Recent Comments

Prev  1186  1187  1188  1189  1190  1191  1192  1193  1194  1195  1196  1197  1198  1199  1200  1201  Next

Comments 59651 to 59700:

59651. NewYorkJ at 03:31 AM on 30 April 2012
       Global Warming Causing Heat Fatalities
       I suspect if human activities were a net cooling effect over the 20th century, deniers would be saying increased cold snaps are a good thing, based on similar 20th century data. Central air conditioning usage through the 20th century has increased, from near zero to around 50%, aside from other cooling technologies. Advanced or central heating has had a similar (if not greater) jump. Most of the former changes are not a result of adaptation to global warming any more than the latter, so using 20th century trends in industrialized countries as evidence that increased heat waves are a good thing for mortality is not supported in the data. Basic cause-effect fail. -1 Chip. Adaptation is not without costs either, particularly burdensome for those who are not currently prepared. For those who are prepared, with AC in their homes, vehicles, and place of work, will heat-related mortality stay constant? This relies on the assumption that no one ever goes outdoors for long.
59652. Daniel Bailey at 03:26 AM on 30 April 2012
       Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
       DouglasM forgot the /SARC tag.
59653. Tom Curtis at 03:12 AM on 30 April 2012
       Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
       DouglasM @32, actually, what Lindzen did (among other things) is accuse his colleagues of fraud based on (at best) poorly sourced data which he did not double check. In a more genteel age, such a gaffe would have resulting in his resigning his current paid position in disgrace. In this age where the politics of fossil fuel trumps all sense of ethics, he merely apologizes in terms which accuse the those being apologized to of academic negligence - this time based on no greater evidence than that it would be convenient for Lindzen if it were so. Those politics, and those guided by it, are certainly an example of the GIGO principle. A case in point is your claim that:

       "S J Holgate's 2007 paper represents the most comprehensive empirical measurement of decadal sea-level change rates during the 20th century."

