Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 Next
Comments 79601 to 79650:
-
BBD at 22:02 PM on 11 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Dump all preconceptions. Clear the mind and start afresh: #236 -
BBD at 22:01 PM on 11 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Tom Curtis KR Neither of you has understood the argument summarised at #236. In fact you do not even appear to have read it. Try again please. -
Eric the Red at 21:59 PM on 11 July 2011The Medieval Warm(ish) Period In Pictures
The MWP has been acknowledged as the last period of globally warm temperatures (not just NH as claimed above). The global temperature anomalies are similar to today, although some differences may exist. Whether that period was warmer than today is still open to debate, as different proxies present different results. The comparisons are important as they can reveal changes which have occurred in the past century (not just 30 years) with those that have occurred in the past. In order to show that today's warming is unprecedented, it has be larger in magnititude and more rapid than previous episodes. In addition to the questionable sea surface temperatures, other work has shown significant warming in Russia compared to Figure 1 above. http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/29/81/68/PDF/cpd-3-1-2007.pdf http://www.baikalscience.org/?cat=12 Russia also experienced the MWP at different times, earlier in the West, later in the east, with temperatures warmer than the present by 1C or more. http://www.pages-igbp.org/products/abstracts/solomina.pdfResponse:[DB] "The MWP has been acknowledged as the last period of globally warm temperatures"
Citation? As it stands, a nonsensical statement.
-
ranyl at 18:56 PM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by Rob Painting
Ranyl - how do you make do without a fridge? Have no dairy or meat and can't drink alcohol and live in moderate climate, so not really a problem. Keep stuff in larder like room on the north side of the house with no window. Most things keep for a reasonable while especially in winter. An evaporation fridge would keep things cool as well, and in hot climates evaporative cooling was traditionally utilised and a fridge is a big power user. -
Mark Harrigan at 18:41 PM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
To actually thoughtful #90. I'm disappointed in your response - not so deserving of your moniker. You have made an accusation to me of being a stealth denier which i have rejected and not really considered the point I am trying to make. I really don't think you have read or understood my post. I am not denying the potential of human imagination - indeed I hope we can rely on it. But I want to argue and progress from reality not wishful thinking Your wishful thinking appeal is selective on based on emotionalism. I could point out that people have imaginged travelling to the stars and communing with the dead for centuries but it hasn't happened yet. All the successful human endeavours you point to (flight and going to the moon) were based on sound evidence, data and experimentation, as well as imagination. Not simply wishful thinking appeals to what we "want" to happen (Einsteins achievement is not a valid comparison - though it too was based on the above) So yes, I agree we need that imagination but I am simply pointing out that we need to use real evidence to argue the case for renewables. The sort of appeals you make works with the already converted but won't win over the general populace who are vulnerbale to arguments from the "dark side" and are all too ready to ridicule any claims that we make for renewables that cannot be supported. I prefer to work from what we know can be done and progress from there (I think if you examine the actual history of the scientific achievements you reference you will find that that was how they were done) -
Rob Honeycutt at 18:34 PM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
quokka... That link didn't work for me. It may be the link or my being in China. Not sure. -
Tom Curtis at 18:01 PM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by Rob Painting
Paul D, how about a straight forward solar hot water system instead - or are only hair shirts green enough? -
Paul D at 17:51 PM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by Rob Painting
How about a solar shower?? Designed for camping and military use, but can be used in the summer as an alternative to the usual powered shower. -
Rob Painting at 16:52 PM on 11 July 2011The Medieval Warm(ish) Period In Pictures
Alec - If you have some better way of comparing the MWP with modern-day temperatures I'm all ears. I considered the point you raise when writing the article, but I just wanted to see what you had to add, before answering. -
Doug Mackie at 14:05 PM on 11 July 2011OA not OK part 4: The f-word: pH
Oh, all right (prodded by co-author)....... umm ok thanks (OK stop prodding. There I said it. It's your fault for leaving responding to the grouchy one. Pollyanna I ain't. What? Oh for goodness sake. All right. All right.) Thank you for helping (Better?) -
muoncounter at 13:42 PM on 11 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Severe weather, indeed. July 5 Phoenix dust storm in pictures and with some meager NWS analysis.Response:[DB] Welcome back; you're late.
