Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 Next
Comments 91051 to 91100:
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 17:48 PM on 27 March 2011A 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. -
RW1 at 17:44 PM on 27 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
At the end of 861, I mean to say "not just this one." -
RW1 at 17:05 PM on 27 March 20112nd 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. -
Tim228 at 16:31 PM on 27 March 2011A 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. -
Eric (skeptic) at 16:06 PM on 27 March 2011Models 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. -
MattJ at 15:57 PM on 27 March 2011A 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. -
MattJ at 15:53 PM on 27 March 2011A 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. -
RobertS at 15:22 PM on 27 March 2011The 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. -
dana1981 at 15:15 PM on 27 March 2011A 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. -
adelady at 14:34 PM on 27 March 2011A 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. -
RW1 at 14:04 PM on 27 March 20112nd 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? -
actually thoughtful at 13:57 PM on 27 March 2011A 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. -
Trueofvoice at 13:18 PM on 27 March 2011The 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. -
Eric L at 12:26 PM on 27 March 2011A 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. -
scaddenp at 12:19 PM on 27 March 2011Temp record is unreliable
Gee, Chris, noticed that it has dropped before? I can think I can predict with some confidence that this year will be cooler than last year. Why? La Nina. I can also bet with reasonable confidence it will be warmer than the last La nina of similar magnitude. And guess what, temperatures will go up again in the next EL Nino. Do you become a climate skeptic in La Nina years, and warmist in El Nino? -
scaddenp at 12:09 PM on 27 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Just to remind people attempting to argue with Poptech, that he has stated in other threads that no data is capable of changing his mind. He isn't interested in learning anything. Refute the errors but engaging with him directly is a waste of your time. -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
L.J. Ryan "What is the LW radiation emissivity of the earths surface?" About 0.98 on average. This is known data; I've stated that as well in this thread. Effective emissivity from the surface to the top of the atmosphere, however, is still 0.612, as shown as the integral of the Earth emission spectra. Incidentally, I would appreciate something longer than three sentence postings in this discussion, rather, a post long enough to have some content worth discussing, perhaps a statement of what your hypothesis is rather than a drawn out, multiple day, QA cycle. This is especially important in this case - if you feel that the radiative greenhouse effect actually violates thermodynamics, then please point out what effect does not, in a way consistent with the very large amount of evidence from multiple investigatory pathways that supports the greenhouse effect. The surface of the Earth averages 14C, and without the GHE it would run at about -20C. What alternative to the GHE do you propose that accounts for that? -
scaddenp at 11:53 AM on 27 March 2011Weather vs Climate
"Many of you seem to be in favor of reducing the average global temperature. Do you hate New York so much that you want to restore that ice sheet?" Gallopingcamel, I cant believe after all this time you can seriously say this. Repeating again, concern over climate science isnt about proposing an optimal global temperature (higher or lower), it about reducing the rate of change in the temperature. From little I know of new york geography, the equilibrium sealevel, last time we had 400ppm would put most of NY underwater. I could ask whether you want that instead? Tell, if you put a large kettle on to hot flame, could you will all the computer modelling in the world accurate predict the convective flow within that pot? Not likely, though you might predict the pattern. (the weather) Could you predict when the kettle will boil? (climate) yes.Moderator Response: Wrong thread for rhis conversation. -
Gilles at 11:21 AM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Adelady, your vision of the world is totally "normal" : i.e. you consider as "normal" the way of life you're used to. But do you know that only 10 % of people in the world can think that they could use a car to take their mum go shopping - the others first don't have a car, and second their mums (who rarely live up to 85 ) has absolutely no money to go in shops that don't exist close to their home anyway. a last resort that how many people in the world would have the privilege to take, following you ? but I didn't want to discuss whether it was bad or good . I'm simply observing that even people who claim loudly we should all consume much less usually behave like the others. I forgot to say something about Maldives - the poor country that is supposed to drown underseas in a few decades. Very interesting facts here :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maldives including : "Real GDP growth averaged over 7.5% per year for more than a decade. Today, the Maldives' largest industry is tourism, accounting for 28% of GDP and more than 60% of the Maldives' foreign exchange receipts. Fishing is the second leading sector.[citation needed] The Maldivian economy is to a large degree based on tourism. In late December 2004, the major tsunami left more than 100 dead, 12,000 displaced, and property damage exceeding $400 million. As a result of the tsunami, the GDP contracted by about 3.6% in 2005. A rebound in tourism, post-tsunami reconstruction, and development of new resorts helped the economy recover quickly and showed an 18% increase on 2006. 2007 estimates show the Maldives enjoy the highest GDP per capita $4,600 (2007 est) amongst south Asian countries" Now obviously , they're facing some dilemma, because if tourism shrinks, so will their GDP. So it's understandable that in fact they don't ask for a reduction of tourism; they just ask for more money to be able to cope with the sea level rise - and probably build new hotels and resorts. -
Paul D at 11:09 AM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
It's beginning to look like one or more of the Fukushima reactors have a core breach and is leaching material into the ground below, including ground water. That's more than enough for me to focus on renewables. One could say, it is unlikely to happen elsewhere, but mistakes are often made. One can expect similar incidents to happen every 20 years or so. -
actually thoughtful at 10:55 AM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
SNRatio - will you please reach me via private email (XXX@XXXXXXX)? I really like your design and want to understand a few items more carefully. Thank you!
