Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 Next
Comments 81401 to 81450:
-
Tom Curtis at 19:25 PM on 25 June 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Marcus @33, your reference to flight amused me with the thought of the Lazyteenager/katiniko argument against powered flight. You can imagine some suitable barroom expert holding forth in 1903: "The Wright brothers did not prove powered flight is possible - after all they did not fly fifty passengers across the Atlantic. Until such a flight takes place all you have is theoretical considerations. Everyone is free to believe in theoretical considerations: my position is only to believe in real facts." -
JMurphy at 19:20 PM on 25 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
okatiniko wrote : "The issue is then that : a hockey stick shape is automatically generated even by random data. This has been proved a number of times." Yes, as les asks also, could you provide links to the evidence backing that claim of yours, along with a brief summary ? -
Tom Curtis at 19:19 PM on 25 June 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
okatiniko @32, you claim to only believe "real facts", but that is demonstrably wrong. Specifically, the most obvious error in Lazyteenager's comment was that myth that "renewable energy sources can't meet baseload (24-hour per day) demand" has no more been put to the test than has the counter claim. In choosing to believe that myth, therefore, you and Lazyteenager are choosing to believe convenient untruths. That you then go on to ignore twentyfour hour power generation from solar sources among other things which show the myth to be groundless is not a triumph of empiricism over a priorism, but a refusal to allow your a priori beliefs to be weakened by empirical fact. -
Paul D at 19:13 PM on 25 June 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Grayman - "@14 you say that you gradually work up to these solutions, yes, so why have these not been worked on for all these yrs" They have! It's taken a century to get the existing energy systems to where they are now. Over that time they have evolved into something sophisticated, monitored and controlled by computer systems. The same will happen with the next generation of systems. Parts of the existing systems will be changed. An example is the RLTec fridge technology that I mentioned previously, it is designed for a smart grid system (in which the electricity supply frequency is more likely vary), but will also work in the current system (in which the frequency is more stable). So we will see changes like this gradually build up. -
les at 19:01 PM on 25 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
107 - could you link to a published analysis supporting your last paragraph; and, preferably one not including anything about persistent red noise. -
okatiniko at 18:14 PM on 25 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
87 Paul : there has been also an answer to the comment by von Storch et al. The acknowledged the fact that their reconstruction procedure is not quite the same as Mann et al., but it doesn't change that the loss of variance is a well know phenomenon that occurs routinely in any proxy reconstruction, and the reconstruction of SLR has no reason to be immune against this artifact. The origin of the issue is rather simple to understand. Proxies are, by definition, NOT temperatures, but rather another physical quantity X which can be a thickness of tree rings, an X-ray density of sediments, a density of foraminifers, or anything else. So it has , at some moment, be converted into a temperature by a calibration factor dT/dX - just for dimensional reason. This calibration factor must be computed by some reference, calibration period, where two indications overlap. But the important thing is that this calibration includes automatically other randoms factors polluting the proxies. Actually the calibration can be done on ANY signal , including totally random ones that have no link with temperatures ! of course it is unlikely that climate scientists use physically uncorrelated signals, but the amount of "pollution" by extra variance is very difficult to ascertain. So the agreement with instrumental data is granted by the calibration procedure , but not that with past data - random proxies would be very well correlated with temperatures in the calibration period, but vary randomly in the past and give an average flat curve, so they would generate automatically a "hockey stick" shape. The issue is then that : a hockey stick shape is automatically generated even by random data. This has been proved a number of times. This doesn't prove that proxy reconstruction are wrong of course ; it only proves they are dubious. -