-
RW1 at 13:42 PM on 11 July 2011The Last Interglacial Part Two - Why was it so warm?
What was the previous interglacial globally average incident solar radiation? -
scaddenp at 13:33 PM on 11 July 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
I've been thinking pretty hard about the question of mitigation policies for libertarians. Scratch a skeptic and you tend to find a right-wing/conservative. Furthermore, I haven't found any libertarians that are not somewhere on the not-happening/not-us/not-bad spectrum. While I guess that its possible that right-wing genes somehow provides a better understanding of climate physics than climate scientists have, it seems more likely to me that a clash with political values inhibits a proper evaluation. Some of this might be simply a conservative resentment of a changing world but I am hypothesising that for many/most? the first inkling of global warming comes from hearing about an unacceptable proposed solution. If it is better to reduce CO2 emissions rather than adapt, then we need effective proposals that don't offend these values. I have found very few libertarians even prepared to think about it. Cudoes to Eric here and to others who have taken up the challenge in email over the past couple of years. I am taking right-libertarians political theory in a nutshell to be: The right to individual liberty of action providing it does not infringe on the rights of other rights-respecting citizens.Individual responsibility for the consequences of these actions. Government is as minimal as possible with roles of protection from external aggression, maintenence of legal system to enforce contracts, and such police as needed to protect citizens from rights violation by theft, fraud or force. The solutions to climate change most acceptable to this group are ones that also promote the libertarian agenda. Eric's suggestion of insurance regulating safety and privatization of roads with appropriate cost are examples. Unfortunately, these mostly dont seem to very effective solutions - they depend on somehow getting alternative costs below coal without raises coal price to be effective. What if you cant? The problem is that the costs of producing power from coal dont include external and future costs but there is no easy mechanism that I can think of for adding in uncertain future costs. What does the theory do in these cases? "Cap and trade" attempts to add these cost to carbon but it is an anathema to the Right for which it is designed to appease. Killing subsidies on fossil fuels should be a no-brainer - in fact killing all industry subsidies and returning the savings as reduced taxes should be more than acceptable since subsidies imply coercive support of government-favoured industries. To an outsider, it seems US big business simply bribe their representative with campaign funds to get tax support in return. It might be asking a bit much for Cato Institute to be waving this banner but I would regard it as litmus test as to whether its truly is designed to promote libertarian values or merely a political tool to protect some very rich interests. A bigger sticking point however is likely to be that subsidy removal is proposed by a Democrat president. Government action is portrayed as theft of the rights of fossil fuel property holders but is their situation any different from asbestos property holders? Our knowledge of the toxicity has improved in both cases and the response of the industry has been rather similar. As far as I can see, libertarian theory struggles with issues where the free action of many individual results in a rights violation. Examples would be passive smoking, pollution control - and climate change. How can a citizen with say, a lung condition, sue those who choose to smoke in public, or not buy emission-control for their vehicles? No one individual is at fault and no mechanism exists for rights protection that I can see. It is interesting to see libertarians responding with denial on passive smoking too. Government action is permitted by the right in the case of external aggression so it seems self-preservation values override those of liberty. This I think explains the ghoulish preoccupation by AGW-activists with ice-melt and extreme weather. They are trying to trigger a self-preservation response. But suppose your country wont suffer too badly under the effects of climate change and the really bad stuff happens elsewhere? Does rights-respecting only apply to citizens of your country? Your state even? If not, then how is this rights-conflict arbitrated? In an ideal world, it should be possible for a person to choose to take no mitigating action in belief that science is wrong, provided that person is also willing to take their share of the responsibility for liabilities for adaption and compensation. However, I cant think of any mechanism by which this could work for a multi-generational problem like climate change. People object to paying for the "sins of their fathers" (though the same people appear to be quite happy to pass the costs to another generation). This is a tough problem. We are born with a desire to do what we like and instinct for self-preservation,whereas respecting others rights and taking responsibility are learned behaviours. To me, libertarianism seems a theory for the empty frontier rather than a heavily populated planet, but I would really like followers of the theory to face up to the problems above with some workable solutions instead of denying such problems exist. Solutions that would get whole-hearted support are needed and for that I think a value other than liberty/preservation needs to be invoked. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 12:52 PM on 11 July 2011The Last Interglacial Part Two - Why was it so warm?
