Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 Next
Comments 91701 to 91750:
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:13 AM on 23 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
Cadbury @ post that might not be deleted... You merely need to look at the radiative forcing related to enhanced GHG concentrations and you will clearly see why they are going to do something. If you are under the assumption that we can take the planet where we currently exist, have evolved, have developed agriculture and large complex human society... take that and raise the global temperature back to where it was 65 mya and actually survive... then you are clearly a denier of the first order. -
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 06:05 AM on 23 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
@IanC I fail to see how anthropogenic emissions are going to do anything when they are well below historical averages of atmospheric co2. Additionally, I fail to see how there are going to be climate catastrophes with a GAT of 12C versus the GAT of the past 600 million years, which is 22C. Please explain yourself.Moderator Response: Peruse the Arguments list, where among the many relevant posts you will find "It's Not Bad." You can also type It's Not Bad into the Search field at the top left of this page. Also "It's Not Urgent," "CO2 Is Not a Pollutant," "CO2 Was Higher in the Past," and "CO2 Was Higher in the Late Ordovician." -
Gilles at 06:02 AM on 23 March 2011Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
right, it was only to be sure, so I go on cautiously. So you're saying that if you look at the following curve , before 1960, i.e. by hiding the post-1960 part (I could wipe off the last half century if you have no finger to do it), then, the shape is perfectly natural and can be produced only by natural variability ?
is it right ?
-
CBDunkerson at 06:01 AM on 23 March 2011Understanding Solar Evolution Pt. 1
*blink* When 'skeptics' question the increase of solar output over time I've always just said, 'look... we have alot of stars to check it against'... but this works too. :] -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:54 AM on 23 March 2011The Climate Show Episode 9: Nuclear power and hot spots
Gilles... You might want to look at figure 3 here. -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:50 AM on 23 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
For myself, Tom, I kinda like your box idea. It could be called a path lengthening device, increasing the number of photons in the system at a given time. Time is often the missing idea when considering GH effect. At equilibrium, energy in and energy out at TOA are equal. Increase IR opacity and energy out at TOA becomes less than in, until the surface temp increases to radiate enough out through the increased opacity. There is no violation of thermodynamics at all. -
dana1981 at 05:47 AM on 23 March 2011Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
I'm still trying to figure out why Gilles is asking questions which are very clearly answered in the article. -
dana1981 at 05:46 AM on 23 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
Arkadiusz - the first paper you cite is talking about human climate effects thousands of years ago. The second paper is talking about soil carbon emissions as a feedback. There is no question that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities. To be blunt, the "doubt" about which you speak is limited to your own confusion about the subject. -
CBDunkerson at 05:45 AM on 23 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
LJ: "The atmosphere acts like a parabolic dish...you don't really believe that...do you?" In that both cause an area to be warmer due to redirected electromagnetic energy it isn't a matter of belief, but rather observed reality. "Hey CB, read up on solar cookers...when not cooking can be turned away from the sun, and COOL the focused contents. How can this happen...how, with intensified hot radiation form the dish atmosphere?" Congratulations... I cannot discern an argument coherent enough to refute. -
IanC at 05:43 AM on 23 March 2011Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
Gilles, Figure 2d of Meehl et al 2004 will give you the answer: mostly natural, small anthropogenic contribution. The same thing cannot be said for post 1960. -
johnd at 05:41 AM on 23 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Ken Lambert at 00:59 AM, regarding the coal supply to power stations, there is a requirement for power stations to maintain a minimum stockpile of coal, something like at least a months supply to cover supply disruptions depending on the supply chain. The operators are not stupid and fully understand the realities of coal supply logistics in the real world, especially seasonal risks when force majeure is most likely and plan accordingly. The only sin considered greater than a power station running out of fuel is for an aircraft to do so. -
Gilles at 05:37 AM on 23 March 2011The Climate Show Episode 9: Nuclear power and hot spots
stratospheric cooling is a clear fingerprint of the rise of CO2 concentration, which is a dominant cooler in the optically thin regime (CO2 excited by collisions radiate towards empty space and the photons are no more trapped). So stratospheric cooling shows that CO2 concentration is increasing (whatever the cause), which we know anyway by direct measurements. It doesn't say much about the origin of ground warming. -
