Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 Next
Comments 80451 to 80500:
-
Patrick 027 at 11:33 AM on 2 July 2011The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
... Actually, I need to review just how good a radiative equilibrium fits the global average upper atmosphere. The point that a 1-dimension column can reach radiative equilibrium or will only be perturbed from that by diffusion at very high levels (or if chemical latent heat release involves very slow reaction rates?) is still important - that spontaneous convection doesn't occur above the tropopause in particular, and the lapse rates are shaped by the distribution of solar heating combined with the need to balance that with net LW cooling. But earlier I wrote that very small fluxes can be important to the upper layers. And a heat pump can pump a greater heat flux than the work input. So what is the work input from the troposphere that goes into the upper atmosphere? PS regionally/seasonally, their is sinking at higher winter latitudes, and rising motion in the summer high latitude mesosphere - the later produces the cold spot at the mesopause there. Sinking in the winter polar stratosphere, particularly in the mid-stratosphere (but not near the stratopause) may still be thermally direct (?) if the rising motion is in the tropics, depending on height and hemisphere. (but it is still forced motion); however, sinking in midlatitudes, or high latitudes at the tropopause, is thermally indirect relative to rising motion near the equatorial tropopause (but now I'm not sure if there is sinking motion in the midlatitudes ? - sorry I'm a bit rusty there. See textbooks, etc.). The coldest part of the atmosphere is the *summer* polar mesopause; other cold spots are the equatorial tropopause, and the mid-stratospheric winter polar region, which is still warmer than it would be without the sinking motion forced to occur there (see Holton, "An Introduction to Dynamic Meteorology", ch 12). I suspect the changes in APE (in the form of temperature anomalies produced by forced motions) produced by the forced circulation are generally balanced by the radiative disequilibrium associated with them - the net LW cooling or heating will tend to destroy those APE changes. But so far as I know, a global annual average of radiative fluxes might still be nearly in balance above the tropopause, until you get to where diffusion becomes important. I'll have to go back to that fig. 10 in that article I cited above to see if it is for a global average. If so, it indicates radiative equilibrium at least in the lower mesosphere. -
Camburn at 11:19 AM on 2 July 2011Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
The economics of a $30.00 per ton co2 tax in the USA do not work. To tax co2, and then give the tax generated back to whom you collected it from is not cost efficient. But then, most government programs are not cost effiecient. When it comes to energy, economics will drive it as it has done in the past. I use invertors on motors to cut consumption by over 55% in some cases. Other folks in the same business do the same. We have all insulated our structures that require heat in the winter to reduce the heating bill. Up north where I live, a high heating bill will drive you out of business. A carbon tax will never pass in the USA because of the ineffienciency of returning taxed monies. The USA will continue to advance in carbon reduction because of economic pressures. -
Margaret Morgan at 11:05 AM on 2 July 2011OA not OK part 1
I really appreciate that you're providing a primer on the chemistry of ocean acidification. It is sorely misunderstood by most people, and I'm glad to have this resource to direct folks to. -
Camburn at 11:05 AM on 2 July 2011Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
adelady: You must be driving a tank. Over here average fuel economy is in excess of 24mpg. That still costs a lot of money per mile to drive. Over here is the USA. -
adelady at 10:29 AM on 2 July 2011Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
Rosco "...anyone who thinks they are going to persuade people to voluntarily give up their cars is nuts." Should we rephrase that as "give up using their internal combustion, 15mpg cars"? A well-designed well-run city or suburb can provide good public transport for much workaday travel. Electric cars, hybrid cars, efficient cars can fill any needs not met by public transport. Nobody has to give up anything (or anything much). We just need to be better at providing the most effective, efficient means of meeting travel needs. -
Camburn at 10:27 AM on 2 July 2011Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
Rosco: I will disagree with you about a car. I would give ours up in a heartbeat if there was any way it could be done. -
BBD at 10:05 AM on 2 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Tom Curtis #88 I'm sorry, I meant to respond earlier:So, given that, what are the geopolitical risks of the widespread adoption of nuclear power in the third world?