How warm was it? Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change:Paleoclimate data help us assess climate sensitivity and potential human-made climate effects. We conclude that Earth in the warmest interglacial periods of the past million years was less than 1{\deg}C warmer than in the Holocene. Polar warmth in these interglacials and in the Pliocene does not imply that a substantial cushion remains between today's climate and dangerous warming, but rather that Earth is poised to experience strong amplifying polar feedbacks in response to moderate global warming. Thus goals to limit human-made warming to 2{\deg}C are not sufficient - they are prescriptions for disaster. Ice sheet disintegration is nonlinear, spurred by amplifying feedbacks. We suggest that ice sheet mass loss, if warming continues unabated, will be characterized better by a doubling time for mass loss rate than by a linear trend. Satellite gravity data, though too brief to be conclusive, are consistent with a doubling time of 10 years or less, implying the possibility of multi-meter sea level rise this century. Observed accelerating ice sheet mass loss supports our conclusion that Earth's temperature now exceeds the mean Holocene value. Rapid reduction of fossil fuel emissions is required for humanity to succeed in preserving a planet resembling the one on which civilization developed.
-
Steve L at 12:18 PM on 11 July 2011The Last Interglacial Part Two - Why was it so warm?
Okay, I can buy that. And applied to the interglacial before that, it makes some sense -- the interglacial begins after a peak in 65N insolation (but well after the obliquity peak, so the peak isn't as strong as the one that initiated the Eemian). The interglacial occurs despite a minimum in 65N insolation that shortly follows about 235 kya. So, let's say that (due to 'inertia') the minimum at 235 kya brings on the next glacial period (initiated about 222 kya). The question is, Why doesn't the maximum 65N insolation at about 220 kya initiate another interglacial sometime shortly thereafter? I suspect the answer is feedbacks, but I would like to be sure I understand it. -
Same Ordinary Fool at 12:12 PM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by Rob Painting
More Radical................Whoever compiles the master list of all possibilities (Has any website started doing it?) might helpfully group the more radical,in terms of comfort and/or convenience, separately. So they can be more easily scanned, and passed over, by those looking for a reasonable lifestyle. Yet, they are there for the willing. Who...............Obviously, living solo is a big advantage. Then the inevitable irritations with the lifestyle won't complicate a living-together relationship. An enjoyment of camping is an asset,so one can realize that what is gained can be worth the discomfort. When...............Having other places to spend one's time, and access to a gym's shower facilities, is an obvious advantage. When in college some already do this to escape their communal living situations. The available possibilities will sometimes be limited by how long someone plans to live in that area. As with other types of customized dream homes, the decision to settle down comes first. Other...............There may be other reasons in addition to the reduction in carbon emissions. One might be that it may make possible the occupation of that cabin in the woods, or of an otherwise desirable apartment that has substandard utilities. Or, there may be a good use for the money that's saved. Example...............Turning off the 40 gallon hot water heater year round has become more practicable with the availibility of body wash for a shower. Soap up with cold water + body wash + heated water in a tall bicycle water bottle. Lathering up with hand soap while you're wet and cold in an unheated bathroom is just too prolonged and too grim. Rinse Off with cold water + heated water in four 1/2 gallon plastic milk bottles. Will also have to add boiling water to the water used for washing one's hair at the sink, and soaking the dirty dishes. -
Doug Mackie at 12:10 PM on 11 July 2011OA not OK part 4: The f-word: pH
Yes Byron, it did come across as petty pedantry. Nevertheless changes made. Looking forward to future comments addressing the conceptual science. -
Mathew Varidel at 10:57 AM on 11 July 2011OA not OK part 4: The f-word: pH
Thanks anyway, Ed. I actually read that wiki but for some reason I couldn't get my head around it. Personally, I found this to be better explanation: http://erkki.kennesaw.edu/genchem3/ge00001.htm -
Bern at 10:48 AM on 11 July 2011SkS Weekly Digest #6
Look forward to the upcoming articles. And I really like that 'toon. It explains the consequences of the short-term profit mentality quite well. -