L.J. Ryan at 05:24 AM on 23 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
CBDunkerson746 "can't you see that the mechanism is the same? In both cases we have electromagnetic radiation being redirected and resulting in the area of accumulation receiving more energy than if the EMR had not been redirected there. The greenhouse effect works by redirecting 'infrared light' just as a parabolic mirror works by redirecting 'visible light'... in both cases you have concentrated a greater amount of electromagnetic radiation in a given area and thus produced a higher temperature." The atmosphere acts like a parabolic dish...you don't really believe that...do you? Hey CB, read up on solar cookers...when not cooking can be turned away from the sun, and COOL the focused contents. How can this happen...how, with intensified hot radiation form the dish atmosphere? Hint: the sky is cooler. -
ranyl at 05:23 AM on 23 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
"Of course, if we don't bother reducing emissions at all that'll be another story." Very true and there globally there hasn't exactly been much progress so far despite all the efforts, as all the savings have been swamped by the ever increasing demand. Not sure what it will take, but in the mean time adaptation planning (mitigation and adaptation in the wider context (adapting to be fossil fuel independent)) seems a sensible stance. -
L.J. Ryan at 05:07 AM on 23 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
muoncounter 747 "Are you suggesting that successive absorption and re-emission of photons at the same frequency increases energy?" That's my point...it can't. Go back and read the entire thread. -
les at 05:06 AM on 23 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
Gilles - the average Englishman knows that when you're in a hole, stop digging. One technical question ... is that an imaginary envelope? For writing to your imaginary friends? But wait! Now I'm to imagine a triangle! I don't think so either -
CBDunkerson at 05:01 AM on 23 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
ranyl #77, "But how much of a drop will there be before equilibrium is reached" That is the question and I don't pretend to know the answer. The Lowe paper finds that we would reach equilibrium with very little reduction in atmospheric CO2 levels, but itself notes several other studies which suggested more significant drops. Whether we will see significant carbon release from long term environmental sinks (e.g. permafrost, mathane clathrates) is still an open question. Obviously that could be very bad... potentially keeping GHG levels elevated regardless of whether we cut back/eliminate emissions from industry. There is definitely a great deal of cause for concern, but we can't pin down the effects of current levels and plausible reduction scenarios any more precisely than somewhere between 'somewhat inconvenient' and 'massively destructive'. Of course, if we don't bother reducing emissions at all that'll be another story. -
muoncounter at 05:00 AM on 23 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
#743: "If I specify ... 1 photon per second, A single photon will transverse the box and/or absorbed and re-radiated countless times within a second...so why no increase in energy?" Are you suggesting that successive absorption and re-emission of photons at the same frequency increases energy? In what way? If you have this figured out, congratulations, you better get a plane ticket to Stockholm. -
perseus at 04:52 AM on 23 March 2011Understanding Solar Evolution Pt. 1
Thanks Mark It seems as if Astronomy is not completely immune from myths either! There is a short discussion of the subject here Radiation pressure in stars -
keithpickering at 04:49 AM on 23 March 2011Understanding Solar Evolution Pt. 1
I note that Gough's equation is linear; I have seen (somewhere) literature that graphs the time dependency relationship as logarithmic at ~ 7% per billion years. I'll see if I can find it, if nobody else knows. -
CBDunkerson at 04:49 AM on 23 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
LJ, can't you see that the mechanism is the same? In both cases we have electromagnetic radiation being redirected and resulting in the area of accumulation receiving more energy than if the EMR had not been redirected there. The greenhouse effect works by redirecting 'infrared light' just as a parabolic mirror works by redirecting 'visible light'... in both cases you have concentrated a greater amount of electromagnetic radiation in a given area and thus produced a higher temperature. Your claim that this violates the 1st law of thermodynamics is thus obviously false. No 'extra' energy is being created... already existing energy is being concentrated within an area and thereby causing higher temperatures in that area. Ditto with the nonsense about the 2nd law of thermodynamics... the EMR flows just fine from the cold surface of the mirror to the much hotter focal point. If the greenhouse effect violates either of these laws of thermodynamics then so do parabolic mirrors... yet both keep on working despite illogical beliefs that they cannot. -
