Recent Comments

Prev  1815  1816  1817  1818  1819  1820  1821  1822  1823  1824  1825  1826  1827  1828  1829  1830  Next

Comments 91101 to 91150:

91101. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:32 PM on 25 March 2011
       Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
       97% of climatologists who are "behind" - in 90% came from the U.S.. Science the U.S. is biggest - agreement - but it's not the whole world. For example, my country. Climatologist, a professor A.A. Marsz - a skeptic. He has significant scientific achievements - Arctic climate: In his paper he writes: “The genesis of the ‘Great warming of the Arctic’ in the 1930s and ‘40s is the same as that of the present day. Both may be considered to be attributable to natural processes and are not demonstrably associated in any way with a supposed ‘Global greenhouse effect’. Changes in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere could only explain 9% of variations in the SAT in the Arctic.”
91102. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:31 PM on 25 March 2011
       Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
       @IanC The quoted fragment does not change the fact that before „... create more sophisticated models that will chip away at the uncertainty range of climate change and allow more accurate projections of future climate ..." possible to have different scenarios. Let us assume - for convenience - a direct warming of around 1.2 degrees C for each successive doubling of CO2. 1.94-1.2 = 0.74 degrees C - a positive feedback - by still "imperfect" model of the quoted paper. IV Report IPCC: “... defi ned as the global average surface warming following a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations. It is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C”. What does it say skepticalscience: „The lowest estimate of warming is close to the models - 1.8°C (3.24°F ) on average - but the upper estimate is a little more consistent, at an average of around 3.5°C (6.3°F).”, “All the models and evidence confirm a minimum warming close to 2°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 with a most likely value of 3°C and the potential to warm 4.5°C or even more.” The question is: whether the claim is more likely that the lower limits estimated for whole RF doubling of CO2 - is already skepticism? Does it violate the scientific consensus? And as the great "the unknown" (for negative feedbacks) we have here, this paper demonstrates example The net climate impact of coal-fired power plant emissions, Shindell and Faluvegi, 2010.: „More broadly, our results indicate that due to spatial and temporal inhomogenaities in forcing, climate impacts of multi-pollutant emissions can vary strongly from region to region and can include substantial effects on maximum rate-of-change, neither of which are captured by commonly used global metrics.” Scott and Duncan's theory ... ... when I doubt that science will give us ever satisfactory answers to important questions, then read once again over 280 pages of their work. Despite the criticism I admire the austerity of the statement, their "Benedictine" work. I'm no epidemiologist but - Haensch et al., 2010.: “Some epidemiologists and historians have denied this conclusion due to inconsistencies between the clinical and epidemiological characteristics of plague in historical records and those observed in India in the early 20 th century . Alternative putative etiologies of the Black Death include a viral hemorrhagic fever or a currently unknown pathogen.” This sentence from the above work:"...ends the debate about the etiology of the Black Death, and unambiguously demonstrates that Y. pestis was the causative agent of the epidemic plague that devastated Europe during the Middle Ages."- But this probably just “pious wishes”. Similar "pious wishes" may contain a question: “Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change ...” The existence of two (or more) contradictory (even if only partially) the theory of makes it impossible a consensus. That this is my "caution" ...
91103. les at 21:19 PM on 25 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       51 Gilles - 1st. I am certainly not playing with words. Well, they may only be words to you - but in reality the relate to actual theory and practice and have substantial technical meaning. When someone just throws them around it's a clear indicator they're not really clued in. The fun thing about your reference and use of economic is that you are doing exactly what you say is illegitimate to do for climate modelling... If you look behind the words to the science, it's obvious. regarding your question #51 That clearly begs so many questions that I'm tempted to suggest that it's an insult to everyones intelligence even to ask it! Regarding your question #45 "Now a question concerning a 100 % renewable energy world : with these hypothesis, which fraction of people could leave on vacation overseas , for instance in Maldives islands, following you ?" Who knows, not everyone likes fish so much and a vacation on the Maldives may not be that appealing. Others like snorkeling, maybe it would suit them. I don't know how these and other preference break-down on a global basis. sorry not to be of more help. Maybe the Maldives tourist office could be of more help.
