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:
-
OPatrick at 17:02 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
johnd, you have a seriously skewed idea of what is offensive. Miekol suggsts that all that matters is that a tiny vestige of humanity survives, but you think it is Marcus' post that is offensive. -
Marcus at 17:00 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Well in that case, John D, Miekol's post should be deleted too-as he is being deeply offensive. Exactly *what* do you find so offensive about my post John? The "concern for the poor" meme is a common argument I hear from those opposed to action on climate change. If you can *prove* me wrong, John D, then I'll happily retract my post, but I fear your objection to it is that it tells some harsh truths about the Contrarians. -
johnd at 16:57 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
The post Marcus at 16:46 PM on 28 March, 2011 is so offensive that it will likely be deleted. Perhaps it should not be deleted to remind us of that old saying-- "What Peter tells me about Paul, tells me more about Peter than it does about Paul" -
Marcus at 16:53 PM on 28 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Glen @ 100. Anyone counting on the northern tundra to save our collective bacon is *really* living in Cloud Cuckoo Land. Even after the permafrost melts, the soil will be massively nutrient deprived. Second, almost *all* our crops (certainly grain crops) have been bred for the last 8,000 years to thrive in areas with a proper 4 seasons with ample sunlight throughout the year. Trying to grow these grain crops in areas that don't see the sun for more than 3 months at a time are hardly going to be ideal. -
Marcus at 16:46 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
"Nine tenths of humanity is already hovering just above the poverty line. Any carbon pricing will push that nine tenths below the poverty line, and push the majority of the remaining one tenth close to the poverty line." Well, Miekol, if you're so *genuinely* concerned about the welfare of those 9/10ths living close to the poverty line, then I'm sure we'll here you *loudly* demanding that Western Political Parties impose penalties on any corporations that fail to pay 3rd world nations the same wages for their labor as they pay western workers? I'm equally sure that you'll demand that Western Corporations be *forced* to pay 3rd world nations the same price for their resources as what they'd pay in the 1st world too. You really do have to *love* the selective "compassion" of the contrarians like Miekol-they're happy to leave the majority of humanity near the poverty line if it means their corporate buddies can bring home record profits, but the moment you talk about saving the environment, the hue & cry becomes "think of the poor". What contrarians hate is the idea that poor nations *could*, with help from Western Nations, supply their energy needs in a low-carbon fashion &-in the process-avoid having to buy carbon-based fuels from wealthy corporations at highly inflated prices. After all, a nation locked in a poverty cycle due to dependence on fossil fuels is much easier to manipulate & exploit. -
IanC at 16:23 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Tim 108, That statement is made in the context of the discharge oscillator model, where heat is transported in and out of the equatorial region horizontally. The build up is due to heat outside the equatorial strip transported into the strip, so if you add up the heat content from region where WWV is calculated, and the heat content of the ocean outside the region there should be no change. P.3 of Meinen and McPhaden 2010 contains a diagram that explains the discharge oscillator theory. The svendrup transport is a transport in the meridional (N-S) direction, which transports the warm water outside the equatorial region that results in the build up of heat in the equator. -
dana1981 at 16:07 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Thanks for the nice comments all. miekol -"Any carbon pricing will push that nine tenths below the poverty line, and push the majority of the remaining one tenth close to the poverty line."
Nope. Please see CO2 limits will hurt the poor."You have a vested interest, your job."
Sorry, what exactly are you suggesting my vested interest is?"On the other hand if the skeptics are wrong, what is going to happen?"
That's kind of the point. If the "skeptics" are wrong and we behave as though they're right, we're screwed."What matters is that a tiny bit of humanity will survive."