Gilles at 04:37 AM on 23 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
OK ,let say that I don't know exactly what the precise semantic field of "average " in english. So your claim is that the 600 000 000th richest chinese guy to day is much poorer than the 40 000 000th american in 1890 ? that's an interesting idea - but how can you (or Summers) know that ? if you want use it as a "serious" argument to say anything about energy and economy, you should have at least a vague idea of how to be sure of that ? and i said "imaginary" in the sense of that it doesn't correspond to an actual line drawn on the graphics - it's just an envelope. If you complete the graphics with the history of other countries, it will fill some kind of broad triangle. Now is your claim that there is no issue in imagining that this triangle will move indefinitely towards the high end of the y-axis? I don't think so. For me, that's just an illustration of human hubris. -
MarkR at 04:23 AM on 23 March 2011Understanding Solar Evolution Pt. 1
1 perseus: quick estimate would be that the outward force from the Sun's luminosity is 1.3 x 1018 N or 0.2 Pa pressure at the surface. At the surface of the core, about 0.2 solar radius out, it would therefore be about 5 Pa. Looks pretty weak to me, considering Earth's atmosphere with Earth's gravity is about 100 kPa at the surface. Of course, perhaps I calc'd it wrong, but I think it's effectively ignorable. -
ranyl at 04:20 AM on 23 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Hi CDB and BERN, Yes agree and did have a misconception of the lag involved to equilibrium and why I felt that there wouldn't be much of immediate a drop of CO2 even if all emissions stop and must still say not convinced there will be as many of models make many questionable assumptions especially about the terrestrial sinks. But how much of a drop will there be before equilibrium is reached as the sinks do seem to be falling and every other time the globe warms CO2 overall is released? Also there is all the frozen lands to thaw and release CO2 and when past equilibrium point the CO2 put acutely into the sinks over the last 100years or so will be released before CO2 falls further.. So even we stopped today, 390ppm, where is the equilibrium point, if 75% overall equilibrium removal is right that is about 335ppm, but that takes several 100years to acheive meaning we'll still be above 350ppm until 2100 and that is presuming no decline in the sinks which is unlikely as world still warms for 1000's years, meaning the oceans warm, permafrost melts etc...450ppm and we'll still be the high 300'slow 400's by 2100, as it will take 25 years to get to 450ppm at the present rate. And do agree entirely that having zedro emissions for activities is essential, however also feel that to get to safe levels a large draw down of CO2 is necessary, even at 350ppm the pliocene is calling eventually but to avoid 2C by 2100 we need to be at most 350ppm by then. We are 40ppm above 350ppm already and the chance of stopping emissions abruptly about the same as a snowball in a hot place, so what do we plan for? >2C or below and isn't even 1.5C going to be a major task of adaptation considering what is already happening? There really is no carbon budget, the debt is already in the bank, however to adapt we need to make the smallest extra withdrawal we can, so how much is that? 400ppm peak? That is 5 years away!!!!! -
Gilles at 04:16 AM on 23 March 2011Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
sorry all, but I was not talking about divergence, it was only a side remark. I am not talking about post-1960 points. Forget the sixties and later, imagine that we're discussing in 1960. I'm just asking if the pre-1960 rise, visible in proxy reconstructions, is mainly natural, or anthropogenic. -
perseus at 04:01 AM on 23 March 2011Understanding Solar Evolution Pt. 1
Chris Is the pressure exerted by the outward radiation flow in a main sequence star significant in holding it up against gravity? The text above suggest that it can be approximated as being a ball of gas with hydrostatic pressure only. -
IanC at 03:50 AM on 23 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
34 Arkadiusz, 1) Your scenario is impossible unless the biosphere sink somehow distinguishes natural CO2 and anthropogenic CO2. 2) It appears the hypothesis mentioned there is that human had an impact on the carbon cycle long before the burning of fossil fuel through land use changes. I am not surprised that it is not well constrained, and I fail to see how the fact that the anthropogenic impact 1000's years ago has anything to do with the present warming which began 100 years ago. 3) Regarding those two soil studies, the take home message is that the human impact on the CO2 cycle maybe worse than previously thought, not that human is not contributing significantly to global warming. -
L.J. Ryan at 03:49 AM on 23 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
CBDunkerson 741, moderator No CB, I believe light can be focused and directed. Are you suggesting the cold atmosphere is a parabolic dish...reflecting focused LW to the earths surface? Way to stay objective moderator.Moderator Response: [DB] As one who has experienced this thread in all its 700+ comment glory, keeping one's objectivity mandates a sense of humor. Like keeping an open mind also mandates one to not let one's brains fall out. If you've taken offense at my sense of humor, I apologize. -