       Really, Holgate 2007 in which Holgate examined the records of just nine stations is a more comprehensive survey than Jevrejeva et al, 2008, in which they examined 1,023 stations; or than Church and White, 2008 who tracked at least 350? It becomes apparent that "most comprehensive" is a trade term for you, meaning something like "has conclusions most suitable to my prejudices". Examining Holgate we find that after 1993 his 7 stations diverge substantially from a 177 station record from a previous study of his. If they had instead tracked the 177 station record, then the highest rate of change in sea level would have been at the end of the 20th century (instead of the 1980's). More significantly, his seven gauge record diverges significantly from the still more comprehensive satellite record of 3.1 mm per year over the period 1993 -2003 (compared to the 3.4 mm per year found by Jevrejeva over the same period). Clearly his "comprehensive" survey of just nine stations must take precedence over his earlier 177 station record, Church and White's 350 station record, Jevrejeva's 1000 station record, and of course the whole of ocean satellite record for that period - at least, that is, if you join with Lindzen and DouglasM in putting the politics ahead of the science.
59654. muoncounter at 03:07 AM on 30 April 2012
       Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
       Bernard J#10: "the energy density of fossil carbon cannot be matched..." Your point is valid if we think only of 'energy density' in classical terms of kiloWatt-hours per cubic meter of source material. Renewables don't necessarily lend themselves to that metric. Think instead in terms of 'energy yield,' a measure of kWh per square meter of surface dedicated to producing that energy. And that leads to another point you raise: "How will it all fit on the planet?" In the full ETOM video, Alley shows that solar/photovoltaic potential alone is a staggering multiple of demand, but he does not fully address the land area requirements of 'harvesting' that low yield crop. A study of photovoltaic systems by Denholm and Margolis 2008 showed that energy yield varies considerably with site location and with array deployment. They derive a range of 100-450 m^2 per person per year as "the PV land area needed to meet 100% of an average U.S. citizen’s electricity demand." Their recommendation was to use 'zero-impact' surface area such as rooftops, a national average of about 65 m^2 of rooftop area available per person in the U.S. Assuming flat deployment, this number would imply that rooftop PV deployment alone could provide around two-thirds of the nation’s electricity supply. Not a bad start, particularly in this context: Golf courses and airports each currently occupy about 35 m^2 per person in the United States
59655. DouglasM at 02:24 AM on 30 April 2012
       Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
       Such vitriol, Dick Lindzen was only trying to draw attention to the obvious scientific risks of relying on computer models - GIGO, or perhaps "Assumptions In, Assumptions Out"! Just one example, sea levels. S J Holgate's 2007 paper represents the most comprehensive empirical measurement of decadal sea-level change rates during the 20th century. Between 1904 and 1953 global sea levels rose by 2.03mm per year, whereas from 1954 to 2003 they rose by only 1.45mm per year, giving an annual mean rate of 1.74mm per year over the 100 years to 2003, or seven inches per century. Importantly, there was no increase in the rate of change over the whole century! Hardly a case for alarm I would suggest.
59656. Bernard J. at 00:44 AM on 30 April 2012
       Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
       I fully concur with Richard Alley that renewables can be made competitive in many contexts with fossil fuels. However, I also have some reservations, and although steve from virginia raises some seemingly controversial (and abstruse) ideas, he is pointing to at least one elephant in the room that is directly relevant to the matter of energy substitution. To put it in context: 1) humans have in a blink of an evolutionary eye tapped what is perhaps the most energy-dense source of fuel in the solar system that is easily avilable 2) with this staggering glut of exquisitely finite energy we humans have essentially remodelled our global habitat, and pushed our numbers to full exploitation of this glut without thought for its finiteness 3) the aforementioned finiteness is easily (and increasingly) demonstrated by a simple consideration of high-school level geometric mathematics 4) the energy density of fossil carbon cannot be matched by any renewable source in terms of scale. Taking the last point first, for renewble fuels to be in any way able to functionally replace fossil fuels, they would require extensive deployment both in terms of resources to manufacture the equipment to capture and to store the energy, and in the context of modifying the environment further in order to garner the necessary area with which to harness the energy in the first place (remember, we are talking about what is directly or indirectly diffuse solar energy). This is fine so far, in terms of Alley's correct commentary on the basic technical feasibility, but there are several further considerations that need to be accounted for. First, the second law of thermodynamics dictates that there is an energy cost in converting the harvested energy into a storable form, and that there is an additional cost in subsequently using it. Humans currently do not pay that cost with fossil fuels because it was paid over hundreds of millions of years of fossil carbon formation. Second, the very infrastructure for capturing our current level of energy use requires an energy investment, and the energy return on energy invested (ERoEI) for renewables is not nearly as high as it has been for most of the time that technological society developed using fossil carbon. So, even more energy will be needed to be sourced than is currently used by humans. Now, do we aim to supply current levels of Western energy use to future non-'developed' nations? Think carefully about this, because global warming and energy red-lines are both just links in a greater chain of unsustainability that humans are facing. Even if we magically replace all of our energy needs, and halt warming at today's current commitment, the world still faces many ecological crises built on past usage patterns. And if we try to energise the rest of the world to current Western standards, the resulting pressure on the environment will only increase, and exponentially. Imagine eight or nine billion people using the planet as the richest two billion currently do. Imagine that they're doing so using the intensive renewable energy technologies and resource requirements that would be necessary to sustain so much energy input. How will it all fit on the planet? The simple fact is that it won't, and getting back to my first paragraph, although renewables are potentially cheaper in the near future and on the small scale, compared to fossil carbon, that would change if we tried to globalise them. Renewables are a first step in a much greater change that needs to occur, and that needs to occur principly in the First World. Dave123 likes our civilisation. Personally, I myself am also quite fond of many of its achievements. However, the fundamental issue has nothing to do with what we like, it has to do with numbers. Dave also says that as a "technologist" he doesn't believe in "magic solutions", but the current approach to renewables (and to nuclear, when the microscope is appropriately trained on it) still involves magical thinking - even amongst those who should know that there are thermodynamic implications underpinning the whole story. The fact is, modern industrial society was built on a one-off energy bang that cannot be replicated. Even if technology were to be able to do