Survival of a tiny bit of humanity is a pretty damn low bar to set. I'd prefer to aim a little bit higher.Moderator Response: [DB] Dana, did you mean this post: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Those-who-contribute-the-least-greenhouse-gases-will-be-most-impacted-by-climate-change.html? -
miekol at 15:55 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
What a marvelous post Dana. I rarely post, but I enjoyed yours so much I felt it deserved a response. You say,"the minimal economic impacts of carbon pricing" What? Are you kidding me? Nine tenths of humanity is already hovering just above the poverty line. Any carbon pricing will push that nine tenths below the poverty line, and push the majority of the remaining one tenth close to the poverty line. You say "I'm an environmental scientist and risk assessor, and when it comes to public health and welfare, we don't mess around. If there's a chance a site is contaminated and poses a threat to the public, the site owner has to either prove that it's safe or clean it up." But that’s the whole point isn’t it. You have a vested interest, your job. You say, “It's true that there is a chance that the "skeptics" are right and the consequences of human greenhouse gas emissions won't be dire.” On the other hand if the skeptics are wrong, what is going to happen? Have you read “Man’s search for meaning,” by Viktor E. Frankl. If not, you should. Vikto E. Frankl was a highly intelligent human being. Probably more intelligent than you or I. If you are right when you say, “we are driving the climate towards potentially catastrophic consequences for much of life on Earth.” It really doesn’t matter. What matters is that a tiny bit of humanity will survive. Like Darwin says, it’s the survival of the fittest. Believe me humanity will survive. I know it will :-) http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/smith-michael_on-globalism.html -
keithpickering at 15:44 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Thanks for your great work in this forum and others. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 15:35 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
scaddenp Fig 2 from Lyman is interesting. Looks like a plateau in the mid 90's, a rise then another plateau in the late 2000's. Could that be the solar cycle? Obviously dangerous to read too much into eyeballing short range graphs. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 15:28 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
TimTheToolMan @108 "variability is intimately linked to alternating stages of oceanic heat content build-up and discharge in the equatorial Pacific" The surface layer of the equatorial Pacific isn't the entire volume of the ocean. And if heat is being exchanged between the ocean and atmosphere this doesn't necesarily mean a change to Total Heat Content. That said anything that causes a heat flux into/out of the atmosphere is likely to have implications for atmospheric phenomena that impact on the heat balance to space. So a more permanent ENSO switch could possible cause a change to THC, a set point change if you will. But I can't see how this could lead to a longer term change in OHC TREND! -
Glenn Tamblyn at 15:18 PM on 28 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Gilles. 'A few degrees' has one major and overriding implication. Food Supply. Water Stress, Desertification, Erratic Weather and thus unreliable water supply, melting Glaciers etc. Yes we might be able to open up new farm land at higher latitudes but there is less land there and the transition to making previously unfarmed Tundra for example workable may take time. In a world of 9-10 billion people it doesn't take much disruption to existing farming regions to trigger massive famines. Whereas significant cuts to energy consumption? So some of the consumer society goes away - no loss. Did our grandparents have such terrible lives 50 years ago?. Of course in any energy reduced world we could still prioritise the important stuff - hygiene, health care, medicines etc. No more SUV's, $20 air fares, mountains of pointless consumer crap. Who cares about lossing the detritus of life? -
scaddenp at 15:14 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Tim, I saw your exchange with Gavin. I understood your comments about "where's the modelled results for OHC post 2003" to imply that Gavin knew what they were and was deliberately not publishing them because he thought they would be embarrassing. You obviously did not accept the response he gave you. It appears that moderator thought similarly. If this was not what you implied, then I fear you have expressed yourself badly. IanC, I stand corrected, I should have examined the data more closely before expressing an opinion where I know so little. -
TimTheToolMan at 15:06 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
@IanC : NOAA was quite specific about their understanding of ENSO and OHC. ""El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) variability is intimately linked to alternating stages of oceanic heat content build-up and discharge in the equatorial Pacific (Wyrtki, 1985; Cane et al, 1986; Zebiak, 1989). " Hence if ENSO biases one way or the other in the future we can expect a related change in trend for OHC. -
IanC at 15:02 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Tim 101, The warm water volume plotted there is only limited to a narrow band along the equator, according to the discharge oscillator theory the warm water discharges out of the region, and it doesn't mean that the overall OHC will change. scaddenp 102, From fig 2, I can see that there is a dip around 1997-1998, but then around 2008 there is a dip too, but that is a la nina year. Also from 2002-2005 there is an El Nino, but the mean looks flat there. -
