Recent Comments

Prev  1813  1814  1815  1816  1817  1818  1819  1820  1821  1822  1823  1824  1825  1826  1827  1828  Next

Comments 91001 to 91050:

91001. Phil at 04:07 AM on 28 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Phillippe @863 - Didn't you know - Global Warming is caused by glow-worms. :-)
91002. Rob Honeycutt at 03:46 AM on 28 March 2011
       Weather vs Climate
       TTTM said... "The view that CO2's effect as a GHG will necessarily dominate over any timescales that we care about is a naive one." That's a very strangely qualified statement. Any timescale that we care about? I believe the point is that we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a rate that it is overwhelming the natural radiative balance and causing the planet to warm. I don't believe that is a naive statement in any way.
91003. Philippe Chantreau at 03:24 AM on 28 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       LJR: "Q1)What is the SW radiation emissivity of the earths surface?" What? Why would one even ask such a question is baffling.
91004. muoncounter at 02:30 AM on 28 March 2011
       Weather vs Climate
       Gilles #58: "has the rise been unlikely close to Hansen's predictions, or not?" Skip the ambiguity; take these questions to the relevant thread, where there is graphical evidence that your doubts are ill-founded. "you cannot always find clear validations of theories." In this case, theory predicts trend (climate) rather than specific events (weather). Short-sighted individuals who focus on individual events do not look carefully enough to see those trends. Perhaps it is a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees?
91005. adelady at 02:29 AM on 28 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       Gilles, you're certainly right about Oz and USA consumption. Our houses are dreadfully designed and built for this (or any) environment. We have far and away the biggest carbon footprint of the OECD countries, Canada's between us and the USA. I don't think we can continue to have the biggest houses in the world. Most Australian capital cities are on the list of 10-15 least affordable places to live in the world - that can't continue. OTOH, insulation, ventilated roofs to remove the heat reservoir in our ceiling spaces, passive environmentally sensible design should remove most of the 'need' for our excessive use of air conditioners. I don't have one but have an old house with very, very high ceilings. Livable in all but the very worst heatwaves. And I'm a lot more optimistic than you about the declining cost of wind and solar. I'm also very impressed by technologies like metal roof panels precoated with solar collecting material and similar window films. Not economic yet, but soon, very soon. My preference for places with ludicrously high consumption like ours is major investment in negawatts, rather than alternative sources to maintain our totally unnecessary consumption (esp of that diabolical brown coal used in Victoria.) Though here we get 15% of our power from wind already and the only reason it's not more is grid inadequacy near a couple of prime wind generating sites. Basically I'm more optimistic than you. Equally, I'm irritated by people insisting on staying with what I see as primitive technology. No matter how you cut it, burning stuff to initiate other processes that eventually finish up producing power is Victorian. The fact that we build bigger and better with more concrete can't change the fact that this is crude technology. I prefer sophisticated.
91006. Trueofvoice at 01:55 AM on 28 March 2011
       Weather vs Climate
       Tim, No matter how many ENSOs, or how powerful, in the end they do nothing more than shift the heat around. They do not produce or eliminate it. CO2 dominates climate because it controls the planet's radiative energy balance. The more CO2 we add to the atmosphere, the greater the energy imbalance and the more heat we get. The energy imbalance can be measured and projected into the future as we continue to add GHGs to the atmosphere. This is basic physics.