Marcus at 18:11 PM on 25 June 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
"Not only heating and cooling, but also for almost all means of transport, a bunch of industrial processes (metallurgy, fabrication of glass, cement, paper, carbo-chemistry including plastics, etc...), and, in all countries deprived of hydroelectricity, stable power generation." What a load of nonsense. You don't need coal or hydro-electric power for stable power generation-or haven't you been listening? As for industrial processes, most of them are do-able with *any* kind of energy & even processes like Steel manufacture are increasingly making use of things like Arc Furnaces rather than Coal alone. Transportation can run just as easily on electricity & bio-fuels as it can on petro-chemicals. Last of all, just because something hasn't been done yet, doesn't mean its not possible. Or do you believe we should never have tried to fly? -
okatiniko at 17:53 PM on 25 June 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
#25 Lazyteenager, Dana is right. You should have said : "But you have not disproved the myth. You have presented the results of peer-reviewed reports based on a whole bunch of hypothetical solutions." AT#80 "Okatiniko -thank you. So your point is that you need energy for space conditioning? " Not only heating and cooling, but also for almost all means of transport, a bunch of industrial processes (metallurgy, fabrication of glass, cement, paper, carbo-chemistry including plastics, etc...), and, in all countries deprived of hydroelectricity, stable power generation. The only evidence that computer simulations are right is to exhibit a modern country that has succeeded in doing this without fossil fuels. There is not a single one in the world, even among those who produce 100 % renewable power. Everyone is free to believe in computer simulations : my position is only to believe in real facts. -
quokka at 16:41 PM on 25 June 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
@Mark Diesendorf & dana1981For example, nighttime energy demand is much lower than during the day, and yet we waste a great deal of energy from coal and nuclear power plants, which are difficult to power up quickly, and are thus left running at high capacity even when demand is low
Sorry, this is quite untrue at least in the case of nuclear. It is true that in most grids that nuclear is run at maximum capacity factor - for example over 90% in the US and South Korea. This is because there is a market for the baseload electricity they generate. I fail to see how this is wasting energy. Things are a bit different in France due to the high percentage of nuclear in the grid. French nuclear power plants do load following by virtue of "grey control rods" that can be adjusted to reduce neutron flux in the core, lowering reactivity. Fuel (and energy) is not wasted because the rate of fission of U235 drops. Load following is best done with plants where the fuel is reasonably new, but by appropriate staging of refueling across the whole fleet, the French grid operates perfectly well without alleged gross energy wastage. It demonstrates that even with old reactor designs, nuclear is sufficiently end efficiently flexible to power most of a national grid. Nuclear Power in France -
adelady at 16:18 PM on 25 June 2011Peer review process was corrupted
Chris, try Taking the money for granted. Very often this 'government funding' stuff is about researchers funding a lavish personal lifestyle by pocketing grants. Not the way it's done. -
GP Alldredge at 16:17 PM on 25 June 2011Rogues or respectable? How climate change sceptics spread doubt and denial
Minor correction: S. Fred Singer's co-author on "Unstoppable Global Warming ..." is not "John Avery", but "Dennis T. Avery". The book is still non-science. -
bill4344 at 16:08 PM on 25 June 2011Rogues or respectable? How climate change sceptics spread doubt and denial
The source for Patrick Kelly's squishy little nugget is - quelle astonishment! - the George C Marshall Institute. Specifically here. Now, that's objectivity! There's even a heading called 'Alleged Tobacco Conspiracies' which is pretty funny given they were proven in court... This response - and it being tossed around like this as if it were 'fact' - really only manages to prove Oreskes' and Conway's point. -
ScaredAmoeba at 15:57 PM on 25 June 2011Rogues or respectable? How climate change sceptics spread doubt and denial
DB [moderator], sorry! I'll try to remember not to do it again.Response:[DB] Perhaps I over-reacted a bit; sorry. On threads with topics such as this, one must hold one's nose a bit. Perhaps a not-so-direct quote with a link to the actual.
