Recent Comments

Prev  1602  1603  1604  1605  1606  1607  1608  1609  1610  1611  1612  1613  1614  1615  1616  1617  Next

Comments 80451 to 80500:

80451. Norman at 03:54 AM on 5 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Tom Curtis @ 232 I was reading up on the formation of preciptitaion events and what determines their severity. The thunderstrom you describe is known as an air-mass thunderstorm. Generally they are the least severe and the rain will cool the updraft and destroy the cycle. Even these need the one common factor in thunderstorms. You need a layer of unstable air (one where if you move a parcel of ground air to a higher level it will end up being warmer than the surrounding air and so continue to rise). I looked at some weather links to determine what causes the most severe thunderstorms. Moisture in the air is the definate fuel for storms but there are many factors that go into determining the intensity of a thunderstorm. I do not know if the 4% increase in moisture content of the air will make much difference (will continue to research this). Here are some links. Atmopheric stability and storm formation. Factors that determine the intensity of a thunderstorm. Stability of the atmosphere is one of the major factors in determining the severity of a thunderstorm. The less stable the more likely an intense storm will develop. Also upper wind variation is really important or the storm will choke itself off. The upper wind moves the region of downdraft away from the updraft allowing the storm to continue and intensify. Other factors are how fast the overall storm is moving. A strong strom that moves rapidly will not be a likely to produce flooding as a similar strong storm that moves much slower over an area. Will global warming create more regions of unstable air? Will these regions of unstable air be more unstable because of global warming? Will wind shear become stronger as the earth warms? If these questions can be determined to be a yes then I would agree with the hypothesis that global warming will increase the number of severe storms, more rain, hail, wind and tornadoes all with the potential to increase damage to target areas. In the US the term used is severe weather. An extreme weather event would be one significantly worse than normal severe storm events.
80452. JoeRG at 02:21 AM on 5 July 2011
       It's the sun
       Well, I didn't understand the figure. Of course, because the IPCC didn't adopt it the right way from the original (Stott et al (2006b)). In the original work it is as I told that it has to be: while the global dimming the only natural caused temperature is higher than the total (anthro+nat). So what did the IPCC do, or at least the authors that wrote the chapter?! (Possibly this may be the reason why the link to the corresponding appendix is now broken in the IPCC documents. Who knows...) Ok, I'm again off topic. Back to it. The first paper you've linked is a good chance to get enhanced knowledge about another part of Sun's influence. But, if you are aware of it, this is in addition to the solar components that were used so far (TSI and SSN) and it is surely not the only parameter that may be of importance. Perhaps it will come up to the IPCC documents in the future (I hope so). As to Hansen, I will have a closer look at it. But obviously he didn't know about the global dimming because in Fig.1 (base of the whole work) the net forcing is steadily rising (except the volcanoes) what definitely would have disabled a cooling that was observed. I'll come back to it (in the right topic, of course).
80453. Mark Harrigan at 02:05 AM on 5 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       @BDD on the nuclear issue You say "We need to get past the all-consuming anti-nuclear bias and accept the unpalatable facts as they stand. Then formulate energy policy that makes sense." I agree that too often the nuclear question gets submerged by emotionalism. The question is what unpalatable facts do we need to consider? Despite the problems associated with the issues in Japan the fact is Nuclear has a far better safety record per MWh generated than any fossil fuel by orders of magnitude. The deaths per TWh for various energy sources are here Deaths per TWh Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh) Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity) Coal – China 278 Coal – USA 15 Oil 36 (36% of world energy) Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy) Biofuel/Biomass 12 Peat 12 Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy) Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy) Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy) Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead) Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy) I'm not sure about the veracity of the energy splits but taking this data at face value then Nuclear appears to be very safe. BUT (and it's a big but) I think to consider the nuclear issue we must first examine safety in its two component parts. Risk (chances of something going wrong) and Hazard (impact of something going wrong). With nuclear technology (even older technology such as at Fukushima) the risk is actually vanishingly small - but the hazard is enormous. The question is can we manage the hazard? So far Fukushima suggests this is a major problem. IF something goes catastrophically wrong (which clearly can happen) we simply cannot cope. So the issue of hazard is huge. Perhaps this is acceptable though if the risk is so tiny? After all we accept airline travel as commonplace and it is somewhat analogous (the risk of an accident is about 1/60th of car travel) although it can be argued the hazard is high (plane crash = almost certain death whereas it is not certain with a car accident) Until recently that was my view and I was a passionate advocate for Nuclear as the "obvious" solution to AGW. The technology is CO2 free in operation (yes I've heard the tired arguments about life cycle but they've been comprehensively refuted). It works and is proven as a reliable 24/7 base load/peak demand supply (as opposed to almost all renewable alternatives which - whilst promising are not yet proven). It's relatively cost effective and whilst waste management issues are real they are not beyond solution or management (as existing countries with an extensive nuclear history show). And the risk of something going