91104. ranyl at 20:57 PM on 25 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       Considering the account is already well in the red, doesn't that mean that every ounce of carbon emitted means just adding to the total that has then be removed to get anywhere near safe? Doesn't matter if the CO2 is building a fridge or a wind turbine it is going into the atmopshere and therefore will have to be removed again if 350ppm is to be acheived. Therefore renewables don't reduce atmospheric CO2 as they area source of CO2 emissions and that a proportion of that CO2 will have to be removed again to reduce atmospheric CO2. Clearly to produce power renewables cause far less CO2 emissions than coal but they do still casue CO2 emissions and compared to stopping using the power there is no contest. And also keep in mind that LCA or very likely to be on the low range of reality as infra-structure inputs are rarely counted nor the CO2 costs resultant from secondary effects of the production of the materials, like eco-system disturbance from mining. Can't help feeling that we need to start considering a CO2 budget that is upfront and final, that is we have x tonnes of carbon we can use and that is it, so no payback accounting or offsetting just an upfront amount and that upfront amount has to not only provide the energy to build all the energy replacement but also all the additional infra-structure and product replacements. So say the CO2 budget is set for 400ppm peak (it doesn't feel exactly safe to go higher), means for the UK the budget is less than 1 years of the UK's currents emissions if the budget is equitably distributed across the globe. Now considering the need for adaptations and priority services (hospitals) that isn't exactly much to spend on renewables to sustain the extremely high energy use we currently luxuriate in and means that for every ounce of carbon spent of renewables you want the maximum out, so putting a solar panel array in driving rain drenched West Scotland wouldn't make much sense! Anyway all this conjecture on carbon budgets isn't in actuality going to make much difference, as the carbon industry is huge powerful and popular; what government is seriously going to BAN the use of fossil fuels any time soon, especially considering the military consequences of doing so, war is the biggest user of carbon and fastest way to destroy habitat and there no way your running an aircraft carrier on solar panels! I've reduced my peronal power usage by ~80% or more and amazingly I'm still alive and not in the third world. Surely if everyone markedly reduced energy use wouldn't acheiving the carbon sequestering situation needed be a lot easier and an awful lot quicker? And do keep in mind that CO2 isn't the whole sorry there is CO2e and the larger current threat of biodiversity loss which also need major changes to occur to create a future that is sustainable.
91105. Gilles at 20:46 PM on 25 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       les, instead of playing with words, maybe you could give a simple argument explaining why the world would renounce entirely , for eternity, to extract some tens of Gt of carbon still available at cheap prices , increasing the total wealth (at least for some time) of the world, for a "cost" of only a few more tenths of degrees? I'd like to know your opinion about the question at the end of my post #45, BTW. I have a funny story to tell you about that. So how many people could afford to travel to Maldives Islands, in this 2050 world?
91106. perseus at 20:39 PM on 25 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       Re dana1981 at 05:30 AM on 25 March, 2011 - Carbon capture more expensive than alternatives Dana - I have no doubt that renewables are the most cost effective power generation mitigation methods for low to medium penetration scenerios. My scepticism tends to be greatest for high penetration levels of renewables since the cost of storage techniques have to be included for 100% renewable strategy. The problem tends to be most acute when weather conditions require much longer storage timescales of several weeks or even months. Winter anticyclonic conditions over Europe come to mind. I think most cost calculations assume storage periods of days at most. Of course we could just go without power during these rare periods, but this seems to be politically unacceptable. The problem is we need to build a lot of storage to cover that period which is very expensive indeed. Many prominent environmentalists such as George Monboit and Mark Lynas have realised this, and eventually come round to accepting the need for solid baseload generation, nuclear in their case. In my wind article you can see how I attempted to partly solve that problem by integrating space heating via CHP and heat pumps into the electric generation mix, which requires using some natural gas but allows greater renewable penetration.
91107. les at 20:37 PM on 25 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       I 48 Gilles - I absolutely think there's relationship between economy and game theory*! Read what I wrote. Nash equilibrium is part of game theory, not cost-benefit curves - although individual agents may choose to use those. It certainly is not used in calculating marginal cost curves !! * Well, to be more precise, game theory is a useful model to calculate some aspects of economic relationships. It is very often used in computer simulation of economic models to look at the range of outcomes and, there by, the probability of future situations. This is, believe it or not, much the same procedure people use with climate models where they have to vary a range of parameters to look the the likelihood distribution of projectsion and model parameter fits and stuff like that... ... stuff you have objected to very strongly. Soooo... I guess you could not possibly think that game theory has any possible relationship to the economy - any more than you think that climate models have a relationship to the climate. And further, as the economy is also a non-linear / chaotic system... a whole pile of other 'skeptical' arguments which apply to the climate apply to economic modeling. I do hope we're not cherry picking here!
91108. cloa513 at 20:34 PM on 25 March 2011
       There's no empirical evidence
       How about the pushing of Human Caused Global Warming is just a distraction to postpone doing the necessary things to reduce consumption of oil, reduce consumption of coal, prepare ourselves and the environment for whatever climate changes occur! Pushing the idea that you are effectively know how it all works is a time waster. Plenty good reasons to reduce oil and coal consumption. Its just pushing the all the blame on to industry when individuals consume the electricity and resources.