so, it's almost certain that we've already left it far to late to ensure the transition - not to mention that we've squandered on frivolities too much of the energy that would have been necessary for establishing a future global sustainable-energy infrastructure. And in the process we've overbred and over-FUBARed our planetary life-support system. This is not to say that the future isn't in sustainable energy. If we are to have a future, of course we must go down that path. But as my favourite curmudgeon Albert Bartlett irrepressably points out, it cannot be done at the level of energy/resource use per person that we have currently enjoyed in the West. It just can't. When all of the numbers are accounted for, it is simply not possible to sustain the present level of human energy/resource use, let alone to increase it. Yes, it might be possible to have some high-technology in the future, but the penalty will be an enormous downgrading for the average planetary citizen. Of course, we've shown no inclination to choose this voluntarily, so it's likely that thermodynamics will impose the necessity on us. Peak Oil, with its resultant knockings-on of increasing unemployment, diminishing of funding for expensive domains in science, art, and social weal - teetering economies in general - are the present manifestation of the inexorable tapping on our collective human shoulder that thermodynamics wants us to pay our entropy debt. Our baulking about addressing climate change is, sadly, a part of our procrastination in responding to an even more profound challenge to society. The former is no less important than the latter, but if both are to be affectively addressed it will require some brutal honesty on everyone's part, and this includes those with the best technological solutions - we need to go right back to the basic laws of physics, given that we've painted a planet into a corner and physics now dictates the only way out.
59657. Michael Whittemore at 23:27 PM on 29 April 2012
       ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
       #45 Delmar Firstly I understand we make money off mining but just like we want to ban live meat exports we are going to have to consider the implications of the coal we export. But in saying that if Australia stopped exporting coal, it would drive up the costs for other countries, but mining company's would just move to other countries. What I am saying is that people suggest governments cant stop the CO2 emissions, but we can. If most of the developed world wanted to they could simple get Australia and Brazil to stop exporting coal. This would drive up the cost so much that solar would be more cost affective.
59658. bill4344 at 22:10 PM on 29 April 2012
       Richard Alley on Today's CO2 Levels
       Watch the full first episode, Rob: NZ is one of the stars!
59659. Dave123 at 21:36 PM on 29 April 2012
       Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
       I want to respond to Steve's pessimism about conversion to sustainable energy. First, I don't know that we need to go to a zero carbon footprint....some level of use of fossil fuels/liquid hydrocarbons seems possible. After all, the carbon balance at present shows we're soaking up 1/2 current emissions. I haven't checked on how much goes into the ocean vs the biosphere via photosynthesis and how much is taken up by rock weathering...but some fraction of our current consumption is possible long term. Second, mass transportation, both individual and collective is possible with renewable electric sources. What is more difficult are mining/excavating machinery and aviation. Here biodiesel and conservation are important. But, it's not a trivial exercise. I learned an interesting pair of facts last week: The waste heat contained in the slag from steel production is on the order of 2 Terawatts. The largest single windturbine made by one supplier I paid a call on is 6 Megawatts. The heat contained in the slag does not count the heat contained in the steel...another matter. To account for the slag alone requires over 300,000 windturbines. You can choose to believe this is an impossible number...or you can rub your hands gleefully together and see a great business opportunity in manufacturing, sales, installation and maintenance...(althought they are designing these things for 20+ years of maintenance free operation). Using one estimate I've seen at $13/W for the 6Megawatt windfarm, it would cost $153 Billion, to cover the waste heat from the slag. It seems to me that we easily have military expenditures on that magnitude each year.... so over the span of say 50 years, we could (if siting permits) install something like 100 Terewatts of windpower. As for solar.... I've visited the Evergreen solar plant while it was operating in Massachusetts... the silicon ribbons were draw from electrically heated furnaces. There was no direct liquid fuel use anywhere in the plant. Heat for every upstream stage of the process that I can think of short of mining can be done w/o liquid fuels. The analogy to sewers and sanitation is I think apt. What was considered an impossible expense back then is routine now. We absorbed it into our economies. Personally, I like our global civilization. I suspect that a major factor in the sustained relative peace we have is the increased standard of living. I want to keep as much of this as possible. As a technologist I don't believe in magic solutions...but between conservation, appropriate use, some lifestyle adjustments...I think it can be done.
59660. Rob Painting at 20:15 PM on 29 April 2012
       Richard Alley on Today's CO2 Levels
       Superb educational material. That Richard Alley mentions New Zealand twice in this video clip does not bias my opinion in anyway!
59661. Delmar at 19:37 PM on 29 April 2012
       ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
       Michael #43 I would think that if we stopped coal exports we would be dealing with our own financial shortfall and would not have cash to spare for rebates for developing nations. Ironically it is a number of the developing nations that presently that are cashed up, while a number of the developed nations are under huge debts.
59662. bill4344 at 17:35 PM on 29 April 2012
       Richard Alley on Today's CO2 Levels
       You can watch the whole Operators Manual series here. 3 episodes x 54 minutes each (most of what we're seeing is coming from ep. 1); time well spent! (This link seems to have disappeared from the other thread. Perhaps mistaken for linkspam, as I didn't offer an explanation? I can only plead laziness and a presumption of context...)
59663. rog at 17:19 PM on 29 April 2012
       ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
       Given the amount of time and money poured into business projects it is not surprising that big business moves to protect its investment - and the investment of its shareholders.
59664. Michael Whittemore at 17:18 PM on 29 April 2012
       ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
       One of the main points made in the show was that developing countries will continue to emit CO2 so there is really nothing we can do. I think it is clear that we are very capable to be able to stop the main exports of Coal and Oil and just give developing nations a rebate on green technology which we will make for them, improving our economics at the same time. Its all so simple if we are prepared to spend a little money.
59665. Michael Whittemore at 17:08 PM on 29 April 2012
       ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
       Is it true about what Lindzen said, that the models show that there should have been a 3 degree warming. He says it at 22.00 mins in the show which can be seen here http://www.abc.net.au/iview/?series=3481295#/series/3481295 It sounds like he is simply not taking into account the ocean warming.
59666. Bob Lacatena at 14:14 PM on 29 April 2012
       Climate sensitivity is low
       RW1,