What are the geopolitical risks of population growth in the developing world if unchecked by a fall in child mortality? Which we get, basically, through electrification and urbanisation? I'm not trying to over-simplify the problems here. That's the point. Now I really, really am going to bed ;-) -
adelady at 10:04 AM on 2 July 2011Naomi Oreskes' study on consensus was flawed
Dellewho "Would a scientist who does not believe in the Climate Change/Global Warming orthodoxy use their terminology?" Absolutely. My casual reading suggests that contrarians are much more likely to use these specific words. Scientists generally tend to use wording specific to the topic they're working on. This may or may not include such terms. It's the contrarians who consistently use these general terms within the paper itself even when the very specific physical, chemical or biological process in question doesn't necessarily require it. (Of course this says nothing about how journals categorise papers - and, therefore, how writers submitting papers are expected to include appropriate search and reference terms.) -
Rosco at 10:04 AM on 2 July 2011Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
I firmly believe in pollution reduction - prosecuting polluters was my job. I think every vehicle manufactured should run on LPG gas not petrol - the reductions in emissions is immediate. Similarly gas fired electricity emits way less CO2. These short term solutions are readily available today, and they will help. China and India are not going to stop burning coal until they can see an alternative. Even the IPCC do not have much faith in solar or wind with their energy report advocating burning biomass as the most likely means of meeting the world's energy demand. Using gas in the short term can help "keep the fires burning" until better technology is developed. My brother said to me in the 70s that anyone who thinks they are going to presuade people to voluntarily give up their cars is nuts. Forty years on and I challenge anyone to dispute his belief so lets reduce emissions immediately while planning for the future - there is enough gas reserves to keep going for ages. Of course this will be seen as heretical and rejected and the status quo remain unchanged - I repeat - I see little evidence of people changing their behaviour no matter what they say and I see little future for dictatorships trying to force behaviour on educated populaces. -
BBD at 09:56 AM on 2 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
michael sweetHow could a reactor be kept from meltdown in a situation like currently exists in Libia? In Japan, even one of the reactors that was not critical when the tsuanmi hit melted down, not to mention the fuel storage pools.
Some of what you say confuses me, but Fukushima 1 was 40 years old and badly designed. And it still worked fine until hit by a massive earthquake and inundated by the consequent tsunami. Things have moved on since the 1970s. Now I really am going to bed. -
Dave123 at 09:52 AM on 2 July 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
Thanks Tom -
Dellewho at 09:49 AM on 2 July 2011Naomi Oreskes' study on consensus was flawed
I think thingadonta has it right. I worked at ISI and delivered the first electronic version of the database that Oreskes used. Understanding how the indexers created the data that was searched I see the flaw in her thesis. She searched with the term "Climate Change" as though that would provide an exhaustive search of the scientific literature. I believe that the indexers would select that term for a keyword or mention it in an abstract only on articles that used the term. To me this provides an enormous bias. Would a scientist who does not believe in the Climate Change/Global Warming orthodoxy use their terminology? I believe that what she retrieved was a group who as thingadonta suggests use the term to ensure publication and funding. Their publication may not have anything to do with a proof or even discussion of the role of anthropogenic CO2 in any change in average temperature much less climate change. So what is it that Oreskes proved? That climate is changing? That average world temperature increased? That some biological event can be explained to some degree by an 1.4 degree rise in average world temperature? The important questions is the contribution of anthropogenic CO2 to any warming. What portion of her retrieved set of publications demonstrated proof of a dominant or even significant contribution? Climate change is certainly a tautology. Climate has always and will always change.Response:[DB] "Climate has always and will always change."
I can understand why someone would think that. Many others have expressed similar sentiments before. Of those, those who have taken the time to actually study the science of climate change now would disagree with you.
Please see Climate's changed before and learn why.