Byron Smith at 10:17 AM on 11 July 2011OA not OK part 4: The f-word: pH
Yes, I realise this, but giving the 26% figure in the grab-box just provides more ammunition for deniers who want to say "ha, it's not 30%". With only a few minor changes to the post, it can be made clear that we're really talking about something closer to 29%. 1. A difference of 0.11 pH units corresponds to a 29% increase in the concentration of H3O+. 2. Switch 26 to 29 in the grab box. 3. Replace 8.2 with 8.25 and 8.1 with 8.14 a few times in the final box. Given that you're asking people to cut and paste an equation into a spreadsheet, increasing the accuracy by one decimal place isn't a difficult ask. I realise this is pretty minor nit-picking. Perhaps I should have started by saying, "thank you for this series!" (which I really do mean, by the way. I am very much looking forward to the rest of it. Sorry if I've come across as narky.) -
KR at 10:07 AM on 11 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
BBD - I have to agree with Tom Curtis. The LAGI assumptions of 20% efficiency, 2000 hours per year (just under 50% of sunlight hours, by my calculations) are quite reasonable for desert areas, and not out of line. Off-equator sites would have to be proportionally larger, which the LAGI images do not show, but with 20-30% or so by my calculations. You have repeatedly used UK power levels and cloudiness to argue against desert solar - which is wholly appropriate. The security issue you raised is one that we've dealt with for decades, with most countries having between 90 (France) and 10-11 (Ireland) days of gasoline on hand - I dare say that we can handle that with electricity too, especially if individual countries have some generation capacity on hand. You keep returning to UK, and UK only - that's less than 0.2% the land area of the Earth - you are focusing on local issues rather than global. -
Byron Smith at 10:06 AM on 11 July 2011SkS Weekly Digest #6
Final link of news bites is broken. It ought to go here. -
Rob Painting at 09:50 AM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by Rob Painting
Paul D @ 21 - I did, at one point, consider building an outdoor chiller, or coolstore, for our cheese (my wife makes all our cheese) but my wife wasn't too keen on having to traipse outside to bathe the cheese in brine, which is part of the cheese-making process we employ. The plan was similar to your simple evaporative cooler. The idea was to use a home-built ram pump to bring the water up to the chiller location and let the evaporative process act as the coolant. The overflow would then flow down into our garden water tanks, and overflow from that was to directed back into the stream. -
Tom Curtis at 09:36 AM on 11 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
BBD @231: LAGI gives the conversion efficiency (2) as 0.2 and then determines the energy density (1) by factoring in only 2000 hours in the year (28%) as providing direct sunlight and assuming the collectors are angled to the sun to maintain maximum efficiency throughout the day. Both are very reasonable assumptions (indeed very conservative) for North African deserts and similar locations. -
Tom Curtis at 09:31 AM on 11 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
BBD @236 read 230 (and David Mackay) again. David Mackay quotes 100 Watt insolation per meter squared laid flat in England. 100*0.15 efficiency times 1 million meters squared per km squared = 15 million Watts collected (not incident, but collected) energy at 15% efficiency by a km squared of pv or csp laid flat in England. If you could (per impossible) find 1.5 million square km in England on which to collect solar power, that would collect the 23 terawatts averaged over a year. Alec Cowan @238, nobody is trying to find impossibly large amounts of land in England. I am making a rhetorical point that BBD is assuming the relative efficiency in solar power in England for his calculations of that efficiency in North Africa. -
quokka at 09:08 AM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
#84 Rob Honeycutt Per capita CO2 emissions from China are now equal to those from a number of lower emitting Western nations. Can't find the reference at the moment but they are now equal to those of France. The trend is pretty clear up to 2007: Per Capita CO2 Emissions Of course the CO2 footprint of many Chinese individuals will be way below the national per capita figure. -
Paul D at 08:05 AM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