       Do you agree that 390/240 = 1.625?

       Yes.

       Do you agree that 16.6/3.7 = 4.5?

       Yes, but utterly irrelvant.

       Do you agree that 4.5 is 2.8x times greater than 1.625?

       Yes, but utterly irrelevant.

       If watts are watts, how can watts of GHG 'forcing' have a 3x greater ability to warm the surface than watts forcing the system from the Sun?

       Because the ratio is a meaningless number and the question as phrased is a nonsensical question. Put another way... if the sun increased its output by 3.7 W/m2, the earth would warm by roughly the same amount. An additional 3.7 W/m2 from any source would result in 16.6 W/m2 at the surface. The reason has to do with this thing called feedbacks, and the fact that the system does not consist solely of a big flaming ball (the sun) and a little floating ball (the earth). It's more complicated than that, and you would be far, far better served studying the other issues than arguing, for the fifty millionth time, this same, old, tired point. Have you not yet figured out that no one on the entire planet agrees with you, or cares about your particular insight in this? Do you think you are Galileo? Or perhaps merely confused and lost? Take your pick, but either way, you're wasting everyone's time with the same, old, complete nonsense. It's time for you to get over yourself and go learn something.
59667. Bob Lacatena at 14:07 PM on 29 April 2012
       Climate sensitivity is low
       Tom, RW1 refuses to look at this as anything other than a linear system equivalent to electronic circuits. As long as he is in that trap you cannot help him out of it. He has tied himself in knots with his personal model of the system, and there's no way out of it, because he won't abandon his (grossly flawed) model, nor will he expand it to properly reflect the system being modeled. He'll argue in a thousand circles before he recognizes that he is wildly wrong.
59668. RW1 at 13:43 PM on 29 April 2012
       Climate sensitivity is low
       Tom Curtis, "You assert that because it does not increase the incoming solar radiation, it cannot cause in increase in energy stored in the Earth's surface and atmosphere." I don't assert this at all. What I'm saying is additional GHG 'forcing' does not increase the total energy input into the system as additional post albedo solar forcing would. This does not mean that GHG 'forcing' cannot increase the total energy stored in the Earth's surface and atmosphere, as of course it can. My original point was that, if anything, a watt of GHG 'forcing' would be a little less than solar because some of the existing internal energy would have to be expended for the expansion of warming air against its surroundings.
59669. RW1 at 13:27 PM on 29 April 2012
       Climate sensitivity is low
       Tom Curtis, "You are correct, but nobody does derive the zero feedback response to forcing from the absolute surface response to insolation. There is no point in further discussing your straw man." 390/240 = 1.625; 3.7 W/m^2 x 1.625 = 6.0 W/m^2 = 1.1C from S-B. "What is more, your argument assumes that the "solar amplification factor" is constant over the range of temperatures that might be experienced, which is known to be false." Actually, no. The amplification factor is not constant and is indeed non-linear; however, each incremental watt causes proportionally less and less warming in the system, which is the opposite of what would be consistent with the incremental response being greater than the current absolute response (i.e. greater than about 1.6) "So, your insistence that the ratio be constant is simply an assertion by fiat that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is completely independent of the concentrations of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." I never said or implied anything of the sort. The ratio is not constant. If, from GHG 'forcing', the surface temperature were to rise by 1.1C the absolute surface response to solar forcing would increase. The new ratio would be 1.65 (396/240 = 1.65).
59670. Tom Curtis at 12:36 PM on 29 April 2012
       Climate sensitivity is low
       RW1 @279, increasing the GHG concentration will reduce the OLR radiation until equilibrium is reached. You assert that because it does not increase the incoming solar radiation, it cannot cause in increase in energy stored in the Earth's surface and atmosphere. This is logically equivalent to asserting that if you have a basin of water, being filled by a tap, and drained through a drain, that you cannot increase the water level by reducing the water flow out of the drain because doing so does nto increase the water flow from the tap. No more need be said.
59671. Tom Curtis at 12:32 PM on 29 April 2012
       Climate sensitivity is low
       RW1:

       "Put another way, one can't derive the 'zero-feedback' starting point from the absolute surface response to solar forcing, ..."

       You are correct, but nobody does derive the zero feedback response to forcing from the absolute surface response to insolation. There is no point in further discussing your straw man.