91007. muoncounter at 01:44 AM on 28 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
       rhj #23: "Wind farms in the UK have been turned off because they caused havoc with the main grid supply as the supply fluctuated with wind changes." I'll see that non-specific example with a specific one. Texas had a freeze in early February; mechanical issues with freezing water pipes caused a number of coal-fired plants to go off-line. Natural gas shortages (in Texas, no less!) prevented backup generators from starting. A series of 'rolling blackouts' began statewide on what was one of the coldest days of the year. Unlike these unreliable fossil fuel plants, the wind kept sweepin' down the plain: Wind energy played a critical role in limiting the severity of the blackouts, providing enough electricity to keep the power on for about three million typical households. ERCOT, the Texas grid operator, has confirmed that wind energy was providing between 3,500 and 4,000 MW of electricity (about seven percent of ERCOT demand at that time), roughly what it was forecast and scheduled to provide, during the critical 5–7 a.m. window on [Feb. 2] when the grid needed power the most. --- Texas climate news, 2 Feb 11 Despite progress, Texas remains the state with the highest CO2 emissions in the US. ERCOT reported last month that wind-generated power had increased to 7.8 percent of the electricity used in Texas during 2010, compared to its 6.2 percent share in 2009. Coal produced the most electricity last year with 39.5 percent, followed by natural gas, the 2009 leader, which was down to 38.2 percent. -- same source We're all used to cheap, amply available fossil fuels; perhaps our judgment is clouded by that history. The situation will no doubt be different as we slide along the downwards side of an energy supply curve. Perhaps resistance to change is highest in places that have neither experienced the damage done by lost supply nor the benefits of available alternatives.
91008. Paul D at 00:33 AM on 28 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
       johnD: "It's a lot harder, and costlier, to accommodate two variables." It's not hard. If you take that attitude then everything is hard and we would have never have developed any system we have today. If you go back to the 1940s then playing music from files on a silicon chip would have seemed like science fiction (it was science fiction, because that was exactly what science fiction authors wrote about). What really annoys me is the idea that: 1. People are stuck in some sort of time warp in which nothing can possibly change and we must have what we have today. 2. People are dumb and all the technology we have today magically appeared from no where. Just in the UK alone we have two completely new energy storage technologies being developed/researched. And it was only a few days ago that new developments in better battery cathodes promises extremely quick charging times for existing battery technologies. What I find extremely puzzling, is that skeptics are optimistic about future climate and pessimistic about any new technology developments that would replace existing technology. Or rather maybe it should not be puzzling, given vested interests and a complete cynicism about science. Yet these same people lap technology up once it is universal. IMO you have to make your mind up, get on with the job of changing, or just go and sit in a cave somewhere. You have those two choices. Isentropic energy storage: http://www.isentropic.co.uk/
91009. Ken Lambert at 00:13 AM on 28 March 2011
       Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
       Marcus & Adelady As johnd again correctly points out - there is a world price for coal because it is a traded commodity produced in many nations. Demand has been increasing rapidly - so the price is at high levels and our dastardly miners are making big profits. Remember Rudd's 'Mining Super Profis Tax' - it was designed to cash-in on the boom. So our miners are just 'giving' our heavily subsidized coal to the Chinese like a fire sale of the family silver?? Well in that case all the other world producers must be 'heavily subsidized' by their governments too - so they can compete with us! Hello?? Sounds like Pauline Hansen Economics 1.01 to me. Have you ever heard of State Royalties which act as a straight turnover tax and Company Tax which taxes profit just like any other company? Marcus: Time for you to put some numbers on your assertions. How about the cost of Wind generation including the storage technologies (molten salt, compressed air or pumped hydro - or whatever). Cents per kWhr will do. And all those landfills across the country just happen to be able to back-up Wind generators when they don't generate. Let us know the cost of this too in cents per kWhr. One free service dinosaurs like me perform, is to point out that our main competitive advantage in this real cruel world is our relatively cheap and abundant fossil fuel (black coal and gas). Input energy from Wind, Solar or other renewables to our industries and domestic economy at 2-10 times the current cost and see what happens to our standard of living. I am all for energy saving and efficiency measures such as building insulation, smart storage of heat, light bulbs, 6 star ratings etc - but these must all make economic sense with the current cost (and projected future cost) of energy.
91010. Alexandre at 23:23 PM on 27 March 2011
       Weather vs Climate
       johnd #62 The behaviour of a buyer is far more unpredictable than that of a gas. I suggest you get more familiar with what climate models are all about (btw, this could be a suggestion for a future post here at SkS). It's just a calculation with very well established laws of physics. Now, you cannot predict daily weather very accurately, but you can predict its long term average quite well, given the boundary conditions. If you add a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, you can calculate (and measure) more IR radiation being trapped. You can calculate the temperature difference. You can estimate within uncertainty ranges how water vapor will respond. It's not like trying to guess how the market will behave. You can't say for sure if it will rain on the Amazon on Dec 12th, but you can state quite confidently that December will have far more rain in the Amazon than in the Sahara. Why?