L.J. Ryan at 03:46 AM on 23 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Tom Curtis 732 733 The nonsense of your electric stove analogy is profound. To imply a lid over a pot of near boiling water demonstrates atmosphere forcing, or to refute heat energy flows spontaneously from hot to cold is obfuscation at that least and outright igno....well you seem very intelligent, just wrong. You came to realize however, "the "lid forcing" is due to reduced heat loss due to convection and latent heat transfer. There-fore-making the lid transparent to IR, a very small source of heat loss in the situation, will make virtually no difference." And the lid temperature is NOT relevant The larger pot inverted over the burner, bright red or dull red, should get hotter via re-radiation. Should get much hotter via re-radiation IF GHG theory physics is correct. Or since the burner represents a constant source of light (maybe a beam) shouldn't the pot contain 4x the light entering the pot. Can a pot be a box? Any interested readers should reference the thread starting @676 Any interested readers should also note your evasion, and that you do not feel confident enough to discuss the case on its merits. -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:45 AM on 23 March 2011Teaching Climate Science
Gilles @ 12... Can you please explain what the motivation would be for a scientist to produce work that has no relationship or bearing on the world around him/her? No scientist is ever going to advance their career by producing work that has absolutely no relationship to the real world. If you spend any time at all listening to these guys or reading their research you find they all say that models are not perfect. They are continually improving the models. But the models create a strong approximation of the climate system. And they have DO have many ways to test how reliable the models are. -
L.J. Ryan at 03:41 AM on 23 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Tom Curtis 731 You said: " "In that case, after sufficient time for light to transit the box three times, and with a constant light source providing beam (A), then the box will have the following equalities." A single photon does not qualify as either a "beam" or a "constant light source". By reducing the case to that of a single photon, you are quite clearly trying to avoid discussing the model as specified. Any interested readers should note your evasion, and that you do not feel confident enough to discuss the case on its merits. That should come as no surprise - I certainly would not want to discuss my case on its merits if I held your purported beliefs. " Establishing constraints is not avoiding the discussion. Since a "beam" is not scientifically defined, and furthermore "light source providing beam" suggests visible light, I'm trying to establish a specific minimum for your box to work as supposed. If I specify, as you suggested (698) 1 photon per second, A single photon will transverse the box and/or absorbed and re-radiated countless times within a second...so why no increase in energy? I will ask again. Is there a minimum energy for your box? Any interested readers should note your evasion, and that you do not feel confident enough to discuss the case on its merits. -
pbjamm at 03:12 AM on 23 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
JMurphy@738 "Tom Curtis, you and the others here are doing sterling work but I wonder to what end." I would like to second this Tom but let you know that it is not pointless. Not being a physicist myself I have found your explanations very easy to follow and enlightening. The lack of understanding displayed by our resident skeptics is as damaging to their cause as their math. -
soo doh nim at 03:07 AM on 23 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens I think that applies here. -
WSteven at 01:45 AM on 23 March 2011Teaching Climate Science
This is an excellent video, Kevin presents and explains the evidence well. -
CBDunkerson at 01:44 AM on 23 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
LJRyan #715: "To proclaim star sourced energy can be increase itself by it's own reflection and/or re-radiation is a violation of the 1st law." Presumably parabolic mirrors don't exist in your reality.Moderator Response: [DB] Or perhaps he meant this law... -
les at 01:43 AM on 23 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
77 Giles "for me..." well, yes, for you. But in the real world - and even in France - 'average' is a measure that tends to the center or typical, of which mean, median and, indeed, mode are examples which apply variously in different population types. There are others. Sorry writing 'sigma' whatever and pretending your doing maths doesn't make you right. Then some waffle then 78 - oh, i see, an imaginary line. ohhh kayyyy... we ask for hard facts and analysis and we get an imaginary line. It's a good strategy because I really have no response to that. -
IanC at 01:37 AM on 23 March 2011Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