SoundOff at 14:55 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Dana, 50 more blogs, please. I've read them all and found many of them helpful in clarifying my climate understanding. -
adelady at 14:36 PM on 28 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
scaddenp, I hadn't thought of that. North Africa is a lot closer to Europe than any part of Europe ever was to Oz or USA. Make a choice. 1) Offer a few North African countries some set number of millions of dollars to host CSP (and storage) and export it to Europe. Use this power for everything including transport. 2) Spend unknown millions of dollars dealing with economic and climate refugees from Africa and within Europe at the same time as finding the cash for untold millions of adaptation costs for your own country. Keep on trying to spend at this rate while facing up to increasing costs of absolutely everything including power and transport fuels as well as relocating your own citizens and important facilities like sewage plants away from rising sea levels. Which option sounds better? What other options are available? -
Paul Magnus at 14:24 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Please support and pass on…. “Addressing Global Warming, I vow to eliminate all my non-essential flying. It’s a moral issue…” http://www.facebook.com/pages/ClimateFlightAction/165484890164497?v=info By signing up to reducing your non-essential flying you make a big impact on emissions reduction in multiple ways. >Your emissions are substantially reduce. >Your resolution highlights and focus the urgency of the issue and the sort of effort that will be required to address the problem with your peers. >Lead by example. We can not ask for climate action without making the first move. >You reenforce and provide suport to consolidate action in tackling global warming. -
Paul Magnus at 14:24 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Its a moral issue... http://moralground.com/mission/ >Yes, our lives must be an expression of what we most deeply value. >Yes, we can and must make conscience-driven choices about how we spend our money and time. >Yes, we must provide a safe and thriving future for our children. -
scaddenp at 14:22 PM on 28 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
I dont think Gilles believes that for a moment - he is specialist in debating tricks. But on off chance, the commonest adaptation is migration - any choice for salted deltas? How many million refugees is France taking? Is that preferable to changing energy source? -
scaddenp at 14:19 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
My point was not evidence that ENSO won't change. It was evidence that ENSO is not much of a player in total OHC. I argue against ENSO because its very hard to see physical reason for it to be able to do so. Paleo estimates show uncertainty about sensitivity, which is not the same as variability. However, it is extremely difficult to account for past climate with sensitivity as low as you are trying to claim. Your turn, where is your evidence for low sensitivity. There is plenty of evidence for a number about 3. See model reliability thread for "careful tuning of parameters". Try some evidence to support that accusation. Show me where a model parameter was tuned to fit overall climate instead of the empirical data on which it was based, but post it over there, not here. -
adelady at 14:14 PM on 28 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Spontaneous? Choosing the desert? The Irish left their green and very unpleasant land because they had to. My Swedish sailor great-grandfather jumped ship here to avoid an arranged marriage. My Rum Corps ancestor was a soldier who chose to stay on in the lush sub-tropical environment north of Sydney. And then their children grew up used to this environment - although they wrecked most of it by applying farming techniques from Europe. And yes. I am "arguing that mankind would have much less difficulties to replace 80 % of its energy sources, than to face a few degrees more on the Earth?" If you've never tried living in never-ending heat above 35C that occasionally warms up to 41+ or more, you wouldn't be so sanguine about the whole of mankind being able to cope with "a few degrees more". Those few degrees represent a =lot= of intolerable degrees for those on the high side of the average. I might swelter here from time to time, but the earth's average ensures that a lot of people are simultaneously sheltering from freezing. Let's face it, if there are to be a "few degrees more" then insulation and building re-design will be required expenditures anyway. Why not spend the money first and possibly maintain the capacity to work or play outside in more congenial temperatures? Double win. You have a better life in more comfortable surroundings. If your local climate worsens, you've already got your protection in place. If avoiding CO2 emissions manages to keep your local climate more livable, you've got a better workplace and house than you would have had if the changes hadn't been made. What's the problem? -
TimTheToolMan at 14:07 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
