Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 Next
Comments 8001 to 8050:
-
scaddenp at 06:29 AM on 17 February 20203 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
CzarnyZajaczek, as I pointed out in 51, (and further see also 46) the source of the claim for Financial Times and ABC was LeadingEdge and they blatantly misrepresented the source they quote (easy to check). It is further contradicted by more reliable sources. I would not trust any media source and especially not a media source whose readership is dominated by one or other end of the political spectrum. As was also pointed out, SA wholesale generation prices were not expensive but retail was, so a rather more complex picture than blaming it on renewables.
Furthermore, if you look at the same source behind the 2017 stories, you will see rather an improvement in Austalian pricing. The Australia Institute is reporting South Australia produces best wholesale electricty prices now.
Your Jamesnixon link is 404 for me. It is unclear what point you are trying to make.
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:24 AM on 17 February 2020Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum
It looks like Max Polo's tenure here has ended, but for the benefit of anyone reading this far and not wanting to read the thread over at AndThenTheresPhysics, here is the lowdown on what Max gets wrong in his post above.
Max does fine until he gets to the point where he breaks natural uptake into two components, Un = Unn + Una.
- There is no physical basis to seperate those two fluxes. Max's equation is imply an algebraic distraction.
- One might divide natural uptake into physically-real components such as ocean vs. terrestrial, biotic vs. chemical, etc. Each of these would react differently over time, because there are different process involved.
- Each of those simply responds to the current atmospheric CO2 concentration, though - with no differentiation between CO2 that was emitted from natural sources, and CO2 that was emitted from anthropogenic sources.
- Where Max says "Unn = “natural” carbon that would get absorbed by natural sinks in absence of human emissions", he is wrong. His Unn term is actually carbon that would get absorbed by natural sinks if atmospheric CO2 had not increased. Except CO2 has ncreased. And natural uptake changes as a result. It is now Max's Unn+Una, algebraically, but it is not two different things - it's just natural uptake.
CO2 uptake varies with time. The Mauna Loa (Keeling) curve shows this clearly when the seasonal cycle is included. It does this for physical reasons, not algebraic ones.
The rest of Max's algebraic manipulations are meaningless. There is only one "natural uptake" term that can be used: Max's Un. And Un>En, so nature is a net carbon sink, not a source.
Max's "nature can be a net emitter" only applies when you fail to include a portion of the natural uptake, which is exacly what Max has done (his Una term). It's like saying "my gambling debts are not draining my bank account, because my bank account shows a net increase if I ignore my gambling expenses". There is a pyschololgical term for what that gambler is thinking.
-
william5331 at 04:47 AM on 17 February 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
The expansion of farm lands could and probably will release carbon to the atmosphere if past experience is anything to go by. But there is a possibility that it could actually sequester masses of carbon into the soil. Read Growing A Revolution by David R Montgomery for chapter and verse.
-
Jim Eager at 03:40 AM on 17 February 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Re: "Canada's North may become our breadbasket of the future"
This week on CBC Radio science news program Quirks & Quarks host Bob McDonald interviewed coauthor Evan Fraser about their study on climate-driven expansion of agricultural frontiers.
Listen at: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/wheat-and-potatoes-in-nunavut-climate-change-could-bring-agriculture-to-the-north-1.5463850
Fraser admitted that geographical and topographical factors such as soil type, hydrology and the vast expanse of exposed or thinly covered Canadian Shield bedrock were not taken into account in their study, which frankly makes their premise somewhat meaningless. I often used to encounter this common and naive mistake from those seeking to downplay the effects of warming climate by insisting that as the midwestern grain belt climate warmed too much the growing of wheat and corn would just shift north into Canada, but it is shocking to see it coming from trained scientists.
-
Eclectic at 23:50 PM on 16 February 2020Welcome to Skeptical Science
You're welcome, JoeZ @84. I am frequently lurking and/or posting on SkS and WUWT . . . so really it was only a minor co-incidence (and not Divine retribution) that you were exposed.
Your second sentence was rather ambiguous ~ it is almost as though you're saying you are presenting mutually-opposed opinions in two different forums [or "fora", if you live in Boston ;-) ]. But (pending any denial from you) I will take it that wasn't what you meant . . . in which case :- why would you object anyone reading the available totality of your opinions?
But - cutting to the Chase - I myself (and almost all readers at SkS ) greatly welcome any climate skepticism that you can present.
So far, however, you have not expressed any valid points of climate skepticism. And before you reply, please consult your English dictionary for the precise meaning of skepticism ~ for skepticism does not mean the contrarianism and/or science-denialism which you find everywhere at WUWT ! . . . with the honorable exception of WUWT comments by the very few there who are intellectually sane e.g. by Stokes, Mosher, and a couple of others not yet banned. [WUWT is a marvellous study in Motivated Reasoning ~ where otherwise-intelligent people repeatedly maintain the craziest concepts . . . and revel in the little echo-chamber where they can angrily vent their outrage & denial of reality.]
So, JoeZ , please present your skepticism about the evidence found in mainstream climate science. But I must warn you that Professors Lindzen, Svensmark & other denialists . . . have thus far entirely failed to find any evidence to invalidate the modern science.
Good luck, JoeZ ~ I sincerely hope you can uncover the "killer" evidence which will send all the world's scientists rushing back to the collective drawing-board. It will be a great relief to everyone, to learn that "AGW" is grossly wrong and there's no "climate emergency" whatsoever.
But until I see your genuine evidence, I shall have to remain . . . skeptical.
-
JoeZ at 21:57 PM on 16 February 2020Welcome to Skeptical Science
Eclectic @82
Gee, I'm trying to be nice here and not antagonize people with any climate skepticism I may have- but I see that Eclectic has dug up something from me in another forum. Maybe he should stick to what I say here. We could all spy on everything people say eleswhere then maybe get points for it- but it's not productive.