Gilles@39 I think you should keep in mind that 1) not all tree ring records show divergence. It is geographically limited. 2) temperature records have been reconstructed from other proxy data as well. I found this link helpful: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Tree-ring-proxies-divergence-problem.htmModerator Response: [DB] Hot-linked URL. -
grypo at 01:28 AM on 23 March 2011Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
@Gilles This divergence talk should be in a divergence thread, but I will respond to this last comment and then let it go. No, I do not think it is very uncertain to use them as evidence for past temperature. I think specifically Briffa's proxy for estimating temperature over specific time scales is somewhat uncertain. But it doesn't matter what I think, and that's the good news. The experts are very aware of this issue and are working to come to an agreement. The bad news is that until that is done, there will considerable disagreement on how to inform the public of this uncertainty, while portraying the best possible answers to certain questions. Other than Richard Alley and the late Steven Schneider, most climate scientists aren't experts in this regard. Dendro people are dendro experts. There are certain choices made in charts that reasonable people can disagree on how to display. This is definitely the case with multiproxy reconstructions. If you want to discuss those options, please do it in a relevant thread. -
IanC at 01:20 AM on 23 March 2011Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
13 HR, The reason why I feel the paper is particularly speculative is because the authors' argument is essentially this: other reconstructions of TSI disagree, and since we feel that the sun is as quiet as it can be can, the condition at MM should be similar to the present day. I don't see the authors addressing why this estimation is necessarily better than the others, nor do they address why the other reconstructions disagree. There must be some different physics that goes behind those constructs, so can those differences be ignored altogether as I think the authors are doing? But as you said, we probably have to wait to see what the conclusions are in a few years. Now to answer your question. If the theory is indeed correct, it doesn't affect our understanding of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. The implication will be that the climate is more sensitive to forcing changes than we know. It will also remove any hopes that the sun will enter another MM-like phase and bring in another little ice age to counteract the effects of anthropogenic CO2. In addition, the change in the solar forcing is by no means large enough to suggest that there is some unaccounted for process going on to cause the 1900-1940 warming. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:19 AM on 23 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
“... the natural carbon cycle is in balance ...” „Natural carbon sinks absorb more than natural carbon sources emit, and human emissions upset that balance. That's why humans are responsible for the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 years.” ... there's no indisputable evidence ..., ... and it is not so simple. In nature, this model is dominated: model of an oscillating - Lotka–Volterra equation Imagine that in the atmosphere from natural sources (imbalance - as a result of global warming - between sources and the sinks CO2 - the excess of sources over sinks) in the pre industrial era (exit of the LIA), 2 ppm CO2 goes unbalanced. Ie. if we assume that there was an increase of 5 ppmv natural CO2 - respiration, ocean ventilation - (hypothetical value) per annum (the beginning of the industrial era). 2 ppmv CO2 is added to the atmosphere each year as "permanent" surplus. Add to that “our” 5 ppm of CO2 emissions. In general - in all - it should be 7 ppm unbalanced surplus? Nothing could be further from the truth. Assuming that the optimum of photosynthesis in the range 400 - 600 ppm CO2, any new source of CO2 strongly reinforces - is intensifying photosynthesis. However, there is the emergence of a new source of anthropogenic CO2 in the industrial era. New source - new 5 ppmv CO2 adds to the atmosphere - is to improve conditions for photosynthesis, the biosphere. These "next" source so the biosphere reacts more positively than those earlier. These new - an additional anthropogenic source - increases of NPP is not a 3 ppmv but about 4.5 ppmv - increase bio-sinks. In other words, an increase in sources of CO2 by 10 ppmv - biosphere absorbs 7.5 ppmv increase from both sources. Without anthropogenic CO2 source is unbalanced excess of 2 ppm of CO2 + A. CO2 = 2.5 ppm. A. CO2 = 0,5 ppm ... Such a scenario is possible - we have to prove it - a fact - but it's not disinformation. The First-Order Effect of Holocene Northern Peatlands on Global Carbon Cycle Dynamics, Wang 2010.: “Holocene anthropogenic hypothesis is to claim that humans took control of atmospheric CO2 and CH4 trends thousands of years ago because of perturbations from land-use and land-cover changes [13-15]. However, without constrained magnitudes of those changes, it is still difficult to add this hypothesis into our model simulations.” Variations in temperature sensitivities of soil and microbial respiration: Implications for climate-carbon modeling, Suseela