91109. Gilles at 20:01 PM on 25 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       les : and you think there is no relationship between economy and game theory ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory#Economics_and_business
91110. 70rn at 19:38 PM on 25 March 2011
       The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
       @ 23 Food colouring turns water into wine? Man, just think of the super low budget undergraduate drinking opportunities... But seriously, I get your point - my personal favourite in a typically pointless net battle was as follows, 'if you think 400 ppm can't block light, go and stir the best part of a cup of ink into your bath water next time you wash' (mine holds a 450 litres (roughly) - 400 ppm is 180mls.
91111. Gilles at 18:58 PM on 25 March 2011
       Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
       Dana, I took the 50 % figure from here "at equilibrium, this CO2 change [from 1900 to 1940] would be expected to cause a 0.22°C increase in the average global surface air temperature." Due to the ocean lag and other anthropogenic effects, "the best estimate of the anthropogenic contribution to the 1910-1940 warming is approximately 0.1 to 0.15°C". " for me 0.1 to 0.15 is roughly 50 % of 0.22. So 50 % is not excluded , but " that only 33% of the equilibrium warming is realized over the period in question is not physically plausible." To say that, you have to have an accuracy of a few 10 % on the relevant quantities - for instance on the equilibrium increase due to CO2, that you stated later to be "1.4°C equilibrium warming from CO2 thus far. " But here , we learn that climate sensitivity is only very broadly know with a factor 2 of 3 of uncertainty. So the whole discussion about "accuracy " and "inaccuracy" is very confused for me - I just see play with numbers with or w/o error bars following the need, sometimes it's accurate enough to exclude, sometimes not ... sorry but the real accuracy of your numbers is totally unclear.
91112. les at 18:50 PM on 25 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       good grief. Gilles is now doing to the dismal science what damorbel did to thermodynamics. Nash Equilibrium is nothing, directly, to do with marginal costs nor, indeed cost/benefit curves. It's an equilibrium point in game theory.
91113. jatufin at 18:46 PM on 25 March 2011
       The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
       This colorless "argument" goes in to same category as "There's only 1 in 10,000 parts of CO2 in air, it's ridiculous to say that could affect anything." But I think you need only couple of PPMs gobolt to tint glass. And how many drops of food color you needed to turn a gallon of water into wine? Any other examples in visible spectrum?
91114. Gilles at 18:28 PM on 25 March 2011
       Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
       scaddendp : I don't understand very well what you're looking for here. If it is simply to seek scientific information, why don't you simply read AR4 instead of loosing your time here ? I think pretty much you need is inside. If you want to convince people who are not convinced, how can you do that if you exclude them from the discussion ? Now thanks Harry. I could well have been among the 97 % who answered "yes" , it seems to get warmer, and yes, mankind probably contributed to this warming - among other things. Mankind contributed to a lot of environmental changes, actually. And so? should mankind be declared a pollutant ?
91115. trunkmonkey at 18:02 PM on 25 March 2011
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       My best understanding is that el ninos are thought to be caused by an atmospheric failure of trade winds into the ITC in the easern Pacific, depriving the tropical Americas of the oceanic Ekman transport that fosters upwelling. The reverse would presumably be true for la ninas. If I may be forgiven an observation as a naturalist rather than an expert, I have been watching the SST anomalies in this years la nina and it appears to me that the cold water is emerging in a standpipe plume (a point source)in the western Pacific and splaying eastward against the prevailing winds and currents. If the ENSO and possibly other ocillations have deep enough pockets to skew global average temperature that much, and the periods of the ocillations appear irregular, how do we know anything at a decadal scale?
