Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 Next
Comments 79701 to 79750:
-
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. -
Camburn at 04:10 AM on 11 July 2011Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1 & Tom: Very interesting. Thank you. -
BBD at 03:51 AM on 11 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Also please respond to #231, which is the heart of it. If one of us is mistaken, it is presumably about this. -
RW1 at 03:46 AM on 11 July 2011Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Tom, I'm just asking for an explanation of where the +12.9 W/m^2 flux needed at the surface is coming from, or specifically how the 'feedback' will cause this much response? So far you haven't provided an answer to this. Now, I've also asked why the feedback doesn't cause this much response on solar forcing, but I'm willing to overlook that for now. Furthermore, I presume you understand that if the surface is to warm by 3 C then it must also emit 406.6 W/m^2 (16.6 W/m^2 more) and that COE dictates that this +16.6 flux at the surface has to be coming from somewhere? If 3.7 W/m^2 are provided directly from 2xCO2 and another 2.3 W/m^2 are provided from the atmosphere's the net transmittance of of 0.62 (3.7 x 0.62 = 2.3 W/m^2) to allow the 3.7 W/m^2 to leave the system to restore equilibrium (240 W/m^2 in and out), where is the additional 10.6 W/m^2 flux coming from? There are only two possible sources for this flux. Either from the Sun via a reduced albedo of about 6.5 W/m^2 (6.5 x 1.62 = 10.6) or from increased atmosphere absorption of about 13 W/m^2 (13/2 = 6.5; 6.5 x 1.62 = 10.6). -
BBD at 03:42 AM on 11 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Tom #232 Please show your workings - thanks. -
BBD at 03:41 AM on 11 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
And Tom, let's keep it polite. One of us is mistaken. We can reason together and work out who it is without the personal stuff. -
Tom Curtis at 03:41 AM on 11 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
BBD @229, doing the maths on David Mackay's formula, a 500,000 km^2 area (the area proposed by LAGI) would provide 25 terawatts of power on average over the year, 2 terawatts more than is calculated by LAGI. So, again, LAGI is more conservative than David Mackay (and don't site any of their generating capacity in England). -
BBD at 03:40 AM on 11 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Tom The basic calculation of capacity needs: 1) Energy density of the renewable resource 2) Conversion efficiency of the generation technology LAGI gives (1) as .2kW/m2, correctly IMO. But for clarity, let's write it as 200W/m2. The missing step is that (2) conversion efficiency is not calculated. Instead LAGI uses the value of (1) 200W/m2:We have our capacity in KW so in order to figure out how much area we’ll need, we have to multiply it by the number of hours that we can expect each of those square meters of photovoltaic panel to be outputting the .2KW capacity (kilowatts x hours = kW•h).
In the real world, large-scale SPV is doing well to achieve a 10% conversion efficiency. CSP is often claimed to do better, but may not because of packing density issues. These are most pronounced with solartropic arrays. And yes, these do become significant to footprint as you scale up (see #219). -
Tom Curtis at 03:32 AM on 11 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
From LAGI:"We can figure a capacity of .2KW per SM of land (an efficiency of 20% of the 1000 watts that strikes the surface in each SM of land).">
(My emphasis) From BBD:"The LAGI stuff is wrong. It assumes a 100% panel efficiency."
So we determine that in BBD world 3 = 10 (see above about order of magnitude) and 20% = 100%. Perhaps this will convince him:"The combined effect of these three factors and the additional complication of the wobble of the seasons is that the average raw power of sunshine per square metre of south-facing roof in Britain is roughly 110 W/m2, and the average raw power of sunshine per square metre of flat ground is roughly 100 W/m2."
(quoted from BBD) Watts per meter squared of sunshine * efficienncy * 1 million = Watts accumulated per km squared = 100 *0.15 * 10^6 = 15 MW/km^2 23 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. And from BBD again:"It is disturbing that no-one noticed this fundamental error in the LAGI artwork. There are many evidently knowledgable commenters here. So this is suggestive of a strong confirmation bias at work."
Which is very interesting, except that the fundamental errors are his, with LAGI not differing greatly in their calculations from equivalent calculations by his preferred experts. This probably is suggestive of "a strong confirmation bias", but in looking for it, it is about time BBD looked in a mirror. -
BBD at 03:17 AM on 11 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Tom If I'm so wrong about LAGI, how do you explain this? The erratum is that the square should be half-filled, not one third filled with CSP. -
Patrick 027 at 03:15 AM on 11 July 2011OA not OK part 3: Wherever I lay my shell, that's my home
Re Doug Mackie - okay, thank you. -
actually thoughtful at 02:53 AM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Mark Harrigan - We couldn't fly before the Wright Brothers. No one understood relativity before Einstein. Not many people were even thinking about it. Going to the moon was a dream for thousands of years. You severely underestimate what humanity can do. And, with respect, it is a form of denial. It is a way to take the pressure of responsibility off of collective humanity. I, for one, reject it. -
Tom Curtis at 02:48 AM on 11 July 2011Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW! @463: RE 2) I used 4 as a convenient approximation. A 2% increase in TSI results in approx 4.8 increase in TSI. A 1.6% results in a 3.8 W/m^2 increase. So us 1.6% instead. Regardless, for a 3.7 W/m^2 increase in solar forcing, the expected temperature increase is within around 10% of the increase for CO2. The slight difference is because differences is the region of greatest relative warming. RE 3) 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. If the surface temperature were held constant, but the feedbacks still applied, the 3.7 W/m^2 increase in TOA forcing would result in a TOA energy imbalance of approximately 11 W/m^2, again regardless of the forcing agent. Of course, Earth the feedbacks are a consequence of the warming, so that 11 W/m^2 is theoretical. Another way of looking at your error is that you compared the 3.7 to the 16.6 for CO2, but the 11 to the 16.6 for Solar. (I know that is not what you did, but it is theoretically equivalent.) However, my approach in 459 is more informative about the nature of your error. RE 4) The laws of physics do not dictate any terms - they just are. We choose which terms we will use in describing them, and the difference between a marginal and average rate is a good way to understand the reason for your error. The crucial thing you need to understand is that the temperature response to an equivalent solar and GHG forcing under current circumstances are expected to be very similar in magnitude though different in spatial and temporal structure. This is easily seen in the following two modelled temperature patterns for a doubling of CO2 (first) and a 2% increase in insolation (second):
There is a genuine difference between the expected climate sensitivity for marginal changes in solar and CO2 forcing, but it is small. If you look up the relevant values you can try to run your argument again in a coherent manner, but I warn you the figures won't impress anyone, including you. Alternatively you can ignore the evidence above that climate science expects similar responses for similar forcings from solar or CO2 concentrations and keep on running your apples and oranges comparison. That will convincingly show that you are only here to spread confusion.
(PS: I thought I had posted this, but it has not appeared. If this is a duplicate, please remove.)
-
Steve Brown at 02:44 AM on 11 July 2011The Last Interglacial Part Two - Why was it so warm?
#13 - The insolation peak at 65N during the Last Interglacial occurred at around the termination from the previous glaciation. By the time that the warmest period occured (Eemian Climatic Optimum), the insolation was heading towards a minumim. A good analogy is that the warmest month in the NH is August, which is a couple of months after the Summer Solstice when insolation peaks at high northern latitudes. The climate system has the same inertia. -
BBD at 02:43 AM on 11 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
In your haste, you have misread my post. I calculate only for a maximum of 16TW. That makes the scale of the error in LAGI significantly worse, of course.
Prev 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 Next
