Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 Next
Comments 79851 to 79900:
-
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. -
BBD at 02:38 AM on 11 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Tom The LAGI stuff is wrong. It assumes a 100% panel efficiency. This is absolutely clear from my post above. Nothing else is terribly relevant. Let's stick to the facts. LAGI is wrong, as described. Your response to that fact is all that is necessary here. Anything else might be seen as an attempt to obfuscate and distract. -
BBD at 02:34 AM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Rob Thanks for prompting me to learn how to post images here ;-)
-
RW1 at 02:31 AM on 11 July 2011Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
My main point here is how can a negative feedback reduction of about 25-40% from L&C be considered so unreasonable even though it is well within the measured bounds of the system from solar forcing, yet an amplification of 300% is considered so reasonable when it is so far outside the measured bounds? -
BBD at 02:27 AM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
Rob Honeycutt #84 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. The Chinese economy is almost entirely powered by coal. Rhetoric from Beijing about smart grids and renewables is intended to distract from this. Unfortunately, it works quite well in some quarters. Here are the facts: CDIAC analysis:According to reported energy statistics, coal production and use in China has increased ten-fold since the 1960s. As a result, Chinese fossil-fuel CO2 emissions have grown a remarkable 92.0% since 2000 alone. At 1.78 billion metric tons of carbon in 2007, the People's Republic of China is the world's largest emitter of CO2 due to fossil-fuel use and cement production. Even with the reported decline in Chinese emissions from 1997 to 2000, China's industrial emissions of CO2 have grown phenomenally since 1950, when China stood tenth among nations based on annual fossil-fuel CO2 emissions. From 1970 to 1997, China's fossil-fuel CO2 emissions grew at an annual rate of 5.4%. Growth has occurred largely in the use of coal, not surprising given China is the world's largest coal producer, which accounted for 98.7% of the emissions total in 1950 and 72.0% in 2007. Liquid fuels now contribute 15.5% of emissions and have grown appreciably over the past decade. The anomalous peak for 1958-61 is common in Chinese data. These years are part of the period "The Great Leap Forward," and whether the anomaly represents a real event in CO2 emissions or a data residual is not clear. China is the world's largest hydraulic cement producer. In 2007 China produced over 1.35 billion metric tons of hydraulic cement, almost half of the world's production. Emissions from cement production account for 10.3% of China's 2007 total industrial CO2 emissions. China's population has doubled over the past four decades and now exceeds 1.3 billion people. Per capita emissions increased considerably over this period and 2006 marked the first year China's per capita emission rate (1.27 metric tons of carbon) exceeded the global average (1.25 metric tons of carbon).
[Emphasis added.] EIA region analysis. (Please scroll down for Coal. Note the graphs for China's coal production and consumption 1999 - 2009 and China's electricity generation by fuel type, 1999 - 2009. They summarise it all neatly).According to the World Energy Council, China held an estimated 114.5 billion short tons of recoverable coal reserves in 2009, the third-largest in the world behind the United States and Russia, and equivalent to about 14 percent of the world's total reserves. Coal production rose to almost 3.4 billion short tons in 2009, making China the largest coal producer in the world. There are 27 provinces in China that produce coal, and slightly greater than half of China's coal is used for power generation. Northern China, especially the Shanxi and Inner Mongolia Provinces, contains most of China's easily accessible coal and virtually all of the large state-owned mines. Coal makes up 71 percent of China's total primary energy consumption, and in 2009, China consumed an estimated 3.5 billion short tons of coal, representing over 46 percent of the world total and a 180 percent increase since 2000. Coal consumption has been on the rise in China over the last nine years, reversing the decline seen from 1996 to 2000. China's coal imports started growing after 2002 because the cost of importing coal became competitive with domestic production. China, typically a net coal exporter, became a net coal importer in 2009, importing from Indonesia, Australia, Vietnam, and Russia. In September 2009, the China Coal Transportation and Distribution Association stated that China signed a $6 billion loan-for-coal agreement with Russia for 15 to 20 million tons of coal for 25 years.
