Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 Next
Comments 91901 to 91950:
-
Tom Curtis at 09:22 AM on 20 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Moderators, could we have a thread about zero or low carbon alternatives to fossil fuels. Some of the alternatives here I have never heard of before, and it would be convenient to have a list with references in one location. Also, it would provide a place to send Gilles when he tries to derail a thread. -
Tom Curtis at 09:13 AM on 20 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Bern @11, one factor that needs to be considered is the impact of clouds on domestic solar photo voltaic cells and solar hot water systems. We have the former at my house, and over the last few months in Brisbane, it has not been very effective. As domestic solar becomes more prevalent, increased cloud cover will see an increase in demand on mains power to run essentials like fridges and computers ;) -
johnd at 08:46 AM on 20 March 2011Maize harvest to shrink under Global Warming
Charlie A at 23:32 PM, my first post on this thread began questioning whether the study told us anything not already known. It appears that the weak point in that statement centres on the word "us", so before the question was addressed I should have defined "us", however I think this thread has done that along the way. For myself, "us" means those people whose understanding is based on what is so readily evident and verifiable in the real natural world, the real physical world. For others, "us" means those to whom the same understanding only becomes real if it has been presented in a peer review study. It's not a matter of the first group ignoring that what the second group depends on, it's a matter of deciding what comes first, getting the job done with the paperwork to follow, or the other way around. This is often a point that defines the perspective of those who are in private enterprise and those who are not. In this particular case, if one wanted to understand how maize responds to changing temperatures, that question was being readily answered in the real world by observing where it is most prolific, and then observing how the growing of it diminishes as conditions change moving away from where they are optimum. If one wanted to know how a 1°C warming or drought conditions affected the crop, that evidence is provided by those who grow the crop under those conditions. If one wanted to know the limits to growing maize, then that will be found by observing where the cultivation ceases. Possibly one of the most authoritative sources as to what that limit is will be any peasant farmer who has avoiding perishing, perhaps merely (significantly?) by growing a different variety. Consider each peasant farmer a source of data. Collectively they yield the most meaningful data of all. It is therefore not dependent on conducting a study to identify those areas that are already beyond where maize is able to be cultivated to discover that if it warms even further that the yield of the non-existent maize will be even less. What would have been of value would be a study tracking the progress of the best of the new varieties being developed by measuring whether they are extending successful cultivation into those more marginal areas or if the pace of new development is failing and the marginal areas are advancing. Only with that knowledge would we be able to make projections into the future. There are two variables involved, the climate, and plant genetics. This study effectively froze plant genetics at a point more than a decade ago. -
Tom Curtis at 08:29 AM on 20 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
LJR @689:"I've already challenged your more simplified models...remember "practical difficulties do not prevent us from exploring theoretical possibilities in ideal cases." And your absurd conclusion of 360 kJ of "boxed" light. Then you walked back your conclusion by saying the light would "decay." post 647"
To start with, that was your simplified model, not mine. Second, I did not "walk back" from my conclusion. I distinguished between the ideal case (3600 kJ accumulated) and every possible practical case (the light would escape or be absorbed by the mirrors before internal storage could be measured or stored). What I was noting was that it would be impossible to set up an experiment that tested your model. In contrast, in each of my models, an experiment could be set up which would be able to test the conclusion (even though they would not match exactly the ideal case) Your inability to master simple reading comprehension is not my problem."Because model three incorporates surfaces with emissivities >0, specifically blackbody surfaces, "accumulated" energy can actually be calculated. Further, because blackbody represents the maximum thermal conversion of all radiation, it also represents the maximum "accumulated" energy of your three models. That is, emissivities <1 absorb less radiation then blackbody therefore "accumulate" less energy...ergo if model 3 is proved to have zero "accumulate" energy models 1&2 also have zero accumulated energy.