91116. Glenn Tamblyn at 17:31 PM on 25 March 2011
       Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
       WSteven Interesting that The Pielke's et al consider the possibility of a warm bias in the surface record but don't consider the possibility of a cool bias in the satellite record. Also this statment "We generally have more confidence in the UAH satellite data set compared with the RSS data set", That John Christy, on of the authorts of this paper is one of the principles behind the UAH data set doesn't enter into this? And recent revisions to the data UAH & RSS data sets have significantly narrowed the margin. And how well can you compare global trends for Surface & Troposphere without considering latitudinal changes. Antarctic temps have been held down by the effects of the Ozone hole. Models, as V&G showed above predict more surface than tropospheric warming in the high North. Without breaking your analysis latitudinally, what are you really looking at
91117. Gilles at 17:29 PM on 25 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       Another remark, illustrating the "Nash equilibrium" (the fact that things tend to stabilize when the marginal costs equilibrate the benefits). Start from the graphics displayed Fig 1, and assume that we add to Fig 2 just the amount of FF you need to reach the "baseline" of 520 EJ. Obviously things would be much easier. We wouldn't have to make so many efforts, we could keep more cars (I know that some people dislike cars and are fond of public transportation, but you would agree that they're enough people who think just the opposite ?) , so I don't think we would lack of potential consumers. Now what would be the effect of these extra 260 EJ ? well by eyes it's approximately the current consumption (which produce an extra +2 ppm/yr) multiplied by half of the triangle height, say 25 years, so +50 ppm. Well + 50 ppm , it's not negligible, but it is not that terrific . If we assume a 3°C per doubling , it makes 3*ln(500/450) /ln(2) = 0.5 °C , that is the same increase that from 1970 to now. Now you have to convince people that a 0.5 °C has more drawbacks that doubling the energy consumption of the planet - that is that these extra 260 EJ - with the same efficiency, without spoiling energy wouldn't bring anything valuable compared to the drawbacks of increasing the temperature by 0.5 °C. Good luck !
91118. Gilles at 17:11 PM on 25 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       34#NYJ : "For Jevons paradox to be correct, the average miles driven would have to increase to beyond 100,000 miles." You're wrong : it says just that then nobody can prevent 10 times more people to have a car (or any combination of this : 3 times more people driving 3 times the distance, for instance). And yes : there are enough people without cars in the world to multiply by 3 the number of cars. May be you should realize that the whole world is much poorer and live very differently from NewYorkers ? Mucounters : I said that Iceland produced already much more renewable energy than their current total personal needs , including FF (it's enough to close their aluminium factories, but there is still enough places to build dams and geothermal plants to keep them). I don't see with your figures that Hawaii produce much more renewable energy than their total needs. Now a question concerning a 100 % renewable energy world : with these hypothesis, which fraction of people could leave on vacation overseas , for instance in Maldives islands, following you ?
91119. Harry Seaward at 16:03 PM on 25 March 2011
       Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
       Muoncounter @ 90 via Gilles: Question #2 in the oft referenced survey is qualitative instead of quantitative. The question Gilles asked to assign a figure or range is entirely scientific. Per your rather smug response: "Your opinion of what 'should have been added' is entirely irrelevant. The survey was taken, the results published. If you disagree with the results, perhaps you can cite the results of a survey of your own." Between the two camps, let's come up with a short, but better set of survey questions that are quantitative in nature (i.e., something we can measure) and post links to the survey here, and at WUWT and other climate sites and tally up the results.
91120. WSteven at 15:49 PM on 25 March 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       So Poptech came on SkS's FB page in defence of his 850 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm. Since he kept insisting that the papers by Roger A. Pielke Jr. and his father supported AGW skepticism I decided to read the Rogers' papers on Poptech's list. I've just finished reading "An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere". That paper is skeptical, but not in the fashion of the contrarians. It's more skeptical in the way science in naturally skeptical and analyzes a problem between ground and satellite sensors that climate scientists appear to have been working on for some time now. So, that's one paper that Poptech should remove IMHO.
91121. Bern at 15:47 PM on 25 March 2011
       Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
       Just to add a comment - I have a colleague who has quite a number of years' experience dealing with noise from wind farms. He has a *very* low opinion of the folks pushing "wind turbine syndrome". I think it's much more likely that it's an annoyance issue, rather than a direct physiological effect - although annoyance can lead to stress & the associated physiological impacts that has on the body, and then there are psychosomatic issues as well. However, these are not *directly* caused by the noise from the wind turbines. The fact that everyone who has a financial interest in the turbines is devoid of symptoms also suggests this is the case.
91122. WSteven at 15:30 PM on 25 March 2011
       Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
       Oddly enough, I just finished reading "An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere" [Pielke Jr. et al, 2009]. This particular article in combination with this one couldn't have come at a better time. [OT] As for the Pielke Jr. article, I don't think it means what Mr. Poptech thinks it means.
91123. HumanityRules at 15:27 PM on 25 March 2011
       Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
       61 IanC Ooops sorry about the links the solar/climate review is here and it's well worth reading, covering most of the interesting aspects of the science that come up on this website. I would look at the issue from the other direction. I think climate scientist like to understand what happened in the past because it gives them more certainty about the assumptions they are using to project future change. I'd argue that the lower TSI goes the less they are able to explain past change and the less the theory looks complete.