I guess in this crazy world. If you say something was socialist, you must be socialist for saying so. That's the sad state of affairs. No imagination beyond accepted and standardised politics. For your info BBD: Electricity nationalisation - 1947: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_Act_1947 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Electricity_Authority Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm pretty sure they remained nationalised until the 1990s. Personally I can't change history and make post war Britain 'capitalist'. It wasn't. Rationing continued well into the 1950s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Midlands_Electricity#History Quote from wikipedia: "In many towns, the (nationalised electricity) board opened showrooms, to provide customer service facilities (such as paying bills), as well as demonstrating, and supplying the latest electrical goods to customers. The post-war period was one of incredible growth for the electricity industry." -
Alec Cowan at 07:39 AM on 11 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Who is trying to find 1,550,000 or even 500,000 km2 of land in England? -
Paul D at 07:39 AM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
BBD@100 "WRT the UK discussion, I cannot engage seriously with your profoundly anti-capitalist interpretation of post-war energy policy. You disavow this above, but present all change post-war as negative. Progress = negative = anti-capitalist world view." What a ridiculous statement. Both I and another commenter have stated that post war UK reconstruction was largely socialism driven, that is in all the history books. You assume that because I make comments here that contradict you, that I must be anti-capitalist. That is a perversion. You can not assume that someone is bound by old political ideologies. Also progress is not defined by one ideology or one set of events. Indeed progress is difficult to define given what we know today. If the long term result is human deprivation due to climate change, then your definition of progress in post war UK is not progress. -
asgspifs at 07:34 AM on 11 July 2011Newcomers, Start Here
Hi. Love this web site. I commonly link others to it. Thanks for all the work you put into it. Here's my comment: I think it would be worth pointing out, if you agree, that so-called "skeptics" of global warming / climate change and the anthropogenic component of them, are not really skeptics at all, but denialists. Skepticism (about any one topic) is a temporary condition, open to change when the weight of evidence is clear. Whereas denialism is a permanent condition, immune to change no matter what evidence comes to light. So, what you are really doing is getting skeptical about global warming denialism. Cheers.Response:[DB] Thanks for taking the time to post a comment. We previously touched upon this situation in this post: Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
-
Alec Cowan at 07:32 AM on 11 July 2011The Medieval Warm(ish) Period In Pictures
dhogaza, thank you, I do understand that. But it's still strange. I remember that during the last 40 or 50 years of global warming, temperatures in the States have changed, if I remember correctly within the 48 contiguous states temperatures only have been raising steadily in the NW-Pacific and they have been decreasing in the Bible Belt, though finally they have started to go up. If we look at figure 1 and subtract that we'd get a pretty neutral image. That's why I found pretty strange to take 300 years and compare it against a much shorter period full of climatic developments. I found pretty oxymoronic the act of comparing a pluri-centennial period against a shorter one in order to say that those three centuries were "all quiet in the western front" relative to a shorter quickly-changing abnormal reference [I see some acknowledgment of inadequacy in the coloring in Figure 1, chosen to deemphasize values close to those in the base period -and probably, huge radius too-] -
Doug Mackie at 07:20 AM on 11 July 2011OA not OK part 4: The f-word: pH
The demo calc uses rounding. -
KR at 07:10 AM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
BBD - "...have you ever used a solid-fuel range for cooking?" I used to use the hexamine tablet stoves while hiking. No, not fun at all... -
dhogaza at 06:20 AM on 11 July 2011The Medieval Warm(ish) Period In Pictures
Alec, a baseline is a baseline is a baseline. 1961-1990 is commonly used by climate scientists for historical reasons. -
BBD at 06:13 AM on 11 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Typo:A realistic and fair efficiency estimate for SPV and CSP in large arrays is ca 10%. This works out as: 10,000 km2 = 100GW 500,000 km2 = 5000GW (5TW)
Apologies. -
BBD at 05:49 AM on 11 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Tom23 terawatts/15 mw = approx 1.55 million square kilometers of 15% efficient solar panels laid flat, in England to produce 23 terawatts, ie, the equivalent amount as for BBD's supposedly accurate calculation for subtropical deserts.
