Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 Next
Comments 90651 to 90700:
-
damorbel at 06:50 AM on 29 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #865 RW1 you wrote:- 1/"But the temperature is about 288K - not 279K. How is that so?" Apart from the fact that this 'average' temperature is not accurately known (NASA have a webpage somewhere with +-5K on some median temperature) - all gravitatioally bound concentrations of gas have a temeperature that rises towards the (gravitational) centre, in a star it reaches somewhere between 10^10K and 10^15K, hot enough for thermonuclear ignition. Even the paltry 85km of the Earth's atmosphere shows a temperature profile due to the planet's gravity. It is interesting to note that this gravitational temperature increase is a feature of very deep mines where, in addition to the increasing heat from the Earth (which is very variable with depth) a mine of 3km depth can have additional temperature rise of between 10 and 18K purely due to the higher air pressure at that depth. 2/"Do you agree that all of the Sun's emitted energy is radiative?" - Both electromagnetic and particulate radiation. 3/"Do you agree that the Sun's emitted energy is transparent through space to the Earth?" - I think the nswer is yes. 4/"Do you agree that the Sun's emitted energy is transparent through space to the Earth?" - No. the Earth's atmosphere absorbs all UV <0.3 microns, about 10% of the Sun's output and I believe about 30% in the infrared. 5/"Do you agree that space is colder than than the Earth's atmosphere?" - Space does not have a temperature. Different locations get heat from stars in varying amounts. At night the sky without the Sun has an apparent temperature of 2.7K, this is called the Cosmic Microwave Background or CMB for short. 6/"Do you agree that the atmosphere of the Earth is colder than the surface of the Earth?" - Over a given location - most of the time (except in the stratosphere). (Havn't I seen this stuff before somewhere?) 7/"Do you agree that the atmosphere of the Earth is colder than the surface of the Earth?" - No. 8/"Do you agree that the emitted 390 W/m^2 is a result of the Earth's surface temperature and nothing else?" - See 7. 9/"Do you agree that the emitted radiation from the surface is mostly NOT transparent to the atmosphere?" - See above. 10/"Do you agree that a lot of the surface emitted radiation is absorbed and re-emitted isotropically by the atmosphere?" - Yes Now be so good as to answer my question:- What % of the heat tranferred to the atmosphere from the ground by radiation:- 14%?......40%?.......90%? (You can make your own suggestion if you like.) -
dana1981 at 06:50 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
actually thoughtfull - I think you've nailed the point that the up-front costs (i.e. buying an EV or solar panels) are significant, but in the long run the net cost is small and we even save money. The problem is convincing people to make the up-front investments, especially in today's political climate where politicians are trying to cut funding from as many programs as possible. Of course that's where the carbon price comes in. But then they say you're taxing people and businesses, and we're also very anti-tax right now. So ultimately you have to put it all together in a climate bill and sell it to the American people. Which Democrats did successfully in 2009 - a majority of Americans supported the legislation, and it passed the House, but the Senate Republican minority blocked it. And then we elected a bunch more of them in 2010. Americans support this legislation, but consider it a very low priority. So ultimately it boils down to the fact that we need to convince Americans not only that climate legislation is a good idea, but that they need to make it a high priority, and make politicians who block it pay at the ballot box. -
Albatross at 06:48 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
muoncounter @17, Sweet :) -
Albatross at 06:47 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
I do not understand why "skeptics" posting here insist on going on about the current ENSO. Even if the current event maintains its current intensity (which is doubtful) and persists into the Boreal winter, annual global SATs will be warmer than those in 1956 or 1985, on that I am willing to wager money. "Skeptics" how much are you willing to wager on McLean? Are you really that faithful? As Dana has noted: "According to NASA GISS, the average land-ocean global temperature anomaly in 1956 was –0.17°C. Matching 1956 would require a 0.8°C drop from the average 2010 temperature. It's true that the current La Niña cycle is a strong one, but it's not that strong!" McLean's prediction was bust the very moment he uttered it. What is telling is that "skeptics" here (and elsewhere) continue to refuse to be true skeptics and call McLean et al. on their utter nonsense or to distance themselves from his BS. Instead they choose to use it as an opportunity to float more red herrings and obfuscate. And FWIW, and again it is not really relevant given the known maximum perturbation that La Ninas have on global SATs, IRI (who use multiple sources of dynamical and statistical guidance) are predicting ENSO neutral conditions by early summer, perhaps sooner.