91124. Bern at 15:17 PM on 25 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       I'd also like to add my agreement to Glenn's post at #41. One of the most effective policy actions that could be taken would be for a government to legislate that, for example, no new fossil-fuel power stations will be permitted to be built after, say, 2015. Add restrictions on upgrades / enhancements to existing ones too (perhaps only allowing them if it can be demonstrated that renewable options can't do the job), along with a concrete timeframe for phasing out fossil power. If the Australian Government, for example, said that all coal-fired power stations *must* be shut down by 2030, you can bet there'd be a lot of investment in alternative energy sources... Although I'm certain that we'd also hear plenty of howls of protest that all it will do is ensure that Australia goes "back to the stone age" in 2030 when the power gets turned off.
91125. getricks at 14:50 PM on 25 March 2011
       Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
       Read urban heat island effect title..Got it..it answers my questions,,please feel free to remove my above rant..LOL. Thanks.
91126. scaddenp at 14:26 PM on 25 March 2011
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       Decades? Ocean cycling is something close to 1000 years. ESNO amounts to ocean/atmosphere heat transfer. You dont see much sign of "draw down" on the OHC to 2000 meters shown in #40 of this thread, let alone total global energy budget.
91127. trunkmonkey at 14:02 PM on 25 March 2011
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       I have been struggling with a concept that seems to be conceded by [--snip--] and [--snip--] alike: that the super el ninio of 98-99 raised global average temperature. At what time scale is the global energy budget reconciled? If the answer is anually, to concede this point means that the ocean-atmospheric system had to draw down some "fossil" savings account to boost the temperature.
91128. Bern at 14:00 PM on 25 March 2011
       The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
       Here's a question. Sceptics often tout the fact that CO2 is a "colourless, odourless gas" as 'evidence' that it can't do any harm - a 'see no evil' kind of thing. We also know that CO2 is *not* colourless in the IR spectrum. Has anyone taken pics in IR to show CO2 emissions from, e.g. power stations, or industry? I imagine by careful selection of the frequency & temperature sensitivity, you could see the plumes from industry against the background glow of the atmosphere.
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Carbon Tracker has maps, movie animations and even their own Youtube channel.

       Not at the fine-grained resolution you want, though.

91129. scaddenp at 13:43 PM on 25 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       Glenn, I agree. Dont build another coal power station is a good way to focus industry on the problem.
91130. dana1981 at 13:33 PM on 25 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       For the record, this article has been re-posted on TreeHugger.
91131. Glenn Tamblyn at 13:14 PM on 25 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       An important point to remember when considering the costs of any new renewable and high efficiency plant and equipment. Some opinions make it sound like the cost of all these things will be an additional cost compared to zero cost with BAU. But this overlooks the fact that much of this equipment - Coal power plants, refrigerators, cars - will reach the end of their working life and need to be replaced anyway. So what the cost is really depends on the rate of the change. If it proceeds at the 'mortality' rate of existing plant it is simply the difference in the capital cost of the old vs new technolgy. If we want to make a transition faster, then we have to include the capital losses from equipment being written off early. To this end, one of the key areas to focus on is not building new equipment that isn't renewable & efficient. Each one of these built today is a possible capital loss several decades from now. Their is an important issue wrt to a transition to renewables that is often put forward in the skeptic argument Renewables can't do baseload As various studies have shown, a fully fledged renewable power system, with geographically and climatically dispersed generation and a smart distribution network can meet all power needs. But during the transition when renewables are only a small part of the mix then they do need FF backup. Its a classic Chicken & Egg problem. Existing FF generation will be needed during this transition period to provide the buffering until the new grid is large enough to be self-buffering. So arguments about the limits of renewables at their current scale aren't relevent to the viability of the completed grid. So in order to manage the transition well with minimal economic pain, we need to ramp up deployment of renewables and efficiency improvements as fast as possible preferably much faster than currently, without targeting the shutdown of FF plants initially (except for the really bad ones perhaps). We need them for the transition period. Its building the new equipment that matters. So sights like protesters picketting coal power stations is perhaps misguided. Perhaps picket government and business demanding more and more investment in/deployment of renewables instead
91132. scaddenp at 12:25 PM on 25 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       Well David MacKay's "Sustainable Energy without the hot air" most certainly considers it. Powering Europe from renewables has some pretty major hurdles, technological, environmental, and economic, which tend to be glossed over. I personally suspect nuclear is a better option. Its not clear whether some of these plans are talking about just electricity generation or considering transport fuels as well.