et al., 2010.: “Soil respiration is the largest flux of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, releasing more carbon than fossil fuel combustion. Since temperature affects soil respiration, on a global scale, even a small warming-induced increase in carbon dioxide emission from soils could act as a positive feedback to climate change.” Temperature sensitivity of soil carbon fractions in boreal forest soil, Karhu et al. 2010.: “Still, the temperature sensitivity is not known for the majority of the SOC, which is tens or hundreds of years old. This old fraction [14C !] is paradoxically concluded to be more, less, or equally sensitive compared to the younger fraction. Here, we present results that explain these inconsistencies. We show that the temperature sensitivity of decomposition increases remarkably from the youngest annually cycling fraction (Q10 < 2) to a decadally cycling one (Q10 = 4.2-6.9) but decreases again to a centennially cycling fraction (Q10 = 2.4-2.8) in boreal forest soil. Compared to the method used for current global estimates (temperature sensitivity of all SOC equal to that of the total heterotrophic soil respiration), the soils studied will lose 30-45% more carbon in response to climate warming during the next few decades, if there is no change in carbon input.” Already now the carbon dioxide emissions from soil are ten times higher than the emissions of fossil carbon. A Finnish research group has proved that the present standard measurements underestimate the effect of climate warming on emissions from the soil.” So much doubt about only one claim from this post ... -
Ken Lambert at 00:59 AM on 23 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Marcus #71 It seems that I am 'horribly' wrong all over the park Marcus. It only that were true. "It is worth noting, though, that the large, centralized nature of coal power station, as well as their reliance on a constant fuel supply that needs to be mined, does make it especially vulnerable to extreme events like these." Quite the opposite Marcus. Coal fired plant sited on mine sites find coal storage pretty easy and cheap. It is not hard to store many days supply of coal to keep the plant running in a mine shutdown. Coal fired plant sited on rail links can get coal from other mines or interstate. "Even in the absence of such events, coal power stations are horribly inflexible in their power output & lose significant amounts of generated electricity over the distances they're required to transmit over (between 10%-15% of electricity generated gets lost during Transmission & Distribution)." Quite the opposite again Marcus. Coal plant can be run up from cold in a matter of hours and spinning reserve brought on-line in minutes. Multiple generator sets are used to match load to capacity to achieve optimum efficiency and the flexibility required of base load plant. Peak demand can be handled with systems like pumped storage hydro and gas turbines. The issue of distribution losses is not related to the method of powering the generators. It is a function of voltage level and distance from major loads. The same line losses would apply to Bern's ZCA systems. "Wind Turbines also sounds horribly out of date. My reading of current technology is that most modern wind turbines are designed to operate effectively under a wide range of wind conditions-something which has allowed improvements in Capacity from barely 20% to more than 30% in the last decade. Of course, with good siting & decent storage, many of the remaining issues with wind power can be largely iron out-and eliminated completely if you also have a good source of landfill gas." The blade designs are more effective at widening the range of operating wind speeds, however they are still subject to the power output being proportional to the cube of the wind speed. Only the best sites produce 30% availability. Ideal sites are those with high steady winds near the optimum speed for the turbine. The best are very tall and at sea. Building 1000 turbines per year on land needs something like 300m each of space for a 3MW nominal unit. End on end - you would need 300km. A 3MW turbine has a 90-100m blade diameter on a 100m high tower. At a best 30% availability, one of these 3MW units will only produce an average of 1MW over a year. To replace 1 x Kogan Creek 750MW plant, one would need 750 of these turbines. They would stretch end on end for 225km. People are affected adversely by the low freguency sound pressure levels caused by the blade disturbance - not to mention the danger to the orange breasted parrot. And you still have the extra costs of storage of energy and distance from loads for such widely dispersed units. And of course you say all will be fine if you have a landfill nearby each wind farm with enough biogas (and gas turbine or engine) to smooth out the 5 knot clear winter days when you only get 3.5% of nominal power out of each unit. Hello?? -
CBDunkerson at 00:55 AM on 23 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