By accumulate I mean: A) Once the incoming light starts, it takes more time than the time it takes for light to transit the box twice for equilibrium to be reached; B) If the incoming light is removed, it would take more time than it takes for light to transit the box twice for outgoing energy to cease; and C) The total energy inside the box once equilibrium is reached is greater than the total energy in an equal volume of vacuum immediately above the box through which only the incoming radiation and outgoing radiation transit, ie, there are no extraneous bodies. I believe these stipulations follow from the standard definition of "accumulate", but I believe in your case it is necessary to be precise. Given the above meaning of "accumulate", yes, energy accumulates in all three boxes, and, if you can prove that there is zero accumulated energy in any box, you have proved it in any (as every proposition follows from a contradiction). -
dana1981 at 08:24 AM on 20 March 2011Christy's Unconvincing Congressional Testimony
Citizen - Ben Santer did send a letter to Congress calling out Christy's misuse of Douglass et al. And asking him to defend his associated statements. I don't know if he'll be required to reply. -
damorbel at 08:21 AM on 20 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #668 Ricardo "given that you know how to calculate temperature from the energy flux" I'm afraid I don't; it is temperature calculation that defines the whole 2nd law objection. The 2nd law is about energy transfer and it states that it is a function of two temperatures. To know the rate of energy transfer between two places, as an absolute minimum both the energy source temperature and the energy sink temperature must be known. The sink temperature may be 0K, that is the basis of Stefan's law, it gives the maximum possible energy transfer because no object can have a lower temperature than 0K. If the sink temperature is not 0K the energy transfer is less than the figure given by Stefan's law. If you think of it this way you will see this is the reason why bodies with the same temperature do not exchange energy, neither of them can be an energy source or an energy sink; thermal equilibrium exists! There is another reason why Trenberth's diagram tells us nothing. Yes I noticed that the figures he gives could be derived from Stefan's law, but only if you assume the places he gives as sources, e.g. TOA, act like black bodies. This is simply not possible; the TOA is quite transparent, so it can't possibly meet the definition of a black body. Just having the spectrum of a black body, like a grey body (it's a gas! It doesn't even have that!) is not sufficient to qualify the TOA as a black body; so any figures for enegy transfer in the atmosphere based on Stefan's law will be quite misleading. -
ranyl at 08:18 AM on 20 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
How far above 350ppm does a total zero by 2020 get us? 410-420ppm? "A windmill is made of steel (or carbon fibers) and concrete. How do you produce them without FF (and even dissociation of calcium carbonate produce CO2) ? electricity is transported by copper (or aluminium) wires : how do you produce them without FF ? how do you carry and erect the windmills without FF ? how do you travel across Australia without FF ? how do you power trucks, boats and planes ? how do you make isolators, paints, elastomers, fertilizers ?" (Gilles 2011)post 3. What is possible without FF and at a low carbon cost? -
dana1981 at 08:17 AM on 20 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
MattJ #19 - the study addresses your CST overnight storage concern by noting that overnight demands are low. The 7.5 hour storage estimate is based on daytime power demands. The benefit of CST with storage is that output can easily be ramped down, unlike many traditional sources, which just waste the extra overnight production. Hence the "better than baseload" comment in the article. -
damorbel at 07:35 AM on 20 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re My Posts. To those who have noticed:- A number of my posts appear twice, I regret this very much, it is nothing personal but for most of today my attempts to post have failed; I tried the usual rebooting without success. Now I have reinitialised through the home page and see that some these posts now appear more than once; seems to be a glitch somewhere. Rather embarrassing; sorry. -
damorbel at 07:24 AM on 20 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re 650 RickG :- "For what Trenberth is demonstrating temperature is neither necessary or relevant in that diagram. I have no problem understanding the diagram myself." It is difficult to believe that a diagram showing emission of thermal radiation (W/^m2) can be considered useful when no indication is given of the temperature of the emitting body; why else would the Stefan-Boltzmann equation (E= rhoT^4) be so widely deployed in thermal physics? You say you 'have no difficulty understanding the diagrams', then it is probably my fault, I must be looking at them the wrong way; would you mind saying just what it is that you understand, please? -
L.J. Ryan at 06:36 AM on 20 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Tom Curtis 686 Thanks for providing a hyperlink. Cut and paste is tedious to format. I also like the following comment/paragraph...but in it's entirety. "Now, it is very likely that applying a cavity-based formula to the temperature of a rotating half-lit sphere is inherently mistaken. But if not, then 279 Kelvin constitutes the upper limit for the earth because such an estimate assumes a body that is perfectly absorptive, meaning that it can’t possibly absorb more light than the light it’s exposed to. Doing everything a "greenhouse effect" is alleged to do, continuously re-radiating infrared energy inside itself, a light-trapping blackbody demonstrates that radiative forcing is a fiction. For its temperature hits a ceiling not much higher than what you see in real life. Yet greenhouse theory claims that radiative restriction generates temperatures HIGHER THAN a blackbody’s. And considerably higher at that. Such a claim overtly contradicts experimental evidence, then. It doesn't have an empirical leg to stand on. First seized upon as