-
BBD at 09:48 AM on 2 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Tom Curtis Are you perhaps a little anti-nuclear? Dr Hansen asks President Obama:However, it would be exceedingly dangerous to make the presumption today that we will soon have all-renewable electric power. Also it would be inappropriate to impose a similar presumption on China and India.
This is good advice. Hansen has previously posed the question:However, the greatest threat to the planet may be the potential gap between that presumption (100% “soft” energy) and reality, with the gap filled by continued use of coal-fired power.
Why do you think he is so concerned about energy policy predicated on the dominance of renewables? Late here, so back tomorrow. -
michael sweet at 09:44 AM on 2 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
BBD @85, The recent experience in Japan shows that if a nuclear plant is isolated from the grid for as little as 5-7 days it can melt down. How difficult would it be for a determined group of terrorists to cut off a nuclear plant from the grid for a week, and keep out supplemental fuel so the cooling pumps shut down? If a HVDC transmission line gets taken out the only problem is lack of electricity at the destination. That can be fixed much more easily that a melt down in a reactor. How could a reactor be kept from meltdown in a situation like currently exists in Libia? In Japan, even one of the reactors that was not critical when the tsuanmi hit melted down, not to mention the fuel storage pools. I used to be agnostic about nuclear, but the demonstration of how easy it is for a nuclear plant to lose cooling was shocking for me. -
BBD at 09:38 AM on 2 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Natural gas is of course a fossil fuel. What interests me is the full carbon accounting for biomass, which is low energy density/high volume. - Very large volumes of biomass have to be collected (energy intensive) - Huge volumes of biomass must be transported to GT plant sites (energy intensive) EROEI? Because biofuels -
Tom Curtis at 09:37 AM on 2 July 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
Dave123, energy stored by photosynthesis is stored as chemical energy, then released as low grade heat into the environment when that stored energy is used as food. The storage is only for a short time (<1 year) on average. Because the amount released is approximately equal to the amount stored, it makes no difference to the overall budget. A very small amount of the stored energy is not released because it is gets incorporated into sediments in low oxygen environments. The lack of oxygen prevents decay, and hence the release of the energy. Overtime, and given the right conditions, that energy eventually gets turned into fossil fuels. However, given that humans are using fossil fuels at very much above the replacement rate, it follows that energy released from ancient photosynthetic storage is currently much greater than energy lost through fossilization of current photosynthetic storage. As the energy released by burning fossil fuels is inconsequential in terms of the total global energy budget, the much smaller amount lost by fossilization is certainly also inconsequential. -
WheelsOC at 09:37 AM on 2 July 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
It seems Dr. Spencer has found a hobby in making utterly terrible "models" of the climate system lately. And the funny part is that these blunders are exactly consistent with his past criticism of climate modelling:The modelers will claim that their models can explain the major changes in global average temperatures over the 20th Century. While there is some truth to that, it is (1) not likely that theirs is a unique explanation, and (2) this is not an actual prediction since the answer (the actual temperature measurements) were known beforehand. If instead the modelers were NOT allowed to see the temperature changes over the 20th Century, and then were asked to produce a ‘hindcast’ of global temperatures, then this would have been a valid prediction. But instead, years of considerable trial-and-error work has gone into getting the climate models to reproduce the 20th Century temperature history, which was already known to the modelers. Some of us would call this just as much an exercise in statistical ‘curve-fitting’ as it is ‘climate model improvement’.