What struck me most about Thompson's article was how markedly the 'answers' he reported having received varied from my own mental responses; Q: What percentage of the atmosphere do you think is CO2? A: About 0.04%. Q: Have you ever seen the percentage given in any media? A: Yes. Several times per year as a percentage, daily as 'parts per million'... which anyone who knows how to divide can convert into a percentage. (390 / 1,000,000 = 0.039%) Q: What percentage of the CO2 is man-made? A: About 30% (i.e. (390 - 280) / 390 = 0.28) Q: What percentage of the man-made CO2 does Australia produce? A: A little over 1% per year currently. Maybe 2% of the accumulated total increase thus far. Q: Is CO2 a pollutant? A: Depends on the location and concentration... just like anything else. Currently atmospheric CO2 is a global pollutant. Q: Have you ever seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect? A: Sure... Tyndall measurements 1850s, lunar IR measurements at different latitudes, countless temperature and CO2 correlations in the instrumental and proxy records, the Earth not being a giant frozen ball of ice, et cetera. The sad thing is that he can only get away with such nonsense because the (wrong) responses he reports having received are plausible. If people were educated on the issue then charlatans like this would be unable to gain any traction. Sadly too much of the population goes out of the way to 'educate' themselves with pure fiction. The good news is that children in schools, who will eventually be in a position to do something about it, are instead taught reality... though I know in the U.S. there are increasingly strident efforts ongoing to change that. -
adelady at 00:51 AM on 23 March 2011The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
And I just saw this item about Bangladesh on a discussion elsewhere. Very encouraging. -
siglerj at 00:50 AM on 23 March 2011The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
Earth Hour, candles and carbon http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/earth-hour-candles-and-carbon/ Candles being apart of the cycle doesn't mean it is a better option. -
Gilles at 00:50 AM on 23 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
PS death line is not the Korea curve, but an imaginary upper straight line above all curves - for the record, I expect that with the exhaustion of conventional FF and the continuous rise of extraction cost, economic growth will end and all the curves you're seeing will soon have a turn backwards and go back to the origin ... we'll see ! -
Gilles at 00:46 AM on 23 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
les : for me , median is the value of the variable splitting the sample in two equal halves - that's the french "mediane" at least. It's not usually computed as an "average" (= weighted sum of all values , Sigma(Pi.Yi)/Sigma(Pi)) - I don't think there is a way to express the median as a weighted average, but I may ignore that. concerning the relationship between GDP and FF consumption, it is true that , on average, the coefficient tends to improve , for a simple reason : evolution of techniques allows a continuously better use of energy (it is very rare that people replace a good technique by a bad one, after all !). So I never stated that the coefficient was constant throughout the history. But I argue (like on the other thread) that a) improvement doesn't go to zero FF energy b) improvement doesn't result in a decreasing energy consumption for a given wealth, but in increasing the wealth for a given energy consumption (the energy consumption per capita in the world has stayed fairly constant since the 80's, a remarkable feature not explained by economists to my knowledge - which is proving in my sense how poorly they understand these issues). -
Alexandre at 00:37 AM on 23 March 2011Teaching Climate Science
OR that was an illustration of denialism: Claim something without even knowing what your talking about. Don't check reality, even if it's shown to you. Repeat ad nauseam. -
Gilles at 00:29 AM on 23 March 2011The True Cost of Coal Power
and if you try to convince me that we can improve the use of oil and other FF, it's useless. I'm already convinced. This doesn't change the fact that a) improvement cannot go to zero (same with food) b) once improvements are done, there is no real reason (and no moral justification) to prevent much poorer people to use the spared fuels (yes, there are much poorer people than australian in the world !) c) and there is also no precise reason to stop extracting FF as long as we can't suppress totally them. b) and c) imply logically that improvements will lead to more wealth produced with the same amount of FF and not same wealth produced with less FF - which is exactly what you can read on the graphs. -
Tom Curtis at 00:24 AM on 23 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
JMurphy, that might be a suitable solution. Fortunately, though, it is out of my hands to determine if a more robust response is appropriate. -
Tom Curtis at 00:22 AM on 23 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
les @737, in PR it is often quantity, not quality that counts. What is more, damorbel and LJRyan seem to repeatedly make claims that anyone who knows the theory behind the GHE or Thermodynamics can clearly see to be false, but which are plausible enough to pass muster with those having only a casual acquaintance with either. They are exactly the sort of contributions likely generate uncertainty in the uninformed.
Prev 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 Next