-
michael sweet at 06:40 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
It is appropriate to compare Dr. Hansens predictions to see who does better. In this article (on page 5) Dr. Hansen predicts that 2011 will be warm but not record setting. He says that if the El Nina shuts off that 2012 might be a record hot year. Perhaps you could add Hansens prediction to figure one so people can see who does better. -
muoncounter at 06:32 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
johnd#14: "There has been no reason given yet that it cannot repeat the 3 consecutive La-Nina years" I take this to mean your money's on McLean? If not, how low do you think the global temperature anomaly for the year will go? "JAMSTEC are one of the most reliable sources for these predictions" Sooo, the computer models they use for their predictions are reliable? But that would mean ... climate modeling can be accurate! -
Rob Painting at 06:07 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
Muoncounter @ 13 - "How much will you bet that this prediction will be carefully buried by the denialosphere by then?" And then carefully exhumed by Sks authors and compared to actual observations. Figure 1 in the post is a pearler!. -
Alex C at 05:57 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
CBD brings up a good point with the fact that the satellite data only goes back to 1979. If McLean is using the UAH temperature data, then he is cherry picking. Why not use the GISS data or NCDC data or HadCRUT data, or whatever data set he used to base the 1956 year fantasy off of, as the data for current values? Is it because, conveniently for him, satellite data responds more dramatically to ENSO than ground-based measurements? I also agree that since McLean says "1956 or even earlier," his intent was not "just barely above 1956" but "since that year." He's talking temporally, so the temperature should be even lower than 1956 to account for the 1964 dip. -
actually thoughtful at 05:53 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
The conversation has turned to one of my favorite points regarding climate change. The actual cost is likely to be zero, or even negative (that is profitable). Many people are paying ~100/fillup of their vehicle. Switch that to a Nissan Leaf and 8 solar panels: price per fillup is now zero. Payback time for the solar panels and the extra cost of the electric car? About 5 years Many people pay 600-1800/year for heating. Switch that to solar thermal and pay 150-500. Payback time - less than 10 years for propane and electric, 10-14 for natural gas. And on and on and so it goes. The strongest known force in the universe is an American's desire to avoid a "tax" - so put a tax on carbon and watch how fast the offending item (carbon) is not used. Now some caveats - the Leaf only goes 100 miles per charge, some of the carbon tax avoidance will come out as burning trees in inefficient wood stoves. American cities would be smart to ban wood stoves now, so as not to look the bad guy when we finally get a carbon tax. Now factor in the growth to the economy in switching over, and increased financial stability of all participants (the utility can't turn your heat off when it is solar powered and contained on your property). As a society, we will be dramatically and strictly better off. -
johnd at 05:46 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
muoncounter at 04:47 AM The JAMSTEC ENSO forecast: "The current strong La Nina has started to weaken and would decay further in following boreal spring and summer seasons. The decaying La Nina would show a Modoki pattern. The cold La Nina condition might rebound in fall and persist up to early 2012." There has been no reason given yet that it cannot repeat the 3 consecutive La-Nina years of the 1970's, or even the early 1900's. For over a year, there have been ever increasing comparisons being made between the evolving conditions and 1974. In addition a -ve IOD will continue for the 2nd half of this year. JAMSTEC are one of the most reliable sources for these predictions, possibly through giving due recognition to the importance of the IO. http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d1/iod/sintex_f1_forecast.html.var -
dana1981 at 05:24 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
A price on carbon emissions really wouldn't be that tough for the US. As I've discussed in previous posts, proposed legislation like Waxman-Markey was projected to cost the average American 75 cents per week per person. Gas prices would only rise modestly, energy bills would effectively remain flat as people took advantage of energy efficiency programs funded by the carbon revenues. And overall benefits would significantly outpace costs. And I also linked to a discussion of a real-world example, the RGGI in the Northeastern US. Americans are definitely afraid it will be painful, but studies show it really won't be that bad. -