You point to 5 years of Argo data as evidence that ENSO wont change in the future and become biased one way or the other? You point to paleo estimates that show considerable natural variability and somehow reason that ENSO or other ntural effects like clouds didn't play a part? You're right about the models though. I dont have any doubt in my mind whatsoever with regards their usefulness for modelling altered future climatic conditions given their reliance on carfully tuned parameters that work against today's conditions. -
cjshaker at 14:05 PM on 28 March 2011Temp record is unreliable
A friend pointed me at: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/stationlocator.html I eventually got down to this web page: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/mpp/digitalfiles.html#DIG They want $2,200 for the complete data set from 1901 to current, or $500 for the summary of each day from the 1800s As taxpayers, we get to pay their salaries, pensions, health care, and then we have to pay again to access our public data? I just looked at the RealClimate.org webpage again, where you suggested, and am currently looking at the raw data section http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Climate_data_raw Chris Shaker -
scaddenp at 13:57 PM on 28 March 2011Temp record is unreliable
Your opinions about RC nor tamino are irrelevant. They usefully include pointers to where to download data from. That is what you want. Education about real science is not marketing. -
scaddenp at 13:55 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Umm, as to evidence that ENSO doesnt impact long term energy budget, then I would say total OHC from argo, from here, supported by sealevel rise. I also usefulness of models which I am sure you don't. Add in paleo estimates of climate sensitivity and I would say a very long way from "no evidence". -
TimTheToolMan at 13:51 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
" I'll believe that if there is no OHC model result in AR5. " They'll have to have it by then, its a vitally important measure of our CO2's effect in our climate and needs to be compared to the models. But apparently not so vital that it cant be "ignored" for 8 years... -
scaddenp at 13:46 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
"I will look at the data as it appears and make my assessment then. Would you be giving up your beliefs in AGW if there is no OHC increase over the next 10 years? " Obviously - and same for more many other predictions of climate models if they don't turn out either. You neglected to tell us about Gavin's response was to when OHC would be available and tried oblique accusation of hiding data instead. Hmm. I'll believe that if there is no OHC model result in AR5. IanC - Lyman 2010 0-700m total OHC certainly looks to have ENSO signal in it to me, though I would be first to admit that I know little enough about oceanography. -
TimTheToolMan at 13:36 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
"Given that ENSO is due to a redistribution of warm and cold water across the pacific, there is no reason I think to believe that the overall heat content will increase or decrease significantly." I guess you missed the post. There is every reason to believe ENSO decreases OHC http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/wwv/ -
actually thoughtful at 13:34 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Thank you for posts that examine the potential solutions, and the political situation that prevents the common sense answers from occurring. While the science is important, in 2011 we are no longer looking for evidence that AGW is happening - we are reeling from the first love tap from mother earth (summer of 2010, et al.). So how we move the politicians in various capitals from pandering to entrenched interest to working for the common good is the next essential step. For what it is worth - the case for early adopters and energy savings is HUGE - the early adopters, who act before the market signal is clear get government and other subsidies (in many cases). But they will reap the same financial reward as those who wait until the payback is less than 5 years, or whatever criteria makes energy efficiency/renewables viable in the free market. So if you have a dollar to spend, and wonder what the best investment is - right now it is in subsidized energy efficiency. Insulation, windows, more efficient appliances, more efficient transport (electric cars in particular), and it is in subsidized active systems - solar thermal (first), wind, PV - if you can get a 3rd party to share that cost now, your savings will be identical (actually higher because you have used the system longer) to the person who buys it after the subsidy ends. So the best use of a marginal investable dollar, in these extremely uncertain economic times, is obvious. For early adopters, the cost for converting to energy efficiency/renewable energy is not only small, but actually negative (as in you save more money than you spend). Break even (what this Blog has been jumping up and down about (aka grid parity)) means your 20 or 30 year costs are the same between paying the utility or throwing up wind/PV. Early adopters, especially for solar thermal, are in positive territory after 5-15 years (depends what fuel you are replacing). That is, between twice as well off or 6 times as well off (regarding energy) as the person who chooses to wait. -
IanC at 13:31 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Tim, Scaddenp, Given that ENSO is due to a redistribution of warm and cold water across the pacific, there is no reason I think to believe that the overall heat content will increase or decrease significantly. Furthermore, the main action occurs above the thermocline, which is about 100-200m or 10% of the 0-2000m layer. Since the thermocline anomaly is also restricted to the equatorial pacific, I will be surprised if you can see ENSO signal in the OHC. -