91011. Eric (skeptic) at 23:21 PM on 27 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
       On J&D's suggestion #4 "Use energy storage technologies", hopefully that includes thermal storage. I think techniques like vehicle battery storage might help with a little marginal power, but thermal masses can store lots more heat energy if properly designed. Here in Virginia (where it still seems to be winter), the majority of energy is used to keep warm and for transportation. Rather than use up vehicle batteries on any aspect of keeping warm, we need to improve passive solar (plus the active solar and heat pumps mentioned above). It is probably the case that 99.9% of houses are suboptimal or very suboptimal in terms of passive solar (which includes summer cooling).
91012. Marcus at 23:14 PM on 27 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
       Its worth noting that, after California, the biggest US investor in Wind Power is Texas-hardly a State I'd associate with being keen on protecting the environment. I can only guess that they see the value of investing for future energy needs *now*-rather than when its too late. Texas, as I understand it, are also looking at Compressed Air as a storage mechanism. The Germans, meanwhile, have pumped storage. Either one of the 3 options I've mentioned can all but eliminate the variability of supply-especially if coupled with a decent distribution of individual turbines.
91013. Marcus at 23:10 PM on 27 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
       John D, it is a very easy thing to change Wind Farms from being variable to being a fixed supply-I suggest you look into Vanadium Redox Batteries, which are making great strides with every passing year. Not that Wind Power is nearly as variable as the knockers claim it is-with or without storage. Lastly, with storage it will be much easier to adjust the energy output of wind farms than is currently the case with coal or nuclear power.
91014. johnd at 23:00 PM on 27 March 2011
       Weather vs Climate
       Alexandre at 22:16 PM, checking the trends is fine, but the problem for all models, be they climate or economic, is that ultimately,and always, the trend is your friend until the bend at the end.
91015. johnd at 22:55 PM on 27 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
       The Ville at 22:01 PM, but also do not overlook the fact that windfarms change the system from one with a fixed supply and a variable demand to a system with a variable demand and supply, perhaps even an erratic supply. It's a lot harder, and costlier, to accommodate two variables.
91016. Alexandre at 22:16 PM on 27 March 2011
       Weather vs Climate
       batsvensson #57 Of course I do not agree with that. Theories are based on cause and effect, but that effect is not what is predicted by that theory (allowing for the broader sense of "theory" here). It's like saying "if you can't predict the next 6 you cannot say the dice is loaded". Check the trends, not events. Gilles #58 Who's saying no doubt is allowed? Models are limited approximations of the real world. Any law of physics is a limited approximation of the real world. That is not to say they are useless pieces of fiction. Would you go so far as to say that? Or would you recognize its share of accurate predictions?
91017. Paul D at 22:01 PM on 27 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
       rhjames: "They also pay the windfarms to shut down when they supply power when it's not needed. All false economy." Cherry picking. All power stations are paid money for being idle when to much is being generated or there is not enough demand. Please do not distort the facts for political and prejudiced reasons.
91018. michael sweet at 21:56 PM on 27 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
       Rhjames: Spain got 16% of its electricity in 2010 from wind see this Wikipedia article. As FF get more expensive their wind will be free. The fuel is one of the biggest costs of a FF power plant. I find it hard to believe that wind farms in the UK cannot be accomodated when Spain has done it. Perhaps the Spainish are smarter. Please provide references. On the other hand, I expect that when new technology is introduced there will be a learning curve. As we learn more these issues will go away. I note that you have not pointed out a single item in the posted article that you find incorrect, you just wave your hand and say "I don't believe". Not very convincing. People who have carefully thought about this problem believe it can be solved. The article discussed cost. Where is the problem that you have found with their calculations?