So really he's only making models exactly the way he thinks they're made, by curve-fitting instead of physics, years after criticizing everyone else for allegedly doing it that way. He's both: - Consistent, because he's following the imaginary modelling procedure he outlined a couple of years ago on his blog. - Inconsistent, for whining about how wrong the models are and then turning to these same methods to seemingly prove his side of the climate manufactroversy. Tamino calls curve-fitting without physics "mathturbation." It's strange how I rarely see the "skeptics" criticizing this kind of shallow effort. Where's the Climate Auditor? -
Tom Curtis at 09:28 AM on 2 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
BBD @85, it is also "impossible to secure" an international network of transported nuclear fuel and waste. So, given that, what are the geopolitical risks of the widespread adoption of nuclear power in the third world? -
Dave123 at 09:24 AM on 2 July 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
Reading Trenberth and Fasulo (2011) I find myself playing catch up. My first question is whether photosynthesis is accounted for in the global energy balance. Trenberth's graph doesn't break this out, and maybe it's buried in the earlier literature. But I wouldn't on reading the chart and the accompanying text assume that the latent heat stored by photosynthesis is included. Of course, the amount could be trivial compared to the overall budget. In doing some research I've seen that claimed. According to wikipeida cyanobacteria in the ocean account for 20-30% of the photosynthetic energy at 450 TW. Using the conservative 30% (to minimize total photosynthetic energy) and 5.1E14 square meters for the earth's surface area I get nearly 3 w/m2. That seems a reasonaby large chunk given a defect error of 0.9 w/m2, and a surface absorption of 116 w/m2 according to Trenberth. My second concern to this is that I think the defect of 0.9 w/m2 has reasonably large error bars (1sd=0.5 w/m2) compared with the total budget. A 10% variation on the photosynthesis budget is a good fraction of 1 sd on the energy defect. Do cyanobacteria photosynthesie more in warmer oceans? Is there a CO2 driven increase that needs to be factored in (probably not but worth checking?) Comments? -
Tom Curtis at 09:19 AM on 2 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
BBD @77, it was late and I was tired, so I did not go through all the links, nor comment on any but the one post. That post contained some good advise by Hansen, and a stack of numbers use to build up emotional weight, but no analysis. Without analysis of the equivalent production commitments of continuing the current energy mix, or switching to a primary nuclear economy, the numbers cannot be analysis. They can only be an appeal to emotion as a substitute for analysis. So, how do you show the numbers to be just an appeal to emotion? By benchmarking the numbers against our current commitment in construction if we make no switch in the energy mix. Turns out, by a rough measure, the construction commitments are the same. DBDunkerson took a different rout to make the same point. Your numbers were stacked high to deflect thought rather than to aid it. The correct response it to put the discussion into terms of the proportion of world economic resources needed to make the switch, vs those for a switch to nuclear, vs continuing the current energy mix. With cited sources from the peer reviewed literature or other credible bodies. Instead you choose to dismiss our responses because we did not respond to other points you made. Well, all in good time, but your apparent inability to defend your stack of high numbers suggests that actual analysis would not bear out their visceral impression. -
dana1981 at 09:05 AM on 2 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
I also haven't yet seen any discussion of gas turbines, which can provide peak demand power and burn either biofuel or natural gas at relatively low cost. I think that's a key component which seems to be missing, at least from bravenewclimate. -
BBD at 08:37 AM on 2 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
jMurphyAnd how much damage would those "idiots" cause in a nuclear power station ?