Moderator Response:[PS] I have censored that comment for breach of comments policy.
-
MA Rodger at 21:44 PM on 16 February 2020Earth is heating at a rate equivalent to five atomic bombs per second
rip71749,
Regarding the energy from burning fossil fuels, there is an SkS graphic illustrating the relative size of the various global energy inputs.I feel that 3.7Wm^-2 figure requires some further explaining. It is the value of Climate Forcing, the global energy imbalance, that would result from a doubling of CO2 which, without feedbacks, would result in a global temperature increase of +1ºC. These values are explained by the solar warming (less albedo) being globally 240Wm^-2 which thus gives an effective planetary temperature of (240/5.67e-8)^0.25 = 255K. Add 3.7Wm^-2 and it becomes 256K. These values, of course, apply high up in the atmosphere but the temperature increase from any forcing also applies to the surface temperatures as the lapse rate acts in a linear fashion down through the atmosphere.
Additional to the initial forcing, there are feedbacks which increase the warming. They act as the global temperature rises, this temperature rise meaning the initial climate forcing is being equalised. Thus the feedbacks do not appear as an increased energy imbalance but instead extend the temperature effect of the climate forcing as it equalises with rising temperature.
Now, at any particular time during AGW (where the Climate Forcing is applied slowly over a period and not all at once) the energy imbalance which is warming the globe (and so theoretically available to melt Greenland ice) will be far smaller than the accumulative Climate Forcing since pre-industrial times. Much of this Climate Forcing (and as negative forcings are poorly defined, the value of net Forcing since pre-industrial is imprecisely known but it is usually quoted as very roughly 2Wm^-2) will have been balanced by the global temperature increase since pre-industrial. It is solely the remaining energy imbalance that is available for melting ice caps, this running presently at something like 1Wm^-2.
From the imbalance, there is then perhaps something like 16ZJ/year entering the climate which, if it could be brought to bear on Greenland's ice, would melt Greenland in something like 50 years. Of course, getting all that energy imbalance to Greenland would be impossible but if the ice were to set off across the oceans, it does become possible. Indeed, having melting icebergs bobbing about at lower latitudes would lower the global temperature and this will increase the global energy imbalance. (This is the mechanism behind the hypothesis set out in Hansen et al 2016.)
Hope all that makes sense. -
CzarnyZajaczek at 21:21 PM on 16 February 20203 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
http://www.jamesnixon.com/SolarwindANU.pdf (it's actually on web archive).
p.17 (chapter 8.3 Solar Electricity)
"Wind energy will be clearly favoured in coastal locations or in areas with particularly good wind resources. However, most of the communities are in the north and west of Australia where wind resources are poor."This significantly increases initial cost of building transmission lines and possibly other infrastructure for wind energy in Australia.
-
CzarnyZajaczek at 20:11 PM on 16 February 20203 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
@ my comment (60) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_super_grid instead of https://www.altenergymag.com/news/2019/09/30/german-study-finds-that-europe-can-be-sustainable-on-solar-and-wind-energy-alone/31875
-
CzarnyZajaczek at 19:52 PM on 16 February 20203 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
@scaddenp (comment 56) Financial Review seems reliable to me, and Australia really has one of the highest electricity prices, it already had in 2012 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-21/australians-pay-highest-power-prices-says-study/3904024
USA is large area of land, and there is nearly always wind somewhere to produce significant amount of wind electricity continuosly, the same applies to Europe, so wind alone is able to provide some baseload without any energy storage (https://www.altenergymag.com/news/2019/09/30/german-study-finds-that-europe-can-be-sustainable-on-solar-and-wind-energy-alone/31875/). In Australia renewables like wind and solar are really intermittent and without large storage capacity they cannot turn off any of their fossil generation capacity, and connecting with undersea cables to other regions with significant renevables production possibility would be quite extremely costly in case of Australia, they will have one of highest renewable energy prices on the world until they will build enough storage capacity to fully replace fossil baseload
-
Eclectic at 02:19 AM on 16 February 2020Welcome to Skeptical Science
Correction : the paper is Chi Chen et al., 2020
-
Eclectic at 01:59 AM on 16 February 2020Welcome to Skeptical Science
Note for readers, who must have sensed JoeZ (Massachusetts forester "of 47 years") expressing a peculiar degree of resistance to establishment of renewables power generation in Massachusetts :-
Joseph Zorzin (a forester of 47 years) has posted a comment in WUWT (Feb 15) giving his personal anecdotal negation of the recent study in Nature Sustainability (the paper Chia et al., 2020 ). The Chia et al., 2020 study is based on satellite assessments showing a mixed picture of world greening and world browning during the two decades of this current century.
I won't go into details of Chia et al., 2020 for that would be more off-topic.
Still, we should be aware of the emotional background, where commenters seem to be favoring "business as usual" instead of zero-emissions policy.
Moderator Response:[PS] Please note that cyber stalking is explicitly forbidden by comment policy. Please desist immediately.
-
RedBaron at 00:30 AM on 16 February 2020Climate goes extreme!
Beavers are ecosystem engineers. But there is an even better solution.
We can make those small dams the size of the beaver dams and put small hydroelectric dams on each. Millions of small generators ends up being just as beneficial as a huge hydro dam, but with little to no downside.