       "In short, the absolute solar amplification factor of about 1.6 (390/240 = 1.625) is already giving a measure of incremental sensitivity to additional forcings or imbalances, only it represents an upper bound on sensitivity because net negative feedback on imbalances (a net response less than 1.6) is required for basic stability and maintenance of the current energy balance from the forcing of the Sun."

       1) It does not represent an upper bound. To assume that it does you must assume that the albedo of a sunless Earth would be identical to the albedo of the Earth as it currently exists. That assumption is, however, simply absurd. A sunless Earth would have an albedo of 0.7 (0.3 for treeless land areas, and 0.9 for frozen oceans) or higher. Consequently an approximate measure of the "solar amplification factor", if it is intended to reflect all feedbacks, is 2.05. What is more, your argument assumes that the "solar amplification factor" is constant over the range of temperatures that might be experienced, which is known to be false. It also assumes it is constant with regard to continental configurations (also known to be false). 2) Your whole presentation is nonsense. Let's define some terms: EI = Effective Insolation = Top of atmosphere insolation * (1-albedo); SR = Upward Long wave surface radiation OLR = Outgoing Longwave Radiation TGHE = total greenhouse effect = SR-OLR Given these definitions, we can define the solar amplification factor (SAF): SAF = (EI+TGHE)/EI Thus defined we see that your insistence that the Solar Amplification Factor remains constant under the greenhouse effect is just the insistence that (EI+TGHE)/EI = k, where k is a constant. That can only be true where TGHE = EI(k-1). So, your insistence that the ratio be constant is simply an assertion by fiat that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is completely independent of the concentrations of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Put simply, your theory can only be correct if a pure nitrogen atmosphere has the same greenhouse effect as a pure CO2 atmosphere. And you want to assert this claim as a definition from which we are supposed to start reasoning. Well, you may be able to con some people, but I recognize the difference between science and utter nonsense, and it is the later that you are peddling.
59672. Delmar at 10:46 AM on 29 April 2012
       ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
       For those who didn't see the ABC's How I Can Change Your Mind on Climate Change, it is available for streaming for 14 days after broadcast on http://www.abc.net.au/iview/?series=3481295#/series/3481295
59673. Delmar at 09:57 AM on 29 April 2012
       ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
       Peter7723 Solar has been dropping in price and hopefully should continue as it is not a mature industry. But remember that aluminum exports come back as solar panels! I don't see the same ability to reduce the cost of wind, for the reason that wind has a high proportion of its cost going to using existing technology for a new application. Eg the costs are broken as follows;- Large concrete base- mature technology Large steel pylon - mature technology Large blades - blade technology is advanced but this size is not mature Planetary gearbox - mature but some volume cost reduction possible Generator - mature With production being from china, any cost reductions require the yuan to continue to be held low.
59674. RW1 at 09:39 AM on 29 April 2012
       Climate sensitivity is low
       I meant to say: "...I stand by my claim that if anything a watt of additional GHG 'forcing' would be a little less than a watt of additional solar forcing in its ability to warm the atmosphere (and ulimately the surface).
59675. RW1 at 09:33 AM on 29 April 2012
       Climate sensitivity is low
       Tom Curtis, Regarding my other point. Unlike additional solar forcing, with additional GHG 'forcing' there is no increased energy coming into the system, leaving only the existing internal energy available. Since GHG warming requires the troposphere to warm and the pressure is higher in the troposphere than it is in the stratosphere, I stand by my claim that if anything a watt of additional GHG 'forcing' would be a little less than a watt of solar in its ability to warm the atmosphere (and ulimately the surface).
59676. RW1 at 09:20 AM on 29 April 2012
       Climate sensitivity is low
       Tom Curtis, Let me clarify what I'm trying to say: Designating the +1.1C as the 'zero-feedback' starting point from the so-called 'Planck response' (i.e. the effective emissivity) is not valid because it arbitrarily separates the physical processes and feedbacks in the system that will act on additional forcings, like from GHGs, from those that currently act to maintain and control the system from the forcing of the Sun, for which there is no physical or logical basis. Put another way, one can't derive the 'zero-feedback' starting point from the absolute surface response to solar forcing, which itself is the net result of and maintained by all the physical processes and feedbacks in the system, and then claim there is some nebulous feedback acting on top of this that will amplify 'forcings' or imbalances even further, let alone 3-6x times greater. The 'brakes' - if you will, have already been put on all the feedbacks in the system from the many years and years of forcing from the Sun, including especially water vapor and clouds, as the two are the most dynamic components of the whole atmosphere. If you think they have not been put on (the brakes), why did the net surface energy flux from the forcing of the Sun 'stop' at only 390 W/m^2? Why didn't the feedbacks in the system, including especially water vapor and clouds, ultimately manifest themselves to an 'effective' emissivity of 0.22 (3.7/16.6 = 0.22), where a net surface energy flux of 1077 W/m^2 (about 100C!) has 837 W/m^2 'blocked' by the atmosphere and re-circulated back to the surface (240/1077 = 0.22)? In short, the absolute solar amplification factor of about 1.6 (390/240 = 1.625) is already giving a measure of incremental sensitivity to additional forcings or imbalances, only it represents an upper bound on sensitivity because net negative feedback on imbalances (a net response less than 1.6) is required for basic stability and maintenance of the current energy balance from the forcing of the Sun. If the logic is still not clear, here it is broken down into a series of separate questions: Do you agree that at the Earth's current global average temperature of 288K, the Earth emits about 390 W/m^2 from its surface (assuming an emissivity of 1 or very close to 1)? Do you agree that the globally averaged solar constant is about 342 W/m^2 and the average albedo is about 0.3, resulting in a net incident solar power of about 240 W/m^2? Do you agree that the 240 W/m^2 of incident post albedo solar power is forcing the climate system? Do you agree that the 240 W/m^2 forcing the system from the Sun results in an amplification at the surface of about 390 W/m^2 entering the surface from the atmosphere to sustain 288K? Do you agree that this accounts for all the physical processes and feedbacks in the system? If not, why haven't all the physical processes and feedbacks fully manifested themselves after billions of years of forcing from the Sun? Or even after the last few hundreds or thousands of years of forcing from the Sun? Do you agree that in order to amplify +3.7 W/m^2 of 'forcing' from 2xCO2 into +3C at the surface it requires +16.6 W/m^2 entering the surface from the atmosphere (288K = 390 W/m^2; 291K or +3C = 406.6 W/m^2 and 406.6 - 390 = 16.6 W/m^2)? Do you agree that watts of GHG 'forcing' and watts of solar forcing must obey the same physics in the system? That is a watt is a watt, independent of where it last originates from. Do you agree that a watt of post albedo solar forcing and watt of GHG 'forcing' can only do the same amount of work? Do you agree that 390/240 = 1.625? Do you agree that 16.6/3.7 = 4.5? Do you agree that 4.5 is 2.8x times greater than 1.625? If watts are watts, how can watts of GHG 'forcing' have a 3x greater ability to warm the surface than watts forcing the system from the Sun?
59677. Andy Skuce at 08:56 AM on 29 April 2012
       Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
       Tom, yes, it's more than likely I got my numbers muddled. It's interesting to compare 1% of GDP for combating climate change with the shares of GDP allocated to defence or healthcare.
59678. Tom Curtis at 08:31 AM on 29 April 2012
       Climate sensitivity is low
       RW1's original claim was that the forcing from Greenhouse Gases was three times that from solar. In defense of that claim he refers us to the ratio of incident solar radiation to upward long wave surface radiation to surface absorbed solar radiation, or 2.46 (396/161, see diagram below). With hesitance I say that RW1 should have used the ratio of LW surface radiation to total absorbed solar radiation, or 1.66 (396/239). I say "with hesitance" because his entire formulation is incorrect. For a start, 239 W/m^2 is not the solar "forcing". A "forcing" is the change in a value between two different, specified times. By convention, the reference time is 1750, notionally the pre-industrial era. Further, 396 W/m^2 is not the "greenhouse gas forcing" In fact, the difference between the upward LW surface radiation and the upward LW radiation at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is the total greenhouse effect, but even that is not the total greenhouse forcing both because a forcing is a change between two times, and because it includes feedbacks as well as forcings. (For what it is worth, the ratio of the total greenhouse effect to total insolation is 157/239, or approximately 66%. What is more, the insolation contributes approximately 80% of mean global temperature, with the greenhouse effect contributing the majority of the extra warming and redistribution of heat, which equalizes temperatures contributing the rest.) Ignoring the terminological issues, which render RW1's claim almost incoherent, the simple fact is that the total greenhouse effect acts as a multiplier of energy from the sun. If we were in the dark of space, no amount of greenhouse gases would raise our temperature appreciably above the 2.5 K temperature of the cosmic background radiation. Therefore if insolation increased, then the total greenhouse effect also increases in proportion. For small increases in insolation, the ratio of effective insolation (incoming sunlight minus albedo) to upward LW surface radiation would remain constant. And therefore the increase in temperature from an increase in insolation of 1 W/m^2 would be approximately the same as the increase from a 1 W/m^2 forcing from CO2. Turning to RW1's second point, warming a gas does result in expansion, which does perform work. But a GHG forcing warms the troposphere but cools the stratosphere. In contrast an increased solar forcing warms both troposphere and stratosphere. Because the solar forcing is warming more gas (by a small percentage), if RW1's argument had any merit, it would indicate that solar forcing was weaker than GHG forcing. In fact, however, it is without merit. It does indicate that solar forcing must use more energy for a given increase in temperature, all else being equal. But energy leaving the system is not a function of how much energy is stored in the system, but of surface and atmospheric temperatures. Because of this, the increase in temperature is the only factor in determining if equilibrium has been restored, and the equilibrium temperature for equal solar and GHG forcings is approximately the same. I write this solely for the benefit of interested readers who may be confused by RW1's ramblings. He himself has a long demonstrated inability to learn or apply even the most basic of the relevant concepts, so I doubt he will gain any benefit from it. For the same reason I am unlikely to respond to any response he makes to my post. Again, he has a long history of simply regurgitating his initial confusion in slightly different words and imagining that thereby he is "debating". At the moment I do not have the time to waste pandering to his misconception.
59679. Tom Curtis at 07:02 AM on 29 April 2012
       Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
       Andy S @ Nordhaus approach would cost 3.2% of world GDP for a single year, but much less than that of the GDP over many years. More ambitious schemes, which I believe are necessary, will cost around 1% annually. It is the later that are directly comparable to the annual cost of modern sewage systems. Of course, we had better not point this out to the Republican right. If they learn of that, they may well demand the end of "... the stifling regulation on sewage disposal that has caused the current economic in these United States" (fake quote for parody only).
59680. rog at 06:56 AM on 29 April 2012
       ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
       Additional footage http://www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourmind/webextras/
59681. Tom Curtis at 06:50 AM on 29 April 2012
       Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
       The video above comes from a TV series called, Earth: The operators Manual. While,regrettably, I have not seen the series, I have read the companion book of the same title. I highly recommend it. In it, Dr Alley writes:

       "Overall, hard-nosed real economic science, as applied by real economists in a classically economic approach, finds that a measured response to global warming is economically justified now (or, more accurately, is already overdue). This is not a big attack on global warming; in the Norhhaus optimization, CO2 rises to 685 ppm in 2100, almost 2.5 times the preindustrial level, with estimated warming in the model of 5.6 F (3.1 C for 2100 and 9.5 F for 2200 (5.3 C) relative to temperature in 1900. The optimal path invests $2 trillion to stop $5 trillion in damages, but damages totaling $17 trillion are allowed to happen. Note that all of these trillion-dollar figures are in "present value" - discounted from the future - so they represent much more money in the future."

       (pp 193-194) In the next chapter he continues:

       "The optimal economic path outlined in chapter 15 would cost well under 1 percent of the world economy per year, with benefits outweighing the costs. But that parth allowed a lot of warming to occur. Enhanced national security, insurance against disasters, and fairness to others were among the additional arguments that favored more action sooner. Several groups ... have attempted to estimate the costs of stabilizing the climate while still supplying abundant energy. These estimates generally ignore the benefits of avoiding climate change and present only the costs. Those costs depend a lot on how rapidly the stabilization is made. For plans that stop the warming at no more than a few degrees within a few decades, costs generally are in the neighborhood of 1 percent of the world's economy (gross domestic product, or GDP)."