the answer and later dismissed, a glass enclosure proved that infrared opacity had nothing to do with generating extra heat inside. Then came the radiatively restricted blackbody, which nailed the forcing concept shut. Yet against all evidence climatologists still push the radiative forcing theory. WHY?" You said: "You would have thought that Alan Siddons, having noticed that the mean global surface temperatures is 287-288 degrees, and that much hotter temperatures than that are to be found on the Earth's surface would have noticed his experimental refutation and concluded that it was indeed, not just likely, but in this case proven that "...applying a cavity-based formula to the temperature of a rotating half-lit sphere is inherently mistaken" Addressing GHG theory flaws is not the same as explaining why surface temperatures are 33 degrees higher then blackbody. Precluding the later does not nullify the previous. We can move onto a scientifically sound explanation for the 33 degrees, but lets first conclude the argument at hand. -
L.J. Ryan at 06:18 AM on 20 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Tom Curtis 685 1q) Photons work for models 1 & 2 but not 3. Ok what if we assign an input wavelength for 3? You said: "Given that, you persistence in concentrating only on complicated cases, and in trying to assume universal disproofs from particular instances suggests that you are just very confused. It suggests, in fact, that you cannot demonstrate your case, either to yourself or to others, in the simple cases. Consequently you must concentrate on complicated cases that allow maximum free play for misdirection. " I've already challenged your more simplified models...remember "practical difficulties do not prevent us from exploring theoretical possibilities in ideal cases." And your absurd conclusion of 360 kJ of "boxed" light. Then you walked back your conclusion by saying the light would "decay." post 647 Your model three is just happens to mimic actual experiments, so the conclusions are verifiable with actual results... no decaying light, no misdirection. Because model three incorporates surfaces with emissivities >0, specifically blackbody surfaces, "accumulated" energy can actually be calculated. Further, because blackbody represents the maximum thermal conversion of all radiation, it also represents the maximum "accumulated" energy of your three models. That is, emissivities <1 absorb less radiation then blackbody therefore "accumulate" less energy...ergo if model 3 is proved to have zero "accumulate" energy models 1&2 also have zero accumulated energy. Do you agree? -
MattJ at 04:23 AM on 20 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Now concerning "society mobilized by ambition vision": yes, JFK did it. But let's not forget: young and even immature though he was, and despite his lamentable weakness for women of questionable reputations, JFK was a great leader. Somehow, for some mysterious reason, we just don't seem to produce such leaders any more. There is even a relatively famous book on this sad phenomenon: "Where Have All the Leaders Gone?" by Lee Iacocca. Nor is Iacocca the only one to comment on the problem. Bennis has an even more indicting title, "Why Leaders Can't Lead", and an endorsement from the legendary Peter Drucker. Then there are the famous Dilbert insights into the "mastodon dung" that passes for managers these days. The climate of the times has definitely changed since JFK. Instead of leaders rising to the top, our whole human society has started to look more and more like the sickening decay leading up to the Russian Revolution, when high-placed government ministers, instead of addressing real problems with probable solutions, would sequester themselves in occult meetings to try to conjure up the ghost of Rasputin (this really happened), at the same time, throwing roadblocks in the way of those precious few who really did try to solve problems. -
Dan Olner at 04:16 AM on 20 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
I think asking "is it possible to decarbonise without relying on fossil fuels" is a good question that needs solid evidence. There are a lot of ideas - I was recently discussing the same point here - where there's an example of the opposite kind of knee-jerk reaction: "renewables without fossil fuels is impossible and we're all heading for mediaeval levels of per capita energy use." There was also some info on solar breeder plants, that try to tackle the problem head-on. But it seems to me we're some way from understanding the full range of issues in energy transition. So personally I'd lay off Gilles: it's a fair question, and one that I've not seen any completely convincing framework for answering. -
MattJ at 04:01 AM on 20 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Giles is a teacher? If I were an English composition teacher, I would have flunked him for writing post #3. He broke every rule in the book! Why, I would even have to modify the complaint I see others making: not only is he "shoving FF propaganda down our throats", he is doing it so badly, it only inspires revulsion for his claims. But now trying to get us back to the science of global warming/climate change: the CST technology Wight describes certainly does better on the storage problem then I was aware for for any solar thermal solution, but the article still gives too glowing a picture: click on the Scientific American link and you will discover that though the efficiency is impressively high, it can keep up the power output level for only 7.5 hours. Of course, for much of the year, the night is longer than 8 hours. And not all the world is as sunny as Central Spain or Australia. So it leaves me wondering if one of the reasons the plan works so well for Australia -- even eliminating a need for nuclear-- is that Australia gets more sun than even the American SouthWest. But that's OK: we won't ask Australia to endorse the nuclear solution -- as long as you keep doing the uranium mining and selling it to the rest of us;) As for the corrosive potential of salts, yes, Bern, it is less corrosive than chlorides, but at that temperature, it it still corrosive. One should expect that there will be problems, hopefully tractable problems, discovered due to this corrosion as the technology gets more use. And yes, I am in favor of seeing it get more use. -