-
adelady at 15:56 PM on 25 June 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Agnostic "...cheap, durable, lightweight batteries able to rapidly recharge and store sufficient energy to meet all domestic needs and extend the range of electric vehicles." I rather think that Cambridge crude or some similar development will finish up as the solution (pun not necessarily intended) for both. I very much like the idea of petrol filling stations being steadily overtaken by 'sludge' extract and refill stations across our highways. Once a refill station is established, it will need only maintenance of its electrical system to recharge extracted material. No more tankers! And even if that's not immediately practical, I can certainly see commercial and industrial buildings, if not domestic dwellings, being fitted with suitable flow batteries. So large buildings could run entirely with their own solar PV - recharging the battery before exporting to the grid - on a routine basis. -
Tom Curtis at 15:51 PM on 25 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Norman @219, I disagree with you regarding Munich Re as a source. For the Tobacco industry, anti-smoking strategies and the perception that smoking was damaging to your health results in losses, regardless of the accuracy of those perceptions. Likewise the Fossil Fuel industries stand to lose due to Global Warming regardless. In contrast, Munich Re will lose if global warming is real, and they do nothing about it; but they will also lose if global warming is not real and they lift their rates while their competitors do not. Their best interest is served by keeping their rates as low as possible while still accruing enough capital to cover any additional losses due to global warming. So unlike the tobacco industry which had (and has) a straight forward financial interest in deception, and the fossil fuel industry who have a straight forward financial interest in deception so long as they can avoid damaging their brand, Munich Re appears to have a financial interest (in this case) in honest reporting. Further, the directors of Munich Re have a very direct personal interest in not making false statements in share holder reports. The direct interest, in addition to opening themselves to being sued if the shareholders make a loss as a result of the false statements, is that such statements attract jail terms for violating the law. Consequently, absent evidence to the contrary, information that makes it into an annual report can fairly be deemed to be reliable. This is what Munich Re had to say about global warming in its 2010 annual report: From the CEO:"it is part of our social responsibility as a Group, given one of the great challenges faced by humanity – climate change and its consequences. We cannot remain silent and must act on this issue when we are in a position to help develop or support solutions with our knowledge and influence. But there is also an answer that is “nearer to home”: What is looming in connection with climate change has direct implications for our core business. Weather-related natural catastrophes are on the increase, and the evidence is that this is partly due to climate change. The consequences of global warming, if left unchecked, could be so serious in the long term that in a few decades adequate insurance protection would no longer be conceivable for people and firms in some regions. in all likelihood, this scenario can only be prevented if the warming is restricted to the much-cited limit of two degrees."
(My emphasis) So, in a document to which criminal penalties attach if he lies, the CEO of Munich Re says that weather related natural catastrophes are on the increase; and that if unchecked that will make insurance simply to expensive to be commerically viable. Reporting on the business evnironment:"Our business environment is one of increasing complexity, with an upward trend in major insurance-relevant events. We are seeing a disproportionate rise in insured losses in relation to economic activity, for which we believe climate change is partly responsible, in addition to an increase in values in exposed regions. As a result, new risk potentials and accumulation hazards are emerging."
(My emphasis) Reporting on risks:"Climate change Whilst we are in a position to adequately assess the known risks in our portfolio on the basis of current knowledge, scientific research into climate change is complex and the political and regulatory environment in which we operate is developing dynamically, so that we must remain vigilant with regard to the identification and representation of new and emerging risks. We adopt a multidisciplinary approach, using and combining the pertinent experience and expertise of our scientists, specialist underwriters, lawyers, economists, sociologists and actuaries as appropriate for the risk situation. Climate change represents one of the greatest risks of change for the insurance industry. In Munich Re’s Corporate Climate Centre, we are developing a holistic strategic approach to analysing and assessing these risks. The findings are made available to all business areas and our asset-liability management function. However, changes in the physical environment and new regulations resulting from climate change also open up many business opportunities. Applying the knowledge we have accumulated over decades, we exploit these opportunities – for example, through new insurance products for renewable energy technologies."
So, the data which I have referred you to is being prepared by Munich Re so that they can properly assess the risks, and no company has a financial interest in lying to itself. Given that the information being given to shareholders in official financial documents is the same as that being prepared in the various reports which I have been quoting, if less detailed, I ask you again, do you have any specific reason to think the directors of Munich Re have indulged in criminal activity, or are you just discounting the information because you find it inconvenient? -
Camburn at 13:32 PM on 25 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
DB: I agree in that I didn't care for the character questioning part, but once past that Mr. Eschenbach did raise some valid concerns. I have now also read a paper that concludes that the proxy used in this study is not a good proxy for sea level. It has been quoted by several other scientists, but I need to find more confirmation before I post it here. -