91019. Paul D at 21:55 PM on 27 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
       rhjames: The fact that wind turbines can be easily disengaged and the fact they are well distribruted is a positive attribute not a negative one. Power stations are taken off line and put on line and they make a much bigger impact to the grid than a few smaller wind turbines going on and offline. When you take a power station off line you have to be much more careful (take a look at Fukushima and the impact large powers stations have on grid stability). How do you solve these issues? You do it by managing the resources you have so that the grid frequency doesn't fluctuate to much. Whatever mix you have, you are going to have problems to manage. The fact that for years we have had one type of source (large powers stations) just means that we have developed grid management systems for that specific scenario. That isn't practical for future scenarios so new ways of managing renewables connect6ed to the grid are being developed. That's what engineers do, solve problems.
91020. TimTheToolMan at 21:50 PM on 27 March 2011
       Weather vs Climate
       "Weather" in the skeptic's sense doesn't have to be day to day though. "Weather" can mean a few years of ENSO events for example. Since we cant predict whether El Nino or La Nina (or neither for status quo) will become predominant in the future, we cant predict "global" climate either. ENSO is just one of many potential long term changable effects that will determine global average temperatures. Cloud cover is another major one. The view that CO2's effect as a GHG will necessarily dominate over any timescales that we care about is a naive one.
91021. rhjames at 21:15 PM on 27 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
       Michael - how do you expect Spain to have cheaper electricity (assuming no government subsidy?) Wind is bad news. Wind farms in the UK have been turned off because they caused havoc with the main grid supply as the supply fluctuated with wind changes. They also pay the windfarms to shut down when they supply power when it's not needed. All false economy. I think this is all fantasy, supplying all power from such variable sources. Of course, it can work, but the cost will be mind blowing. Imagine a fortnight of rain and no wind - where does the power come from? How would it be realistically stored? I can remember over a month of wind free rainy days.
91022. batsvensson at 20:57 PM on 27 March 2011
       Weather vs Climate
       "to qualify a good theory as one which predicts unlikely events is tricky when we look at climate change." Nobody said it will or is easy, but what I think irritates or annoy a lot of people is when pro AGW people goes public and make dead sure "predictions". No such thing can be said to be sure. What we have is likely and unlikely scenarios and these are covered by the error ranges in the models - then of course some stupid journalist must hock onto this and blow things out of proportion with the worst case, which is also the most unlikely scenario, with a "what will happen if we continue as we do" story.
91023. Gilles at 20:49 PM on 27 March 2011
       Weather vs Climate
       "Back to an “unlikely” event that has been predicted by climate models, if we look at Hansens model from 1988, I repeat what I’ve said on the models are unreliable thread, the global average surface temperature has risen. " the question is : has the rise been unlikely close to Hansen's predictions, or not ? a simple visual inspection of figures concluding that "it matches approximately" is obviously not enough to say that. Alexandre#56 : you cannot always find clear validations of theories. That's unfortunate, but you know, life is not a fairy tale; for instance we don't have yet clear predictions of supersymmetry or worse, brane theories. That's life. The only thing is that before claiming that things are settled and that no doubt is allowed, you need such facts. If you don't have them, you're not allowed - in principle- to make such claims. And the burden of proof is for this who claims he believes in a model - not for this who doubts.
91024. batsvensson at 20:49 PM on 27 March 2011
       Weather vs Climate
       @Alexandra - that's part of the assumption that a theory is based on cause and effect. Do you agree to this?
91025. Alexandre at 20:43 PM on 27 March 2011
       Weather vs Climate
       Gilles and batsvensson How can an event be a test of a climate prediction?
91026. johnd at 20:38 PM on 27 March 2011
       Weather vs Climate
       Gilles at 18:33 PM, "unlikely" unfortunately is something subjective, and we see this in action quite frequently in weather forecasting where different forecasters can use very different models. All too often here in Australia with seasonal to long range outlooks, what one body predicts as most likely will be predicted by another forecaster as most unlikely. It has happened that two totally opposing outlooks have been released by two separate organisations on the same day. Given such differing predictions are not isolated events, "unlikely" therefore cannot be an appropriate means of judging quality.
91027. michael sweet at 20:35 PM on 27 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       Interested readers willl find Gilles' questions about air conditioning, heating and other areas of the world addressed here. The reference linked there proposes to use renewable energy for all current uses of Fossil Fuels. They calculate the material needs and costs. It is possible to live similarly to current lifestyles using renewable energy.