Utahn at 03:37 AM on 20 March 2011Evaporating the water vapor argument
At my institution full text of Boucher article is available, but not at home, so at this link at least the abstract can be gotten to. -
Utahn at 03:30 AM on 20 March 2011Evaporating the water vapor argument
I thought these links (also added to the water vapor argument comments) would be useful given the comments above by BestTimesNow and Mizimi (namely that water vapor continually emitted by mankind from combustion or irrigation could serve as a forcing): The first is an atmospheric science PhD candidate's calculations regarding combustion-induced water vapor. His conclusion: the amount added from combustion is trivial. The second is a paper (Boucher 2004) that attempts to come up with a radiative forcing from global irrigation. Their conclusion: irrigation likely does add radiative forcing, but it is a trivial amount (0.03 to 0.1 W/M2) compared to atmospheric water vapor in general or C02- and the net climate effect is also likely much more complex than that given a strong cooling effect locally of irrigation (0.8 K locally), and vegetative changes that may affect albedo/C02 etc... I can't find much else out there on the topic, but thought these might be helpful to those wondering about "anthropogenic" water vapor. -
Phila at 03:20 AM on 20 March 2011The True Cost of Coal Power
Gilles' comments are beginning to seem like spamming to me. We get it. You think FFs are wonderful, and your concern about externalities and opportunity costs is minimal to nonexistent. Duly noted, yet again. For people who think a different world is not only possible, but desirable, here's an interesting article on the cost of solar power. -
Charlie A at 02:54 AM on 20 March 2011And so castles made of sand fall in the sea, eventually
My posting to this thread was prompted by a comment by Daniel Bailey saying "Creation of new real estate (at all, let alone that above future SLR) = slim to none (outside of new volcanic islands)." If I have in error mistaken a Skeptical Science author with an uninformed poster, my apologies, but I assume that Daniel Bailey the author of the above comment is also the author of the recent Skeptical Science post Sea level rise: coming to a place near you. Hoping to assist in the understanding and knowledge of Skeptical Scientist's experts, I mentioned cases where his statement was inaccurate --- the very relevant to this article case of the expansion of shoreline areas in virtually every modern city; and the case of coral atolls. The peer reviewed paper on recent increase in land area of Tuvulu can be found at Webb & Kench 2010: The dynamic response of reef islands to sea-level rise: Evidence from multi-decadal analysis of island change in the Central Pacific Many islands had data only for 1984 to 2003. Others for 60 years, but the overwhelming majority had added land area, with the overall increase of all islands studied being 7% of the total area. The volcanic substrate is many hundreds or thousands of meters below the surface and this "creation of new real estate" is definitely NOT volcanic in origin. ====================================== Bern, it is more like you, in the middle of summer, forecasting a horrible freeze and snow in 6 months time. I agree, pointing back to the horrible freeze and snow that we had survived 6 months prior. There is a rate of rise for which coral atolls can adapt. The current rate of rise is well within that rate. Three times that rate, 10mm/yr or 1 meter per century is approaching that limit in some areas. In other areas the limit is as much as 10cm per YEAR. -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:31 AM on 20 March 2011We're heading into an ice age
cjshaker... "We are still 4.5 C below the peak temperature normally achieved during an interglacial." That's an interesting bit of information given that we're in the process of adding a significant additional radiative forcing to the climate system. You are essentially arguing for climate sensitivity in the high estimated range of ~9C. -
Charlie A at 02:18 AM on 20 March 2011Sea level rise: coming to a place near you
In the article caption for Map 5 is "Map 5. The poster child for sea level rise, the Maldives was once a vast island during the last glacial maximum, when sea levels were at their lowest ebb. Reduced now to but a string of island dots on a map, the Maldives will soon cease to be anything but a distant memory for our descendants. And a lasting testament to the willful folly of mankind." I wonder how many are aware that that the Maldives on on a limestone platform of over 2000 meters thickness. The volcanic substrate upon which the island chain rests is 2000+ meters below the surface, yet the islands remain. How does that happen? Darwin figured it out in 1837. His hypothesis was that coral atolls were large coral/limestone formations on top of submerged volcanic rock. In 1896-1896 the Royal Society of London drilled on that other post child of CAGW activists, Tuvulu. They got down to more than 1100'/340 meters and were still in limestone created by corals. Corals don't grow very fast if submerged more than a few 10's of meters. The existence of coral atolls through the many past changes in sea level are a testament to the resiliency of the coral atoll systems. -
les at 01:58 AM on 20 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
I'm not so sure - a generation can also be just that, a generation - around 50 years. Never the less - I'm not so sure mid to late 1800s makes much difference (I'm not calculating anything precise here!) According to the Wiki carbon emissions chart the impact from oil isn't significant till after 1900 and, overall we're talking less than 10% of todays combustion... ... and clearly the US was wealthy before that etc. etc. I'm not sure my point is sensitive to with 50 years. -
Bern at 01:47 AM on 20 March 2011And so castles made of sand fall in the sea, eventually