91133. BlueRock at 12:09 PM on 25 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       To add to the WWF study [sorry if it's excessive!]: * Zero Carbon Britain 2030: "A sustainable, secure, efficient Britain can be powered without relying on fossil fuels or nuclear power." http://www.zerocarbonbritain.org/ * Europe could be 100% renewable by 2050. A "super-smart" grid powered by solar farms in North Africa, wind farms in northern Europe, hydro-electric from Scandinavia and the Alps and a complement of biomass and marine energy could render carbon fuels obsolete by 2050. Nuclear energy not needed. http://www.ukmediacentre.pwc.com/News-Releases/Come-sun-rain-or-high-wind-Europe-could-create-a-100-renewable-electricity-supply-by-2050-e5e.aspx + http://www.pwc.co.uk/pdf/100_percent_renewable_electricity.pdf * Providing all Global Energy with Wind, Water, and Solar Power. "We suggest producing all new energy with [Wind, Water and Solar] by 2030 and replacing pre-existing energy by 2050." http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/january/jacobson-world-energy-012611.html + http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/susenergy2030.html + http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030 * Zero Carbon Australia Energy Plan. A ten year roadmap for 100% renewable energy. Baseload energy supplied by renewable sources. Affordable at $8 per household per week. http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org/zero-carbon-australia-2020 * Total Surface Area Required to Fuel the World With 100% Solar + Wind: http://www.landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/127 + responses to the usual nit-picking: http://www.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/esz1u/if_we_were_to_power_the_entire_world_with_solar/c1apasd + http://www.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/esz1u/if_we_were_to_power_the_entire_world_with_solar/c1apfva * Climate 2030: A National Blueprint for a Clean Energy Economy. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/climate-2030-blueprint.html * Germany to become 100% renewable by 2050. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/04/germany-the-worlds-first-major-renewable-energy-economy * The Combined Power Plant. How Germany will provide 100% renewable electricity by 2050. http://www.kombikraftwerk.de/index.php?id=27 * How Germany will achieve 100% clean, safe, renewable energy by 2050 - regardless of what the weather does. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR8gEMpzos4 * Clean Energy 2030. Google's Proposal for reducing U.S. dependence on fossil fuels. http://knol.google.com/k/clean-energy-2030# * Decarbonizing Civilization: Powering the Globe Entirely with Wind Energy by 2050. http://www.energyboom.com/wind/decarbonizing-civilization-powering-globe-wind-energy-2050 * Battle of the grids: how to deliver 68% renewable energy by 2030 and nearly 100% by 2050. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/reports/Battle-of-the-grids/ * Road map to zero carbon, renewable energy in Europe by 2050. "Nuclear and / or coal-with-CCS plants are not essential to decarbonize power while safeguarding system reliability." http://www.roadmap2050.eu/ * UN Report: How Two Per Cent of Global GDP can Trigger Greener, Smarter Growth While Fighting Poverty. http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=659&ArticleID=6902&l=en&t=long * EU Roadmap for moving to a low-carbon economy in 2050. "The share of low carbon technologies in the electricity mix is estimated to increase from around 45% today to around 60% in 2020, including through meeting the renewable energy target, to 75 to 80% in 2030, and nearly 100% in 2050." http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/roadmap/index_en.htm ~~~ Curiously, I've never seen any plan from any independent source that recommends nuclear....
91134. muoncounter at 12:08 PM on 25 March 2011
       Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
       #98: "wind induced low frequency sound effects are real enough for those affected." That's an interesting turn of phrase. Are the effects of this sound real to all? Or real only to those affected? A study of the so-called wind turbine effect: There is no credible scientific evidence that low levels of wind turbine sound at 1 to 2Hz will directly affect the vestibular system. In fact, it is likely that the sound will be lost in the natural infrasonic background sound of the body. ... The body is a noisy system at low frequencies. In addition to the beating heart at a frequency of 1 to 2Hz, the body emits sounds from blood circulation, bowels, stomach, muscle contraction, and other internal sources. ... “Wind turbine syndrome” is not a recognized medical diagnosis, is essentially reflective symptoms associated with noise annoyance and is an unnecessary and confusing addition to the vocabulary on noise. This syndrome is not a recognized diagnosis in the medical community. There are no unique symptoms or combinations of symptoms that would lead to a specific pattern of this hypothesized disorder. The collective symptoms in some people exposed to wind turbines are more likely associated with annoyance to low sound levels. But of course, there's a wind turbine syndrome website, so it has to be real.
91135. muoncounter at 11:51 AM on 25 March 2011
       Teaching Climate Science
       #17, Gilles: "computer simulations are never taken as evidence that things are real, ... no real validation that things would have happened like that without anthropogenic forcing." Clearly you do not understand Figure 2. The validation you claim to seek is there (its called matching the models to history). Without anthropogenic forcing, there is no match. But you've said that you're not really here to discuss such scientific goings-on, so you've rendered your own opinions on this question moot.