91028. michael sweet at 20:18 PM on 27 March 2011
       Weather vs Climate
       It would be interesting to see a comparison of Hanson's prediction in 1988 with what MSU and Lindzen predicted in 1988. We have a thread on Hanson's prediction but it does not compare to what other people said. As Peter points out, now everyone knows it got hotter and skeptics say Hanson's prediction was not perfect. A beter question is how good did Hanson do compared to the skeptics (and other scientists) at the time.
91029. michael sweet at 20:10 PM on 27 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
       Eric: The cost of FF is already rising as the supply runs low. Hybrid cars are a response to high gas prices. Mountaintop mining would not be done if there was more coal available. The question is how much does coal have to go up before the public supports policies that favor renewables. When Spain's electricity is cheaper than the rest of Europe it will be a real eye opener. Hopefully that will be sooner rather than later.
91030. sailrick at 20:07 PM on 27 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
       Peter Hogarth and adelady Sail for modern cargo ships is not a new idea, as you might know. You may have heard of the mega yacht - modern square rigged luxury vessel, the nearly 300 ft. Maltese Falcon. Belongs to one of those Silicon Valley billionaires. It uses a computerized rig with rigid sails called a Dyna Rig, that was originally developed for cargo ships. The idea is not to turn cargo ships into sailing vessels, but sail assisted vessels, or motorsailors. (the Maltese Falcon is more of a sailboat.) And more recently the SkySail has been developed, basically a parasail flown like a kite hundreds of feet off the deck. They are relatively cheap and can save 10%- 35% on fuel, depending on the passage, wind direction etc. "Currently, SkySails is offering towing kite propulsion systems for cargo vessels with an effective load* of between 8 and 16 tons. SkySails with an effective load* of 32 tons are under development. The planned product program comprises towing kite propulsion systems with an effective load* of up to 130 tons." "An effective tractive force of 8 tons by a SkySail corresponds to approx. 600 to 1,000 kW installed main engine power on average - depending on the ship‘s properties (propeller efficiency degree, resistance, etc.) " http://www.skysails.info/english/company/ They work on any point of sail a sailboat can sail. In other words, about 290 out of 360 degrees.
91031. Peter Hogarth at 19:56 PM on 27 March 2011
       Weather vs Climate
       Gilles at 18:33 PM on 27 March, 2011, I see your point (despite the comments of batsvensson!), but to qualify a good theory as one which predicts unlikely events is tricky when we look at climate change. A Pinatubo event for example can be fed into a model once the significant effect it has is appreciated with hindsight and study, but we cannot predict the timing of the next one, or the likely frequency of such events in future decades. Back to an “unlikely” event that has been predicted by climate models, if we look at Hansens model from 1988, I repeat what I’ve said on the models are unreliable thread, the global average surface temperature has risen. There were many who predicted the reverse based on overestimates of solar influence, or claimed that any temperature rise to date was not statistically significant, and that this would remain the case (famously for example based on the MSU satellite evidence). Climate science has advanced at least partly as a result. It is more telling to look at events not adequately predicted by climate models (and we should remember there are many many types of models and not generalise too much) such as the acceleration in Arctic ice loss and in particular the loss of 2007, which it can be argued is a result of localised combination of “weather” events superimposed on background “climate” warming. There is recent work with higher resolution models which provides insight. There are similar stories to tell about eddy resolving ocean circulation models, sometimes the theory is adequate already, but we need much higher resolution to successfully model or forecast unlikely events (or even realistic variability), such as extreme weather, and then any “knock on” effect that this subsequently may have.
91032. batsvensson at 19:40 PM on 27 March 2011
       Weather vs Climate
       @Dikran Marsupia at 01:38 AM on 27 March, 2011 I read your comment as "Since what I do is a correct procedures, it follows that what climate scientist do is also a correct procedures." But surely this is not what you really meant to say or?