Riduna at 13:07 PM on 25 June 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Australia has the hottest (270C), shallowest (~4,500m) and most extensive hot granites found anywhere. By fracturing these rocks and pumping water over them, superheated steam is produced and brought to the surface where it is fed through a heat exchanger producing steam which drives a turbine to generate electricity. Condensate is pumped back underground or to the heat exchanger for re-heating. The system is sealed and there are no releases to the atmosphere. Known deposits of hot granite in Australia are sufficient to meet national energy needs by 2100 and continue doing so for centuries to come. Heat taken from granites is replenished by convection from hotter, deeper granites though the speed with which this occurs has yet to be demonstrated. Electricity produced from geothermal heat is base load and, like hydro, can be brought on or taken off the grid at short notice. It is therefore an ideal clean energy source. Some 30 companies are now engaged in its development. Australia also has vast areas of sun-drenched land in relatively close proximity to population centers on which solar power stations can be built. To achieve base load status, electricity produced from solar is largely dependent on ability to store electricity or supplement is with electricity produced from other sources. Electricity storage capacity has yet to be developed so the 2 solar power stations shortly to commence construction will rely on supplementation from fossil fuel when adequate sunshine is not available. In NSW a 150 MW PVC power station is to be built near Moree at a cost of $923m. Work commences in 2012 and it will be commissioned in 2015. During periods of inadequate sunshine, electricity produced from its 650,000 PVC panels will be supplemented by power generated from burning fossil fuels. In QLD a 250 MW a 250 MW solar/natural gas power plant is being built which will also come on-line in 2015. It is the largest of its kind in the world and will cost $1.2 billion. Electricity will be generated by solar steam with back up from gas fired boilers ensuring base load power is available will be 85% emissions free. Combined, these power stations will generate sufficient electricity to meet demand from 115,000 dwellings. Solar sourced base load electricity appears to be the future for most countries which do not have easy access to geothermal. Improvement in heat storage for solar thermal plants is needed and being made. Improvement in the efficiency of PVC’s and their cost are also required and are also being made. Progress is being made with both. The lag is in development of capacity to store electricity. Research is being undertaken into production of cheap, durable, lightweight batteries able to rapidly recharge and store sufficient energy to meet all domestic needs and extend the range of electric vehicles. These developments make it possible for Australia to achieve zero emissions by 2050 – something every country needs to do to if average global temperature is to be limited to <2C by 2100. The limiting factor, the real battle is not with technology but with those who have a vested interest in producing and burning fossil fuels. -
Bob Lacatena at 13:05 PM on 25 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
112, Eric et al, If I may, Michael probably merely misremembered which Hansen paper to reference. Hansen and Sato 2011 (which in turn is referenced by the paper to which Michael linked) contains the following (which is only part... it really should be read in its entirety, not in snippets):Alley (2010) reviewed projections of sea level rise by 2100, showing several clustered around 1 m and one outlier at 5 m, all of which he approximated as linear. The 5 m estimate is what Hansen (2007) suggested was possible, given the assumption of a typical IPCC's BAU climate forcing scenario. Alley's graph is comforting, making the suggestion of a possible 5 m sea level rise seem to be an improbable outlier, because, in addition to disagreeing with all other projections, a half-meter sea level rise in the next 10 years is preposterous. However, the fundamental issue is linearity versus non-linearity. Hansen (2005, 2007) argues that amplifying feedbacks make ice sheet disintegration necessarily highly non-linear. In a non-linear problem, the most relevant number for projecting sea level rise is the doubling time for the rate of mass loss. Hansen (2007) suggested that a 10-year doubling time was plausible,pointing out that such a doubling time from a base of 1 mm per year ice sheet contribution to sea level in the decade 2005-2015 would lead to a cumulative 5 m sea level rise by 2095.
-
Camburn at 12:38 PM on 25 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Again, historical evidence of what the sea levels were during the early AD period. They were quit a bit higher than the early levels developed for this paper. At least near Rome, and it appears also in Kent, which has been sinking for millenia. Salt studies from Roman Empire timesResponse:[DB] Camburn, reliance upon compendiums of anecdotal information, however interesting, is not science. If you wish to add to the discussion, please find scientific papers that have survived peer review and have added to the body of knowledge of climate science in some way. That is what Skeptical Science is, using established science in proper context to properly evaluate skeptical claims and new, emerging information in the field.
-
Marcus at 12:34 PM on 25 June 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Oh & on the issue of reducing base-load demand, we should expand our use of more energy efficient street lighting, & encourage far greater use of solar-battery powered street lighting. That will help to greatly reduce base-load demand. Industry Co-Generation will also help to reduce base-load demand by helping industries to meet more of their own power needs from the channeling of waste heat for electrical power! -
Camburn at 12:11 PM on 25 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
On a more serious note, Mr. Willis Eschenbach has raised some valid concerns about this paper at Anthony Watts site: Willis Eschenbach's concernsResponse:[DB] OK, I made it 3 paragraphs in before the innuendo and accusations of malfeasance became too toxic for me. IMHO, those who rely on such strategies deserve no credence.
Camburn, you are really doing yourself a disservice and putting your learning curve on a two-steps-forward-one-step-back basis by your reliance on disinformation sites like that in your link.