johnd at 05:13 AM on 29 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Alexandre at 22:39 PM, to avoid getting side tracked we will need to keep reminding ourselves of the topic of this thread, and also that the paper I referenced is relevant to that topic. Regarding your "pretty good projections", whilst I don't mind discussing such a short time frame, generally if anyone other than someone pro AGW introduces examples of less than 30 years, accusations of cherry picking resonate loudly. Your "pretty good projections" are based on a rise of 0.33°C in the global mean surface temperature increase(land and ocean combined) for the 16 years after 1990. My paper indicates the linear trends of global, terrestrial, and ocean mean SAT during 1982 to 2008 as being 0.14, 0.21, and 0.10°C per decade, respectively. This is based on data from the global NCEP Reanalysis which is made available for climate studies. So immediately there is considerable difference of opinion there. Next your study ties temperature and sea level rise directly to CO2. My study has this to say on page 6 -- "With assimilating merely historical SST observations, the SINTEX-F coupled model reproduces realistic interannual variations and long-term trend of the global SAT during 1982-2008. The ENSO-related interannual signals and colder/warmer states before/after the 1997/98 climate shift are correctly captured." Regarding what might be driving such warming, the study notes "Whether the terrestrial warming might be caused by local response to increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations or by sea surface temperature(SST) rise is recently in dispute." What the researchers found as part of the study was that depending on the time frame being modeled, it was not necessary to include GHG's in order to find correlation. -
CBDunkerson at 05:00 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Yeah, I knew that came out wrong as soon as I hit 'Submit'. Hence the followup. Basically, >if< the U.S. continued its current emissions then a price on those would significantly impact it and thus there is a 'logical reason' for resistance to putting a price on carbon. However, comparison to other industrialized nations indicates that those high emissions levels are not required to maintain the U.S. standard of living - other countries achieve comparable results with vastly lower emissions. Something of a self-fulfilling prophecy... the U.S. does not want to put a price on carbon because that would be costly with their current emissions... which are outlandishly high because there is no price on carbon. -
muoncounter at 04:47 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
CBD#12: "the remaining ten months would have to average below -0.42 C anomaly" NOAA predicts ENSO neutral by June. So only 3 months remain for this radical cooling hypothesis to work. How much will you bet that this prediction will be carefully buried by the denialosphere by then? -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Philippe, Phil - My personal suspicion is that global warming is due to an overabundance of hotheaded naked ice borers reducing polar ice, increasing albedo. Obviously in this crisis we should organize large hunting parties to reduce this overpopulation of dangerous animals. Oh, and /sarcasm... -
muoncounter at 04:44 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
CBD #41: "I don't think your emissions per capita = lifestyle quality" I certainly do not suggest that; it is almost Gillesian in its illogic. My statement was in response to Jay Cadbury's 'China is to blame'. I suggest that if there is a price to emitting CO2, it will impact the US -- and that is why the US is so stubbornly resistant to paying that price. -
CBDunkerson at 04:43 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
I should clarify... You (muoncounter) are likely correct that these usage figures are a good indication of why places like the U.S. (and Australia, which has similar results) are so averse to regulation. However, the much lower ratings in other locations with similar standards of living would seem to indicate that those fears are misplaced. -
CBDunkerson at 04:40 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
muoncounter: "Which countries stand to lose more of their 'individual lifestyle' if the cost of emitting CO2 increases? Probably those where the per capita rate is highest." United States: 18.9 metric tons per capita United Kingdom: 8.9 metric tons per capita France: 6 metric tons per capita Is the 'individual lifestyle' in the United Kingdom less than half as good as it is in the United States? Less than a third in France? If not, then I don't think your emissions per capita = lifestyle quality hypothesis holds up. -
CBDunkerson at 04:31 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
Looking at the UAH results;
it seems like the coolest year thus far was 1985 at about -0.35 C anomaly. Given that the first two months of 2011 were right around 0 C anomaly that'd mean the remaining ten months would have to average below -0.42 C anomaly in order for 2011 to be the coldest in the UAH record... which would of course be a pre-requisite for claiming that it was the coldest since 1956 even if we (as McLean seems to be doing) ignore the surface temp record.
Not as completely implausible as dropping below the 1956 GISS value, but still not going to happen.