91033. batsvensson at 19:34 PM on 27 March 2011
       Weather vs Climate
       @Gilles 18:33 PM on 27 March, 2011 You're not supposed to ask questions like this here. :-) The classical answer back from the AGW camp to your question will always be "deviations are variations in weather and should not be confused with climate that is long term based", combine this with error range that in principle cover every possible future scenario how can one ever be found to have made an incorrect predictions then? ;-)
91034. batsvensson at 19:13 PM on 27 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
       "Similarly, we consider only those technologies that have low impacts on wildlife [...] and land" Would be interesting if the author also defines what is meant with "low impacts" as this is an issue that clearly can be debated.
91035. Gilles at 18:59 PM on 27 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       Adelady, as I said, I live in France that may have achieved a large part of the program you'd like to apply to Australia and America - we have a lot of decarbonated electricity, good and modern electric trains , a lot of small cities with good public transportation where people can go to work without cars. Actually this has an effect - an average French guy produces only 6 tCO2/yr, much better than americans and australians. So i'm not saying that all progress is impossible. I just say they're limited. You should consider that the difference in consumption is partly due to historical and geographical disparities that you can't wipe off easily. You must heat in cold countries - and air conditioning , if not necessary, is considered as a normal comfort in hot ones. If Europe has small historical town centers with a very concentrated population, cities in new world countries have been built in the XXth century together with the development of cars and they are much more spread - you can't change that in a few decades; so you can't change rapidly the different conditions that led to differences in energy intensity (BTW as Actuallythoughtful remarked , nuclear industry that is one of the main reason for the low carbon intensity of France has dark perspectives ..). You seem to think that you could live like now with any technique - I can't understand the logics behind. That's just wishful thinking. The current way of life is just a by-product of very specific conditions that happened only once in the history of mankind : an enormous thermo-industrial society powered by the massive combustion of fossil fuels. Seen at a geological scale, combustion of FF is really an explosion : sudden combustion in a very short time. This explosion will last a few hundreds years, which is like one second in the year when compared to the age of the Earth. Now you're saying : once this explosion will be over, there will be no problem to keep living like that even after the fuel has totally disappeared - i see absolutely no reason to justify that.
91036. Gilles at 18:23 PM on 27 March 2011
       Models are unreliable
       IanC, sorry for being late , I missed your question. "Gilles In a comment you made in the weather and climate thread, you said "there is some implicit selection of "good" parameters behind" Are you saying that models are bad because parameters that reflect reality are used?" all models are approximate, so I don't really know what you're calling "bad" or "good". My question would rather be ; are they reliable (good predictive power)? in other facts : is the fact that they correctly fit past data enough to believe in their predictions ? and my answer is : no. " 1) climate is sensitive to parameters/physical processes in the model, and without knowing precisely what theses parameters and unknown processes are, the outputs don't reflect reality." same remark : they always reflect a part of reality. The only question is if it's good enough to make reliable predictions - and how we can assess that. Many people seem to think that seeing a set of models superimposed to data is enough to believe them- I don't.
91037. Glenn Tamblyn at 17:48 PM on 27 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
       Eric L @14 Valid point. What is often not considered is the extent too which 'baseload' demand is policy generated. A common practice when big coal FF plants are your source of 'baseload' generation is to implement pricing policies to push demand into 'off-peak' periods. Here in southern Australia a major aspect of this cheap 'off-peak' power demand is over-night heating of hot water. All to flatten out the demand curve to let the big coal plants runn efficiently. If we are looking at a renewable energy grid we need to consider what policies - pricing and other - can shift 'moveable' demand to those times of the day most advantageous to renewables. All debates over 'renewables cant do base load' need to be tempered by this judgement.
91038. RW1 at 17:44 PM on 27 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       At the end of 861, I mean to say "not just this one."
91039. RW1 at 17:05 PM on 27 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       damorbel, Do you know that the 2nd law does not apply to photons? Thermal energy by definition is kinetic and not radiative. The kinetic energy in the atmosphere is not what's heating the surface. It cannot as the 2nd law dictates. It's the photons emitted from the surface and re-emitted isotropically by the atmosphere that is heating the surface. The net effect the kinetic energy in the atmosphere has on the radiative budget is zero, as I explained earlier in this thread. It seems to be a significant source of confusion in a multitude of issues - not this one.