TimTheToolMan at 13:23 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
"Just to be clearer. I am postulating that ENSO is simple internal variability in the system and does not impact on long term energy budget, for which total OHC is a better indicator. " Just to be clearer, I'm pointing out that you have no evidence for this and our ability to predict climate into the future relies on it. -
TimTheToolMan at 13:21 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
"the OHC from argo does fit the expected response from modelling?" Expected response from modelling? It may surprise you that there is no expected response from modelling since 2003. I'm sure there is actually but I'm equally sure it will only be brought out by the likes of Gavin if OHC does increase again. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/#more-6056 "The next figure is the comparison of the ocean heat content (OHC) changes in the models compared to the latest data from NODC. As before, I don’t have the post-2003 model output, but the comparison between the 3-monthly data (to the end of Sep) and annual data versus the model output is still useful." No it isn't Gavin. Not when actual figures from models can be determined but noone has seen fit to do so for the last 8 years or put another way, since the OHC stopped increasing ...very much not in line with the model outputs... "Okay, but you will be convinced if 10 years down the track, the OHC from argo does fit the expected response from modelling?" I will look at the data as it appears and make my assessment then. Would you be giving up your beliefs in AGW if there is no OHC increase over the next 10 years? -
scaddenp at 13:12 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Just to be clearer. I am postulating that ENSO is simple internal variability in the system and does not impact on long term energy budget, for which total OHC is a better indicator. -
scaddenp at 13:08 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Missed your post. I entirely agree about upper ocean OHC. ENSO has major role in heat cycling. But I am talking about total OHC as indicator of global energy budget and 0-2000 (best proxy for it) looks smooth to me. -
scaddenp at 13:05 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Okay, but you will be convinced if 10 years down the track, the OHC from argo does fit the expected response from modelling? Also, we have a few cycles of ENSO since argo - agreed it seems to have little influence on 0-2000 OHC? Which I would read as little influence on long term energy budget. -
TimTheToolMan at 12:54 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
"Given ENSO doesnt seem to show much on the 0-2000m OHC" Oh yeah, and I generally disagree with your assessment anyway. So does NOAA http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/wwv/ "El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) variability is intimately linked to alternating stages of oceanic heat content build-up and discharge in the equatorial Pacific (Wyrtki, 1985; Cane et al, 1986; Zebiak, 1989). Jin (1997) elegantly described the relationships between heat content, sea surface temperature and zonal wind stress in his "Recharge Oscillator" theory of ENSO. Recent studies of oceanic and atmospheric variability have confirmed these relationships and elaborated on their implications for understanding the dynamics of the ENSO cycle (Meinen and McPhaden, 2000; Kessler, 2002; Trenberth et al, 2002). " -
Don Gisselbeck at 12:51 PM on 28 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
Wouldn't solar powered battery charging of vehicles already be cost competitive if we we paying for the Mid East wars (and most of our military) directly through gas taxes? We could do without most of our military if we didn't need to import oil. -
TimTheToolMan at 12:42 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
"Given ENSO doesnt seem to show much on the 0-2000m OHC," I'm not convinced we have a good enough handle on OHC yet. Since Argo there has been no ocean heating. Its pretty clear that the stitching together of the two datasets (XBT et al + Argo) has created an unrealistic jump in OHC that is attempting to be resolved even now. Its another one of these cases where ( -SNIP: accusation of fraud deleted- ) change was thought to be happening quickly and the more we measure it, the less it changes.Moderator Response: [DB] In deference to scaddenp, who has already replied to this, your comment was snipped instead of deleted. Future comments with similar accusations (and even insinuations) of fraud will be deleted; be advised. -
johnd at 12:35 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Alexandre at 11:22 AM, I haven't time to get into deep discussion right now, but regarding your PS, it hasn't bothered me because that is what the paper is generally about. Examining the uncertainties and limitations of our current far from complete understanding, and how those limitations has a substantial impact on the global climate predictability. Whilst is does produce some useful and interesting modeling, that is a useful byproduct rather than the objective of the study, but enough to support relevant points one might want to debate. One aspect I found particularly interesting is the noting of the JAMSTEC prediction system being superior in certain areas to many other existing systems, JAMSTEC being one tool that I have frequently referred to for a number of years now. -