-
dana1981 at 04:01 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
Daniel - John discussed Forster et al. 2010 in the posts I linked to in the article (toward the beginning).Moderator Response: [DB] Sorry, Dana. Missed that reference. -
Alexandre at 03:58 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
To boldly predict what no man has predicted before... -
Daniel Bailey at 03:53 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
As the redoubtable Albatross shows here, McLean was refuted by Foster et al 2010. The Yooper -
dana1981 at 03:52 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
bibasir - yes, as you discovered, McLean is using UAH data. However, since the satellite record began in 1979, I had to use a surface temperature record to evaluate McLean's comparison to 1956. Djon - the problem is I don't know which data set McLean is using. There may be a surface temperature data set in which 1956 is colder than 1964. This was just a quick and dirty illustration of how bizarre McLean's prediction is, but you may be right and it may even be worse than I discussed. -
Albatross at 03:51 AM on 29 March 2011A climate 'Gish Gallop' of epic proportions
Good idea @ 13 Ken. -
Albatross at 03:48 AM on 29 March 2011Weather vs Climate
At the end of the day, the"skeptic" tactic of conflating weather and climate to confuse lay people is scientifically wrong and a red herring. "Skeptics" here either seem to be trying to detract from that disingenuous tactic by their camp or worse yet, are defending it. ENSO is transient and has been shown to play very little role in modulating long-term temperature trends. See Foster et al. (2010): "The suggestion in their [McLean et al. 2009] conclusions that ENSO may be a major contributor to recent trends in global temperature is not supported by their analysis or any physical theory presented in that paper, especially as the analysis method itself eliminates the influence of trends on the purported correlations." Foster et al. go state in their conclusions that: "It has been well known for many years that ENSO is associated with significant variability in global mean temperatures on interannual timescales. However, this relationship (which, contrary to the claim of MFC09, is simulated by global climate models, e.g. Santer et al. [2001]) cannot explain temperature trends on decadal and longer time scales." So I challenge skeptics here to, instead of pontificating and talking through their hats, publish a paper which successfully challenges/refutes the findings of Foster et al. (2010). -
CBDunkerson at 03:36 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
Given that the satellite data he is referencing doesn't go back that far, McLean likely got the 1956 figure from the ENSO index (fig 2 in the article above) rather than any of the temp records. Of course, using the satellite temp data makes his claim untestable against values prior to 1979... though the likelihood that the annual average will below even that point seems extremely implausible. -
Djon at 03:29 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
Dana, If "it is likely that 2011 will be the coolest year since 1956 or even earlier" is the basis for your analysis, haven't you understated the predicted drop? 1964 was colder than 1956 in the GISTEMP analysis. Also, you have to go back to 1929 to get a colder calendar year than 1964. -
muoncounter at 03:28 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Rob #38: "looking at the per capita output of CO2 for China" Spot on. See the chart of per capita CO2 emissions. Places like the small Middle Eastern states are the worst per capita; the US is #11, China is #80. Which countries stand to lose more of their 'individual lifestyle' if the cost of emitting CO2 increases? Probably those where the per capita rate is highest. Does that help explain why the US is so allergic to any form of regulation? -
bibasir at 03:26 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
P.S. In looking at McLean's site, I see he gets his data from Roy Spencer's site. Spencer shows Feb 2011 temp as -.02, down from a peak of +.5.Moderator Response:[DB] McLean does some of the usual cherry-picks: uses satellite TLT data instead of the longer ground (land+ocean) datasets and places his focus on extremely short periods of time. Here is the whole TLT record:
He seems to be basing much of his estimates on the Oceanic-cycles-control-global-temperatures meme; more on this is available here, such as this:
-
Albatross at 03:23 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Dana, I very sincere thanks for all your hard work. The standard of your work is always high and yet written at a level that resonates with those not as well informed about all the nuances and complexities of climate science. Keep up the excellent work and I look forward to reading (and learning) more. -
CBDunkerson at 03:22 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
Actually, I give McLean credit on this one... he hasn't just developed an outlandish theory for why AGW will not be a problem. He has shown the courage of his convictions and stated the likely outcome if that theory is correct. Having gone on record with a prediction, especially such an extreme and near term prediction, suggests that he actually believes what he is saying. Which is a bit scary, but preferable to 'skeptics' who make outlandish claims and studiously avoid examining what the implications of those claims would be. Sadly I don't hold alot of hope that McLean will re-examine his pre-conceptions if this prediction fails as badly as it seems to be doing thus far... but the prediction was made and can always be referenced in the future. Which makes it far preferable to nebulous predictions of lesser warming in unspecified amounts due to cosmic rays influencing cloud formation and other such hand waving. -
bibasir at 03:17 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
You need to comment on McLean's post in a little more detail. I went to the link you provided above, and he says the following. “In June, we predicted global cooling by the end of 2010. In October-February, world temperatures dropped by .5c.” He then shows a graph with a plunging temperature. Obviously, he is getting his temperature data from some strange source. Thus, he will probably say his prediction was correct. Where is he getting his temperature data from? -
citizenschallenge at 03:04 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
Have [snip] ever explained a mechanism for how circulating currents that move heat around the planet, can warm or cool the planet as a whole? -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:02 AM on 29 March 2011Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
BP.... This is the chart presented on the RSS site:
TLT = Lower Trop
TMT = Mid Trop
TTS = Strat/Trop
TLS = Lower Strat
Source here.