Agreed: - 23TW/15MW = 1,533,333 km2. But - MacKay uses a 15W/m2 energy density for desert sited CSP. Not UK sited. So, after MacKay: 1 km2 = 15MW 10,000 km2 = 150GW 100,000 km2 = 1500GW (1.5TW) 500,000 km2 = 7500GW (7.5TW) How does LAGI get 23TW from 500,000 km2? - By omitting the conversion efficiency and using 200W/m2. A realistic and fair efficiency estimate for SPV and CSP in large arrays is ca 10%. This works out as: 10,000km2 = 100GW 500,000km = 5GW The magnitude error I referred to is in the failure to convert the raw energy density of 200W/m2 down to 20W/m2. In practice, it would be lower still: ~10W/m2. 1) If there are errors here, please point to them 2) If they are mine, I will of course acknowledge them 3) If MacKay is in error, let's work together on a draft email to him pointing them out 4) If LAGI is in error, you need to admit it -
BBD at 05:45 AM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Paul D I do not deny our responsibility and of course I am aware of the exported emissions issue. However, as we are discussing policy, I refer you to #94. Going forward, China's emissions growth will be substantially fuelled by serving its own internal consumer markets. I'm not trying to point the finger at China and exculpate the West. Simply to show that Western emissions policy is not going to impinge on the likely source of most of China's future emissions. WRT the UK discussion, I cannot engage seriously with your profoundly anti-capitalist interpretation of post-war energy policy. You disavow this above, but present all change post-war as negative. Progress = negative = anti-capitalist world view. This is less than half of a balanced view. -
Alec Cowan at 05:43 AM on 11 July 2011The Medieval Warm(ish) Period In Pictures
3-century "anomalies" relative to a 30-year period of AGW? -
Paul D at 05:19 AM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
BBD@98 "Radiative physics doesn't 'care' about the per capita emissions. It responds to ppmv atmospheric CO2." There are two issues here. The science and the politics. The science doesn't care. But you are talking about policy, not science. BBD@98 "Therefore the source of China's energy is the issue. It is predominantly coal (#88 #89). The 'other renewables' line (green) on the second graph in #89 is so thin it's hard to see." Every countries carbon emissions are an issue. Taking issue with China doesn't detract from the fact that the US and other nations also have a problem. Blaming others doesn't solve a problem unless you are only interested in relative political power and influence. Again that is politics, not science. Which contradicts your insistence on ignoring per capita emissions and revert back to science, away from politics. The other point is that 20% to 30% of Chinas emissions have been imported from the US and other industrialised nations. Is China a problem. Yes it sure is. American and European corporations have moved production there, masking per capita emissions of those particular countries. Maybe the atmosphere doesn't care where emissions come from, but humans do and we are the ones that should stop denying our responsibility and start accepting the implications of our actions. -
RW1 at 05:09 AM on 11 July 2011Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
DB, OK, fair enough. I'll give Tom (or anyone else) a chance to respond before I say anything else. -
RW1 at 05:01 AM on 11 July 2011Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
My ultimate point here is +300% amplification is a far more extraordinary claim than a 25-40% reduction. I would also argue that a 25-40% reduction is far more consistent with the system's overall behavior, which is very tightly constrained from year to year despite a significant amount of local, seasonal hemispheric and even global variability. And when global average temperature does rise by an abnormal amount (like in 1998 and 2010), it tends to revert to its pre-equilibrium state fairly quickly, which is anything but consistent with net positive feedback, let alone net positive feedback of 300%.Response:[DB] It would be better to wait for someone to get back to you with a response than to continue to run-on with suppositions. Repetitive posting without waiting for an answer is little different than talking to oneself; little progress in understanding is achieved.