scaddenp at 12:30 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Great that is settled that oceans are heating. For a moment, I thought you were arguing that there was none. Given ENSO doesnt seem to show much on the 0-2000m OHC, how come you think it has considerable influence on the long term energy balance? This isn't rhetoric - I am not following your argument. And yes, TOA imbalance size has issues with absolute accuracy of the measurement, (but not the sign). -
michael sweet at 12:24 PM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Dana, Thank you for your carefully researched and referenced posts. -
TimTheToolMan at 12:07 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
And to the mods, this discussion isn't supposed to be about models. This is about the difference between day to day weather and effects that are longer that have considerable effect on the earth's energy balance (like ENSO) that cant be predicted in the same way we cant predict day to day weather. -
TimTheToolMan at 12:01 PM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
"Tim, are you denying that the ocean's are accumulating heat despite the OHC data" Where did that crazy jump in logic come from? "You are aware that there is a TOA energy imbalance?" Were you aware that what we measure and what we calculate it should be are radically different? -
scaddenp at 11:52 AM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Tim, are you denying that the ocean's are accumulating heat despite the OHC data? You are aware that there is a TOA energy imbalance? -
TimTheToolMan at 11:52 AM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
"Actually, the water vapor will stay water vapor until it cools, at which point it will condense. " You're talking about rain. That wont happen in the case of a pool in a room. condensation happens on surfaces in this case. "short term (decadal or less) redistributions of energy and temperature variations that inhibit or enhance SAT and thus radiation to space do not change the average radiation capability, or the average absorption, and hence do not change the long term temperature average." So you say. But you have no evidence that say for example La Nina effects wont predominate in the future thus cancelling out any further temperature increases from CO2. It could go the other way and that El Nino effects predominate and radically increase the temperatures. The current assumption is that the status quo happens. Thats a big assumption and is a necessary one if we're to believe we can "predict" climate in the future. And if you want to look at effects that actually effect the irradiance and radiation then clouds will do that and again we just dont know what they'll do in the future under altered climatic conditions. -
IanC at 11:48 AM on 28 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Tim, You said, "Stuff like reduced atmospheric water vapour content is likely, cloud coverage changes, pressure changes cause blockings to change and so on." What causes these to happen in the first place? What causes the water to condense out? To illustrate that the air will cool irregardless of water vapour, what if it is pure nitrogen of 22C over a 5C pool? -
Bern at 11:39 AM on 28 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
Thanks for the 50 posts, Dana - especially the recent ones about what can be done to fix the problem. It's always useful to have a potential solution handy when stating there's a problem. -
Weather vs Climate
TimTheToolMan - "The water vapour will condense out into the pool taking its heat with it..." Actually, the water vapor will stay water vapor until it cools, at which point it will condense. On the larger scale of this example and ENSO cycles - it takes on the order of decades for even moderately transient climate feedbacks to kick in. And even without them, short term (decadal or less) redistributions of energy and temperature variations that inhibit or enhance SAT and thus radiation to space do not change the average radiation capability, or the average absorption, and hence do not change the long term temperature average. The climate will still tend to a stable point, unless there are long term changes such as greenhouse gases that affect climate averages. -
SNRatio at 11:25 AM on 28 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
As for regulation of wind (and PV) power, Europe has about 160 TWh of hydro magazine capacity today, about 5% of a year's electricity production, 2-3 weeks' production. Much of this magazine capacity can be modified for pumped hydro - there is only a need for much larger generation capacity, which is not that expensive to install. Already, Europe's wind power production is about 160-180 TWh, i.e. it has passed 5% of overall electricity generation - without much power system adaptations whatsoever. That there may occur problems with regulation and production in such a situation, is obvious. But I would have expected a lot more trouble with the rapid phasing in of wind and PV (>20 TWh now), and the problems are surely not very hard to solve satisfactorily. And, as has been pointed out here, several solutions are under development, in addition to the old, simple one of pumping hydro. As for environment impacts, most of future wind power will probably be offshore, mostly with floating wind turbines, like this seemingly succesful prototype. It is expensive to develop the technology, and cabling will never be cheap for most actual locations, but we are not talking oil investments worthless when the wells are empty after a few decades here.
Prev 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 Next