-
rip71749 at 09:57 AM on 15 February 2020Earth is heating at a rate equivalent to five atomic bombs per second
Michael,
Thanks for the reply. Actually, I think our numbers are pretty similar. If I adjust for the density of ice (as you suggest), I get almost exactly the same as you for the energy to melt the GL ice. You use 3.7 W/m2 for the imbalance and I used 6 W/m2 as the extra energy from a 1oC increase in temp. If all the 'extra' energy went into melting GL ice I calculated it was about 9+ years and you get about 10 years, so we are pretty close. I went a little farther and said that GL was 1/280 of earth's area and used that amount of energy to warm the ice (x3 because I assumed that earth would warm at least that much this century and the Artic is warming faster) and came out with 900 years to melt all of the ice in GL (assuming no further increase in temp and everything otherwise stays constant and continues in a linear fasion - no doubt false). That would produce a SLR of just over 2 feet by 2100, which seems pretty realistic, ignoring any other melting ice in the world. I used a little more ice than you (should melt longer) but I also used more energy than you (should melt faster). I'm not sure why you say the Stefan Boltzmann equation is not valid. It's a pretty simple equation "energy = constant x temp^4". I'm only looking for 1 significant figure to convince myself about what I'm reading is happening, and this seems to give it to me. I greatly appreciate your comments. I actually feel better about what I did because of what you did (maybe false confidence?).
-
DennisHorne at 08:24 AM on 15 February 2020Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
@374. SkepticalBrian
Briefly, infrared is lost to space high in the troposphere where there is no water vapour. Adding CO2 causes this level to rise, where it is cooler, so less energy is radiated, causing Earth to warm. Water vapour certainly warms the surface and the atmosphere but it is CO2 and other non-condensable gases that govern the energy balance.
Have a look here too: https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html
-
nigelj at 07:09 AM on 15 February 2020Climate goes extreme!
Wow, this beaver thing really is a serious thing. I wonder if they could be introduced to the streams flowing out of the Himilaya mountains?
-
michael sweet at 07:02 AM on 15 February 2020Earth is heating at a rate equivalent to five atomic bombs per second
RIP71749,
In general it is a waste of time to do your own calculations. You will be much better informed by reading more peer reviewed papers. Articles at SkS are a good place to start.
As for the melting of Greenland I saw a calculation once but cannot find it to cite. I get very different numbers than you.
First of all, you cannot use the Boltzman equation to calculate the energy absorbed so you are off at the start.
I will use 2, 850,000 km3 of ice which is the same as yours. I get 2.685E21 cm3 of ice. Times 330j/gm times 0.9g/cm3. That is 8E23 joules absorbed to melt the ice (ignoring the energy to increase the temperature) close to your number (did you account for the lower density of ice compared to water? please show your work).
You calculate the energy absorbed by using the energy imbalance of 3.7 W/m2 times the surface area of the Earth of 5.1E14m2 =2E15w times the number of seconds in a year (3E7) = 5.7 E22 joules per year absorbed. It would take about 10 years to melt all the ice in Greenland. If more CO2 is released the energy imbalance will increase and the speed of ice melt increases.
I might have a mistake since the calculation is not peer reviewed. I remember the calculation as showing the energy to melt Greenland was absorbed in a single year but it was a very long time ago and I probably remember it incorrectly.
This number can be GOOGLED if you look hard enough.
-
william5331 at 06:22 AM on 15 February 2020Climate goes extreme!
With more water in the atmosphere causing heavier precipitation but ever reducing snow packs and glaciers to store this water until it is needed, we need a way to hold this water in the upper catchment and slowly release it. Add to this the precipitation coming more intermitently but more intensly, we also need a storage mechanism to mitigate down stream floods. There is a neat, inexpensive solution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI5AjJd00cM
-
rip71749 at 03:50 AM on 15 February 2020Earth is heating at a rate equivalent to five atomic bombs per second
Thank you MA Rodger. I have been trying to educate myself on CC over the past few years, pretty much working in a vacuum, on my own. I'm not quite clear on your energy balance from the 1oC increase in temp. Your 3.7Wm ^-2 seems reasonable as a new equilibrium loss to space of energy from the extra energy gained from the greenhouse effect. I view the CO2 levels as a savings account that pays out interest in heat (currently paying 1oC each year, but not carried over). Because we add an extra small amount of CO2 each year we get an extra 'small' amount of extra heat, that slowly accumulates over the decades, centuries etc (so maybe we will reach 2oC, 3oC or higher this century). Of course not all of that heat is from CO2, but its additional effects on ocean H2O (and possibly CH4 from warmer permafrost and peat). So the extra energy seems to me to be calculatable from the Stefen Boltzmann Law, as I did above. It seems to me the sun comes out every day and warms the earth according to the 'current' conditions of the earth and currently that is running 1oC warmer than recent centuries. The large energy value does not seem unreasonable given that the entire earth is warmed 1oC higher. As I understand it we are getting about (0.7)x(342 W/m^2) = 240 W/m^2 from the sun and the 3.7 W/m^2 you mention above is the new equilibrium value from the extra energy of the greenhouse effect. I am assuming that we are leaking more energy than recieved at any particular moment because some of the incoming energy is 'saved' in its warming effect from the greenhouse gases. I'm not sure why my delta = 6 W/m^2 value is not valid and my 200/1 ratio is not accurate. My calculation really does not say anything about how the 1oC increase came about, but the extra energy does seem correct (to me). A CC denier could claim that the extra energy was from Milankovitch cycles or sun spots ot cosmic rays or something else, but those seem to have been discounted from what I have read. To me, it seems the extra energy added from burning all the fossil fuels each year seems pretty trivial (the 200/1 ratio). The problem energy is the energy from the greenhouse gases (H2O, CO2, CH4, etc) absorbing IR radiation and bouncing it around the atmosphere before it reaches equilibrium on its way out to space.