[Emphasis added.] -
desertphile at 02:25 AM on 11 July 2011Humlum is at it again
"You can cite papers showing it is rising, I can cite papers showing it is cooling." --- Camburn at 05:33 AM on 23 May, 2011 So, ISIWoK lists =ZERO= papers that even suggest global warming has ceased, let alone stopped, let alone are cooling. Camburn appears to know something no scientist on the planet does. -
Paul D at 02:19 AM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by Rob Painting
Actually there is some advice from me. 1. Spend some time when shopping, to buy products with packaging that is recyclable, once you get in the habit, you can cut waste down a lot. This has to be combined with buying local/organic etc. where possible. 2. Take a bag with you to shops and don't accept disposable carrier bags that are offered (many are just advertising the shop in any case). 3. Cycle more. Actually bicycle sells in the UK have gone up significantly and the increase in the number of people cycling is noticeable. 4. Make do with what you have and repair anything if you can. Reuse if possible. Don't be drawn into any fads and trends, wait until what you have can no longer be used. -
Byron Smith at 02:12 AM on 11 July 2011OA not OK part 4: The f-word: pH
(Just to be clear, I get 28.8% for this second calculation.) -
Byron Smith at 02:09 AM on 11 July 2011OA not OK part 4: The f-word: pH
Can I check a calculation? First you say that the pH has declined from 8.25 to 8.14 (i.e. a difference of 0.11), but then when you say that acidity has increased by 26%, you use the comparison of 8.2 to 8.1 (i.e. a difference of 0.1). Wouldn't a difference of 0.11 on a log scale be closer to the widely quoted 30% than 26%? Or am I missing something obvious here? -
Paul D at 02:09 AM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by Rob Painting
It is interesting how different people from around the world are doing very similar things. Of the pool of advice given here I don't think I can add a lot. -
RW1 at 02:08 AM on 11 July 2011Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
All I'm asking is for an explaination where the additional 12.9 W/m^2 is coming from to cause the 3 C rise (16.6 - 3.7 = 12.9). If the current atmosphere only provides an additional 2.3 W/m^2 (6 - 3.7 = 2.3), where specifically is the remaining +10.6 W/m^2 incoming flux required at the surface coming from? -
Paul D at 01:47 AM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
BBD@79 "the issue involved 'gadgets' as much as cultural attitudes to women in the workplace. These were changed by the wartime experience, and post-war, women began to achieve their potential. It took decades, and would not have been possible without time reallocation thanks to labour-saving devices. Sorry, gadgets." Do not repeat misleading facts and ignore my rebuttals. All you have proven here is what I already stated in my comment number 76. That culturally, in the past, men basically refused to be house husbands and woman were expected to stay at home. Given that in WWII a lot of farm and industrial work was done by women because men were not available, your argument that it was gadgets that allowed woman to work is misleading. Clearly if gadgets were the only way women could leave the home then it just re-enforces the idea that there was/is a lack of equality between men and women. If you look at adverts for vacuum cleaners and other devices of the period, they are deeply patronising by today's standards.Response:[DB] We are getting a little far off-topic here.
-
RW1 at 01:45 AM on 11 July 2011Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Tom, RE: 2) You said that a doubling of CO2 was equal to about a 4 W/m^2 increase in solar irradiance, which is why I used those numbers. I always assumed the 3.7 W/m^2 was equal to post albedo solar power, which is amplified by about 63% (390/240 = 1.63) even though the IPCC doesn't even really even make any such distinction (to my knowledge, at least). RE: 3) The 1.63 applies to the power of 3.7 W/m^2 from 2xCO2 - not the 1.1 C in temperature, which has already been multiplied by 1.63 (3.7 x 1.63 = 6 W/m^2, which equals +1.1 C). RE: 4) I'm well aware of the difference between marginal and average rate; however, neither term is dictated by the laws of physics that govern the processes of energy flow in and out of the climate system. -
Paul D at 01:28 AM on 11 July 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
BBD@79: "the consequence has had no meaningful demographic impact (your statement about women in the workforce during WWII is beside the point). It is post-war peacetime economics we are discussing here" Well you can't cherry pick a point in history and pretend that periods before and after were some sort of islands of isolation. WWII had a big impact in British politics. We aren't actually discussing economics, we are discussing British history, politics and culture. You may want to discuss a subject, but you are not the judge here.
Prev 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 Next