I take your point, but what about mine: - It is impossible to secure an intercontinental network of HVDC interconnectors - It is impossible to secure a nuclear power station, but it can be made significantly more secure than interconnectors If we are concerned about security of supply, this has to be weighed. We hear nothing about it, which is surprising. -
BBD at 08:17 AM on 2 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
JMurphy I suspect the UK government is cosying up to the nuclear industry because there is disquiet about the emerging problems with renewables (which really means wind, in the UK). -
Stevo at 08:11 AM on 2 July 2011Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy
Good article, Dana. I've long argued that by delaying action on addressing climate change our economy could miss the bus on new green technologies. Better to be at the forefront of the energy revolution than playing catchup. -
JMurphy at 08:08 AM on 2 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
BBD wrote : "A few (possibly suicidal) idiots with some simple explosive could cut the HVDC links at any point." And how much damage would those "idiots" cause in a nuclear power station ? More than an invasion of jellyfish ? More generally, why is the UK government cosying up to the nuclear power industry ? Can't nuclear stand on its own, without subsidy and government support all the time ? -
Trueofvoice at 07:59 AM on 2 July 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
Thanks, luminous. -
BBD at 07:58 AM on 2 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Here's a general idea of how the Saharan solar concept looks on a map. -
scaddenp at 07:55 AM on 2 July 2011Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
"Model parameters can be adjusted to match any set of temperature observations" I am tired of this bit of nonsense being repeated. Show me an example of any model parameter in a GCM that is tuned to match a global temperature record. Put up or shut up. Parameterization is done inside the narrow focus of the particular response function. (eg wind speed to temperature gradient). If it were possible to "tune" parameters arbitrarily in a physics model then tell me why some skeptic hasn't produced a GCM that make CO2 irrelevant? RC regularly updated model-data comparison. Furthermore, the model archives would allow you compare prediction to actual yourself. As for updates - Hansen et al 2011 discussed in "Oceans are cooling" is certainly doing that. -
BBD at 07:51 AM on 2 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
dana1981 Sorry. Abrupt above. #79 You're right, I've conflated security and politics with technical possibility. Let me try again. Security and regional politics are real constraints on what is actually likely to happen. This is absolutely central to coherent policy-making. Including energy policy. Without real guarantees of security for hundreds of huge arrays in NA, presumably in remote desert locations, the Saharan solar pitch falls down. Worse by far, without real guarantees of security for every mile of cable from within NA, across Europe and to the UK, the Saharan solar pitch falls down. A few (possibly suicidal) idiots with some simple explosive could cut the HVDC links at any point. There's no engineering solution. Multiple interconnectors are disqualified both by cost and transmission loss overheads. We have to think about this. The situation in the US is different in some ways, but global strategies for decarbonisation of supply have to acknowledge this and many other problems. #80 Brook's prose style is a bit beside his point, I think ;-) As you say, there is a large amount of linked material. And you need time to read it properly. I don't expect you to mount a spirited critique just yet. Also, that's not the point. I simply wanted to provide a counterbalance to the apparently unquestioned view that renewables are going to solve the energy and climate problem. -
Stevo at 07:46 AM on 2 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Skywatcher @190, Yes, that was exactly how I perceived their reactions. It was easy to demonstrate the phonomenum but as soon as AGW was mentioned as being the cause I lost half of them. My guess is that if I'd mentioned AGW before demonstrating the data I'd have lost far more than half, including a few who'd have walked off just so that they would not appear to be splitting from the herd. -
Dikran Marsupial at 07:09 AM on 2 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Eric@196 If the variability is high, that just means that an extreme with a hundred year return time is of a larger magnitude than it will be in an area with less rainfall variability. But it is still a once in a hundred year event. If a slight variation in conditions were enough to cause an extreme, it would happen often enough that the return tiem would be less than 100 years. Extreme value theory has that sort of issue well covered. Likewise variability within an area (that would not apply to monsoon rain, but it would apply lo localised storms or convective precipitation. Again a combination of spatial statistics and EVT has this covered. -