Moderator Response: [DB] Sorry, Rob. We submitted at the same time, apparently. -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:57 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
There is also a challenge when looking at the per capita output of CO2 for China. If you spend any time there living with actual people and seeing how they live their lives (which I do with family there every year) you realize Chinese people are actually not using outrageous amounts of energy. Most people in China ride rapid transit. Most Chinese cities are so large and dense it's not that useful to actually own a vehicle except as a status symbol. China has an extensive rail system connecting cities and that is how most get around. Most major cities either already have a metro rail system or has one under construction. In people's homes they use very little heating and cooling. Culturally they don't like clothes washing machines and prefer to wash by hand and hang clothes to dry. Chinese people are very low carbon. The energy they do use is often not very efficient but they use so little of it that it's not a huge consequence. I would contend, though, that a huge amount of energy is used in producing concrete for construction of high rise living complexes. These things have been growing like weeds in China for 30 years now with no indication of slowing down any time soon. But again, 2/3 of Chinese people are still living an agrarian lifestyle so they have a lot of work to do. But a large portion of China's output of CO2 comes from making goods for the western world. When we exported our manufacturing to China we also exported a large amount of our own CO2 production. -
Stu at 02:56 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
For completeness, what are the relevant figures for the NOAA and Hadley series?Moderator Response: [DB] NOAA data & analysis can be found here. Wood for Trees can be used to plot Hadley, GISS and satellite data directly against each other; a great resource. -
Berényi Péter at 02:52 AM on 29 March 2011Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
#20 Alexandre at 01:37 AM on 29 March, 2011 I often wondered why those sattellite series showed a lower warming rate than the surface, when the smaller lapse rate should cause the opposite. I think now I understand: they encompass some of the cooling stratosphere too. Nice theory. Except the stratosphere is not cooling.
Moderator Response:[DB] Nice cherry-pick & ignoring the rest of the picture for the TLS:
-
Philippe Chantreau at 02:38 AM on 29 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Attractive hypothesis Phil, and as plausible as much of the stuff that has been thrown around on this thread... -
dana1981 at 02:34 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Rob is right about China. They are also on track to implement a carbon cap and trade system before the USA, which as an American, I find deeply embarrassing, since we're responsible for about 3 times more of the increase in atmospheric CO2 than China, and are already a developed nation. -
dana1981 at 02:31 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Thanks again for the nice comments all. Sphaerica and DB - yes sorry, I thought John had made the blog post DB linked into the rebuttal to "CO2 limits will hurt the poor". He's a busy fellow - probably just hasn't had time yet! My response to Gilles on fossil fuel reserves is the same as my comments to "skeptics" in this article. Maybe we don't have enough fossil fuel reserves to raise global temperatures much above the 'danger limit'. I think this is an exceptionally unlikely scenario, but it's possible. Do we want to bet our future on this possible but unlikely scenario? I sure don't. Cadbury - economic studies have shown that carbon pricing will have a pretty minimal impact on gasoline prices, raising them in the ballpark of 10%, as I recall. Considering that our gas prices are about half of what they are in most of Europe despite the recent rise, I don't think that's unreasonable. -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:29 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Jay... It always amuses me when people talk about China without knowing anything about China. What you have in China is a country in rapid transition to being a first world nation. But still ~2/3 of their population has seen none of the advances that have taken place there. Is China categorically on this road of "no regulation" in order to promote business? Not at all. In fact, they are doing exactly what we did as we developed as a nation. They're installing regulations! I spend a lot of time in China. My wife is Chinese. I've worked with factories in China for a decade. You know what the big complaints from factory owners are? "Oh, minimum wage laws forcing us to pay more for labor. Oh, the rules on how much work we can require our workers to do is getting more strict." And so on. The regulations we have on corporations are there for a reason. We developed them over many long hard decades of learning hard lessons about how companies can mistreat people and the environment. China is in the process of trying to quickly install the same regulations that keep our nation prosperous. -
actually thoughtful at 01:46 AM on 29 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
Ger, not sure where we are disagreeing? My point is that a heat pump at a COP of 3-4 (but run by electricity from coal) puts you about even with a natural gas fired boiler. A heat pump with a COP of 9 (using solar thermal) and powered by renewable electricity is a slam dunk. But it is relatively EXPENSIVE to get that renewable electricity and relatively cheap to get that renewable solar thermal. So the strategy, for heating at least, has to be to eviscerate the load by conservation and solar thermal, then mop up the remainder with electrical sources (presumably ground source heat pumps). Completely agree that biofuels (not ethanol-from-corn) have a big future. -