Charlie A: "The highest elevation is 4.5 metres (15 ft) above sea level" (from wikipedia). Given that we're talking about a likely minimum sea level rise of ~1m by the end of the century (some estimates are 5m+), I don't think we can be complacent about the fate of low-lying islands. With ultimate sea level rise likely to be at least 6 metres (but it may be as high as 25m, if the East Antarctic Ice Sheet stays frozen, 75m+ if it thaws), then there will be a lot more places than Tuvalu having trouble keeping their heads above water. The other thing to consider is that sea level rise is expected to accelerate - particularly due to ice sheet dynamics - so you aint seen nothin' yet, so to speak. It's a bit like me saying on midsummer's day that it's going to be cold here in 6 months, and you coming back three days later saying "hey, it's not any colder than it was the other day, what were you talking about?" -
Bern at 01:38 AM on 20 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
les - I think you have your timeframes incorrect. "Two or three generations ago" means in the time of grandparents and great-grandparents of people around 20-odd years of age. I'm close to double that age, and my grandparents grew up in the early years of the 20th century. So probably between the wars would be around the right timeframe for the comparison, I'd guess. And oil was definitely having an impact at that time (Model T, anyone?). -
Bern at 01:30 AM on 20 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Joe Lalonde - regarding your comment about salt corroding metal - I'd say that it's more like chloride salts corrode metal (chlorine ions do nasty stuff to steel). If you're talking about the molten salt heat storage, the salt in question is likely to be a nitrate salt, not a chloride salt, so corrosion isn't a major issue. W.r.t. storm damage - well, if we can accept the risk of storm damage to our homes & the thousands of commercial buildings around the country, then I think we can live with the risk of storm damage to the heliostats... In other words, they can be designed to withstand all but the most severe storms - and one of those would shut down a coal-fired plant just as easily. -
les at 01:16 AM on 20 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
14 Joe "Considering how terrible that technology is that it needs a great deal of subsidizing for governments to buy them." indeed, that pretty well sums up the nuclear option. -
les at 01:14 AM on 20 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
This quote from Larry Summers got me thinking:The average Chinese citizen is not nearly as rich as an average American was even two or three generations ago
Expressed - as an imprecise, but never the less fun - exercise: The Chinese citizens (all billion or so of them) chugging their way through piles of coal and oil today; are not as wealthy as the American citizens (all couple of hundred thousand) where 150 odd years ago - before oil became such a big factor of production (mostly the coal era). So, this contradicts the idea that oil consumption increase is necessary for wealth. We have lots of consumption in China now and little in the US 150 years ago - yet we have more poorly off citizens now then we did then. No proportionality there, even. What made the yanks well off a 150 years ago was 'free' land - we've all read Cowen by now, right? Indeed it's interesting that Cowen hardly even considers FF consumption ... indeed he hardly considers oil. If he did, he'd probably observe - to be consistent - that the growth from oil consumption has been had in (at least) The West and we should look else where for future growth technologies. -
Alexandre at 01:08 AM on 20 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Of course, not to mention risk management... -
Alexandre at 01:04 AM on 20 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Lalonde #12 I'm not familiar with the details of the project, but coal and nuclear powerstations have their own maintenance and depreciation costs too. It all has to be taken into account. -
Joe Lalonde at 00:54 AM on 20 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
13 les, Good thing there was a little wind, eh? Considering how terrible that technology is that it needs a great deal of subsidizing for governments to buy them. -
les at 00:16 AM on 20 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
12 Joe: "next storm damage"... Worth noting: Japan’s wind farms save its ass while nuclear plants founder -
Charlie A at 00:08 AM on 20 March 2011And so castles made of sand fall in the sea, eventually
Tuvulu is often mentioned as being in danger of drowning in the rising seas. What do the actual observations about Tuvulu tell us? Pacific islands 'growing not shrinking' due to climate change Far from drowning, some Pacific islands have grown as sea rises, study says -
CBDunkerson at 23:56 PM on 19 March 2011The True Cost of Coal Power
The 'up front' nature of renewable costs also seems to be a big part of the barrier to implementing them right now. First because it means that you need to invest alot of money in advance and not see any profit for many years. While the eventual payoff should be more than worth it, modern investing strategy runs more towards short term slash and burn than long term prudent growth strategies. The other barrier is, ironically, falling prices for various forms of renewable energy. A solar plant built today would cost half what one built just a few years ago would have... and one built a few years from now will likely cost half as much again. Why spend money on something that will yield a small return starting in 15 years when you can wait/invest elsewhere for five years and start getting a larger return in around the same timeframe? It is clear that these issues won't delay the switchover to alternative energy sources much longer, but it sure is frustrating to watch as we continue to pay higher costs for fossil energy sources which are inferior in almost every way (energy density of gasoline being the only significant exception). -
Joe Lalonde at 23:56 PM on 19 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
I have a couple problems with this ambitious plan that it will cost far more in the long run. Life of products to cost. What time frame will these need to be replaced due to age and structural breakdown. Also salt corrodes metal. Next storm damage. Is this taken into account? Technology needs to be far cheaper to be viable or whoever puts this in place will be booted out of office when it collapse and cost even more to replace with something else. -