Also, I did do a calculation on how fast the Greenland ice could melt with temperature increases of earth of 1oC, 2oC and 3oC. I assumed there was 680,000 miles^3 of ice. I assumed it started at -1oC to calculate the energy to heat it 1oC (to compare with the energy to melt it all). The heat capacity of ice is about 2.1 joules/(gm oC) and I got a value of 5.8xx10^21 joules. Next, I caluated the energy to melt the ice using a heat of fusion of 334 joules/gram and came out with a value of 9.3x10^23 joules. Because melting is so much more energy I ignored any warming of the ice from lower temperature and only used the energy to melt the ice. I compared that with my energy calculated to warm the earth 1oC (1.0^23 joules), 2oC (1.9x10^23 joules) and 3oC (2.9x10^23 joules). I estimated that the area of Greenland was 1/280 the area of earth and used that to 'crudely' estimate the amount energy available to warm the ice in Greenland with those above energies from 1oC, 2oC and 3oC. My thinking is 9.3x10^23 joules to melt the GL ice divided by (1/280) of the extra energy from 1oC (or 2oC or 3oC) increase in energy. So I came out with 2600 years to melt GL ice with 1oC increase in temp, 1370 years to melt GL ice with 2oC increase and 900oC with 3oC increase in temp. I'm guessing that we will see at least a 3oC increase in temp (or higher, since we are not doing anything), so I went with the 3oC increase. Also, I have read that we are heating the Arctic 2-3 times faster than the rest of earth. If we assume a 24 foot sea level rise from the GL ice and simplistically plot out a straight line for 900 years we would see a 2.7 foot rise in sea level by 100 years, 2120 (or 2.1 foot rise in sea level by 2100). Those seem pretty conservative estimates because I did not consider any melt from the west Antarctic sheet or from pumped out ground water from around the world.
I am sorry for deluge of estimations, but this has been bottled up inside me for a few years, since I am working on my own, and I'm jumping at the chance that you can provide some feedback in case I am going off the tracks. This is the first time I have posted on Skeptical Scientist, but the 'atomic bomb' reference caught my attention since I had also used a Hiroshima atomic bome as an energy ruler. Also, I had read the Hiroshima abomic bomb was 12,000 tond TNT (called little boy) and the Nagasaki was 15,000 tons of TNT (called fat man), so that may be the difference in size of atomic bombs. The biggest US nuclear bomb was castle bravo at 130 Megatons in 1954. The Russian created the biggest nuclear bomb ever, the Tsar Bomba in 1961, at 50 Megatons (the heigth of the blast actually reached the edge of earth/space, over 211,000 feet). That's a whole other problem. Again, I thank you for the taking the time to provide feedback.
-
SirCharles at 23:23 PM on 14 February 2020Climate goes extreme!
Global Temperature Jazz - Paris Climate Accord Into the Twenties
-
Jonas at 11:20 AM on 14 February 2020Skeptical Science New Research for Week #6, 2020
As a small multiplicator, I am very grateful for the work of the SkS team:
thank you for Rebuttals, New Research, News Roundup, Posts, Material, ...
I donate regularly to support the site and I want to inspire other readers
to do the same if possible: we still need Sks a lot, unfortunately .. -
Eclectic at 10:25 AM on 14 February 2020Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
Tokenterprises @133 , It's worse than that.
Even the bubbles you absorb from your Coca-cola ;-)
(But isn't most synthetic fertilizer a nitrogen-based compound ~ though admittedly there's a huge amount of fossil fuel usage in the production.)
-
MA Rodger at 10:21 AM on 14 February 2020Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
tokenterprises @133,
While it is an interesting consideration that you make, is it not the case that the "majority of fertiliser", while manufactured from natural gas, does not inherit carbon from that natural gas? Thus the carbon in human respiration is not FF carbon. The hydrogen obtained from the natural gas is FF hydrogen but the FF carbon release is a by-product of the process. The argument thus rests on that the FF hydrogen requiring the FF carbon release (and this can be released as CO2 if the CO is used to extract further hydrogen from water) but that 'requirement' is also present for the burning of FF to power the tractor to plough and harvest the crop as well as to bring the crop to the factory to be processed, the powering of that processing, and so on....
I think your argument would stand up only if firstly there was direct use of FF carbon on the fields that ends up in the food consumed by us respiring humans, and secondly where that FF carbon ending up in the plant is not a direct substitute for atmospheric/soil carbon. Such conditions might hold less with fertilsers that contain carbon but with the CO2 used in greenhouse operations. ("The most common method of CO2 enrichment for greenhouse application is the combustion of fossil fuel.") Yet there is a further condition which would be met ony if this were the 'majority' situation, or at least some significant part of it. I would think it isn't a 'majority' situation but solely some small proportion of the planet's vegitable consumption. The area of greenhouse cultivation is 500,000 ha which, if it all used enhanced CO2, should be compared with the 1,600,000,000 ha of global croplands, just 0.03%.
-
tokenterprises at 09:00 AM on 14 February 2020Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't human respiration contributing to the accumulation of CO2 per the simple fact that the majority of fertiliser used in commercial farming is derived from fossil fuel sources?
Annually, more than 200 million tonnes of synthetic fertilizer is used to produce plants consumed by humans. Granted, that carbon is accounted for in natural gas consumption statistics, and therefor can mathematically be cancecelled out if we declare human respiration as carbon neutral. That doesn't make human respiration technically carbon neutral, however. -
scaddenp at 07:12 AM on 14 February 2020Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
I have found Chris Colose's explanation very useful, particularly the last diagram on effective height.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:58 AM on 14 February 2020Welcome to Skeptical Science
JoeZ @79,
I support Enviro's who push for 'reduction of energy consumption First - then the least harmful and most sustainable production of that reduced amount of energy'.
And I would add that it is undeniably harmfully foolish to believe that 'competition for perceptions of superiority relative to others any way that can be gotten away with' will produce better results than 'collaborative competitions to see who can be most helpful at developing solutions to sustainably improve the collective global future of humanity'.
History is full of proof that divisive individualism and the Negative-Sum Game Playing of Me Firstism only develops harmful failures that Collaborative Altruism (Internationalism pursuing things like Human Rights and the Sustainable Development Goals) has to correct and clean up after before it can make more Progress towards the required sustainable Improving future for humanity.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:45 AM on 14 February 2020Welcome to Skeptical Science
In my comment @78, I was of course meaning Jeffrey D. Sachs. Automated assistance like Autocorrecting can be helpful, but I need to spend more time being sure it "corrected correctly".