-
SNRatio at 10:41 AM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
I just want to chime in and support actually thoughtful here - it's not about the deployment of heat pumps - they are an important part of the solution, but about the use. And there are a few important points about energy-efficiency here that don't seem to have been touched. 1. Heat pump efficiency is strongly dependent on cold side supply. Guess which heat source is most efficient for boosting the cold side supply - solar collectors! This winter, I have been using my collectors simultanously for direct heat collection and heat pump input (shunted in through a small heat exchanger, to control overheating of the heat pump). 2. Heat pumps may be used for lifting the temperature after solar has done the first job. Then, circulation in the collectors can be increased (temperature lowered) and yield improved. 3. With 60-90% coverage from solar collectors, and cold side boosting, heat pump energy use isn't much of a problem even with a FF dominated mix in electricity generation. 4. Solar cell panels can provide the energy for heat pumps, and both heat pumps and solar collectors should be used with adequate accumulation capacity. Therefore, the pumps should preferably be run in daytime, when cold side supply is best and solar power available. Then, then pumps could also be used for air-conditioning if necessary. 5. It is a smart thing to follow the EU parliament's lead and require all future new houses, from some point of time, being "plus-houses", producing more energy than they need. -
adelady at 10:39 AM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Oh come on Gilles. That's a bit like telling me I shouldn't use the car to take my mum (86 years old) shopping. Yes I should. If the car industry had got its act together when it should have done, my car would be an EV because EV would have been a standard choice when I bought it 5+ years ago, rather than an exotic novelty as it is at the moment. Flying for holidays? Well if the industry weren't distorted in favour of flying, we'd have a huge network of inter-intra-continental highspeed trains across Europe and Asia and the USA by now. The journey itself should be enjoyable as a (brief) part of the holiday itself, rather than a bit of an ordeal in a confined space to be endured and done with as fast as possible. Easy to get to a stop off point near desirable holiday destinations. Ferries or short flights to complete the various journeys. Job done. Long haul flying should be a last resort rather than the standard option. -
Gilles at 10:21 AM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
84 : Mucounter : depends if you consider the total amount, including that already extracted+ previsions, or the remaining one. The former usually increases, but the latter wil decrease at some time. 85 . Quokka : of you want some bounds on the range of the problem, I can give them very quickly , at no cost : Mankind will probably burn between 500 GtC and 3000 GtC in the XXIth century . Done. (easy to change if you find it is too restrictive : between 100 and 5000 for instance). just a question : does the Ecofys scenario presented here fit in the sample of the SRES scenarios, yes or no ? 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. Now the funny story about Maldives I promised you. The current leader of French Green Party , Cecile Duflot (a woman), went on vacation in Maldives Islands , just after the Copenhague Summit. When journalists learnt that, they "tickled" her a bit. She answered * it was a gift from her husband * she is a "normal " woman * one cannot go in Maldives Islands with a pedalboat ("pedalo") (for those understanding French , video here :http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbqz5l_duflot-on-ne-va-pas-aux-maldives-a_news) well all this is perfectly understandable and I'm not blaming her for being a "normal" woman and liking going on vacation with her husband. But .. that's it. If EVEN the leader of a green party find it "normal", who won't ? is she an exception? well some other well know "green" characters in France : Nicolas Hulot (who may be candidate at the next President election) - first famous for a TV broadcast "Ushuaïa" , showing all the marvelous places in the world, together with some sportive performances (flying over Kilimandjaro, swimming with sea lions , and so on). Must have travelled a lot too. Yann Artus-Bertrand, famous for having taken beautiful pictures by plane of "The Earth from the Sky" - you may know his book. I think he burnt a fair amount of fuel , too. But i think you know that - you have Al Gore , too? well again I'm not putting blame on them (although THEY put a lot of blame on a lot of people). Actually, they're just .. normal. They like earning money, traveling, being famous, probably eating good food... just like everybody. -
Peter Hogarth at 10:17 AM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