dana1981 at 06:46 AM on 2 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
I have to say I haven't been impressed from what I read at brave new climate so far. Firstly, he needs to get to the damn point. If I was writing that 2 part 'cannot fix the energy crisis' post, I would have done it in about one-third the number of words in his posts. Just sayin'. As to the content, I think he's way off on the economics. He seems to grossly underestimate the cost of new nuclear power, and I also think he's way off on the future costs of solar thermal. He assumes solar thermal and nuclear power costs will decline at the same rate, but that makes no sense. Solar thermal is a relatively new technology, nuclear is not. I also think he underestimates the opportunities to increase energy efficiency. -
Camburn at 06:31 AM on 2 July 2011Ocean acidification: Coming soon
Thank you Doug. I await further explanation that is robust. -
Doug Mackie at 06:20 AM on 2 July 2011Ocean acidification: Coming soon
peter@28 Oh yes there are other impacts and we will get to them. -
Doug Mackie at 06:16 AM on 2 July 2011OA not OK part 1
Alan@15 The main source of carbon for calcification in the ocean is the bicarbonate that is already there. Figure 7.3 from the IPCC 4th Assessment Report (2007) reminds us that the oceans contain more than 50x as much carbon as the atmosphere. Later posts will relate equation 1 with the shorthand way to describe the formation of calcium carbonate ( Ca2+ + CO3 --> CaCO3). This simplified equation ignores the fact that actual calcification involves the consumption of bicarbonate and release of CO2. In order to for everyone to follow the chemical and physical processes behind ocean acidification (the goal of this series), we need to start with these individual reactions. By the end of the series, you'll find that the equations will tie in nicely with your posts. mb@21: Yes, [H+] has increased. BUT it has increased at less than purely stoichiometric calculations would suggest. We explain what that means and why it is so in future posts. Others: This is post 1 of 18. We will address your concerns. We all deride blog science. Blog science is what happens when explanations are rushed. Real science takes time to explain. As we said in the introduction, the chemistry is deceptively complex but have patience and we will get there. -
dana1981 at 06:14 AM on 2 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
BBD - that's because I don't think there are core engineering problems preventing renewables from providing baseload power. That's what this post was all about. Maybe your links provide a convincing case otherwise. We'll see. My point about the Sahara was with regards to the required size of land use. The long distance transmission infrastructure will be a challenge (assuming the proposed project gets off the ground). Security and politics are not technical issues, they're practicality issues. The difference between solar and fossil fuels is that once the plant is built, it simply requires upkeep, as opposed to constant drilling for new fuel. -
John Hartz at 06:08 AM on 2 July 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
NOAA now uses the phrase, "The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature..." in its monthly and annual reports on the status of the climate. Am I correct in assuming that NOAA means the temperature of the lower troposphere over the oceans when it says, "ocean average surface temeprature"? -
SNRatio at 06:07 AM on 2 July 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
If the present rather stable trend of ca 0.15 gC warming per decade continues for a few more decades, we will have a simple refutation of the lowest sensitivity estimates. And, apparently, we are far from radiation balance now. One major problem in handling sensitivity is that it behaves like a "true" random variable, seemingly with expectation and variance connected, like with the Poisson distribution. That means, among other things, that a higher "true" (expectation value) sensitivity could very possibly be associated with _more_ low-values samples than a lower sensitivity with smaller variance. And if you find out how to look for such samples, you are set up with a whole denialist cottage industry in sensitivity "estimation" - of which we may have seen the first examples. It may be viewed as kind of science-based cherry-picking. On the other hand, we may also get way too high estimates for the same reasons - which I think would be even worse. I suspect that the ocean effects are very difficult to model adequately, and with no check of them, we can't really tell how representative our sensitivity samples are. But it is always very helpful when different independent lines of evidence seem to give compatible results, as we see in this case. But it's very important not to underestimate the uncertainty involved. -
John Hartz at 05:58 AM on 2 July 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
How well do the current array of climate models address the distribution of heat within the oceans? -