In addition to the massive potential for 'non-intermittent' hydro-power generation in Canada to provide the energy used in Massachusetts, and other states in the region, there is substantial potential for off-shore wind energy generation in that region. And there is potential for non-intermittent tidal power from locations like the Bay of Fundy.
-
JoeZ at 02:48 AM on 14 February 2020Welcome to Skeptical Science
One Planet Forever #78
Here in Mass. the enviros don't want hydropower from Canada. I think it's a great idea. And, the enviros in NH and Maine also fought to stop it because of the need for new high tension lines. Regarding American Exceptionalism- it's now a powerful force- more than ever with Trump and he's likely to win again. Regarding economic growth- isn't it Nepal that has a "happiness index" instead of a GNP? In 77, Ecletic suggested sacrificing 10% of the landscape for wind and solar. Good theory. But the reality is most people don't want it next to their homes. As I always say- I've asked the enviros and legislators in this state if THEY want it next to THEIR homes. Never got a favorable reply. So, we need to understand that what's theoretical and what's the reality of what people will accept and be willing to pay for may not be the same. I suggest that when the media publishes scare stories and we see Greta Thunberg making demands on world leaders- that doesn't help the cause of having a carbon emissions free world.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:21 AM on 14 February 2020Welcome to Skeptical Science
JoeZ,
Regions like Massachusetts can get all of their energy from Hydro-power in Canada, just north of them. There is a massive potential up there. And not promoting its development and buying it at a price that is beneficial to "Canadians" is the sort of harmful Negative -Sum Competitive behaviour that the likes of Trump pursue. Negative-Sum Game Playing is pursuits of perceptions of superiority relative to others that actually make everyone, including the perceived winner, worse off.
All that is required is for people to realize that Internationalism is the Future, not the unrealistic and incorrect beliefs in American Exceptionalism, Manifest Destiny and the related foolish attitude of America First Competing to Win Any Way That Can Be Gotten Away With in pursuit of a return to those beliefs about Increased Personal Wealth being Proof of the Providence of God, and any failure being blamed on Those Infidels.
A lot can be learned by reading the knowledge shared by people like Jeffrey D. Sacks. His most recent set of knowledge sharing, through the past decade, is quite comprehensive. He provides evidence-based understanding of what is going on. And all of it is built on the expanding awareness and understanding of Sustainable Development, developments that will provide lasting improvements for humanity.
The key is understanding the need to constantly achieve and improve on:
- Economic Growth - Measured as Improvement of life circumstances which is understood to not be measured by GDP. A more accurate indication is elimination of poverty.
- Social Inclusion - Understanding and accepting a robust diversity of ways of being human.
- Environmental Sustainability - The total actions of the entire global population being less than the understood sustainable planetary impact boundaries. Each nation doing what is best suited in their region.
Achieving what is required requires Good Governance, not limited government focused on building the military might to "be balanced with perceived military threats" or the more troubling belief that a nation's best future is achieved by being the "potentially most harmful pursuer of perceptions of superiority on the planet"
Expanded awareness and understanding directed towards helping develop sustainable improvements for the future of humanity leads to the clear understanding of the need for collaborative altruism to govern and limit the powerful tendency for people to be divisively Individualistic and harmfully Tribal.
There is a high likelihood that many people who resist learning about and accepting the developing constantly improving understanding of climate science are motivated by a harmful developed personal interest. They resist understanding that they really should change their mind and give up undeserved perceptions of prosperity and opportunity.
-
Eclectic at 01:39 AM on 14 February 2020Welcome to Skeptical Science
JoeZ , the world is changing, and not just Massachusetts will see changes (some bad, maybe some good). And it's probably be too late to save the Maple Syrup industry, anyway.
Things will get worse for the southerly states, especially. I wouldn't like to see your own state forests altered ~ in tree species (or insect pests). Nor a few million climate refugees settling in Boston and the hinterlands.
Would you be prepared to sacrifice 10% of woodlands to PV panels and windmills, in order to save the rest from major alteration? Not an easy decision ~ particularly in view of the uncertainties. One thing's for sure: we can't just close our eyes and carry on with "business-as-usual".
We've dawdled too long . . . and now we need all hands to the pumps.
-
JoeZ at 00:31 AM on 14 February 2020Welcome to Skeptical Science
Eclectic @ 75. It's .1% now but the state will soon be passing a bill requiring the state to have no carbon emissions by 2050. Currently, solar only produces a few percent of the power grid so many more acres of forest will be converted. How many? I wish I knew. I keep asking the legislators, state agencies, and enviro groups but they don't reply. It's a fair question, right? A solar "farm" was built next to my neighborhood several years ago. That land has gone from forest, to fields, to gravel mine- but much of the mined ground had returned to forest without help from anyone- now turned into a solar "farm" on bare sand. Local zoning here did not requier soil restoration first. And so I'll be accused of being a NIMBY- but nah, I don't like them anywhere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYYVZKgusU4&t=7s. I also ask if any legislators or enviro leaders would like a big, ugly solar "farm" next to their house- in this densely populated state- so far, no takers.
-
Eclectic at 21:46 PM on 13 February 2020Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Unsure @388 , I will add in some extra food for thought.
The "greenhouse" planet-warming effect of the GHG [GreenHouse Gasses] molecules is not simply explained in a single sentence (or three). But once you get your head around how it works, you will see that it is a straightforward basic mechanism.
You will need to do some more of reading & thinking it through. Several points to keep in mind :-
(A) InfraRed photons are emitted in all directions by the CO2 molecules ~ when each molecule has enough energy to emit an IR photon. Emission rate depends on local air temperature.