91136. Marcus at 11:46 AM on 25 March 2011
       Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
       "What you have to consider is that base load 24/7 from black coal plant generates electricity for 4-5 cents per kWhr, Gas, Nuclear and Geothermal are in the 8-12 cents range. Wind 7-12 cents (depending on site and without storage)." Apples & oranges Ken. Black Coal is only so cheap because it has received almost 100 years of 100% tax-payer support & a virtual monopoly in most energy markets-yet even then it took several decades for prices to fall below $1/kw-h. Even today Black Coal receives a number of generous tax-payer subsidies, like cheap water, reduced diesel fuel costs, free infrastructure & subsidized waste disposal & land rehabilitation. Yet not only are its supporters unwilling to consider a removal of these subsidies, but they complain about coal's competitors receiving *any* subsidies at all.
91137. muoncounter at 11:39 AM on 25 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       #29, Gilles: "Iceland ... Electricity is already there !!! which is not the case of Hawaii I think." Another bit of fact-free dialog from the world according to Gilles. To burst the bubble with a fact or two: The 2009 Hawaii State Legislature enacted this goal into law by establishing a renewable portfolio standard of 40 percent and an energy efficiency standard of 30 percent by 2030 ... Hawaii ranks third in the nation ... in use of renewable energy relative to the state's total electricity production. In 2009, ... 19 percent of Hawaiian Electric, Maui Electric and Hawaii Electric Light companies’ sales came from renewable energy (including solar water heating) and quantifiable energy efficiency efforts. By 'electricity already there' in Iceland, I presume you mean hydro and geothermal resources? Some of that Icelandic electricity might one day be on its way to a European nation near you.
91138. Marcus at 11:37 AM on 25 March 2011
       Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
       "wind induced low frequency sound effects are real enough for those affected." As I've said, though-why aren't people living even *closer* to the wind-farms suffering from the same effects? It seems odd that no-one who has been paid to site wind turbines on their land has suffered ill effects, whilst people up to 20km away claim their health is being impacted. I'd be inclined to suggest that these people are just miffed at having a wind-farm in their niehgbourhood, or are annoyed at not having received money themselves.
91139. Marcus at 11:34 AM on 25 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       If you ask me, Jevons Paradox sounds over-simplistic. Case in point-I switched all the lights in my house from incandescent to globes to CFL's about 10 years ago. Now aside from the immediate energy savings (I now use about 1/5th of the electricity for my lighting needs than I needed back in the 1990's) there is also the simple fact that I've bought far fewer globes in the past decade than I did in the decade prior because-whereas my CFL's now last anywhere from 2-5 years, my old incandescents needed to be replaced every 2-6 months. So there is an energy saving there too, IMHO.
91140. Marcus at 11:25 AM on 25 March 2011
       The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
       Of course, what a lot of people seem to forget is that CO2 isn't the *only* gas you get when you burn coal. Even after years of "cleaning" up emissions, coal-fired power stations are still major sources of Cadmium, Mercury & Radon-not to mention harmful particulate emissions that are believed responsible for asthma & lung disease. So even if the CO2 emitted could be defined as a "colourless, odourless gas, that's essential for life on this plant", you definitely can't say the same for all the other crap that comes with it!
91141. Alexandre at 11:21 AM on 25 March 2011
       The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
       Caerbannog #18 That was a catchy metaphore. I may use that one!
91142. Philippe Chantreau at 11:07 AM on 25 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       What's this talk of photons having temperatures in Kelvins? A photon's energy depends on its frequency or wavelength, not on the temperature of its source, which is what Damorbel seems to imply. The better informed here correct me please, as this is the way I see it: the temperature of an EM radiation source affects the spectrum of the radiation and that's about it. An individual photon at a given frequency couldn't care less whether it came from a 5 gazillion degrees source or a light bulb, does it? If it does, how exactly does that manifest? A different spin angular momentum? Or what?
       Moderator Response: There is a common misconception that all photon sources output photons of only a single frequency that is determined by the temperature of the source. In fact, the blackbody radiation curve is a distribution of photons of multiple frequencies, with an increase in temperature causing a shift in that distribution of emitted photons so that more of the higher frequency/energy photons are emitted relative to the lower frequency/energy photons, but there still is emission of photons of multiple frequencies.
       
       Consequently, when somebody receives a photon of a given frequency, that person can state only the relative probabilities of the temperature of that photon's source. That photon could have come from a source of any temperature. As a commenter said a bit ago, photons do not carry ID cards.
91143. NewYorkJ at 11:02 AM on 25 March 2011
       The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
       What are they implying by "colorless"? Is that attribute supposed to make the greenhouse gas better in some way? Sounds racist (yeah I know I'm being silly but so is the article).
