65% of waste heat as energy, I think, effectively rebuts realist @36. -
Realist at 08:19 AM on 2 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Tragedy of the commons is the same as what economists describe as a competitive marketplace. -
Realist at 08:10 AM on 2 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Dana1981 Surely you are not suggesting Copenhagen was a success? If so by what measure? -
Dave123 at 08:06 AM on 2 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Steve- Please put some numbers to paper.... you're as amorphous as any climate change denier. At 132000 TWhr/yr 2008 Energy Utilization, I can invest with present $ and technology in wind power, and let's say we did 500Billion/year...vs my calculation above that gets us over 1 terrawatt per year....and in 50 years we're around 1/2 way there from wind alone. It's just resource allocation. If we were faced with a 4th of July style alien invasion is there any doubt we could rassle up as much money as we wanted to? War powers do odd things to financial systems. Now if we only had a room temperature super conductor. -
Realist at 08:02 AM on 2 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Dana1981 If so, by what measure? -
Dave123 at 07:58 AM on 2 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
oops those are page numbers 5540-5499. don't know where the e came from. -
Dave123 at 07:56 AM on 2 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Thanks to Phil, I've found I misquoted the review article...it's 200 TWh/year energy in steel slag. Based on some other numbers, those 6 Megawatt wind turbines would generate about 18 gigawatthrs/year. (Scaled from a 1.5 Meg machine at 35% operating capacity) Thus we only need about 11,111 of them. I'm seeing costs of about $1.30 per watt installed [link] for an expenditure of about $87 billion we can use wind power to cover the energy in slag....assuming I haven't messed up again. So for a little more than 10% of the current US military budget, we could do quite a bit with state of the art machines. For everyone playing around with slag....getting the energy out of it is harder...nice review article here: Barati et. al. Energy 36 (2011) 5440e5449 Unfortunately behind a paywall. You can probably see the abstract. Bear in mind anything you do has to be fool proof, steel companies don't like taking their mills up and down. And as for what you do with the cool slag...the problem has mainly to do with location and transportation costs vs other materials that you can put into concrete and other applications.Moderator Response: [RH] Embedded link that was breaking page format. -
Realist at 07:56 AM on 2 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Dana1981 Surely you are not suggesting Copenhagen was a success? -
dana1981 at 07:09 AM on 2 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Realist @44 - what you're describing is a form of the Tragedy of the Commons, and is why we have international climate conferences, to get all nations on board with emissions reductions. -
steve from virginia at 07:03 AM on 2 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
Alley's supposition is incorrect because it does not include the economic effect of a successful conversion on competitors. There is no factor in the calculation that represents the dumping of waste into Edinburgh streets, it was never an enterprise and could never compete against sewers: the fuel wasting enterprise on the other hand is the world's largest and represents the greatest part of world GDP. How can removing the fuel waste be cost free? Removing the waste is the object of the exercise, right? :) After all, if the renewables cannot eliminate fuel waste and its associated enterprises there is no point to the renewables. This is a competition between regimes. The implication is that all of the waste dependencies can remain as they are now but with different 'green' prime movers. This is false because all the dependencies are wasteful and polluting in their own right. What Prof Alley might suggest is that the replacement cost of new renewables versus new conventional prime movers is similar in $$$/kjoule. What happens is prime movers are aggregated according to operational characteristics within the wasting regime: intermittancy, base-load, etc. Wind farms do not replace reactors, they are added to them. For the purpose of removing atmospheric gases the entire waste enterprise must be eliminated. All the related costs including that of sunk capital must be calculated in addition to the cost of prime movers. Far from being easy or inexpensive, reconfiguration energy regime will be the hardest thing the human race has ever attempted in its entire existence. It is vital that we look at our endeavor this way so as to prepare ourselves for the crushing struggle to come. The future does not have any cars in it. There will be no conveniences, only shared struggle, hunger, perhaps much violence and deprivation. We lack the basic social infrastructures needed to cope with difficulties: our leadership and institutions are formed from mechanical and financial leverage. We are used to pushing buttons on the remote, for hiring others to solve our problems while we relax. The future has no relax in it. We cannot get a grip on our climate, fuel, food, water and other resource problems without acknowledging there will be large trade-offs and sacrifices. We cannot 'have it all'. We give up something or industrialization kills us (and itself in the process). Since industrialization is already unraveling (it doesn't pay for itself) we may as well go with the flow. What this means is the centralized, industrial forms of renewables are not likely to be deployed at a meaningful level. We cannot afford large-scale renewables already: the entire world has bankrupted itself the 'old- fashioned way' leaving nothing in the account books but debts. True enough, some is better than none, but when the credit is gone and the ginormous windmill breaks who will pay to repair it? The model here: Detroit.
Prev 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 Next