wrong is tiny - even better if you site it somewhere geologically appropriate. So far so good for the technology - especially when you consider that new designs are way better. But the problem is the risk is not just in the technology. What makes it worse is where the human factor comes in. I think what Fukushima amply demonstrates is not so much that the problem with Nuclear is in the technology but in how it is managed. The management has been exposed to be one of avoidance of responsibility and cover up of what had really happened. This clearly increased the risk (made it more likely for things to go wrong) and has unquestionably exacerbated the hazard. I think most people sense this intuitively and hence that is why the "fear" of nuclear is so high. The hazard is enormous, sometimes unmanageable and there is simply not sufficient trust in fallible human management (which wants to avoid accountability) especially when it is profit motivated. So where do we weigh that up? I don't profess to know the answer I'd still like to think that we shouldn't be taking the nuclear option off the table. If we could improve our human management I think it has a role to play. But I can very much understand and empathise with why people are so distrustful of it as a viable alternative. It's hard to have an honest dispassionate debate about it because of the emotional factor but I hope some of this post helps. BTW in the interests of disclosure I am Atomic Physicist by training (not the same as nuclear but I have some knowledge)
80454. Mark Harrigan at 01:09 AM on 5 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       Ouch! Looks like I've stepped into the middle of a nuclear debate! I'll come back to that @BDD #123 & #127 I think Mark D's contribution is a positive one EVEN if he is wrong - because it is focussed on what we need to do. You might want to consider the issue of right and wrong here On Being Wrong watch the video - it's enlightening and humbling Re the issue of gas fired turbines - you make an excellent point about just how fast they can spin up. But this seems to me a problem that some good thinking might overcome rather than a fundamental unsolveable problem We should invite some expert comment on this? My limited understanding is that gas turbines have a longer start-up time than conventional engines but no worse than coal or other existing "base load" technologies - all of which have to be "on" to provide power. I also gather gas generation is relatively slow to respond to changes in power demand - but that is all relative I'm told this is improved somewhat by Simplified Combined Cycle because of the pre-mixing steam and fuel before injection into the combustor. This enables a faster start possible because steam can be injected in the gas turbine as quickly as it is produced, avoiding steam turbine warm-up requirements.. The critical question is - how rapidly can this be done versus what is needed. I really don't know on what time scale this sort of demand management matching is required but I think it sounds like a technical challenge rather than a fundamental one. For example - momentum alone would ensure that the power from a wind turbine wouldn't suddenly drop to zero. What's more (and I don't know if this is done) surely a little bit of intelligently designed anemometry could be used as a short term predictor and signal to the grid that the wind turbine/farm was about to drop the load and spin up a gas turbine ahead of time. Perhaps there is someone who reads this site who could advise on the time scales required? Can we advance the debate by seeking solutions to the problems of renewables?
80455. Albatross at 00:42 AM on 5 July 2011
       Monthly Climate Summary: May 2011
       Michael, Thanks for this-- well, I think....pretty depressing actually. And "skeptics" actually believe that we "warmists" find cheer in these findings? No.
80456. mspelto at 00:21 AM on 5 July 2011
       Trouble Brewing in the North
       A wall of ice of that weight would be 300 feet tall and 300 feet wide. This is less than the 1/3 volume of the iceberg that came off of Petermann Glacier last year, they could have just chopped this up. It is one seventh the volume lost from Jakobshavn each year.
80457. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:53 PM on 4 July 2011
       Great Barrier Reef Part 1: Current Conditions and Human Impacts
       Perhaps[ -snip -]
       Moderator Response: (Rob P) Re-posting dubious links that have previously been debunked is considered trolling. Please desist.
80458. warm at 23:03 PM on 4 July 2011
       Trouble Brewing in the North
       New article this week: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092181811100097X "There has been a rapid acceleration in ice-cap melt rates over the last few decades across the entire Canadian Arctic. Present melt rates exceed the past rates for many millennia. New shallow cores at old sites bring their melt series up-to-date. The melt-percentage series from the Devon Island and Agassiz (Ellesmere Island) ice caps are well correlated with the Devon net mass balance and show a large increase in melt since the middle 1990s. Arctic ice core melt series (latitude range of 67 to 81 N) show the last quarter century has seen the highest melt in two millennia and The Holocene-long Agassiz melt record shows the last 25 years has the highest melt in 4200 years. The Agassiz melt rates since the middle 1990s resemble those of the early Holocene thermal maximum over 9000 years ago."
80459. John Brookes at 22:40 PM on 4 July 2011
       Glickstein and WUWT's Confusion about Reasoned Skepticism
       Nice post - thank you.
80460. mspelto at 21:24 PM on 4 July 2011
       Trouble Brewing in the North
       The Penny Ice Cap is one of the key ice caps on Baffin Island and its outlet glaciers are certainly in retreat in response to the mass loss, which generates thinning.
80461. peter prewett at 17:23 PM on 4 July 2011
       German Energy Priorities
       There is a posting on the BBC's web site on Nuclear: A tortuous timescale at:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13993997. There is a link on that page to the decommissioning of Oldbury Nuclear power station, the timeline is horrifying as the work will not be completed for another 100 years. That is if there is the manpower and oil to drive the equipment needed.
       Response:

       [DB] Fixed html in broken link.

80462. From Peru at 17:18 PM on 4 July 2011
       German Energy Priorities
       The future of energy is in renewables plus renewable nuclear. The current nuclear power plants use nuclear FISSION of either Uranium (specifically the U-235 isotope) or Thorium (actually Thorium-232 initially reacts with a neutron to form U-233, that unlike Th-232 is fissible): They are obtained as Uraninite-Thorianite ores (ThO2-UO2) or Cerium Monacite ores((Ce,La,Nd,Th)(PO4)) that must be mined and then processed. This means that there is high use of energy in the process of extraction and processing, and also huge amounts of waste are produced. The process for nuclear fuel is the following: Among the residues are the mill tailings, the depleted uranium (U-238) and most important, the highly radioactive (unlike the original U and Th) spent fuel.
80463. Michele at 17:02 PM on 4 July 2011
       The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
       @ Patrick … (what physics could cause two radiating levels independent of composition and at odds with temperature) … For the radiative sweeping of the wasted energy, we have two spatial locations defined by the thermal orography of the planetary atmosphere. If we analyze the temperature profile we can view very well its likeness with an unique closed drainage basin (Venus) or with two closed basins (Earth), divided between each other by a watershed (stratopause) where the showered water converges to a single/double bottom valley lake which behaves as a sink and disposes of the collected water by evaporation (phase transition) and where the level of the water will be determined by the balance of the incoming/outgoing mass. Well then. Where is it the physics inconsistency?
80464. adelady at 16:06 PM on 4 July 2011
       Lindzen Illusion #4: Climate Sensitivity
       "... still show climate sensitivity less than 1°C for doubled CO2." How much less, may I enquire? We've already had 0.8C for a 'mere' 40% increase in ppm CO2. By my reckoning, less than 1C must mean 0.97, 0.9, 0.85, 0.88, 0.85. Looks to be coming up pretty soon. Probably before 50% increase in concentration. Has anybody ever asked him directly how he could explain getting past 1C increased temp with 50% or less increase in CO2 concentration? (Even 60 or 70%.)
       Response:

       [DB] "Has anybody ever asked him directly how he could explain getting past 1C increased temp with 50% or less increase in CO2 concentration?"

       It's a kind of magic...

80465. adelady at 15:48 PM on 4 July 2011
       Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
       Camburn "...one area close that has no dams on it right now. Yellowstone River. In my travels, I know the Missouri could have more dams." Why do we need power generation to always trash the environment it's taking total advantage of? Surely run-of-river would be a more sensible, multi-use option than dams sacrificing farmland, forest or wilderness. (Should point out I'm presuming that these rivers actually flow at a reasonable pace rather than wander leisurely across a flat landscape the way our River Murray does.)
80466. quokka at 12:35 PM on 4 July 2011
       German Energy Priorities
       Err... that should be EROEI not EREOI.
80467. quokka at 12:34 PM on 4 July 2011
       German Energy Priorities
       # JMurphy, If you look at the Sovacool piece and in particular Table 1 - Disadvantages of Nuclear Power, it reads more like a hand waving anti-nuclear polemic than anything else. For example:

       The energy intensity of the nuclear fuel cycle and energy pay back and declining reserves of high- quality uranium result in a low energy pay back ratio, whereby plants must operate for decades before they produce any net energy.