91144. ranyl at 10:58 AM on 25 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       32 Dana, Yet the Pliocene had a CO2 350ppm and was 3-5C hotter, taking into account that i slong equilibrium and only 60% is realised in 100years that leaves 1.8-2.4C for 350ppm. So 450ppm seems a best risky considering what we talking about and seeing the changes already happening would prefer to be far below 2C as well, 1.5C is double what we've had already and that is becoming sobbering.
91145. caerbannog at 10:56 AM on 25 March 2011
       The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
       Let's say that a privately-owned dam breaks and floods a town. Would the residents be able to sue the dam's owner for flooding the town with "a harmless, colorless liquid that’s essential for life on this planet"?
91146. SNRatio at 10:56 AM on 25 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       Making a country carbon-neutral has very much to do with available technology. Iceland, for example, with about 300 000 inhabitants, has no chance of making electric vehicles for transportation themselves - probably not even biofuels for their fisheries. Not even a big economy like Germany's can develop/produce everything needed itself. But whether opportunities are used, depends much on national (or, in Europe, the EU) policies. For instance, Germany already in 2009 had a 7% biofuel use in transportation, while some other EU countries had virtually zero.
91147. NewYorkJ at 10:49 AM on 25 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       If the Jevons paradox claims that improving energy efficiency results in higher overall energy use, it's wrong on very basic economic levels. Let's say average fuel efficiency of automobiles rose from 25 mpg to 250 mpg, and average miles driven per person per year was 10,000 just prior. For Jevons paradox to be correct, the average miles driven would have to increase to beyond 100,000 miles. This is somewhat of a simplistic example, as it doesn't take into account the extra energy use required to manufacture the vehicle and dispose of it, or extra road maintenance for any increased miles driven, so the actual number would be somewhat less than 100,000, but one would be hard-pressed to make the numbers work for Jevons paradox. So if auto fuel efficiency did increase tenfold, there would be more miles driven, but nowhere near enough to offset the energy savings. There isn't enough spare time in the day to drive that much. Another reason is the price elasticity of demand, which is fairly inelastic for current gas prices. Just as doubling fuel costs has small effect on reduction in consumption, so would halving fuel costs (even less effect). One can see this in U.S. petroleum consumption from 2005 to 2008. There were huge price increases but only modest reductions in consumption, much of which could be attributed to the declining economy in 2008-2009. There are also fuel efficiency standards that are beginning to take effect. These various factors, however, can't be disentangled easily by eyeballing some numbers. U.S. Primary energy consumption by source
91148. SNRatio at 10:40 AM on 25 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       Re Jevon's paradox: From my experience, the increase in energy use after substantial efficiency improvements is usually some fraction of the saving. As a typical example, people increase indoor temperature after installing heat pumps, resulting in an actual halving of energy consumption rather than the potential (and maybe projected) reduction to a third. In the few cases where total energy use actually increases, there is usually an underlying latent need that now can be met. Generally, it may be a good idea, as CBDunkerson suggests, to introduce policy measures to support the intended changes, but it is not always strictly necessary. What is, generally, necessary, is high enough energy prices to encourage efficient use and avoid too much wasteful use. For instance, what the billionaires of the world spend for personal use, won't make much of a difference. But what the millionaires do, will make a difference. So for a policy to be efficient, it must target them (too). So far, energy use has been way too cheap in most of the world to sufficiently encourage savings and efficiency, but things are changing now.
91149. Daniel Bailey at 10:21 AM on 25 March 2011
       Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
       @ getricks (93) Welcome to Skeptical Science! To put it kindly, your friend is misinformed. Fortunately, you do not have to become climate scientists to become better informed on the Urban Heat Island (or any other issue). That's what Skeptical Science is here for! There is an immense amount of reference material discussed here and it can be a bit difficult at first to find an answer to your friend's questions. That's why we recommend that Newcomers, Start Here and then learn The Big Picture. I also recommend watching this video on why CO₂ is the biggest climate control knob in Earth's history. Further general questions can usually be be answered by first using the Search function in the upper left of every Skeptical Science page to see if there is already a post on it (odds are, there is). If you still have questions, use the Search function located in the upper left of every page here at Skeptical Science and post your question on the most pertinent thread. Remember to frame your questions in compliance with the Comments Policy and lastly, to use the Preview function below the comment box to ensure that any html tags you're using work properly. Hope that helps! The Yooper
91150. scaddenp at 10:17 AM on 25 March 2011
       Teaching Climate Science
       "I see here no real validation that things would have happened like that without anthropogenic forcing." Gilles - I have a great idea for validation. Why dont we stop producing any anthropomorphic forcings and see climate settles to predicted natural forcings?

Prev  1815  1816  1817  1818  1819  1820  1821  1822  1823  1824  1825  1826  1827  1828  1829  1830  Next