-
BBD at 04:52 AM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Paul D The moderator has indicated that the UK history discussion was OT. Where do I contradict a previous comment or comments by 'caring' about China's emissions? That, I thought, was the central point. Radiative physics doesn't 'care' about the per capita emissions. It responds to ppmv atmospheric CO2. Therefore the source of China's energy is the issue. It is predominantly coal (#88 #89). The 'other renewables' line (green) on the second graph in #89 is so thin it's hard to see.Response:[DB] My point was that the dialogue was devolving into minutia such as equality of the sexes in Britain (about as off-topic in a climate science blog as ye olde price-of-tea-in-China). This is a more loose thread than most, so feel free to answer the question so we can move on to more substantive issues.
-
Paul D at 04:31 AM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
BBD@96 You have not addressed the fact that carbon emissions per capita are indeed important. In fact you are even contradicting your own previous comments by caring about China's emissions. You have also failed to address the mistakes you have made regarding UK post war politics and history. In order for you to move onto a different subject, I suggest you address these matters. Don't brush them under the carpet. -
BBD at 04:21 AM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Paul DThat again is an opinion not fact. You are posing a nationalistic patriotic view, not one based on statistics or real information. Given that you don't actually know whether your statement is true or not, your statement isn't relevant.
Er, #88 and #89? CDIAC and the EIA not good enough? And where does the 'nationalistic patriotic' thing come from? Seriously? Are you being disputatious for the sake of it? If so, it's tiresome. -
RW1 at 04:21 AM on 11 July 2011Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Tom (RE: 466), "The 3.7 W/m^2 increase in TOA forcing results in approximately an approximately 16.6 W/m^2 increase in surface radiation, regardless of the forcing agent." I'm well aware that this is the claim. I'm simply asking specifically how the +3.7 W/m^2 surface flux from the 2xCO2 (or the Sun) will become a total of +16.6 W/m^2 required for a 3 C rise. If 3.7 W/m^2 only provides a direct warming of 0.7 C and the atmosphere provides an additional 0.4 C for a total of 1.1 C, how specifically does a 1.1 C rise cause an additional +10.6 W/m^2 flux at the surface? Also, keeping this in the context of L&C, how is a reduction of 25-40% considered to be so unreasonable, yet an increase of nearly 300% is considered reasonable when such an increase is so far outside the measured bounds of the atmosphere (about a 0.62 net transmittance to space)? In other words, why isn't the net transmittance to space more like 0.22 (3.7/16.6 = 0.22)??? -
Paul D at 04:20 AM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
BBD:92 "See #88 #89. And please try to be more polite. Your tone is unnecessarily sharp." Red herring. Please address the core of the comment I made. -
BBD at 04:18 AM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Paul D 23.33% is still 23.33%. It's mostly coal, and that won't change any time soon. China cannot afford to slow the rate at which it grows its own consumer class (internal markets). This is the uneasy deal it has made with its people. It's in a difficult situation. -
Paul D at 04:15 AM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
BBD@88 "The Chinese economy is almost entirely powered by coal. Rhetoric from Beijing about smart grids and renewables is intended to distract from this." That again is an opinion not fact. You are posing a nationalistic patriotic view, not one based on statistics or real information. Given that you don't actually know whether your statement is true or not, your statement isn't relevant. -
BBD at 04:15 AM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Paul D See #88 #89. And please try to be more polite. Your tone is unnecessarily sharp. -
Paul D at 04:12 AM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
BBD@88 "China is the largest CO2 emitter in the world (23.33% CDIAC figures). I don't care any more about the per capita arguments than the atmosphere does." I don't think anyone really cares that you don't care. The per capita emissions are relevant because they are linked to efficiency of energy use and wealth per capita.
Prev 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 Next