(B) The energy (to produce an IR photon) for each CO2 molecule ~ is gained from collision with neighbouring "air" molecules (almost all of which are nitrogen and oxygen). Likewise, when a CO2 molecule receives/gains an IR-photon's worth of energy, the CO2 molecule immediately distributes energy to neighbouring "air" molecules, by collision. In other words, a CO2 molecule can warm the neighbouring nitrogens/oxygens when it receives an IR photon . . . or it can (by emitting an IR photon) cool its neighbouring nitrogens/oxygens.
(C) Each layer of air is receiving and radiating IR from/to the layers above and below . . . except for the uppermost layer, where the CO2 is so "thin" that some of the radiated IR photons can escape to outer space, through the "gaps" between the nearby CO2 molecules. (Lower layers with denser concentrations of CO2, in effect have "no gaps".)
(D) All of the above, also applies to IR emission/absorption by other GHG's e.g. methane, water vapor ~ but for each of these other compounds, the corresponding "uppermost thin layer" is at a different altitude (than CO2's "Top Of Atmosphere" emitting layer). O3 is rather a special case, being mostly in the stratosphere.
And I will stop at that point, since the consequence of all this is the higher heat concentration at the planet's surface i.e. the so-called (and poorly named) GreenHouse Effect.
-
MA Rodger at 19:38 PM on 13 February 2020Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
unsure @388,
The essential characteristic of GHGs is that they do not absorb sunlight. They do absorb (and re-emit) the long wave infrared. With an increase in CO2, there isn't directly an increase in the 'intensity' of this long wave infrared, be that up, down or sideways. That is, there are more CO2 molecules emitting, but there are also more CO2 molecules absorbing. The extra absorption means the higher number of emitted infrared photons have a reduced pathlength. So at any point, the surface say, the infrared recieved is unchanged by simply adding CO2. Something else has to happen to increase the infrared 'intensity'.
What does cause this increase in infrared (up, down and sideways) is an increase in global temperature. The temperature rises because the extra CO2 increases the height in the atmosphere at which the CO2-emitted infrared has a clear shot at space. This means the CO2 molecules shooting out to space are in a higher colder part of the atmosphere. Cold gases emit less than warm gases, so to balance the global energy equation the planet has to warm, thus boosting the infrared emissions into space, from all sources, not just CO2. Note that because the temperature boost to infrared is across all sources and this is to balance the reduced infrared from CO2 alone, there will still be less CO2 emissions out into space when the balance is restored.
-
Ger at 19:07 PM on 13 February 2020Why coal use must plummet this decade to keep global warming below 1.5C
How about reducing coal use in the cement and steel industry? For fuel, those are using 20% of the won coal. Cement is also producing CO2 from the lime used. Actual emissions of cement (and steel) are even higher as both do require good quality coal with high carbon content. Processing such coal at the mine will also give extra CO2 emissions.
For existing steel one could use hydrogen as reductor, but will lack coke gas to produce electricity in the mill. Existing cement could switch to biomass (rice husk etc) as fuel and feedstock amendment but still, CO2 output, though biogene. For the carbon budget, the source of the CO2 doesn't matter. So both industries should have CC(S)U. Reuse of carbon-dioxide in concrete hardening. Planting a lot of trees/biomass to fix the carbon budget in the shortest time possible.
-
unsure at 18:52 PM on 13 February 2020Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
If greenhouse gases such as CO2 are absorbing the sun's radiation and emitting it as long wave infrared radiation as the post suggests, why would an increase in atmospheric CO2 translate to an increase in downward longwave emissions but a decrease in upwards longwave emissions attributed to CO2 as measured via Satelite? Again, as the post suggests, greenhouse gases absorb the sun's radiation and then these same gases emit that radiation in all directions (not favoring up or down). Wouldnt an increase in atmospheric CO2 (and O3, CH4) result in an increase in both upward and downward longwave emissions for their respective greenhouse gases?
-
Eclectic at 08:34 AM on 13 February 2020Welcome to Skeptical Science
JoeZ @74 , the USDA Forest Service states that the Massachusetts forest land comprises 3.0 million acres. Of which your figure of 3,000 acres would represent around 0.1%
. . . so I guess the real questions are ~ how much further is a planned expansion of solar farms going to go, and will any extra PV developments be done in an intelligent and considerate manner. And in tradeoffs (and drawing a long bow), what effect on the forests & timberlands of Massachusetts would come from a regional climate warming of around 4 degreesF over about 100 years? (We can reasonably assume 4*F would kill off the maple syrup industry. But what forest/tree-species changes ~ good or bad ~ would be likely to occur?)
Tradeoffs are a ripe area for argument !
-
JoeZ at 07:23 AM on 13 February 2020Welcome to Skeptical Science
Much better description of climate skeptics.
Now regarding "mass deforestation" - now we're my area of expertise. I've been a forester for 47 years. It's not just deforestation that is a problem but possibly even more so- really bad forestry pracitices which lower the health of the forest which reduces carbon sequestration. I suggest that the vast majority of "forestry" is abusive. I've been arguing FOR imporved forestry practices all that time with immense resistance. Also, in the name of producing "clean and green" energy- forests are being destroyed to install solar "farms". About 3,000 acres of forest in tiny Massachusetts, where I live, have been converted to solar "farms" in the past several years. Not only are the trees cut- but they need to bulldoze the site to level it for the panels. Doing so releases much of the soil carbon. And, let's remember that forests produce oxygen in addition to sequestering carbon. I think we all like oxygen. And, the forests produce ecosystem services. I'm not saying this shouldn't happen- but at least those promoting solar "farms" where there now are forests shouldn't pretend this conversion is totally "clean and green". An honest evaluation of the tradeoffs is necessary.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:53 AM on 13 February 2020Welcome to Skeptical Science
Would it be better to say: "Climate 'skeptics' come in a diversity of forms including people who vigorously attack any evidence for man-made global warming and people who uncritically embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that supposedly refutes global warming."?