John Hartz at 05:53 AM on 2 July 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
How about adding a tab to the bottom of this article that lists and links to other SkS articles directly related to this topic? -
Tor B at 05:50 AM on 2 July 2011OA not OK part 1
We know CO2-enriched sea water causes ‘seashells’ (CaCO3) to erode. link . Therefore CaCO3 + CO2 in sea water --> something that isn’t CaCO3 [solid] This suggests the possibility (reversing the arrow) that growing ‘seashells’ (CaCO3) causes the release of CO2. This may not be vigorous chemistry, but the field work supports the blog's conclusion. [Geologists approach things with a geopick or a sledgehammer.] -
Dave123 at 05:41 AM on 2 July 2011OA not OK part 1
mb... you need to keep in mind that solubility of common calcium species in water is far, far less than say, sodium Here's a quick table of solubility product constant Ksp of common species: Calcium carbonate CaCO3 3.8 x 10-9 Calcium flouride CaF2 3.4 x 10-11 Calcium hydroxide Ca(OH)2 7.9 x 10-6 Calcium oxalate CaC2O4 1.5 x 10-8 Calcium phosphate Ca3(PO4)2 1.0 x 10-26 Calcium sulfate CaSO4 2.4 x 10-5 Precipitating out CaCarbonate doesn't make it immediately available to to the species that need it. Take a look at this wikipedia article on calcium carbonate= WikiPedia Article it's relatively good except that it leaves out effect of water temperatuer on the solubility product constant- calcium carbonate is unusual in that Ksp decreases with increasing temperature. -
Albatross at 03:50 AM on 2 July 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Norman @189, I'm really busy this weekend, but for now I'll address this: "I am not trying to convince you of this, I am posting the information and asking for you to explain to me an upward trend in the data provided. If it is there, I am fine with it." I beg to differ, read JMurphy's post @191. You seem to be doing your best to dismiss the trends in extremes, or to "hide" the incline-- you'll probably deny that of course, but that is how your posts come across. Your Perth heat wave example is just the latest example of cherry picking data from one location that goes against the trend-- no problem seems to be your deduction. You will probably even be able to keep this up if you are still around in 2050, yet the climate system then will be very different from what it was 100 years before, or even from what it is now. You claim to have stumbled on the same papers that happen to appear in the NIPCC report and you claim that you only now became aware of it. Did you know that I have been into space? Claims and assertions are easy to make on the web...and after dealing with self-professed 'skeptics' for several years now please pardon my cynicism and skepticism of their claims and motives. Climate scientists and climatologists and paleo climate scientists are all too aware of variability in the historical data, and yet, surprise, surprise most of them understand that AGW is real, and that current events are unusual and they expect the climate system to respond in ways that may not be pleasant for many. In fact, research suggests that we are already very likely seeing such a transition. Any reasonable person would by now, after reading this thread understand that certain (not all) extreme/intense weather phenomena are on the increase. They would also understand that yes lo and behold there have always been extreme events, but that is not the point. And repeatedly seeking out those data which support your beliefs or go against the trend, even when said papers do not support your position, or even if they are not relevant, or if the papers' conclusions have been misinterpreted to support said position, is not 'skepticism', it is denial not skepticism.Response:[DB] An Albatross in space? Now I've witnessed everything.
It is a good thing to be wary of unsupported claims. For example, I will list 4 unsupported claims about me, 1 of which is untrue:
- My great-grandfather owned a gold mine
- I used to work for the CIA
- I have appeared on national television (NBC's the Today Show)
- I am a direct lineal descendant of Bailey's Irish Cream founder R.A. Bailey
-
BBD at 03:36 AM on 2 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
dana1981 Not an auspicious start. You do not so much as acknowledge the core engineering problems with renewables which effectively prevent them from displacing coal as a baseload generation technology. I'm not going further until you go back. One other thing. We are both concerned about what is technically feasible. What are the problems, in your view, with HVDC interconnectors stretching from N Africa to the UK? Further, what are the security of supply issues associated with solar installations totalling the size of Germany sited in N Africa? You are no doubt aware of what is currently happening in N Africa, and it does not encourage confidence in the potential for long-term stability in the region. Furthermore, Europe would, effectively, be at the mercy of whoever had boots on the ground in NA. If this reminds you of the current situation with oil and natural gas, it is meant to. -