adelady at 08:39 AM on 27 March, 2011 It's only less than a century since the last of the great steel hulled cargo carrying four masted barques were still running commercially. The massive shift to fossil fuel powered vessels took only a generation (a positive lesson) but the transition also took more than will, technology, and imagination, it was a question of raw economics. Unfortunately, now as then, few people look to return on investment over timescales of even a single generation, and as Danas summary suggests, the competitive psychology of the free market is seen as a real barrier. Time to read the study. -
L.J. Ryan at 10:08 AM on 27 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
KR Q2) What is the LW radiation emissivity of the earths surface? Note: I'm not asking about the effective surface to space emissivity but rather the surface emissivity. -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:08 AM on 27 March 2011Models are unreliable
Eric... But how could you possibly rationalize sensitivity that low? The only papers that make such a claim (Lindzen 2009) have been shown to be questionable, and are not supported by paleoclimate estimations. -
Stu at 09:45 AM on 27 March 2011Models are unreliable
Eric, "To specifically answer Rob (#313) the model I would propose is a low sensitivity, short time lag model in which CO2 and natural forcing creates about 1.2C sensitivity (defined as temperature change for a doubling of CO2 or 3.7W/m2" The sensitivity of a model is an emergent property, not pre-programmed. That's why one function of models is to estimate sensitivity. You could certainly tweak a model to produce a high or low sensitivity, but the ultimate goal should be to make a model that reproduces the entire climate system as realistically as possible, and then see what sensitivity it has... -
michael sweet at 09:40 AM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
Dana: This is a terrific post. It is good to show what the options are. I notice that everyone lives the same standard of life that we have today, or better! And it is cheaper in the end! This counters the skeptic argument that without Fossil Fuels we all have to go live in caves. Don: That is the saddest question. -
adelady at 08:39 AM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
Peter Hogarth. Sail for cargo vessels? Not very likely - but kites could very easily develop to help the proposed "hybrid hydrogen fuelcell-battery systems" the authors are keen on for shipping. -
Albatross at 08:38 AM on 27 March 2011Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
Peter @14, Thanks for that great link-- super resource. -
RobertS at 08:31 AM on 27 March 2011The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
From Peru, "Americans are funny. "Libertarianism" elsewere is a branch of COMMUNISM ("Libertarian Communism", a.k.a. Anarchism). How the far right hijacked a term associated with the fartest extremes of the socialist left is still a mistery to me." Yes, political labels evolve. This is no revelation. Both "liberal" and "conservative" also had very different meanings historically than they do in modern American politics. They still do have different meanings in other parts of the world. "Libertarian" was co-opted by the right in the early 20th century to distinguish themselves from the statists that co-opted the term "liberal". -
Daniel Bailey at 08:29 AM on 27 March 2011Temp record is unreliable
Keep in mind, Chris, that Fig D you refer to is only for the United States and is based on running 5-year means. In English, this translates to the info shown for the last 5 years on the graph is less certain and more variable (relative to that which preceded it). The Yooper -
les at 07:44 AM on 27 March 2011Temp record is unreliable
146 sjshaker Ask you self this. If you had seen that graph in the early 1990s - obviously only with the numbers up to then - would you not say the same thing? Would you have been right? Given which, do you think looking at the ups and downs over a time range of a couple of years is reliable? -
johnd at 07:41 AM on 27 March 2011Weather vs Climate
actually thoughtfull at 06:49 AM, your comment about terrible weather predictions in your area is quite telling. Firstly you probably accept it because it might only impact on whether your take an umbrella or not and so the free, but entertaining forecast attached to the TV news remains useful in providing a topic of conversation, and an excuse to complain. But for those whose businesses and enterprises depends on accurate short and long range forecasts, that is not only not good enough, but totally unacceptable. So what do they do? They seek out services that have proven track records and provide real value for money. Free is hardly ever free. So one of the points that your comment raises is, whilst, as you noted, there are weather forecasters out there that are virtually useless, but probably still retain a large and faithful following, and whilst there are also probably unknown to yourself, weather modelers, that by virtue of providing reliable and useful projections for more astute investors, and are able to charge high fees for their services, is it possible that the same range of expertise might also be within the ranks of those who model climate? Just for interest:- (1)How many people who read this thread are totally dependent on accurate forecasts for planning the next year or two forward? (2)How many people are totally dependent on accurate forecasts to make decisions about umbrellas? -