However it is stated: People resisting expanded awareness and improved understanding and its application to help develop sustainable improvements for the benefit of the future of humanity, including making rapid corrections to limit the harm done by harmful unsustainable but popular and profitable developments like the burning of fossil fuels and mass deforestation that are the major causes of human-induced global warming and the related climate changes - are a serious problem that humanity has to over-come, the sooner the better for the future of humanity (even if the corrections are a set-back for current day people who have harmfully over-developed perceptions of personal status - the Richest being Less Richest).
-
JoeZ at 02:14 AM on 13 February 2020Welcome to Skeptical Science
"Climate 'skeptics' vigorously attack any evidence for man-made global warming yet uncritically embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that supposedly refutes global warming."
That's a bit severe. Other sciences don't have vast political implications as climate science does. Hence, little need for the general public to be concerned about the work of chemists and physicists. Many climate skeptics DO NOT "vigorously attack any evidence....". And many do NOT "uncritically embrace any argument....". So, describing all climate skeptics this way isn't helpful nor will it convince skeptics that non skeptics are playing fair. It's also the fact that not all skeptics are deniers which seems to be the belief of this blog. I find it also severe that this site implies all skeptics are fools and ignorant.
-
Paul Pukite at 00:42 AM on 13 February 2020Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum
There's a well-known physical argument for understanding why the airborne fraction of CO2 hangs around 50% having to do with diffusional random walk. When CO2 enters the ocean, it can either diffuse downward or back upward. This is the nature of a pure random walk, with the likelihood of either direction being ~50%.
So as CO2 moves so slowly to sequestering sites, when it randomly walks back upwards it has a chance to get released back to the atmosphere.
Incidentally, this diffusional process explains why the sequestering of CO2 has such a fat-tail for an adjustment time, running to thousands of years. Again this is well known diffusional physics and I can provide a citation on request.
-
MA Rodger at 23:12 PM on 12 February 2020Earth is heating at a rate equivalent to five atomic bombs per second
rip71749 @16,
Your arithmetic look fine although the numbers you input are not those I would use.
While the yield of the Hiroshima bomb is not known with any certainty, the usual figure bandied about is a little higher than the figure you use at 6.3e13 J.
Conversely, your calculation of FF energy production is well done given the approximations you run with. Using BP's FF energy use for 2018, it works out at 4.92e20 J for the year.
I'm not sure of the value of your 200:1 ratio. Your sixty-two bombs-per-second is calculated using, not the global energy imbalance or the climate forcing, but the extra IR emissions up from the surface resulting from a +1ºC temperature rise. We do see such a rise but it results from many years of FF burning. If calculated for +1ºC at the top of the atmosphere, the well-known 3.7Wm^-2 value would appear rather than the 6Wm^-2 for the higher surface temperatures. The surface value is not a net value, of course, as there is an equally large increase in the back-radiation coming down from the atmosphere which has also heated by +1ºC. The five bombs per second of the OP is calculated using the global energy imbalance, a far smaller quantity.
Perhaps more meaningful than the 200:1, an interesting calculation is the time required for the climate forcing from the resulting GHGs to trap an equivalent amount of energy as produced from the FF burning. Assuming those 2018 emissions were responsible for a 2.25ppm CO2 increase (mind if there had been no emissions through the year, the level of atmospheric CO2 would have dropped, so the 'responsible' level is entirely academic), the forcing would be some 0.03Wm^-2, globally 1.5e13 W. Thus the forcing would accumulate energy globally equal to the annual FF power generated every 385 days.
-
SirCharles at 23:01 PM on 12 February 2020Why coal use must plummet this decade to keep global warming below 1.5C
The Minerals Council of Australia and fossil fuel lobby groups have been undermining political action on climate change for decades. It’s time to end their stranglehold on our politics.Rio Tinto, as a leading member of the Minerals Council of Australia to cancel their membership and stop paying them to undermine action on the climate crisis. Tell them:
https://act.350.org/sign/ask-rio-tinto-leave-minerals-council-australia/
-
Eclectic at 17:20 PM on 12 February 2020On climate misinformation and accountability
Rose @18 , I understand how you feel Andrew Bolt [Australian far-right-wing columnist and radio "shock jock"] qualifies for inclusion in the list of journalist science-deniers.
And you are correct that he is a "piece of work" as a virulent & self-satisfied science-denier . . . as well as being generally nasty-minded (especially re Ms Thunberg).
But myself, I would vote against placing him on the list. Really, he is a "lightweight" ~ a nonentity at the international level. Basically he is just a loud-mouth fish in a small pond. Small beer.
-
Rose at 16:16 PM on 12 February 2020On climate misinformation and accountability
Thank you for your excellent post explaining the basis for your collection of climate -denier statements. You offer a wonderful service with such accurate refutations of the myths that somehow never go away. When you have some time on your hands (???) please add Andrew Bolt to your list of journalist deniers. He is a serial offender in the worst way and not only denies science but attacks those who champion action on global warming. His nasty criticisms of Greta Thunberg are a case in point. Keep up the good work.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 15:42 PM on 12 February 2020On climate misinformation and accountability
It's interesting how, through this whole thing, neither Pielke nor Curry addressed any substantive errors presented in any of the SkS articles.
-
Ntabenende at 14:42 PM on 12 February 2020New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change'
As this is your first post, Skeptical Science respectfully reminds you to please follow our comments policy. Thank You!