Alexandre at 01:37 AM on 29 March 2011Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
Thanks Glenn Tamblyn. I often wondered why those sattellite series showed a lower warming rate than the surface, when the smaller lapse rate should cause the opposite. I think now I understand: they encompass some of the cooling stratosphere too. -
les at 01:34 AM on 29 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
111/112 - Gilles: "... right ?" No, wrong. Please don't put words in my mouth - particularly about something I'm trying to explain to you to help you understand how the world works. It is both rude and won't help you either. It's very clear, for example for the IPCC. Their brief is to do a report comparing all existing material. I'm not sure that they used all possibilities .... will, despite what some people think, the IPCC is populated by mortals who only have access to what's known. It's also seems to me that this is the same for the IEA report... Now, go back and read what I wrote. e.g. "research or government" ... you quote me as "from governments". That is extremely rude, shows clear signs of bias and does you no credit at all. -
muoncounter at 01:29 AM on 29 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Gilles #112: "projections of fossil fuels reserves are made by civil servants who just take the material coming out from governments and combine them without any critical assessment" For someone in love with discussing fossil fuel use, you don't seem to be very familiar with standard industry terminology and methods. Oil companies report their reserves in the categories of Proved Developed (PD), Proved Undeveloped (PUD) and Probable. Proved reserves (overall) are the volumes expected to be produced to a 90% confidence. PD are reserves currently under production; PUD is somewhat more speculative than PD, as these reserves are within a field's limits, but have yet to be placed on production. PUD and Probable (50% confidence) are most likely the 2nd gray-blue category on the graph you linked. 'Reserves to be found' is subject to exploratory risk. This is, at best, a statistical assessment (aka guess) based on historic results. Depending on circumstances, one can put anywhere from a 10-30% certainty on these numbers; I cannot say from the graph whether that factor is already applied. There are not necessarily any 'civil servants' in this process; nor is there much of any 'critical assessment.' It is often an exercise is hyping a company's stock price or valuation to a potential buyer. There are internal goals to be met: the most common being replacement of a company's produced reserves with new discoveries each year; when a string of dry holes precludes that, 'creative' booking of more PUD reserves can cover the shortfall (I've been there and done that). Management bonuses are often dependent on these numbers; you can well imagine considerable conflict of interest arises from time to time. In short, I see the graph you presented as a slightly optimistic BAU for oil and NGLs; 'unconventional oil' (presumably from enhanced recovery technologies) may be the 'new policy.' In that regard, projected increases in atmospheric CO2 under BAU are highly likely. -
Ger at 01:01 AM on 29 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
#28. Add H2 generation with low pressure storage and local fuel cells to the spectrum as well. H2 will do great as buoyancy on floating off-shore wind farms as well. Oil rigs do have local storage tanks for the gaseous fuel? Older oil rigs could be easily converted and pump the H2 through the pipes back to land. No need for costly HV sea cables. Point of worry might be H2 embrittlement of the pipes -
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 00:42 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
@Marcus I don't think the problem is the western corporations. I think China is the big problem. I think right now we have the reverse of what we need. Seems to me that the regulations we have on our companies are too strict and so they just import items from China. I think we should have stricter regulations on China. -
Ger at 00:40 AM on 29 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
actual thoughtful - with a COP of 4-5 for compressors and solar thermal boosted heat pumps with a COP up to 9, solar assisted heat pumps will reduce the CO2 footprint also with FF electricity. Besides that, heating is most commonly done with FF. That CO2 is not being emited any more. J&D will have excluded biomass, just like in the ecofys program because they assume that the mainstream of the biomass will have to come from forest area and the like: the habitat of wildlife. The sponsors like WWF are not that enthusiastic about those options. As Perseus says, biomass -preferably agri-waste- can be used for on demand surges. It is (one of the) renewables with built in battery. -
Bob Lacatena at 00:38 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Note to Moderators, 12, Dana, There is no content behind the link Dana provided at post 12, CO2 limits will hurt the poor.Moderator Response: [DB] Thanks for pointing that out; I've left a note for Dana asking if this is the URL intended. -
Gilles at 00:37 AM on 29 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
"Oh so, hang on Gilles, now you're telling us that oil consumption *will* increase over the next 25 years? " I missed this one : Marcus,I'm not saying that - note the "yet to be found" : I just remark that IEA estimates that we need them - seeming to ignore that it is so easy to maintain our way of life without them. I doubt very much that we'll actually find them.
Prev 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 Next