       Which sounds truly horrible, but is it in fact true? This piece suggests that EREOI has been steadily improving for nuclear power, not declining as Sovacool is implying. This should come as no surprise with the move from gas diffusion to centrifuge enrichment or the advent of new designs such as the Westinghouse AP1000 that are smaller and require a lot less steel, concrete etc. You can also take a stab at estimating the EREOI for nuclear by looking at the low whole life cycle emissions assessments, which are simply incompatible with poor EREOI assuming (very reasonably) input energy comes from fossil fuels. Table 1 is riddled with highly questionable assertions which very much look like fuel for debating points rather than anything else.
80468. Stevo at 12:27 PM on 4 July 2011
       German Energy Priorities
       Agreed, Dana. The world's politicians and lobbyists are using Germany as an example of how switching to renewable energy works and how effective it is (or is not). The better an example they set, the sooner places like Australia, Canada and U.S.A. might take real action.
80469. actually thoughtful at 12:19 PM on 4 July 2011
       Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
       Camburn in your post #32 you claim sensitivity is 1.0C - this is not within the currently accepted range and demonstrates you don't understand the physics. Will you kindly get of this thread (about the advantages of switching to clean energy NOW via a carbon tax) and get your confusion dealt with on the correct thread? It makes no sense for people to clog up EVERY single thread with the same tired, oft debunked claims. Frankly, Lindzen's claim that "what we've seen so far" suggests sensitivity is no higher than 1°C for doubled CO2 could not be further from the truth. Why don't you go to that thread, post all your credible facts and published papers that justify 1C - and if your ideas survive there, THEN bring them into general discussion, otherwise, you are just polluting the threads with debunked claims. You state some malarky about the status quo - YOU are the defender of BAU - which tanks the economy, and life as we know it. You are projecting to claim that that is somehow my position. It is a false claim. You would do better to not assume you understand (or question) my motives. Camburn if you only HAD an alternative view! All you do, on thread after thread, is post the same debunked claims about sea level, about 1C sensitivity - things we KNOW are false. PLEASE start presenting an alternative to BAU. As for your Chamber of Commerce level rah rah for North Dakota - Here is an article pointing out that EACH fracking well uses over one million gallons of water North Dakota Fracking Here we see North Dakota is not even in the top 10 for renewable energy production. Camburn do you have anything credible to add to the discussion?
80470. Stevo at 12:19 PM on 4 July 2011
       Great Barrier Reef Part 1: Current Conditions and Human Impacts
       Pardon my ham fisted typing - that should have read AIMS.
80471. Stevo at 12:16 PM on 4 July 2011
       Great Barrier Reef Part 1: Current Conditions and Human Impacts
       Rob - Spot on there! The AMS hardly starts from a pristine base.
80472. Camburn at 11:42 AM on 4 July 2011
       Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
       Actually thoughtful: I will point you to the differences in the IPCC WG1 report. My position is well within that range. The 3.0 is an AVERAGE of the ranges, and is no more credible than any number used within the report. I am not here to try and convince you that that magic 3.0C is the right number, as it is within the range of presented numbers. Each and every number "could" be correct. I have my reasons to understand a lower number, you have yours to understand a higher number. If you want to present a number that is not presented there, then we have the need for a mutual discussion. But, as I have observed from your comments on this forum, I feel there is no need. I understand the physics veryyyyy well as I have been studying this issue for over 30 years. Even a lemming cleans something in that period of time. You seem to be here to present the status quo as you understand it. I am here to present solutions that I know are viable and very doable, and without any uncertainty. I live in a state that has abundant, to say the least, fossil fuel energy. Yet, we are a leader in renewables as well. Doesn't that strike you, from your view, as being in a leadership position? We are a conservative state that watches the dollars, live the land, breath the air. The nature of placement provides us with extreme weather on an annual basis. It also provides us with weather cycles. Example is Devils Lake. If you don't think we understand this issue, I can only say you are sadly mistaken. We are also a state that is very well educated and at the forfront of practical research. Energy & Environment Research Our coal gasification plant has, and is, investing more in carbon capture. IF the rest of the world took as much interest, care, and preservation of the environment as ND does, there would not even be a need for this discussion. I do think you attitude towards someone who presents an alternative view needs a bit of refinement.
80473. Rob Painting at 11:38 AM on 4 July 2011
       Great Barrier Reef Part 1: Current Conditions and Human Impacts
       Stevo/Chemware - I must admit I'm very biased against these sorts of survey results - they are contrary to what I've observed here in New Zealand too. Although we don't have coral reefs, I've witnessed a degradation in the local marine environment. Yet fisheries scientists assure the public that things are hunky dory and fish stocks are sustainably managed. It's preposterous - who do I believe them, or my lying eyes? It may be that fish stocks have been hammered down to a certain threshold and haven't plummeted any further -yet. That's a lot different to sustainably managed. I can dive in areas in there once existed vast schools of fish 20-25 years ago; now they're gone. Up and down the local coast we have proxy indicators for overfishing - kina (sea urchin) barrens. Crayfish and snapper feed on sea urchins, but in many areas vast armies are marching toward the shoreline stripping seaweed, which is a vital nursery for juvenile fish. It's a pretty good clue snapper and crayfish populations have been thrashed. I don't expect it helps at all to have such backward-thinking elements in ocean ecology research. Shouldn't we be making comparison to a healthy ocean state, rather than a grossly degraded one?
80474. scaddenp at 11:08 AM on 4 July 2011
       It's the sun
       Perhaps you better have a look at this paper - note the authors = for latest on solar forcing before leaping to conclusion that solar is underrated. It also appears that you do not understand IPCC figure that KR posted. Noone expects (it would be utterly improbable) that temperatures follow the multimodel mean. You might want to look at this posting at RC for further explanation. Finally, a close study of Hansen et al 2011 might be useful. Especially note the comments on model handling of aerosol forcings in light of Argo data.
80475. dana1981 at 10:10 AM on 4 July 2011
       German Energy Priorities
       btw I just updated the post. Germany has recently passed laws to increase its share of renewable energy production from 17% to 35% of total production by 2020. That's not quite enough to replace all nuclear power (about 23%), however. I suspect they'll be replacing come aging coal plants with natural gas over that period as well.
80476. Camburn at 10:06 AM on 4 July 2011
       Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
       scaddenp: I can think of one area close that has no dams on it right now. Yellowstone River. In my travels, I know the Missouri could have more dams. The wet cycle has been present for 20 years, and is projected to last another 60-100 years. Might as well take advantage of that. The dams would not have to be huge. A 100 MegWatt dam here, another there, and pretty soon we are talking major energy production. No one up here puts a fuel oil furnace in anymore. Most have gone to high eff LP or natural gas if available. Depending on location, (high ground water), a lot of geothermal have also been installed. North Dakota has been promoting this for a number of years. North Dakota Eduction
80477. Tom Curtis at 10:04 AM on 4 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Norman @225, please follow the logical steps: 1) Increased temperature implies increased specific humidity; 2) Increased specific humidity implies more water condenses as a result of cooling due to updrafts or frontal systems; 3) More water condensing implies more latent heat released; 4) More latent heat released implies a stronger updraft generated which: 4a) Results in greater cooling, with more water released; and 4b) Results in more air being drawn into the updraft, carrying more water with it. Please note that there is no contradiction between 4 and 4a. Although more heat is released, the updraft cools the air rapidly as it rises. The consequence is that where updrafts form, the moister the air, the stronger the thunderstorms that result, as in stronger winds as more air is drawn into the updraft, more intense rainfall as more water is precipitated out in a single column, more hail as precipitated water is carried to a greater height by the strong updraft before falling, and larger drops (and hence hail) as condensation is more rapid so fewer seeds are used, and more drops coalesce by collision. That is an observable pattern in weather systems quite independently of any considerations of global warming. It also makes the prediction of more, and more intense thunderstorms a straightforward consequence of global warming. There are complications relating to changes in weather patterns making some areas drier. There are also complications relating to the spawning of the most damaging convective storms, ie, tornadoes and hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones. The increased strength of convection is why the increased rainfall for the most intense 5% or 1% of rainfall events is expected to be much larger than 4% for a 4% increase in specific humidity. Turning to your height analogy, which I like, but which should be used cautiously; if the average height increases but variability remains unchanged, then the occurrence of more extremely tall people by the old definition of extremely tall will increase. Indeed, this effect will occur for any definition of "extremely tall" which is greater than the increase in average height. Consequently it does not matter whether you use a definition of 2 SD deviations above the original mean height, or 4 SD. Both are expected to increase. The only significant difference is that the 2 SD definition gives you a larger sample of "extreme tallness" to test for any increase. That is a crucial point. The effect of insisting on the more extreme definition is only to reduce your sample size, and hence make the data noisier. As it is, weather bureaus have definitions of "extreme weather" based on a simple metric - is the weather such that people should be warned about a risk of loss of life or property. If it is, its extreme. If it isn't, it isn't. That is a low bar in terms of return periods, but it is very practical for people receiving forecasts. Somebody receiving an "extreme weather warning" does not care how many standard deviations from the mean, or what the return interval is. They care about whether they should get their car under cover, or whether they are at risk from flash flooding. Well, global warming predicts that "at risk" episodes due to weather will increase. That is the hypothesis. For statistical convenience for some types of events (precipitation, thunderstorms) it is convenient to look at changes in return intervals to test that theory. For others (tornadoes and hurricanes), you just count the tornadoes and hurricanes and their relative intensity. Given that global warming predicts an increase of "at risk" episodes, defining "extreme" to mean "at risk of major catastrophe" episodes only reduces your statistical sample. It is a ploy to hide from the evidence. Nothing more. And on a side note, I (and I suspect Bérenyi Péter) are not experts in statistics (although Bérenyi is certainly much more competent than I am in that area). In contrast, Dikran is a genuine expert on statistics. To the extent that I am expert on anything (which I do not claim for anything) it would be logic and the use of words to convey meaning (philosophy of language).
80478. dana1981 at 09:59 AM on 4 July 2011
       German Energy Priorities
       It will be interesting to see how the Germans do. I really wish they would prioritize phasing-out coal first. If they can accomplish a phasing-out of both coal and nuclear at the same time, more power to them (no pun intended), but I'm skeptical (as is Chancellor Merkel).
80479. Chemware at 09:48 AM on 4 July 2011
       Great Barrier Reef Part 1: Current Conditions and Human Impacts
       Back in 1967 my dad and I went for a drive from Cairns up to Port Douglas (which was then a run-down fishing village) along the coast. I remember seeing corals that came right up to the shore. However, when I repeated that trip in the mid 2000s there were no corals along the coast.
80480. Stevo at 09:43 AM on 4 July 2011
       Great Barrier Reef Part 1: Current Conditions and Human Impacts
       Looking forward to the second part of this series. Agricultural runoff and overfishing have both done great damage - prawn trawling methods used on the central Queensland coast can be likened to clearfelling of the sea bed and harm biodiversity due to large amounts of bycatch. Add warming and acidification into the mix and I can't see a rosy future.
80481. kiwipoet at 09:41 AM on 4 July 2011
       Climate's changed before
       Thanks Stephen Baines for your encouraging reply. I replied on this threat because that’s where E Sat’s post appeared. I will take the advice of the moderator, make some changes to the post, and place it on the infographic thread. Thanks moderator! A final thought, however, on the ‘climate’s changed before’ argument. By using the term ‘natural climate forcings’ for what we can observe in the past as opposed to ‘man-made’ global warming now, we reinforce the division between man and nature that has helped precipitate the crisis. (Anthropocentric is better word technically but doesn’t avoid the problem.) It seems important to stress that man’s activities are as much a natural force as any other. We are the volcanoes of the age. It is because we are an intrinsic part of nature that we can have such a profound impact on the planet. By accepting language that separates man from nature we are, conceptually, partly buying into the denier illusory worldview.
80482. BBD at 09:38 AM on 4 July 2011
       German Energy Priorities
       JMurphy #5 A very broad statement. Which I very cautiously agree with. But we are a long way from talking about renewables displacing nuclear. And it's not something that will wait.
80483. BBD at 09:12 AM on 4 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       Moderator #122 Apologies for overstepping the mark. I took my measure of what is acceptable from this:

       I get enough irrationalism on this site from the deniers. I don't need another source as well.

80484. JMurphy at 09:11 AM on 4 July 2011
       German Energy Priorities
       Nothing IS off the table, which is why nuclear must take its place as we move away from oil and coal. But nuclear is NOT the future, either : renewables are and will be. The sooner we can move to 100% renewables, the better. How we do that is an ongoing struggle.
80485. BBD at 08:52 AM on 4 July 2011
       German Energy Priorities
       JMurphy We both want the same thing: rapid global decarbonisation. Let's debate the fundamentals reasonably. Nothing off the table.
80486. BBD at 08:26 AM on 4 July 2011
       German Energy Priorities
       JMurphy Quoting Savacool #2

       Any rational investor, regulator, and citizen would choose instead to invest in the deployment of technologies that require little to no energy inputs so as to harness free and clean fuels widely throughout the world. Policy makers should peek beyond the smoke-and-mirrors Kabuki dance used to obscure the obvious advantages of renewable technologies and the obvious costs of nuclear systems. Any effective response to electricity demand in a world facing climate change involves enormous expansion in our use of renewable technologies and a steady abandonment of nuclear power.

       This would be true if there was a convincing argument that renewables provide a more efficient path to rapid decarbonisation than does nuclear.
80487. JMurphy at 08:09 AM on 4 July 2011
       German Energy Priorities
       Another, more up-to-date, article from B.K. Savacool makes interesting reading too : This article judges modern nuclear power and renewable electricity technologies according to six criteria: cost; fuel availability; land degradation; water use; climate change; and safety/security. It concludes that when these criteria are taken into consideration, renewable electricity technologies present policy makers with a superior alternative for minimising the risk of fuel interruptions and shortages, helping improve the fragile transmission network and reducing environmental harm. As does this article, from him too - The ªSelf-Limitingº Future of Nuclear Power" : Any rational investor, regulator, and citizen would choose instead to invest in the deployment of technologies that require little to no energy inputs so as to harness free and clean fuels widely throughout the world. Policy makers should peek beyond the smoke-and-mirrors Kabuki dance used to obscure the obvious advantages of renewable technologies and the obvious costs of nuclear systems. Any effective response to electricity demand in a world facing climate change involves enormous expansion in our use of renewable technologies and a steady abandonment of nuclear power.
80488. Dikran Marsupial at 07:27 AM on 4 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Norman, take a GCM, which embodies our knowledge of climate physics. Apply CO2 radiative forcing, and observe an increase in rainfall frequency and intensity. Does it then become science? The obvious google search gave this example. I suspect there are more.
80489. scaddenp at 07:21 AM on 4 July 2011
       Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
       Well Camburn, the point of carbon tax is to change the economics of things like oil-central heating versus non-carbon alternatives. That is the crux of its effectiveness. Biofuel is the other alternative for long range transport. Beside small-scale stuff like sewage-farm "cogen", capturing CO2 from steel-making and pushing that into algal diesel is an interesting idea. 2nd gen crude oil from wood might be interesting too. While these arent economic against current oil price with carbon tax, I doubt carbon tax will be necessary within 10 years. Hydro is major component of our electricity industry (75% renewable and growing) but sadly I am not so sure about its viability in much of US. The crucial element of being able to create a high fall with high water flow seems missing for much of US topography but it would be great if I was wrong.
80490. BBD at 07:21 AM on 4 July 2011
       German Energy Priorities
       This is well put:

       Thus from a logical and scientific standpoint, Germany should first phase-out the use of more dangerous and environmentally damaging fossil fuels before pursuing a phase-out of nuclear power. Unfortunately the German public has its priorities backwards, phasing-out the energy source which poses less of a threat to both public health and the global climate.

       It's worth bearing in mind that Germany is already barely coping:

       The four German TSOs have indicated that the nuclear power moratorium is having a significant impact on the German electricity supply system. Sufficient security of energy supply may not be guaranteed in southern Germany on very cold winter days with concurrent low wind power generation. Section 11(1) of the German Energy Act (EnWG) obliges transmission system operators (TSOs) to operate a secure, reliable and capable energy transmissions system without discrimination. Furthermore, they are obliged to maintain the system, to optimize it in line with demand, to strengthen it and to expand it, to the extent this is commercially reasonable. However, as unbundled TSOs do not generate the electricity, and as recent shutdowns are limiting German generation capacity, the German TSOs are facing a challenge to comply with their obligations. As a result of the Fukushima moratorium and scheduled revisions, only 4 of the 17 German nuclear power plants are currently online. Favourable conditions (low network load, strong solar, but rather low wind power input) and system operator interventions have so far made it possible to maintain network stability, the TSOs pointed out. Assuming no unusual events, the situation shall presumably be manageable also for the summer period, the four TSOs (Amprion GmbH, 50Hertz Transmission GmbH, EnbW Transportnetze AG and Tennet TSO GmbH) said. However, stability will require using every possibility form of redispatch measures, interventions in the electricity markets, to postponing urgent grid maintenance and expansion projects as well as power plant revisions, they added. The TSOs also indicated that the free electricity market will be suspended for considerable periods of time. Still the risk of power failure has increased, the TSOs said. In case input capacity remained reduced by 8,000 MW after the end of the 3-month nuclear power extension moratorium (on 15 June 2011), TSOs foresee problems in particular for the coming winter months, as the possibilities for interventions were largely exhausted. In (industrial) southern Germany the electricity demand might not be satisfied on cold cloudy winter days with a low wind power input in northern Germany. 2,000 MW of secure generation capacity would be missing in southern Germany. Demand might also not be covered by electricity imports if other countries consume their electricity output themselves. As a consequence the risk for large power outages will increase, the TSOs warned.