The Holistic Management debate continues. In the late seventies a large ranch in southern Matabeleland had adopted HRM and ran more and more cattle as the seasons were favourable. Then in 1982, 1983 and 1984 there were three consecutive droughts and the herd was decimated from approximately 120 000 head to 30 000 head. A US trained doctor of rangeland science employed in Govt. told me that the HRM on Liebigs Ranch, Towla had completely collapsed and was a complete failure and disaster. By then the “HRM Driver” had gone off to the USA to go again. Similarly it is reported that the HRM trial at Charter was carried out in a season when there was a 75% above average rainfall season. The suggestion that bare dirt can have its sticking rate quadrupled is an interesting evangelical environmental claim? What do the cattle eat on Day 1 of HRM? 90 000 HRM cattle were sent off property at a loss rather than perish and now we read of the suggestion to quadruple the stocking rate - again? Sceptical Science has to be the best forum for HRM because SS digs deep. Reading the HRM book could be as useful as believing the election results in Zimbabwe. The book does not mention the failure at Liebigs was on a 1 000 000 acre ranch and the general manager was fired after this exercise. Now the property is a wild life conservancy - there are no cattle and it looks beautiful.
-
rip71749 at 13:42 PM on 12 February 2020Earth is heating at a rate equivalent to five atomic bombs per second
I use the Hiroshima atomic bomb (HB) analogy as an energy ruler when talking about climate change energies. The energy in the HB is listed as 12,000 tons of TNT (trinitrotoluene) and 1 ton of TNT is listed as 4.2 gigajoules (4,200,000,000 tons = billions). That works out to 5x10^13 joules = 50,000,000,000,000 joules (trillions). The difference in the HB and climate energy is intensity. Assume the HB energy is released in 1 second. That is enough energy to level a 6 mile^2 area. In Hiroshima 140,000 people died and in Nagasaki 80,000 people died (about half by radiation poisoning), which shows the deadly result of intense energy. Climate change energy is larger but not usually so intense, released over decades, centuries, mellinia, etc.
Assume 40 Gigaton of CO2 released in 1 year = 8x10^14 moles of CO2. Use octane, C8H18, as a proxy for all fossil fuels then 1x10^8 moles of octane were burned (Hcomb = 5,000,000 joules/mole). That works out to 5x10^20 joules released in 1 year of fossil fuel burning (500,000.000.000.000.000.000 joules = 500 quintillion). Divide 5x10^20 joules/year FF combustion by 5x10^13 joules/bombs/year = 10,000,000 bombs/year FF combustion. If there are 32,000,000 seconds/year then that energy = 1 HB every 3 seconds.
Next use the Stefen-Boltzmaann Law to calculate the energy if earth's temperature is 288K. Energy = (5.7x10-8 W/(m^2 T^4))xT^4 which is 392 W/m^2. Do the same for T = 289oC (1oC increase in earth's temperature) and I get 398 W/m^2. That is a difference of 6 W/m^2. I calculate about 5.2x10^14 m^2 as the area of earth and 3.2x10^7 seconds in a year for a total increase in energy for 1oC for the earth in one year of 1x10^23 joules (100,000.000.000.000.000.000.000 joules = 100 sextillion joules). Compare that to all of the energy of all fossil fuel combustion in 1 year = 1x10^23 joules / 5x10^20 joules = 200/1 ratio. Instead of 1 HB every 3 seconds it comes out to 62 HB every second for the extra energy from 1oC increase in earth's temperature. Look at it another way. If you eat 2,000 calories a day, you would have to up your calorie intake to 200 x 2,000 = 400,000 calories a day (every day). Pretty intense eating. If you do the calculation for 2oC increase, it comes out to a 370/1 ratio (116 HB per second) and a 3oC increase comes out to 580/1 increase in energy (181 HB per second). Also, you'd have to eat the equivalent of over 1,000,000 calories /day for a 3oC increase in energy. Some different ways of looking at the energy of climate change. Hope my calculations are correct.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:59 AM on 12 February 2020Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum
Max:
You've been through all this over at AndThenTheresPhysics:
You are just as wrong here as you were there.
-
Max Polo at 08:13 AM on 12 February 2020Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum
I think that Dikran Marsupial's mass balance argument is fundamentally flawed. Here is why, based on his mass conservation equation referred to a certain period of time.
dC = Ea + En - Un
dC = increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere over a certain period of time
Ea = total human emission in the atmosphere over that period
En = total natural emission in the atmosphere over that period
Un = total CO2 absorbed by natural sinks over that period
But we must not forget that Un is the total natural sinks uptake, that obviously must account for both "natural" and "human" contributions :
Un = Unn + Una
Unn = “natural” carbon that would get absorbed by natural sinks in absence of human emissions (over that period)
Una = portion of human emitted CO2 that gets absorbed by natural sinks (over that period)
Thus :
dC = Ea + En - Unn - UnaBy definition, the variation of CO2 concentration due to just the net “natural” carbon flux is :
dCn = En - Unnso, rearranging earlier equation :
dCn = dC - Ea + UnaSince dC is measured to be approximately one half Ea, then this equation shows how nature can be a net emitter (dCn > 0) if the portion of Ea that gets absorbed (= Una) exceeds (approximately) 50% of the total human produced carbon Ea.
Therefore, the mass balance argument in Cawley’s paper, in this website, and other websites as well, is wrong, and does not prove anything.
Moderator Response:[DB] As has been noted, you've already been through this with other learned individuals who pointed you straight.
It's one thing in life to of necessity to occasionally reinvent the wheel.
There's no need to reinvent the flat tire.
Continuing to tilt against the iron windmill of science with a wet paper lance is sloganeering and in violation of this site's Comments Policy. Please familiarize yourself with it and construct any future comments here to adhere to it. And above all else, when given good advice such as reading technical material to gain a background understanding of a matter, please avail yourself of the opportunity.
-
Doug Bostrom at 05:43 AM on 12 February 2020On climate misinformation and accountability
NoctambulantJoycean: "This reminds me of the debates on "free speech" vs. "freeze peach"..."
Often found running in company with "freedumb," wherein freedom to speak and worship without interference from the state is confused with freedom to dump sewage just out of sight, where it becomes a problem for somebody else.
Prev 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 Next