91040. Tim228 at 16:31 PM on 27 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
       They should include bio-matter methane production and solid oxide fuel cells in the mix. This system is carbon neutral since the carbon is already part of the biosphere and we are just cycling it through like we do with our respiration. The other by-products are good soil building fertilizers without the leaching, soil depleting, and energy waste drawbacks of current fertilizers. The plant material needs little to no pre-conditioning beyond chopping. The use of native plants in the various regions reduces fertilizer and water issues.
91041. Eric (skeptic) at 16:06 PM on 27 March 2011
       Models are unreliable
       Stu, I agree with the progression from physics to model to sensitivity. Schwartz agrees too, his energy balance model is basically an AR1 equation with parameters derived from empirical data (the temperature record and external forcings). The model has some debatable characteristics, 1) it is linear, 2) external forcings that act differently on parts of the climate system (e.g. solar forcing into ocean warming) are not treated separately, they are all combined into one variable. But his critics did not use empirical data the same way, but ran part of it through their model which by its particular parameterization of weather has a resultant high sensitivity. It is not programmed to be high. Rob, it looks Schwartz lengthened the time constant to 8.5 years by fixing a mistake (still not sure what the mistake was in the original 2007 paper). That yielded sensitivity of close to 2C per doubling. I had read that a while ago, but forgot about it when I wrote my previous post.
91042. MattJ at 15:57 PM on 27 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
       @michael sweet #9: You correctly echo the article's valid claim, "And it is cheaper in the end!" But the problem is that that is only when including the full cost of the externalities of fossil fuels. But the industry has been all too successful at foisting the costs for this on the rest of us. It has long been a political impossibility to force them to pay their fare share, and I don't see this changing until much too late, thanks to the BRIC success is scuttling Copenhagen, and the disastrous Republicunning triumphs in our last 'midterm' elections.
91043. MattJ at 15:53 PM on 27 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
       50% coming from wind? This is the first study I have ever read or even heard of that gave such a high figure. I am very skeptical.
91044. RobertS at 15:22 PM on 27 March 2011
       The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
       "Claiming right libertarians are "freedum luvin'", while accusing everyone else of authoritarianism..." I don't believe I made either of those claims. Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else? Or perhaps you're confused as to what "statism" means? It certainly doesn't mean authoritarianism. I also think your understanding of history is a little fuzzy. Modern American Liberalism can be traced back to people like Ward (i.e. pre-Russian Revolution) and Herbert Croly who combined facets of classical liberal theory with progressivism. In general they supported government-intervention and central-planning to effect social and economic equity (i.e. a form of statism). I might be wrong, but I don't think this is particularly controversial, and was never meant to be derisive.
91045. dana1981 at 15:15 PM on 27 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
       Eric, the study doesn't assume we'll switch to hydrogen transportation. It allows for the possibility that hydrogen will be in the mix.
91046. adelady at 14:34 PM on 27 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       Gilles, I am fully, gratefully, joyfully aware of my great privilege in living in such a wealthy country for the last 60+ years. What I was indirectly alluding to was the fact that every single one of us has options that are limited by the action or inactions of our societies. 50 years ago my mum wouldn't have needed anyone to take her shopping. Everything came to the door in our suburbs, bread, milk, greengrocer. Butcher shop and grocery items had to be ordered one way or another, but those items were also delivered by schoolboys earning a bit of pocketmoney pushing a very large bicycle around the place. Many people would use mass transit if they could but it's simply not available in many of our low density suburbs. Americans and Australians would happily use comfortable high-speed trains rather than air travel between their closer cities - if only it were available. I would have bought an EV if such a thing had been on the market. And for other options limited by decisions about technology. Japan is now imposing blackouts to manage the lack of power. Why? There is no lack of power. The problem is that an antiquated system has been allowed to persist and expand while limiting transmission between the east and west of the main island. 50 hertz one side, 60 hertz the other and only 1, one!, gigawatt capacity of transmission between the two systems. That to me is the essence of the problem. We live with what we've got and we allow patently inadequate, or downright foolish, initial decisions to perpetuate and eventually distort vital systems. Hindsight is now telling the Japanese they should have invested more in some things, like transmission, nuclear safety and wind power and a lot less in others, write your own list. The same thing applies to us. We shouldn't need tragedy of biblical proportions to learn the same lessons.