cjshaker at 07:39 AM on 27 March 2011Temp record is unreliable
At NASA's GISS Surface Temperature Analysis webpage http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ The Annual Mean Temperature Change in the United States appears to have peaked and is dropping at the end of the graph? http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.gif -
From Peru at 07:29 AM on 27 March 2011The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
Americans are funny. "Libertarianism" elsewere is a branch of COMMUNISM ("Libertarian Communism", a.k.a. Anarchism). How the far right hijacked a term associated with the fartest extremes of the socialist left is still a mistery to me. So far, Obama has not done a good work, but not because did an intervention in the economy, but but because that intervention was too LITTLE by far! He should have wiped out all the Las-Vegas-Casinos like crowd out of the banking system, nationalizing the whole finacial system and put the speculators that destroyed the US and Europe economy (thanks to the non-regulation of Mr. George Bush) on trial, demanding they to PAY for all the damage they done. On the climate front, the nationalization of General Motors and intervention in Chrisler should have been used to make an U-turn and make a series of 4-Year Plans for the Auto Industry to improve efficiency and switch to hybrids and electric vehicles, and shutting down the production of SUVs and similar monsters. The plans should have been strictly enforced by the government adiministration (after all, if you buy a company, you should administate it, or not?) But instead Obama choose to make enormous bailouts to the bankrupt financial-industrial complex while leaving the same people that lead the nation to disaster still in office, continuing to do the same irresponsible speculation that caused the crisis in the first place. Obama lost the opportunity to change the terminally ill economy of the USA. The people that caused the crisis are still there, and the bailouts that avoided a second Great Depression also saved the anti-people crowd (the financial speculators) from self-destruction. Some people dislike regulation. Maybe they like poisoned river streams, breath choking smoke, food and oil prices skyrocketing, and banks taking the homes of the people ... Regulations would have prevented the 2007-2011 crisis. Now, without a massive government intervention in the economy, the seeds are still there for a second economic collapse. -
cjshaker at 07:18 AM on 27 March 2011We're heading into an ice age
Here is another way of finding the temperature delta over the 100,000 year glacial cycle, from measuring the concentrations of atmospheric noble gases dissolved in groundwater. He came up with a delta T of 8.8 C, which is fairly close to what we see on the graph of proxy temperatures derived from the ice cores http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~etg/werner/maryland/MD.Abstract.html -
actually thoughtful at 07:11 AM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
Dana1981 - it is true that a heat pump run from renewable electricity sources is a great way to solve the issue of heat (and even more elegantly - build an envelope that doesn't need to be heated/cooled), and that is the reason for the paradoxical argument that using more electricity is better. But solar thermal for heat is an important technology that takes a notable portion of the load off of electricity and puts it in locally managed systems. It is also currently 4-5 times more efficient than making electricity from renewable resources. It is often overlooked because it isn't drop dead simple like plugging in some PV panels (with respect to the PV installers out there). And while we must stay focused on the future, and ending carbon emissions, we also have to stay in touch with reality, and the reality is that switching from gas to coal-fired electricity for a heat pump is a net INCREASE in carbon emissions. Sure, eventually (bounded by the end of fossil fuels) it will be powered by renewables. But even the study you are high-lighting for us doesn't see even new power coming from renewables (only) until 2030 - there is low hanging fruit here to switch to solar thermal for process heat, space heating, and even space cooling (absorption chiller run by a high temp solar thermal collector system (high temp being 180F-212F)). Solar thermal is the easy "S" of WWS, and meets all the requirements of the study's authors. I myself was very surprised to learn that carbon emission went up with the use of a ground source heat pump (using national average mix of fuels to create the electricity). It does sound good on paper, as it is much more efficient than