Bern at 23:54 PM on 19 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Adelady @ 2: yes, demand does fluctuate considerably. The question is whether it reduces as much as the generation does. I downloaded demand data for Queensland from the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) website (demand data found here) for the month of December in 2009 and 2010. Dec 2010 was significantly wetter than 2009. Looking up the BoM data for solar exposure at Roma (one of the locations ZCA proposes for a CST field), we have Dec 2009 average of 7.5kWh/m2, compared to 6.9 for 2010. But there was a significant reduction in electricity demand - about 9.1% across the board (with peak demand showing the greatest decrease of about 10.5%, and minimum demand dropping 8.5%). So that's an 8% drop in solar energy input, averaged over the month, compared to a 9% drop in electricity demand. Those numbers look pretty good! At the top end, that's a difference of 850MW of electricity generation - or more than the entire output of the Kogan Creek coal-fired power station. Peak demand was 8,804MW in Dec 2009. At 217MW a pop (the numbers ZCA gives for the solar thermal units), we'd need 41 of those solar thermal towers, plus backups. Call it 50 total. At the ZCA price of $739m per, that's $37billion to completely de-carbon Queensland's electricity supply. Sounds like a lot, but going by the bit of data I downloaded, the wholesale market paid $162m for electricity in Dec 2009 in Qld (maybe $1.5-1.9 billion per year?), and that's without a price on carbon. Anyway, those are the rather simplistic numbers I've just been crunching. Ignoring any alternatives, like demand reduction, efficiency gains, etc etc. Food for thought. -
Charlie A at 23:52 PM on 19 March 2011And so castles made of sand fall in the sea, eventually
#20 Rob Painting "The ocean is littered with drowned coral atolls". A simple observation about the longevity of coral atolls is their existence as islands, long after the volcanoes upon which they started have submerged. Are you unfamiliar with the depth of coral/limestone at the typical atoll? The coral atolls that have not managed to remain at sea level are generally cases such as the far northwestern Hawaiian Islands (aka Emperor Seamounts), where geological processes such as tectonic plate drift have, over 10's of millions of years, moved the the most northwesterly atolls into colder water, past the Darwin Point, where the reef can no longer keep up with erosion (and sea level changes). Kure Reef, the worlds most northly atoll at 28.5N is approaching that point. -
les at 23:36 PM on 19 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
34 Giles "i don't know any wealth comparable with current western countries without or before the use of oil. " well, I'm not answerable for what you don't know. But I don't see the relevance. The fact remains that although our industry currently depends on oil there has been nothing essentially about that historically - oil having played a very minor role in many periods; nor is is a necessary truth for the future. The onus is on you to prove that there's something absolutely irreplaceable in oil in the future. Please don't do this by waffling. Hard facts... something from basic engineering and economics is required.Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed unclosed italic tag. -
Charlie A at 23:32 PM on 19 March 2011Maize harvest to shrink under Global Warming
Rob Painting #48 "Charlie A - A 1C global warming is small compared to normal year to year variations and doesn't present a major challenge, on the average, to the crops in the areas that are currently optimal for that crop. Not what the study & particularly the rather obvious graph in the middle of the post reveal." If the graph in the middle of the post your refer to if Figure 1, then you are incorrect. The figure in the middle of the post is for all areas, not the areas currently under cultivation. The relevant figure has been posted in comment #25. And you also posted a couple of the relevant sub graphs in your comments. 1. Look at your comment #24. The 2nd graph. (D) current maize growing land (% of land area) chart. Please note the the heavy green area in South Africa, just north of Lesotho. 2. Now go to your comment #26 and look at those same areas. Note the blue, indicating INCREASED yield, not decreased? Look at other areas with a high percentage of maize growing. Then look at the modeled predictions for the effects of 1 C global warming. There is an interesting correlation that is highly unlikely to be random. -
les at 23:01 PM on 19 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
682 damorbel: My original reply was moderated, probably due to it being to patronizing; a mistake I wont repeat so you'll just have to take that as read. regarding "I'm not sure what you mean here." I was replying to your original, and wrong, assertion that the diagram doesn't consider temperature. It does as pointed out. I guess in reality do you understand that and you acknowledge that as you now change your requirements to something else... "I am of course thinking of 'useful information' in the sense of scientific information, suitable for putting in reports called 'the Scientific Basis', the name of the sections of IPCC reports using this diagram." to which, as other observe, you will have to read the rest of the material behind the diagram. There just is no getting away from having to do science if you are doing science. -
angusmac at 22:59 PM on 19 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
Albatross @106 you state that it, "is patently false" that my statement that the RC temperature data does not look, "quite so impressive when compared with the AR4." I disagree and I show the RC chart here for easy comparison with the AR4 chart and Fig 1@101. The main differences between the RC chart and the AR4 and Fig 1 charts are as follows:- The emissions scenarios and their corresponding temperature outcomes are clearly shown in the AR4 chart. Scenarios A2, A1B and B1 are included in the AR4 chart. None of these scenarios are shown in the RC chart.