       (pp 209-210) Later in the chapter he writes:

       "This [sewage] system is far form free. The Organisaton for Economic Cooperation and Development estimated the cost of clean water for its members (much of the "developed world") in 2002 as roughly 0.5 to 2.4 percent of household income, with the costs in the United States being the lowest. The U.S. Congressional Budget Office produced an even lower estimate for the United States, with sewer and water bills accounting for 0.5 percent of household income, but noted that investment in the system was inadequate and that growth of expenditure to 0.6 to 0.9 percent of household income would be required to maintain the infrastructure. Connecting a new house to sewer and water systems, or installing a well and septic system, often accounts for notably more than 1 percent of the construction costs - rates vary hugely, but where I live, simply connecting the plumbing already in a new house to the sewer and water accounts for 3 percent of the typical home price. The pipes and toilets in the house cost a good bit of money, and so do the toilets at the office or the stadium, and the porta-potties at the local soccer fields. Plumbers to install and repair the system also cost money. A reasonable estimate is that the cost of our sewer-water system is similar to, or a bit higher than, the estimated cost of solving energy and global warming , representing something like 1 percent of the world economy."

       (p 217, Emphasis added.) So, contrary to Steve from Austin, the analogy between CO2 emissions and the "terrible shower" is the economic cost of doing something about it. Given the nature of Steve's political rant, he is unlikely to be convinced by a 'self-identified registered Republican and "right of center" political ideology' (Morris Ward, review at Amazon). But the fact remains that most of the economic and technical developments over the 20th century were inconceivable to those in the 19th century. That a problem appears insurmountable is no reason to believe that it is, and much less reason to stop trying to find a solution. What is more, and contrary to Steve, the problem of global warming only seems insurmountable politically. Technically it is already within our grasp. Unfortunately we are afflicted by a policy paralysis by those who for ideological reasons cannot accept either that there is a problem, or a way forward.
59682. ubrew12 at 06:29 AM on 29 April 2012
       Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
       Although Skeptical Science is my preferred source for climate science information, I have found Climate Crocks to be required reading, not so much for its climate science reportage, but for its reportage on alternative energy. I read it with interest not just because its so timely, but because, frankly, the news is so good on the alt energy front. Although its easy to get glum when considering inaction on AGW, when you read about all the advances in alt energy its a real shot of optimism. We really live in kind of a golden age for this kind of innovation. And, it seems, nowhere is the news as good as in solar PV. In any case, to respond to something 'steve from virginia' said (#2): "photovoltaic materials are dependent upon high order fossil fuels". Not really. PV is reduced sand. It requires a lot of energy, but that energy could easily come from... solar PV.
59683. Andy Skuce at 06:19 AM on 29 April 2012
       Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
       Steve @2 Alley's argument is that the cost, as a fraction of GDP, of installing a sewage system is in the same ballpark as William Nordhaus's estimate of the cost of the "economically optimal path". Even though I don't think Nordhaus is either a "liar or a fool" I do think his optimal path is far too slow, so I would assume that the pace of change away from fossil fuels that I think is necessary would cost more than 1% of GDP. Job #1 in the climate crisis is not waste removal but drastically slowing down the rate of waste CO2 emissions. In all honesty, I can't make much sense of most of your post and I hope that your economic analysis turns out to be alarmist. I don't understand, for example, what you mean by the "waste-based economy" or by questions like "How do solar panels make new solar panels ... or can they?". Alley isn't greenwashing, he's trying to argue that there's hope that we can prevent the worst happening. Anger and despair are natural reactions to the mess we are in but yielding to those emotions won't result in better outcomes. What do you propose we do?
59684. KBow at 04:15 AM on 29 April 2012
       Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
       Steve @ 2 These two problems have the same end result – excess human waste. He is not suggesting changing the sewer system. They have different causes; therefore they need their own solutions. The answer to human waste was to have an efficient system to remove it from populated areas. The answer to excessive carbon production is to reduce the amount being produced. If you do that effectively, it will not need to be removed from the atmosphere. The last paragraphs sound like you may be discussing the failure of capitalism… not sure though. A renewable based planet will be far more efficient and sustainable than carbon fuels regardless of the state of the economy or economic structure.
59685. steve from virginia at 03:14 AM on 29 April 2012
       Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
       Richard Alley compares apples to oranges as water resources are moved (largely by gravity and the freely provided hydrology cycle) from one place to another: water and sewer systems are diversions. CO2 and other waste gases in the atmosphere have no place to be removed to and the means to remove them does not exist. Instead, the source of the gases must be replaced: the sewer equivalent is that no human waste shall be produced! Neat trick and not cheap. What would replace for water in a waste removal regime? Neat trick number-two and not cheap, either. What to do with the clean (replacement) energy? This is never mentioned but assumed: the running of billions of cars, the freeways and subdivisions that girdle the world, the office and retail parks; the jet vacations, vacation 'homes'; the import of millions of shipping containers filled with poisoned Chinese dog/child food, the eating hamburgers and 'shakes' bought in drive throughs, the watching of teevee and holding down of luxury marketing jobs ... where young, stylish hipsters lounge in lofts or massive concrete towers sending emails to others just like them ... How do solar panels make new solar panels ... or can they? (No, polycrystaline and other photovoltaic materials are dependent upon high order fossil fuels and installation/grid is entirely petroleum dependent). It's not so much that the (insert misleading argument here) gadgets are unaffordable, it is that they do not return any value and as a consequence cannot be funded with credit. It is self-evident that the absence of value within the industrial enterprise as a whole is responsible for its ongoing and accelerating bankruptcy, at this point including the destruction of economies of entire countries including the largest ones: not to escape the holocaust are the precious greenwashing evasion which cannot afford themselves or anything else. Nothing works but stringent conservation at all levels: the outcome of all the current regime of tactics and evasions is conservation by other means, the stripping out of all credit and the reduction of all wealth to the worth of associated debts = zero. Time is running short: Greece is gone into the abyss, Spain is on the sled, France and now China are on the ramp behind Spain. You can run but you cannot hide. There are mercifully no nuclear reactors in Greece, there are 112 in both France and (bankrupt) Japan. The argument presented here ignores economic realities: all industrial enterprises are credit-dependent including creation of water and sewer systems, solar panels, windmills, reactors of every type, 'green' cars, etc. What is bankrupt is the entire waste-based economy from top to bottom: anyone suggesting that such a thing can be preserved with low-cost adjustments at the margins is a liar or a fool. [-inflammatory snipped-] Thank you!
59686. R. Gates at 02:36 AM on 29 April 2012
       Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
       Dr. Alley is certainly one of my climate heroes. Of course, some skeptics, aligned as they are with funding from the Koch Brothers and others, will try to hold on to their fossil fuel based world as long as they can. Human...all too human.
59687. Tsumetai at 02:23 AM on 29 April 2012
       Levitus et al. Find Global Warming Continues to Heat the Oceans
       