-
Chris3699 at 12:10 PM on 25 June 2011Peer review process was corrupted
"Peer review process was corrupted" This is an argument I'm coming across more and more. Not so much with climategate, although that does come up, but with sceptics who say that climatologists and scientific organisations are lying about climate change to secure government funding. Where can I find evidence to debunk those allegations?Response:[DB] Ask them for verifiable specifics. Then come back here.
The argument on the face of it strains credulity.
-
Camburn at 12:08 PM on 25 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
It is considered common knowledge that the Gulf Stream will speed up as the fish swim further and further east to fatten themselves to prime netting condition. -
Eric the Red at 12:00 PM on 25 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Nothing with which to disagree. Very cold temperatures lead to very light snows, which are very crystallize in nature. Heavy wet snows will fall when the air is warmer. But as the temperature continues to warm, the snow changes to rain. The exact temperature will depend on ground, air, and upper atmospheric temperatures. -
Norman at 11:55 AM on 25 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Tom Curtis @ 199 I do like your research abilities. You do seem a very intelligent person. I have to concede my tornado argument as too shallow to demonstrate the point I was attempting between hazard (tornado) and disaster (when humans are impacted by a hazard) and that the number of disasters may not correlate at all with the number of disaters. Another point to consider. If all conditions were held constant then a true link between a hazardous weather event and disaster could be proof of increasing bad weather events. I may be wrong with my reporting point but another one to consider is the population growth and also the possibility of human migration. Since disasters involve people, if this variable is increasing, it will cloud a true link between hazard and disaster. With your skills and research talent I still wonder if you can find better data than Munich Re to prove exterme weather events are becoming more frequent as the globe warms? Since Munich Re does have a potential for profit by showing increasing danger from weather related disasters, even if that is not the true case, it is not the most reliable source. No better than ExxonMobil funded research against AGW or Tobacco company research proving smoking is safe. How could Munich Re profit from generating the perception of more disasters when this may not be the case? They can sell more insurance policies to worried people and businesses and take in more money to invest. They can charge higher premium rates to cover the supposed increases that may never actually take place. This is why I can't trust them as a valid source for this discussion and hope you can provide better sources that would have no reason to bias the data.Response:[DB] Norman, it is my understanding that entities like Munich Re exist to quantify risk and to evaluate the cost of enduring that risk. Given that, their potential for profit is identifying those areas more likely to endure any increased risk of damage due to natural disasters brought on by the consequences of a warming world.
Essentially, they engage in bets with other entities that those other entities won't suffer a loss and the other entities are betting that they will. To that end, Munich Re has engaged in a fact-finding mission to help establish the "odds" of the bet.
That they have made their research public is a testament to fairness: all parties have the same "scouting report". Does that help enhance your understanding?
-
Eric the Red at 11:53 AM on 25 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
ROFLMAO I remember the Monty Python skit - a classic. One last question before the moderator yanks us off. What will be the consequences of the ocean currents, specifically the speed of the Gulf Stream with regards to the fish swimming fewer laps? -
Eric the Red at 11:46 AM on 25 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Post #91, and your post #101.Response:[DB] Point to Eric. But while we're playing silly schoolboy games. let the record show that it was you who misquoted Michael Sweet & introduced the "drama" into the discussion. And it was also you that introduced the red herring about the Hansen report @ CO2 levels, not Michael.
Prithee, let us all return to the subject of the OP with civility and flank speed.