- Real world temperature is tracking the commitment emissions scenario, i.e., emissions-held-at-year-2000 level in the AR4 and Fig 1 charts. There is no commitment scenario in the RC chart to allow this comparison.
- AR4 states that the emission scenarios diverge after 2000. The AR4 chart shows that the temperatures derived from these scenarios diverge after 2002 and not 2010 as stated by you @106. The divergence between real world temperatures and the A1B emissions scenario is approximately 0.07°C for 2005 and 0.11°C for 2010.
- The RC chart shows real world temperatures compared with predictions from models that are an "ensemble of opportunity". Consequently, Gavin Schmidt @ RC states, "Thus while they do span a large range of possible situations, the average of these simulations is not 'truth'." [My emphasis].
- The temperatures in the AR4 chart are approximately 0.25°C higher than those in the RC chart. This may be due to the AR4 charts being baselined to 1961-1990 and not 1980-1999 as stated in RC.
-
RickG at 22:58 PM on 19 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel@682 "Trenberth has updated his diagrams at least once, mainly changing the numbers, so I think the numbers are important; it would be most interesting to know why the numbers are changed, I have not found this in any of the links given, can you help?" That's a good question and one in which the answer demonstrates the greenhouse effect very well. The first schematic is dated 1997 and the second schematic is dated 2009. I can't find any information on the '97 schematic but the '09 schematic states "The global annual mean Earth's energy budged from Mar 2000 to May 2004." Any time period differences of instrumental data are certainly going to have different values. However, the actual difference of total incoming solar radiation between the two schematics is only 1 W/m^2. The biggest difference is within the global climate system itself. Because I don't know the exact time period for the '97 schematic I'm going to use the time periods from publication dates (1997-2009) to illustrate those internal differences. As greenhouse gases increase we can also expect global temperatures to increase. From 1997 to 2009 CO2 increased from 363 to 387 ppm, an increase of 24 ppm. During this same period global average temp. increased by 0.19 K. Atmospheric water vapor is directly dependent up temperature. The higher the temp the higher the vapor content and vice versa. Therefore, we can expect energy flows in these systems to be different between those two different time intervals as they have different conditions. Other changes include the albedo due to deforestation and ice mass loss. Each of these affect the energy distribution and exchange.. As I previously mentioned the schematic dated 2009 is one that Trenberth uses in a number of Power Point presentations. Looking at it and making specific assumptions questioning terminology and units of measure without his supporting context quite often leads to incorrect assumptions. I previously gave you a link to a video where he is describing the schematic. If not already, I do hope you will take the time to view the entire video for full context. Additionally, there is a paper by Trenberth, Fasullo & Kiehl titled "Earth's Global Energy Budget", where that specific schematic is discussed in great detail showing where all those numbers come from. The paper can be found here. -
Bern at 22:55 PM on 19 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Gilles, you seem to suffer from a lack of imagination. You think that just because things are done with fossil fuels now, that there is no way that they can be done *without* fossil fuels in the future. Well, the whole point of this article is to show that the opposite is true - there *are* ways of doing things without fossil fuels. So we might use some coal-fired electricity to build the first few renewable sources. The point is, the more we build, the less coal we burn, and the less fossil energy goes into producing the next round of renewable sources. Back on the topic at hand - I like the molten salt storage option the ZCA report examines. It gives enormous flexibility in the actual source of the energy. Concentrating solar is the source discussed here, but literally any source of heat will work - including geothermal, biomass (the 'backup' ZCA option), or nuclear. You could, potentially, even use it as a storage for electricity generated by other renewable means, although there would be significant losses involved there, in converting the electricity into heat, and then back again when you needed it. -
Gilles at 22:40 PM on 19 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
and Marcus, again : if you understand that I'm claiming that it is not worth improving our energy efficiency and save FF, you totally misunderstand me. I'm sorry you're not able to get what I'm really saying - although as a teacher I am somewhat used to this kind of situation. -
Gilles at 22:36 PM on 19 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