BBD at 03:31 AM on 2 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Tom Curtis CBDunkerson I think you may need to look at the links to Brook's analysis of the limits of renewable energy before diving straight in with an argument based on plant life-cycle or land-use. -
mb at 03:28 AM on 2 July 2011OA not OK part 1
Also, I should add that much of my previous post assumes an unlimited supply of calcium ions. So.... crush up a bunch of Tums and put it in the ocean to eat up CO2! :P -
mb at 03:23 AM on 2 July 2011OA not OK part 1
@Doug_Mackie @9 - I'm not questioning the acidification of the ocean, I'm questioning the CO2 source/sink part. As you nicely show in the final line of the orange-boxed eqns., one CO2 goes in and you get sea shells plus acid (H+)... there's no returning of CO2 to the atmosphere on the RHS of the orange box rxn set. Hence I still think the original [Eq. 1] is misleading, at best, and incorrect, at worst. To answer your question ("what do you think happens to the 2 H+?"): Hydronium in the ocean can probably react with lots of stuff. But my understanding is that there's been an observed increase in [H+] (square brackets mean "concentration" for the non-chemists out there) in the ocean. Hence, I would conclude that an increase in [CO2]{g} (ie, atmospheric carbon dioxide) is in fact driving the formation of acid (actually, H3O+). Even in the theoretically closed system of the orange box with water, CO2, & calcium ions, we must conclude that an increase in [CO2]{g} on the LHS will drive the equilibrium to the RHS. Thus, CO2{g} is being taken from the atmosphere, not to be returned (or only returned in small quantities... chemists would draw that conclusion as a big arrow pointing to the right and a small arrow pointing left). More generally, (and as has been pointed out) this discussion is somewhat without context if we don't discuss rate constants and concentrations. That said, there's not reason to believe OA is, prima facia, a carbon source. Instead, OA is a result of increased [CO2], driving the last line of the orange box to the RHS (to the acid-producing side) a-la LeChat's (ie, big arrow pointing to the RHS). (Incidentally, the orange-boxed equn. in comment 9 is missing a 2 on the first line in front of CO2). -
Camburn at 03:11 AM on 2 July 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Probably the largest change in the Arctic in the past 15 years has been the amount of black carbon intertwined in the ice as a result of China's dramatic increase in coal powered power plants with what looks like no pollution controls in place. See the Shinell link I have posted. The increase in albedo means ice melting in place, or becoming so weak that it fragments very easily. As the Catlin expidition noted, the dynamics of melting ice in place changes the dynamics of water temperature as well. -
luminous beauty at 03:09 AM on 2 July 2011Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again
Trueofvoice, Understanding 'transient thermal response', in this context, is probably easiest when considering the simple model of putting a tea kettle on a stove at low heat (insufficient to reach boiling point). The transient thermal response is the differential change in temperature at any particular point in time (∆T/∆t), between putting the kettle on the stove and the final temperature when reaching an equilibrium state. As for your first question, I suspect Spencer is only considering conduction (linear diffusion between layers) in his model, i.e., treating the oceans as if they were as simple a system as the tea kettle. -
dana1981 at 02:51 AM on 2 July 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Hi BBD. Thanks for the links, it will take me a while took look through all of those. I tend to focus on what's technically feasible, and I think 100% renewable energy by 2050 is technically feasible. What's practically feasible is another question, the main difference being the amount of effort we're willing to put into the transition, with the range anywhere from zero to WWII-style effort. Practically speaking it's going to be somewhere in the middle. However, I don't see nuclear as the solution either. In the USA, it takes 1-2 decades from conception until a single new nuclear plant is fully constructed, and new nuclear energy is currently very expensive, with costs rising as renewable costs drop. The way I see it, as current power plants age, they need to be replaced with something, and that something should be some form of renewable energy. Current coal plants can also be retrofitted to burn bio waste, as some utilities are already doing. As for land space, there's more than enough desert in Arizona to meet the USA's energy needs, and in the Sahara to meet Europe's. Of course you have to deal with long distance transmission, but I don't think land area is an issue. Plus there's offshore wind power as well. That's a major option for the UK in particular. Will be interesting to see how much offshore wind development your country goes for.
Prev 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 Next