-
Marcus at 11:44 AM on 25 June 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
There are a number of solutions to the intermittent power issue of Wind Power & PV Power, which are (1) Pumped storage-using excess electricity to pump water uphill into a Pond/Lagoon/Lake (depending on the amount of storage you want), then releasing that water through a turbine to get electricity when you want it. This would, of course, work well with existing Large & Small Scale Hydro-electric schemes. Then there are vanadium redox batteries, which can store substantial amounts of energy for later release-in a controlled fashion (more controlled than coal or nuclear I might add). Wind Power also has a 3rd storage option-Compressed Air-though I'm not read up enough on that to discuss it here. Some people have also pointed out that bio-electricity generates CO2, & so isn't useful for this purpose. What they fail to mention is that they release no more CO2 than what they originally absorbed in the first place, thus being at least carbon neutral. On top of this, however, you have to consider that every kw-h of electricity generated from these carbon-neutral sources prevents almost 1kg of CO2 being released by the burning of fossil fuels. Of course there are other sources of bio-electricity, like turning methane producing fecal matter & trash waste into electricity & heat, or by capturing CO2, produced from existing sources of electricity, in algal biomass then converting said biomass to fuel & energy. So you see there are tons of options for generating base-load electricity that doesn't add any *new* CO2 to the atmosphere. -
Tor B at 10:02 AM on 25 June 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
LazyTeenager (23) You appear to be doing the straw-man dance, I fear. If hydroelectricity and geothermal electricity (generally considered renewable energy) provide base load in Norway, Niagara Falls region, Wairakei, NZ and Iceland, etc., then the myth IS disproved. If you want to be condescending and say NZ and Norway and Iceland are not "significant" then go ahead and paint yourself into that corner. When I lived overseas, the USA was fairly insignificant! Spain has an operating 24-hour electricity generating solar plant. The concept may have been "experimental" five years ago, but it is happening now. If you want to respond that this first plant, almost by definition, is experimental in that the design hadn't been put into practice before, then remember that in the US, nearly every nuclear plant used a new design and therefore, to a certain extent, was experimental. Much practical work has dealt with creating reliable electricity supply. Back-up generators and gas fired plants (depending on scale of need) are regularly used, and are part of the plan for a renewable energy future. Even the best laid plans of the fossil fuel past 'allowed' two massive NY black outs. -
JMurphy at 09:43 AM on 25 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Eric the Red, you should look here for more about snow and the temperatures involved : ...it can snow even at incredibly cold temperatures as long as there is some source of moisture and some way to lift or cool the air. ...most heavy snowfalls occur with relatively warm air temperatures near the ground—typically -9 degrees Celsius (15 degrees Fahrenheit) or warmer... ...snow will not form if the ground temperature is 5 degrees Celsius (41 degrees Fahrenheit). Plenty of room for snow at warmer than normal winter temperatures as the globe warms, and during colder than normal temperatures during strongly negative Arctic oscillations. What could be causing all that, I wonder ? -
dana1981 at 09:26 AM on 25 June 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
LazyTeen -"You have presented the results of agenda driven reports"
If you want to be taken seriously, please avoid this sort of ad hominem attack. Many of the case studies discussed in this post are peer-reviewed. I'm not sure what "agenda" you suggest is at play (*gasp* the get our energy from clean renewable sources agenda!), but it's irrelevant. If you dispute the accuracy of the content of the reports, then do so. -
JMurphy at 09:15 AM on 25 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Eric the Red wrote : "I was looking for it in the Hansen report because michael stated that the report made such a claim, which resulted in the subsequent posts." Where did michael make the claim that "the Hansen report...says that the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere today is enough to raise sea levels 5m" ? -
Tor B at 09:15 AM on 25 June 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Grayman (17) The tone of some of your questions comes across a bit abrasive and some of your questions suggest you have not searched this site for answers. Climate contrarians tend to ask the same old questions and raise straw-man issues which gets some folks riled up - it takes time and energy to respond to the same 'ole same-'ole. I suggest you take a deep breath, and then another; remember it is difficult to understand a person's motivation through the typed word (both yours and, in this instance from your perspective, Paul D's). I know; it has happened to me a couple of times here on SkS. On the other hand, there is consistently valuable information shared here, so I keep coming back! -
LazyTeenager at 09:15 AM on 25 June 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
The myth that renewable energy sources can't meet baseload (24-hour per day) demand has become quite widespread and widely-accepted. ------------- But you have not disproved the myth. You have presented the results of agenda driven reports based on a whole bunch of hypothetical solutions. For example experimental solutions such as thermal solar plus storage are put forward. But the long term practicality of this solution is not proven. The myth will only be disproven when one or more significant countries demonstrate complete success using these approaches. And there will be complete and partial failures along the way. It should not be forgotten that for some industrial processes are completely intolerant of failure of supply so the reliability requirements for electricity generation is very high. -