compressor-cooling, which is done almost entirely with electricity. And it just makes sense to use the same great technology for heat (this is where it fails). Solar heating will be the more efficient method for the foreseeable future. And of course if you live in the desert southwest, you can create your cooling through evaporation, so long as we have water. If you accept that we are using more electricity than we can currently produce via renewables (and this will be the case for a while), and you understand that solar thermal has a (small to medium) per BTU edge over renewable methods of creating electricity (including wind) - then it just follows that you create heat from solar thermal first, then create heat from other methods (waste industrial, geothermal, wind, solar thermal (concentrating), wave, PV (probably in that order)). -
Don Gisselbeck at 07:02 AM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
What would have happened if hypothetically moral and intelligent leaders after 9/11 had invested a trillion dollars or so into renewable energy instead of wasting money on stupid wars? -
dana1981 at 06:51 AM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
actually thoughtfull - regarding heat pump carbon emissions, I suppose a key to this plan is that we're also transitioning toward renewables in the power grid at the same time we're increasing the use of heat pumps. -
actually thoughtful at 06:49 AM on 27 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Two comments: one, where I live, weather predictions are still terrible. I think the "Can't predict weather...can't predict climate" argument is based in enough reality ("Can't predict weather") that it really, truly needs to be addressed. I do think it was well addressed here. As to Poptech and Ken Lambart and a few other posters. I hope smart, knowledgeable people will continue to refute the ideas they present when they are wrong. I personally don't have any problem seeing that models work (Hansen 1988 is still mind boggling to me - 23 years ago he knew what would happen to us right now!). But the claims that Trenberth's travesty is still with us will give me pause until we can irrefutably (within reason) put it to bed. Perhaps others are the opposite - they understand the limitation of ARGO, have read the studies regarding deep ocean temperatures (and a few lakes which give us fascinating insights into ocean heat content and heat transfer behavior) and see no problem with the supposedly missing heat. It is for those readers (presumably many X larger than those of us who post - else this is a lot of work for very few eyeballs...) that honest refutations of misinformation (regardless of the sincerity of the poster - wrong is wrong) are so valuable. Perhaps the moderators have to be even more hard nosed to move the debate to the right thread? That would ensure that those of us taken in by the false claim would read the background/supporting post and hopefully get a better understanding, so as not to be taken in by the same claim next time. -
johnd at 06:49 AM on 27 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Here is a paper that could be posted in various different threads as it has relevance to a number of topical subjects such as weather/climate modeling, modeling reliability, SST. Read and enjoy/learn/weep as so inclined. Impact of Global Ocean Surface Warming on Seasonal-to-Interannual Climate Prediction -
Eric (skeptic) at 06:47 AM on 27 March 2011Models are unreliable
i didn't find "Schwartz" in a cursory search of this thread. It is two of the entries on PT's list (the 2007 paper plus the 2008 response). In the 2007 rebuttal by Foster et al, http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5/jdannan/comment_on_schwartz.pdf the climate system time lag was claimed to be irreducibly complex: "Such a multicomponent physical system cannot be expected to act with a single time scale. Even if the system evolves according to an AR(1) process, it must be a vector AR(1) process with many distinct time scales" They criticize Schwartz's short time constant by a inference to the long time constant of the deep ocean. But there is no set of independent variables on which to perform a vector AR1, all of the other temperature variables (deep ocean, mixed ocean, cryosphere) are functions of global average surface temperature. Schwartz is correct in his rebuttal http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/pubs/BNL-80226-2008-JA.pdf that the time constants in the models can be reduced to a single time constant which can be estimated using AR1. The critics (Foster, Annan, Schmidt and Mann) conditionally accept the AR1 premise, then work backwards from their models with high climate sensitivity to prove that the time AR1 time constant can't be as short as Schwartz claims. But that's really putting the cart before the horse. To specifically answer Rob (#313) the model I would propose is a low sensitivity, short time lag model in which CO2 and natural forcing creates about 1.2C sensitivity (defined as temperature change for a doubling of CO2 or 3.7W/m2) -