80491. Dikran Marsupial at 07:18 AM on 4 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Norman@227 Yes, that is the point, it was you that was mistakenly talking about proof. In the case of linking mechansims, these are well known to hydrologists. Knowing the mechanisms however does not mean that you can accurately predict something. You can write down the physics of a double pendulum on a side of A4, but you can't predict it exact course. Does that mean we can only have opinions about double pendulums, but not science? Of course not. You appear to have a rather unusual definition of science.
80492. dream1958 at 07:18 AM on 4 July 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Will someone debunk this argument please? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/17/regarding-thermodynamics-and-heat-transfer-why-al-gore’s-comments-to-bill-o’reilly-at-fox-news-are-wrong/#more-34175
80493. Norman at 07:17 AM on 4 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Tom Curtis @ 219 Wow! You are definately a very intelligent person. I read through your post but will have to reread it a few times and think on it before composing a comment to what you have developed. I will try to make it satisfactory for your intellect. Thanks for taking the time to give such detailed and thoughtful responses. I know it took me awhile to find data to compose my post on Munich Re.
80494. Norman at 07:14 AM on 4 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Dirkan Marsupial @ 226 Sorry for the misunderstanding. You state "that a warmer atmosphere can contain more water vapour is not a hypothesis, or an educated guess, it is an observable fact." Yes it is, and that is not what I am calling a hypothesis. The hypothesis is that the current amount of moisture increase and temp increase will lead to more extreme weather events (at least to a noticeable degree). That is why I introduced the tall people analogy. I am not very good in statistics but I can understand the basics. I may be very wrong but the way to demonstrate your idea would be to make a precipitation graph with 4% more precipitation than another graph. Normal curve or flat tail whatever you want. You go out to the level of standard deviations you consider extreme and calculate how many more events occur with the 4% increase to see if it is noticeable enough at this time to attribute the recent floods to Global warming.
80495. jmsully at 07:04 AM on 4 July 2011
       Great Barrier Reef Part 1: Current Conditions and Human Impacts
       Rob, Thanks for pointing me to that post.
80496. Norman at 07:01 AM on 4 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Dirkan Marsupial @ 213 "It isn't proof, it is corroborative evidence. In science you can't prove by observation, only disprove, and constant calls for proof of AGW (which is known to be impossible, even if the theory is correct) is a form of denial." Maybe you can't prove by observation but you can certainly develop linking mechanisms to explain what causes observed behavior and gives you the ultimate scienctific goal, predictability. When Chemists came up with the atomic theory it became a very valuable tool to predict future interactions among elements and molecules. Just stating the earth is warmer and there is more water in the air does not justify the conclusion that more extreme weather related events become noticeably more probable. Extreme weather events are well outside the normal and are caused by certain events that take place in the atmosphere. Some are known and some are not. This is from an abstract I quoted in post 192. "This suggests that natural variability of the climate system could be the cause of the recent increase, although anthropogenic forcing due to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations cannot be discounted as another cause. It is likely that anthropogenic forcing will eventually cause global increases in extreme precipitation, primarily because of probable increases in atmospheric water vapor content and destabilization of the atmosphere. However, the location, timing, and magnitude of local and regional changes remain unknown because of uncertainties about future changes in the frequency/intensity of meteorological systems that cause extreme precipitation." That is what is needed to become a science. You need mechanisms that explain past weather extremes (floods, hurricanes, droughts, tornadoes, heat waves, cold waves, snow). For instance, what were mechanisms that caused floods in Australia's past? Certain atmopheric and ocean conditions are set up that will lead to flooding. Once you get a good mechanism developed it will lead to future predicability and you will easily be able to see if global warming is increasing the return time of a given weather extreme because of how it effects the overall mechanism you found that produces flooding in Australia. Without offering a mechanism of how floods occur then you definately don't have a science. You have an opinion. Science is always going to the next level.
80497. Dikran Marsupial at 06:44 AM on 4 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Norman, that a warmer atmosphere can contain more water vapour is not a hypothesis, or an educated guess, it is an observable fact. That there is more evaporation in warmer conditions is similarly observable fact. Having more water in the atmosphere gives greater scope for heavy rainfall. You accept that it will increase normal rainfall, can you suggest a physical reason why it would increase normal rainfall but not extreme rainfall? Later on you write "No doubt if you keep increasing the moisture content you will reach a point where exterme events will be more likely (extreme based upon previous levels)." which suggests that you also accept that warmer conditions will lead to an increase in extreme events! I don't understand why you think there is some sort of threshold, it seems to me much more plausible that the probability of an extreme event (or equivalently its return period) is a continuous function of humidity (and a bunch of other variables).
80498. BBD at 06:39 AM on 4 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       dana1981

       However, a number of German studies found that they could at least reduce their use of coal even while phasing-out nuclear power, and may even be able to replace both with renewables simultaneously (though Merkel thinks some new fossil fuel plants will be necessary in order to meet the nuclear phase-out).

       So we have studies in which Ch.Merkel has apparently limited confidence. Germany phases out nuclear, and in all probability is forced to install more conventional plant. Emissions will: - stay the same - rise - fall We shall see. What concerns me is things like this:

       The four German TSOs have indicated that the nuclear power moratorium is having a significant impact on the German electricity supply system. Sufficient security of energy supply may not be guaranteed in southern Germany on very cold winter days with concurrent low wind power generation. Section 11(1) of the German Energy Act (EnWG) obliges transmission system operators (TSOs) to operate a secure, reliable and capable energy transmissions system without discrimination. Furthermore, they are obliged to maintain the system, to optimize it in line with demand, to strengthen it and to expand it, to the extent this is commercially reasonable. However, as unbundled TSOs do not generate the electricity, and as recent shutdowns are limiting German generation capacity, the German TSOs are facing a challenge to comply with their obligations. As a result of the Fukushima moratorium and scheduled revisions, only 4 of the 17 German nuclear power plants are currently online. Favourable conditions (low network load, strong solar, but rather low wind power input) and system operator interventions have so far made it possible to maintain network stability, the TSOs pointed out. Assuming no unusual events, the situation shall presumably be manageable also for the summer period, the four TSOs (Amprion GmbH, 50Hertz Transmission GmbH, EnbW Transportnetze AG and Tennet TSO GmbH) said. However, stability will require using every possibility form of redispatch measures, interventions in the electricity markets, to postponing urgent grid maintenance and expansion projects as well as power plant revisions, they added. The TSOs also indicated that the free electricity market will be suspended for considerable periods of time. Still the risk of power failure has increased, the TSOs said. In case input capacity remained reduced by 8,000 MW after the end of the 3-month nuclear power extension moratorium (on 15 June 2011), TSOs foresee problems in particular for the coming winter months, as the possibilities for interventions were largely exhausted. In (industrial) southern Germany the electricity demand might not be satisfied on cold cloudy winter days with a low wind power input in northern Germany. 2,000 MW of secure generation capacity would be missing in southern Germany. Demand might also not be covered by electricity imports if other countries consume their electricity output themselves. As a consequence the risk for large power outages will increase, the TSOs warned.

       Must read your post though. And thank you for staying with this thread.
80499. Norman at 06:24 AM on 4 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Dikran Marsupial @ 213 "A warmer world means that the atmosphere can hold more water vapour, and thus there will be a strengthening of the hydrological cycle. A consequence of that is likely to be an increase in extreme weather in some places. Thus an increase in weather extremes is what you would expect to see if AGW is ocurring, but it isn't poof. If you think that is not good science, then it is your understanding that is at fault." What you describe it the first stage of science. It is a hypothesis (educated guess). Inceasing the water vapour in the atmosphere should increase the normal rainfall amounts and you should see an upward rise for these measurements. I do not know how this would lead to a necessary increase in extreme weather in some places. I guess it comes down to how "extreme weather" is defined. There is a nice ongoing debate between you, Tom Curtis and Eric (skeptic) about what is an extreme weather or climate event. As of my post reading so far, it does not seem the issue is yet resolved. Here is an analogy to consider. On the Wikipedia explanation of Standard Deviation Standared Deviation. They give an example of Standard Deviation: "A slightly more complicated real life example, the average height for adult men in the United States is about 70", with a standard deviation of around 3". This means that most men (about 68%, assuming a normal distribution) have a height within 3" of the mean (67"–73") — one standard deviation — and almost all men (about 95%) have a height within 6" of the mean (64"–76") — two standard deviations. If the standard deviation were zero, then all men would be exactly 70" tall. If the standard deviation were 20", then men would have much more variable heights, with a typical range of about 50"–90". Three standard deviations account for 99.7% of the sample population being studied, assuming the distribution is normal (bell-shaped)." The first point is what is a good definition of extreme height for an American male? Two standard deviations above the normal is 6 feet 3 inches (sorry for English terms or 1.95 meters). This is not an extreme height in my opinion. Tall yes, but not extreme. So extreme is in the "eye of the beholder". I will think 6' 8" (2.03 meters) would be an extreme height (like the Moscow heatwave "Take for example the Moscow heat wave of 2010, with an expected return interval, which lay just above 4 standard deviations above the mean for July temperatures" From Tom Curtis at 214). That is the groundwork of this analogy. Now we have a population that wants to get taller so as a group they all begin to take a growth hormone which will raise the average height by 4% (the amount of water vapor that has increased in our atmosphere due to warming). 4% of 70 inches is 2.8 inches. Our entire population is 4% taller, some are more or less affected but the average increase is 4%. Will this 2.8" in average height now mean we have a noticeable increase in 7 foot tall men from this growth hormone? It may well do this. I would need some proof of it. No doubt if you keep increasing the moisture content you will reach a point where exterme events will be more likely (extreme based upon previous levels). I am not convinced, at this time, 4% is enough to push us to the new normal. The statistical experts that post on this thread (Tom Curtis or Berenyi Peter) may be able to demonstrate a 4% increase would make it noticeably more likely to effect the far ends of the normal curve. I am not sure. There would be calculations for this.
80500. Dikran Marsupial at 05:54 AM on 4 July 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Eric (223) I have pointed out to you more than once that return periods are conditioned on factors such as location. If you want the return period for a particular event at a particular station, that is one calculation. The return period for an extreme event occurring at one or more stations within a region is a different calculation. However, rather than rolling your own statistics, it would be better to first acquaint yourself with the standard solution developed by leading statisticians, namely extreme value theory. Extreme events generally ocurr to a coincidence of factors combining constructively. These same factors when they partially cancel out (which is what happens most of the time) is what generates the central parts of the distribution. However the factors are there for both the extremes and the day to day. The difference is in how they combine. Now if you can give an example where the physical mechanism of an extreme is different from the day to day, then give an example. Just asserting that they are different does not establish that they are. As it happens, modelling rainfall extremes in this way does actually work quite well (see e.g. this paper).

Prev  1602  1603  1604  1605  1606  1607  1608  1609  1610  1611  1612  1613  1614  1615  1616  1617  Next