dana1981 at 08:58 AM on 25 June 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
grayman - that was a lot of questions! Regarding lights, an easy solution is to install sensors that automatically turn the lights off if there's no movement after a few minutes. My office has those. I certainly agree that leaving lights on is a big waste. The models don't have to know exactly what the wind is going to do, just how it behaves on average. I'm sure they have good measurements of minimum and maximum and average windspeed at the locations they're modeling. Regarding wind turbines breaking down, I don't know the details, but I do know that research has shown they're much more reliable than coal power plants, which are down something like 10% of the time whereas wind turbines on average are down less than 3% of the time (this is off the top of my head - it might be even less). Regarding biomass, it's putting CO2 back into the atmosphere that the plant took out, whereas burning fossil fuels is putting CO2 into the atmosphere that's been trapped for millions of years. CO2 from biomass is no concern. And there's always bio waste products available to burn. -
Tor B at 08:54 AM on 25 June 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Grayman (9) You asked: 2) How can a model accuratly portray the probrabilties of wind when weather models a barly able to do it 4-5 days out, as jetstream winds much less lower level winds are to variable in speed or predictability? Most of the answer is in SkS's "Chaos theory and global warming" and "Difference between weather and climate". Models are slowly getting better at discerning how climate will change within a region. We may not be able to predict with much accuracy if wind will be as steady in a particular region 50 years from now, but we do predict it will generally be windier. -
Camburn at 08:30 AM on 25 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Dang......I had read that our current wet pattern should be over in approx 40 years. Now in the link above geologists indicate another 100 years of this......offfffffffta. I hope the 40 year fellows were correct. -
Camburn at 08:27 AM on 25 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Albatros: Devils lake has a natural outlet in the Tolna Coulee. It has filled with sediment and would be draining Devils Lake right now if cleaned out. North Dakota will be doing this in the near future. During the 1860's and 1870's, Devils Lake was flowing through the Tolna Coulee into the Sheyene River. It is about to do so again. A brief history of Devils Lake: A brief history of Devils Lake -
actually thoughtful at 08:18 AM on 25 June 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Okatiniko -thank you. So your point is that you need energy for space conditioning? I imagine that is heat only in Norway. Maybe also some process heat for industry? Obviously you can create heat from electricity, if you have enough renewable electrons, but that is rarely the case. I imagine solar is only a marginal contributor in Norway. I am not that familiar with the region - is geothermal (for heat) or ground source heat pump possible? Seasonal storage for solar thermal? Heat from compost? -
Bob Lacatena at 08:11 AM on 25 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
83, Eric the Red, Trying not to take the discussion too far off topic in covering the Ichthyan Displacement Anomaly theory of sea level rise... I'm sorry, but no, the "Earth will spin faster" is a common misconception pushed by those in icthyan denial. It is quite obvious to anyone who runs the numbers that the expansion of the ocean will in fact (given conservation of angular momentum) slow the rate of spin of the Earth. This will allow the fish to both feed more efficiently (getting fatter) and to mate more productively, producing more fish, and thus contributing even further to sea level rise. The only known negative feedbacks are the negative Laps Rate Feedback (Bainbridge, 1957 and more recently Dominici and Blake, 1997), where the expanded ocean volume combined with the larger fish surface area results in fewer laps made by the fish around the ocean, thus contributing somewhat to speeding the rate of rotation of the earth (due to the preference of fat fish to swim against the spin of the earth), and the admittedly poorly understood negative Fish Slaps Rate feedback (see Palin and Cleese, 1972). -
actually thoughtful at 08:07 AM on 25 June 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Grayman regarding burning biomass - at that point you are playing in the 97% of CO2 that is the natural cycle, and not the 3% that is man disrupting that cycle or pulling fossil CO2 out of the ground. I have read that there are other issues with biomass burning (products of combustion that are pollutants). But I don't think the base problem is the CO2 itself - it is in the current natural cycle, it will rot (releasing CO2) or be burned (releasing CO2). -
okatiniko at 07:59 AM on 25 June 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
actually thoughtful#6 : Okatiniko - "You say that Norway already has 100% renewable energy" No I didn't - I said Norway already has 100 % renewable electricity. -