I just said that several countries had ALREADY achieved a zero or almost zero electricity production, and that their carbon emission weren't negligible at all, and I gave the figures. So can you explain me WHY all these countries (including Iceland that has no FF at all and must import everything) still keep using FF if they could suppress them? well may be they are kept hostages of bad oil and gas industry ... but.. why and how did they achieve their geothermal and hydroelectric power plants , in this case? is there a strange international disease that would everybody like electrons from renewable water, but not from renewable air or solar photons ? I was in iceland last year. I saw a BP hydrogen station in Reykjavik (actually I think there are a few of them). Very nice green paints. Unfortunately, not a single car stopping at them. May be some buses stop there from time to time , but I missed the time; no information in the tourism office, unfortunately. I never heard of anything concerning hydrogen when I travelled across the country - I cannot imaging hydrogen refuelling in all the small villages and lunar landscapes I went through. -
Rob Painting at 22:13 PM on 19 March 2011Maize harvest to shrink under Global Warming
John D - "For goodness sake, read the whole statement so you don't keep taking things out of context." John, I don't see the point in comparing rich Australia with most of Africa which is poor. The higher yield of Australian crops are because of industrial farming practices, not primarily selective breeding, as in the case of the Lobell study. It's that apples and oranges thing (see I'm keeping the references agricultural). Probably a good thing in one respect, industrial farming practices aren't very good for the environment, particularly the aquatic one. -
shoyemore at 22:09 PM on 19 March 2011Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
I should add that the second reference above - Wergen(2010) - also contains "reversible time" analysis. -
Rob Painting at 22:00 PM on 19 March 2011We're heading into an ice age
Chris Shaker @236 - You're just repeating what you claimed earlier in this thread. Have you forgotten all the information that was provided to you by other commenters?. If so, please re-read this thread from the beginning. -
Marcus at 21:46 PM on 19 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
"how do you power trucks, boats and planes ? how do you make isolators, paints, elastomers, fertilizers ?" You need to get your head *out* of fossil fuel industry pamphlets, Gilles, & instead read the stuff being published in scientific & engineering journals. Every week I seem to learn about something that can now be done *without* the need for oil-or any other fossil fuel. Plastics & Fertilizers are already available that don't have a single ounce of petrochemicals in them. Its the same source from which I find out about new methods for significantly reducing the initial CO2 footprint of building renewable energy systems (things like e-crete, which goes back to the Roman method of cement production-using aluminium silicate instead of the much lower quality Calcium Oxide based cement, or steel made using arc-furnaces & recycled steel-thus requiring only 1/4 of the energy needed to make the steel from scratch using outdated blast furnace technology) & new, renewable fuel & energy technologies. -
Marcus at 21:39 PM on 19 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
I note with interest, Gilles, that you're again pushing fossil fuel industry propaganda down our throats. Even with the CO2 footprint of wind farm construction (which can be reduced via advances in low energy concrete & steel production that already exist, & are being improved every day), the life-time CO2 footprint of a wind turbine-or solar collector, or photovoltaic cell-is still less than 1% of that of coal (in gCO2/kw-h of electricity). Of course we've already told you-though you're *clearly* not listening-that our transportation needs can be achieved, with a much, much lower CO2 footprint, using either bio-diesel (from algae) or electricity from renewable energy sources-indeed, Iceland is on the verge of cutting its per capita CO2 emissions still further by shifting the bulk of its transportation from fossil fuels to hydrogen. Given that many of the nations on that list you supply generate 2 to 3 (if not 4 to 5) times as much CO2 per capita as the nations you selected, I'd argue that its far better that we try & cut our CO2 emissions down to those of Iceland or Norway, rather than keep them at the level of Australia or the US-which will result in CO2 emissions of closer to 150 billion tonnes per annum, not 64 billion. -
michael sweet at 21:34 PM on 19 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
Gilles: Your argument crontradicts itself. You say here that if FF use is not replaced civilization will collapse in the near future when FF run out. Yet the rest of your posts say that we cannot begin to replace FF with renewables because it would cause the economy to collapse. Your position appears to be that we should continue to use all the FF as fast as we can and then give a collapsing economy to our children. Is that really what you want to do? What if I live too long and get caught in the collapse? The stark poverty of the skeptic arguments shows again.
Prev 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 Next