muoncounter at 06:31 AM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
Jacobson's prior work on the adverse health effects of urban CO2 domes make this plan that much more urgent. Jacobson's study is the first to look at the health impacts of carbon dioxide domes over cities and his results are relevant to future air pollution regulations. Current regulations do not address the local impacts of local carbon dioxide emissions. ... "There has been no control of carbon dioxide because it has always been thought that CO2 is a global problem, that it is only its global impacts that might feed back to air pollution," Jacobson said. -
Alexandre at 06:22 AM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
Great series of posts about these comprehensive studies on the transition to renewables. Thanks and keep it coming. -
actually thoughtful at 06:09 AM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
Good news: most of these studies greatly under-predict what can be done with solar thermal space heating. The industry "wisdom" is that you can get 40-50% with solar thermal. I have installed space heating systems in a dozen homes that are much closer to 75%. And with smarter controls, I believe I can get north of 80%. So various combinations of solar thermal and ground source heat pumps work everywhere. A caution with heat pumps - they reduce heating costs by ~50% - but they don't reduce carbon emissions with the current mix of fuels to create electricity. Given the multi-decade struggle we are in to ramp up electricity production from electricity, it is a very good move, in a significant space heating climate, to use solar thermal to minimize the load and use a heat pump, or even burning natural gas, as the final backup. That is much preferable to adding additional load to the electric grid, which is currently coal dominated, and in the future will always be hard pressed to get enough renewable sources on line. Don't add to that load with space heating. {Also note that a window upgrade (to R-5 or higher) increases comfort and decreases energy required to heat/cool the house. -
Stu at 06:04 AM on 27 March 2011Models are unreliable
In reply to Poptech: "...my point [is that] if your initial conditions are uncertain that makes the results uncertain. Uncertain is a damn sight removed from worthless, don't you think? I said: "In climate models, if you are expecting them to perfectly model the exact evolution of the atmosphere, then you are essentially expecting them to be a perpetual weather model." You said: "That is exactly my point. If they cannot do this, their results are meaningless. Calling computer code a "climate model" does not change how computers work." So we've gone from uncertain to meaningless? Well, weather models also can't perfectly model the evolution of the atmosphere. Are their results meaningless? If you have ever taken an unbrella with you because the weatherman said it would rain, there's a good chance you did it on guidance that you yourself consider 'meaningless'. I said: "Additionally, to be 'perfect', a climate model would need both perfect initial knowledge of the entire ocean, cryosphere and biosphere, and perfect knowledge of the future evolution of all things that affect climate: solar output, GHGs, aerosols, volcanoes, etc etc etc. And what's more, the 'perfect' model is a pipe dream because models treat continuous time and space as finite blocks." You said: "Exactly, which is why computer climate models for predictions are worthless." Climate models are supposed to estimate the avolution of the climate for a given scenario. One thing they aren't is a deterministic forecast. They provide a projection, not a prediction. That's not just a matter of semantics, there is a distinct difference in meaning. Oh, and as you agreed with me in all of the above except interpretation, you have some hubris to claim that: "Stu you display ignorance of computer systems and computer science." - care to point out where? -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
L.J. Ryan - I did answer your question: 240 W/m^2 incoming flux is expected to, and does, generate a temperature of about 287K in the Earth climate system. How was I not clear about that? "Q1) What is the SW radiation emissivity of the earths surface": Irrelevant question - it's zero. The Earth is not at a temperature to glow in visible light. The Earth effective absorptivity, on the other hand, is about 70-75% for the solar spectrum. The band-limited input energy that doesn't overlap with the output IR is why input power is essentially fixed. -
L.J. Ryan at 05:47 AM on 27 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
KR 854 You've skipped the SW absorption step. Since you seem to be avoiding my question---Ok, "incoming energy is essentially fixed" i.e. ~240W/m^2, so what temperature should be generated via this, and only this flux?---lets try it this way. Q1)What is the SW radiation emissivity of the earths surface?
Prev 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 Next