grayman at 07:56 AM on 25 June 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Paul, I do not understand you tone to me in 15, as it was just a general statment in a lead up to what i wrote next. I am just asking questions, why hostlity, if not i am sorry but it sure seems that way! The Danes & Sweden both are heavy producers of hydro & wind power. Again you seem to me to be attacking my statment instead of anwsering my questions. Just trying to learn! @14 you say that you gradually work up to these solutions, yes, so why have these not been worked on for all these yrs. Solar & wind have been around for quite some time again i ask why have there not studys done on this in the past instead of study after study to reinforce the projections. IMHO the money would be better spent on solutions. @16 Working those farms and ranchs, i can tell you that the farmer looks at the cuttings and sees feed for his stock or to sell to the rancher that is in need, he does not look at energy conversion numbers for the elec. grid. Basic facts of farm and ranch life, not a lot of waste there. Now as i said before, trying to learn not argue numbers or phsysics, just reality as i and many others see it. If i am wrong about the tone you seem to take with me i am sorry. But what i am reading in you reply is anger at having to awnser a few questions? -
ScaredAmoeba at 07:18 AM on 25 June 2011Rogues or respectable? How climate change sceptics spread doubt and denial
I omitted mined quotations. I understand that in many cases these are silently edited-out later. -
Patrick 027 at 07:14 AM on 25 June 2011The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
re my 32 even if the inversion runs all the way through the stratosphere and is sufficiently strong, etc, the downward LW radiation would gradually go from zero to a peak before coming down. Provided optical thickness has no complete spatial gaps (z varies continuously over optical thickness when the later is used as a vertical coordinate), then for any inversion which reaches all the way down to the level being considered, the downward LW flux will saturate at a value that is less than what it is some point before, in a progression toward larger optical thickness. Earth's lower stratosphere is in some places roughly isothermal; the lapse rate is negative down to, or to near, the tropopause in lower latitudes, while in winter polar regions the lower stratosphere can have a small positive lapse rate. (PS what I refer to as the lower stratosphere can/may be as much as 90 % or more of the mass of the stratosphere.) -
Paul D at 07:13 AM on 25 June 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
grayman: "But being in farm and ranch country, that biomas is better used as feed stuffs than elec. generation especially in times of drought, and i suspect it is the same around the world for farms and ranches." You have to back that up with figures. What is the efficiency of converting the energy in biomass into meat and then into energy used by the human body? Compared to converting biomass (via incineration or anaerobic digestion) into energy (electricity or heating) for general use? -
Paul D at 07:07 AM on 25 June 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
grayman: "Hydro electric power is a great source buti am unsure about Norway use of it, and if i remember correctly they import alot from the danes and sweden." So what?? I'm not actually sure that is true, they are pretty self sufficient and export most of their gas to the UK and Europe. Even if it were correct, borders aren't a problem are they?? There is no specific requirement for a nation (whose boundaries is a figment of the human imagination) to be self sufficient in energy, if everyone has been happy to import and export fossil fuels, I hardly see that import and export of electricity to be a problem. Electricity isn't some magically different energy commodity. -
ScaredAmoeba at 07:06 AM on 25 June 2011Rogues or respectable? How climate change sceptics spread doubt and denial
“The very first step should be for climate scientists to make a conscious effort to read some of the documentation appearing in the more respectable sceptic weblogs,” Are there any 'respectable sceptic weblogs'? I honestly can't think of one. Every single one I've visited was clogged with numerous examples of bogus claims; malicious accusations; venomous innuendo; pseudo-science; conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated false accusations against respectable scientists. My understanding is that's neither what's 'respectable', nor remotely 'scepticism'. Should anyone not believe me: ...I had no idea that is what these guys are doing. I am absolutely pissed off at this kind of junk science. This wouldn’t pass the smell test in any field except climatology and it only passes here because there is motive....They would almost want bad data to prove global warming was caused by man. We might as well roll dice and run it through the algorithm.... Follow the link if you dare, you have been warned.Response:[DB] Please refrain from linking to...websites such as that one. At SkS the focus is on the science within an atmosphere of civility.
-
Albatross at 07:05 AM on 25 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Camburn @ 212, You say "The trend changed and the lake was virtually a dry basin in the 30's and very small till the 90's. It is once again filling to the point that it was in during the 1860's-70's. Once again, not extreme but causing a lot of economic distress." No. According to this fact sheet, Devil's Lake is at its highest levels since at least 1865. In fact, it has only been higher than current levels three times in the last 4000 years. So recent levels, while not unprecedented, are certainly extreme.
Source]
-
Paul D at 07:01 AM on 25 June 2011A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
grayman - you don't solve all the problems of the future by writing precise solutions clearly and fully worked out today. That never has happened. You start working on the problems and gradually build up, with engineers solving problems as they go along. The current systems weren't dreamt up in a few years and clearly worked out. We have large power stations, the grid and all the equipment that makes it work, all of which developed incremently, step by step.
Prev 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 Next