91047. RW1 at 14:04 PM on 27 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       damorbel (RE: 780), "What you say doesn't just apply to a car, it is the same for a greenhouse or any surface exposed directly to the Sun's output. It's well known that, in a desert, the Sun can heat a surface well above 100C, enough to fry an egg. But even the arguments for the GH effect agree that it is the average temperature that is inportant, so they account for this by saying the Sun's output (the solar constant ) is not the measured 1370W/m^2 (@5780K if they include the temperature of the photons) but 342.5W/m^2 this latter would give an average temperature of about 279K, an average taken over the entire planet - summer and winter; pole to pole." But the temperature is about 288K - not 279K. How is that so? Here are more questions for you: Do you agree that all of the Sun's emitted energy is radiative? Do you agree that the Sun's emitted energy is transparent through space to the Earth? Do you agree that the Sun's energy is mostly transparent through Earth's atmosphere? Do you agree that space is colder than than the Earth's atmosphere? Do you agree that the atmosphere of the Earth is colder than the surface of the Earth? Do you agree that of the roughly 390 W/m^2 emitted at the Earth's surface, all of it is radiative? Do you agree that the emitted 390 W/m^2 is a result of the Earth's surface temperature and nothing else? Do you agree that the emitted radiation from the surface is mostly NOT transparent to the atmosphere? Do you agree that a lot of the surface emitted radiation is absorbed and re-emitted isotropically by the atmosphere?
91048. actually thoughtful at 13:57 PM on 27 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       Gilles: "86 : I'm neither assuming mankind is totally rational, nor irrational : I'm only assuming it won't change a lot in the next century. I think it's enough." 3 weeks ago, nuclear had a strong and promising future. Many people considered it a necessary (at least short term) energy source as we transition to a non-carbon future. No one seriously thought existing capacity would be shuttered before the plant lifespan. But the events in Japan have caused Germany to swear off nuclear. Other countries are giving it another look (ending nuclear). Japan is probably done with nuclear. So major economies are contemplating an complete deletion of nuclear from their portfolios. It is important to understand human nature. To say "human behavior won't change in the 21st century" is to fail to understand human nature. It is human nature that will not change, not human behavior. For example, at the beginning of the 20th century - hardly anyone drove automobiles (they weren't mass produced yet). NO ONE flew. No one at all. It hadn't been invented yet. So obviously we (humans) react to new information and new technology. The early adopters are already creating net zero homes and transportation that uses zero carbon (electric cars powered by solar/wind). This seems to be a flaw in most of your posts - assuming that humans do not take in new information, and change their behavior accordingly, but you only have to study a little history to realize the opposite is true.
91049. Trueofvoice at 13:18 PM on 27 March 2011
       The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
       RobertS, Saying that American liberalism emerged from the machinations of "statists" is ahistorical. Liberalism was the product of the anti-communist American left which hoped to avert the violent revolution of Leninism through social reforms, including limitations on government power through expansion of civil liberties. Claiming right libertarians are "freedum luvin'", while accusing everyone else of authoritarianism is nothing more than a shibboleth to proclaim your tribal affiliation.
91050. Eric L at 12:26 PM on 27 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
       There's something a little incongruous about a study that's careful to limit consideration of electricity generation technologies to those that are well established assuming we'll switch to hydrogen for transportation. I personally expect what we will see is better batteries and ultracapacitors, electrified rail, perhaps with more autotrains for long distance trips, perhaps biofuels, and a more long-shot would be factories that use excess electricity to turn water and CO2 into gasoline; given the infrastructure challenges I'm not sure hydrogen is actually more likely than that last one. One thing I don't often see in these reports is to what extent industrial or other uses can be scheduled around power availability. I believe there already are some industries which operate at night for the cheap power. Uses like desalination may become more practical if you can desalinate and pump into reservoirs when power is plentiful and use the reservoirs when power is scarce.

Prev  1813  1814  1815  1816  1817  1818  1819  1820  1821  1822  1823  1824  1825  1826  1827  1828  Next