       David Stockwell is discussing this point here:

       For his next trick, I guess he'll prove that the height of Everest has been vastly overestimated by looking at measurements taken three-quarters of the way up. Brilliant!
59688. John Hartz at 01:46 AM on 29 April 2012
       It's cosmic rays
       muoncounter: But what about the Battlestar Gallactica effect?
59689. Bernard J. at 01:19 AM on 29 April 2012
       Climate sensitivity is low
       

       GHG induced warming results in the warming of the atmosphere, does it not? Warming air expands and in doing so does work against its surroundings, which requires some of the internal energy to be expended, leaving less available to heat the atmosphere (and ultimately the surface).

       RW1, an understanding of thermodynamics is not really something that you have under your belt, is it? I'm sure others will pick your statements to pieces, but do yourself a favour and in preparation learn about adiabatic processes. Seriously.
59690. muoncounter at 01:16 AM on 29 April 2012
       It's cosmic rays
       A couple of notes on Svensmark's latest. Let's start with the worst news: Origin of Cosmic Rays Not What Was Thought Results announced at nearly the same time as Svensmark's paper show that gamma ray bursts from supernovae are not associated with the expected neutrino flux. This calls into question the entire mechanism of cosmic ray origin underlying Svensmark's paper - as GRBs are clearly connected with supernovae. From the MNRAS announcement of Svensmark's paper: To obtain this result on the variety of life, or biodiversity, [Svensmark] followed the changing fortunes of the best-recorded fossils. These are from invertebrate animals in the sea, such as shrimps and octopuses, or the extinct trilobites and ammonites. So from the start, its clear that we're talking about life in the oceans only. They tended to be richest in their variety when continents were drifting apart and sea levels were high and less varied when the land masses gathered 250 million years ago into the supercontinent called Pangaea and the sea-level was lower. It's been known for quite some time that biodiversity diminished as shallow seas dried up during the formation of Pangaea. But this geophysical effect was not the whole story. When it is removed from the record of biodiversity, what remains corresponds closely to the changing rate of nearby stellar explosions, with the variety of life being greatest when supernovae are plentiful. When the primary driver is removed, what remains is a residual. Any detectable signal from this point forward is thus no more than a secondary mechanism and may in fact be contaminated with unexplained residuals from the primary. A likely reason, according to Prof. Svensmark, is that the cold climate associated with high supernova rates brings a greater variety of habitats between polar and equatorial regions, while the associated stresses of life prevent the ecosystems becoming too set in their ways. Svensmark's self-described 'innovation' is that cosmic rays from close supernovae cool so extensively that they cause glaciation and the associated sea level drop. This speculative leap requires acceptance of his as yet unsubstantiated model (cosmic ray ionization -> clouds -> observable cooling). However, there's a hidden contradiction here: supernovae (and the resulting colder climates) did not 'help life to thrive' (as claimed); colder climates produced greater environmental stress, resulting in higher extinction rates. The highest supernova frequency shown by Svensmark is a broad band from 300-250 million years bp, during the Permian. At the end of this period (252 MYBP), the greatest mass extinction event known on Earth occurred. Does 'thriving' equate to mass extinction? Or was it the end of the 50 million years of stressful cosmic ray-induced cold climate that caused the extinction? Is it chicken or egg? It is interesting to note as well that Svensmark is the sole author on this paper. But they laughed at Galileo... BTW, one aspect of propaganda is that it is "repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the desired result in audience attitudes." Searching "svensmark cosmic rays life" returns a 'wide variety of media' indeed: WUWT, Nigel Calder, The Register, The Daily Mail, etc.
       Moderator Response: [Riccardo] link fixed
59691. John Hartz at 00:51 AM on 29 April 2012
       What We Knew in 82
       Suggested reading: “Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection”,guest commentary by Geert Jan van Oldenborgh and Rein Haarsma, KNMI, Real Climate, Apr 2, 2012
59692. RW1 at 00:25 AM on 29 April 2012
       Climate sensitivity is low
       Continued from HERE Tom Curtis says: "RW1's bizarre claims assume that solar forcing results in no feedback response. That is, if the world's oceans are heated by 1 degree C by an increased GHG concentration, that will result in increased evaporation and an increase in absolute humidity (and hence a water vapour feedback), but that an increased temperature of the same proportion brought about by a brighter sun will not increase evaporation at all, nor melt any snow, or in any other way have feedbacks. RW1 can only attribute this view to climate scientists because, as always, he operates in complete disregard of what climate scientists actually say." What I'm saying is the ratio of surface radiative power to post albedo incident solar power, from which the so-called 'zero-feedback' response is ultimately derived, is already giving a measure of the lion's share of all the feedbacks operating in the system, including especially water vapor and clouds, as the two are by far the most dynamic components of the whole atmosphere. "Still more bizarre is RW1's claim that CO2 should result in less warming because of the energy needed to modify the internal energy structure of the atmosphere. What is bizarre here is that inside the troposphere, there is no significant difference in the change in temperature structure with time under GHG and solar warming. But solar warming heats the stratosphere, while increased GHG cools it - so as usual, RW1 gets the science completely backwards." GHG induced warming results in the warming of the atmosphere, does it not? Warming air expands and in doing so does work against its surroundings, which requires some of the internal energy to be expended, leaving less available to heat the atmosphere (and ultimately the surface).
59693. Eric (skeptic) at 22:55 PM on 28 April 2012
       Alberta’s bitumen sands: “negligible” climate effects, or the “biggest carbon bomb on the planet”?
       chriskoz, some figures are given here http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/NRDC-ghg-emissions-report-from-unconventional.pdf although I can't vouch for their accuracy.
59694. L. Hamilton at 22:06 PM on 28 April 2012
       Lessons from Past Predictions: Vinnikov on Arctic Sea Ice
       Thanks to moderator Sph for embedding my cycle plot in the post above. That looks much better! I've drawn other such plots for Arctic area and extent, and also for Antarctic extent going back to 1972. They often give an interestingly different slant on the data, placing seasonality and trends in one image -- which straight time plots don't do very well.
59695. Michael Whittemore at 21:43 PM on 28 April 2012
       ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
       Its worrying that big business is manipulating the public to not see the risks of climate change and in turn causing educated people to consider if democracy will be able to combat CO2 reductions. As the saying goes, the pen is mightier than the sword.
59696. chriskoz at 21:20 PM on 28 April 2012
       Alberta’s bitumen sands: “negligible” climate effects, or the “biggest carbon bomb on the planet”?
       In the "clean world" we all-non-denialist aspire to, the true "bad footprint" of any type of fosil energy source should simply be measured by CO2 emmissions per the unit of usable enrgy: i.e. the energy the consumer is buying. In that simple measure, tar sands are I believe one of the worst type of source, even worse than brown coal, becaue of high amount of energy required for its refining. After brown coal comes black coal, then oil, then natural gas. I don't have the numbers (CO2/W) at hand but maybe someone has and post them here so as to put the "dirtyness" or CO2 footprint of sand tars in better perspective. The discussion about the impact of tar sand mining in AB on AGW should be based on that bottom line numbers, IMO.
59697. Riccardo at 16:53 PM on 28 April 2012
       Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930
       To whom it may concern, here's Herschel's paper. Let me quote from his conclusions: "To conclude, if we call light, those rays which illuminate objects, and radiant heat, those which heat bodies, it may be inquired, whether light be essentially different from radiant heat? In answer to which I would suggest, that we are not allowed, by the rules of philosophizing, to admit two different causes to explain certain effects, if they may be accounted for by one." Given that at his times they didn't know what light and heat are, it's a remarkable intuition.
59698. peter7723 at 16:48 PM on 28 April 2012
       ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
       I watched the whole session. I learned nothing new either way. For the record, I do not need to be convinced that AGW is what is going on in the climate. But I believe that the shift in thinking will not come from debate. It will come from cheaper renewable energy sources, from weather events which can no longer be covered by insurance, from other countries refusing to buy Australia's coal and coal-based products (e.g. Aluminium, steel), and by non-coal based imports becoming cheaper. It also depends on generational change, when Anna Rose is in parliament and Nick Minchin and friends are in the grave. The lobbyists are fighting a battle they know they will eventually lose, one way of another - they know their science. Apart from that, new technologies take about 50 years to reach maturity, which is why we will never see "clean coal technology" except as pilot plants and political mistakes. It will be bypassed by cheaper technologies. [Aside: Why 50 years for new technology? It takes that long to do the research, the development, deploy, create infrastructure, drive out excess costs, etc. Examples are oil taking over from coal in transport, gas from oil, solid-state electronics from 1935 (Bell Labs research commenced) to 1981 (IBM PC), etc] The 50 year delay cuts both ways of course. We are perhaps 30 years into photo-electric development - we are seeing deployment and the required infrastructure is small - and it seems that in the next few years, the efficiency will double by exploiting thermo-electric effects. Nick Minchin is right when he says that it depends on economics and that when it is cheaper to use renewable energy, there will be no argument. Nick's problem is that he cannot imagine a world in which the economics drive out the old way of doing things. So, he cannot see a path to that world. So, what does this all mean? Focus on removing subsidies for CO2 producing activities. Tax the economic externalities such as CO2, so that the true cost to society is paid. However, this needs to be done in such a way that the economic system is not so hobbled that new things cannot happen. The current generation need to know that doing nothing may lead to a crippled economy, not just global warming :-).
59699. renewable guy at 16:03 PM on 28 April 2012
       It's cosmic rays
       

       My first censorship and I give credit to the great work you have been doing at Skeptical Science. I thought the view that SKS are propagandists might interest the group. Attempting to show GSR's would actually have been a cooling effect I believe is what did not go well with him. •http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/04/24/did-exploding-stars-help-life-on-earth-to-thrive/ Jonathan_Duhamel Note to renewableguy: I have deleted your comment on GCR because it is irrelevant and misleading, and shows that neither you nor the propagandists at skeptical science have read the paper. Had you read the paper you would see the explanation. renewableguy Jon I doubt very much there is a connection between life thriving on earth and galactic cosmic rays. Misleading is actually wrong and it shouldn't be your opinion alone to determine that. I presented an article based on several data sources explaining their point on GCR's. Proganda would be based on countering the truth with possibly false information. You are showing yourself to be using strong arm tactics unnecessarily. If you are interested in a fair presentation of both sides then put my article back up. If you only want to present one side, then by all means keep my post off. Skeptical science bases their postings on the current science.And yet you base your articles on the latest denial of AGW in the right wing circulation of entirely wrong and false media hype. http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryhe... The scientist refuted this false information very quickly. Your conclusion of medieval warming period was refuted by the very scientist that wrote it. This a true account of what has happened. Unless you would like to use your editorial power to rewrite that history.

59700. John Mason at 14:51 PM on 28 April 2012
       Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930
       Indeed, Doug. It also serves as a very effective answer to people who are apt to post comments that infer that climate science only started out about 20 years ago or that there would be no climate science if Mike Mann (no disrespect intended) didn't exist!

Prev  1186  1187  1188  1189  1190  1191  1192  1193  1194  1195  1196  1197  1198  1199  1200  1201  Next