Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 Next
Comments 92001 to 92050:
-
les at 07:20 AM on 21 March 2011One of the best climate change ads I've seen
12 Berényi I'm still curious about your fit. You link to http://sealevel.colorado.edu/results.php I guess this data?
who show a rate of 3.1 ± 0.4 mm/ year, rather than your 18.8 cm / century 1.88 mm/year ... Why the discrepancy of 1.6? and how did you manage to get that extra significant figure of precision?!?!
Their rate is from a straight line fit. what function have you used?
-
Henry justice at 07:15 AM on 21 March 2011Visual depictions of Sea Level Rise
The IPCC AR4 report projects a sea level rise for this century of 18-59 cm. While the edges of both Greenland's and Antarctica's ice caps have obviously melted a bit, this should balance out by the predicted increase in snow in the greater interior for both icecaps. It will take thousands of years of continuous warming for both of them to melt even at the present rate of emissions of CO2. By the way, these emissions are projected to peak by 2100 and then decline. There is no near term threat of unprecedented sea level rise.
Moderator Response:[DB] Umm, not so much. Greenland has been losing ice overall, with the rate of loss increasing each year:
With Antarctica losing ice in a similar fashion:
No one is saying that these great ice sheets will disappear overnight. But the negative effects on sea levels will become apparent far before then, causing great distress to coastal populations throughout the world.
"By the way, these emissions are projected to peak by 2100 and then decline."
Got a source for that? Because as it now stands, with no firm limits on global GHG emissions in sight it has about a snowflakes chance in...
-
Rob Painting at 07:11 AM on 21 March 2011One of the best climate change ads I've seen
The distance is some four thousand kilometers and Greenland is losing ice in recent years at an annual rate of not more than 0.01%. It is negligible So you haven't bothered to do the math, or are unable to?. I'm not really interested in your opinion that it's negligible BP, I'd like to see if you have actually addressed this issue. If you don't know how to account for the effect, just say so. -
Berényi Péter at 07:00 AM on 21 March 2011One of the best climate change ads I've seen
#23 Rob Painting at 06:03 AM on 21 March, 2011 Have you calculated this?. Is it negligible for New York? Come on, get real. The distance is some four thousand kilometers and Greenland is losing ice in recent years at an annual rate of not more than 0.01%. It is negligible. BTW, anyone can visit the PSMSL (Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level) site. You are free to cherry pick a station which shows considerable acceleration during the last several decades provided it- does not sit on the side of a volcano
- there is no major tectonic fault line there
- it is not swampland
-
RickG at 06:46 AM on 21 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
RW1 & damorbel, Well guys, there is no doubt that neither of you are the slightest bit interested in discussing any science with the intent of sharing information and understanding. Both of you take a perfectly legitimate and superbly illustrated schematic showing 'Earth's Global Energy Budget' and purposely misrepresent it out of context, completely ignoring the paper that describes it in detail. If you are still troubled with Trenberth's schematic and paper, I suggest you contact him personally. His email address, fax and phone number are listed prominently the NCAR site to which I have previously linked. As for me, I am through with your hand waving and obfuscation. -
Paul D at 06:15 AM on 21 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
idunno@49 It is common practice now to work out life cycle emissions as grammes of CO2 per kilowatt hour. These figures include materials used, manufacture, installation and decommissioning. Whether a fan or not, the world nuclear association has compiled quite a good list of research papers that analyse the CO2 footprints of different energy sources: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf11.html Regarding wind turbines. The pad is largely concrete and then the tower is prefab steel bolted to it. On top of that is the nacelle/generator and blades. Tidal turbine farms are probably about 10 years behind wind in development, so the first small scale installations are just being planned/constructed. A 10 turbine farm has been approved this week in Scotland: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/tides-to-power-whisky-distilleries-2245207.html -
les at 06:10 AM on 21 March 2011One of the best climate change ads I've seen
To validate this "decelerations" one would need to know the function fitted, the R^2, and the equivalent for a Log function and a straight line, at least. -
Rob Painting at 06:03 AM on 21 March 2011One of the best climate change ads I've seen
BP - Now, in New York rate of sea level rise is decelerating steadily during the last 85 years at about 0.3 m/cy2. During the last twenty years this deceleration, if anything, is more pronounced, not less so. Much of the contribution to sea level rise is now coming from the Greenland ice sheet. This would be expected to cause a reduction in sea level rise in areas adjacent to Greenland, and perhaps have an effect on SLR at New York, as the local gravitational attraction diminished. Have you calculated this?. Is it negligible for New York?. -
r.pauli at 05:39 AM on 21 March 2011Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
In the decades after 1945 there were over 500 nuclear bombs exploded in atmospheric tests. Sometimes averaging 2 per week. All that stratospheric injection of dust and soot suggests a mini nuclear winter. -
Berényi Péter at 05:27 AM on 21 March 2011One of the best climate change ads I've seen
#19 Marcus at 23:11 PM on 20 March, 2011 BP @ #17-as if to prove my previous point, there you go with your Cherry Picking. Why 18 years BP? Unfortunately it happens to be the case we have global satellite altimetry only for the last 18 years. Before that time we have tide gauge data distributed unevenly along the coastlines and nowhere else. Do you really think it is cherry picking to use all the data available? However, we also have some pretty long datasets for various geologically stable environments like New York. Rate of sea level rise at individual spots does not have much to do with global ocean volume, as land itself has vertical motion depending on location. However, the acceleration term in the absence of major earthquakes or volcanism is telling, since rate of isostatic rebound is stable on millennial scale.
Now, in New York rate of sea level rise is decelerating steadily during the last 85 years at about 0.3 m/cy2. During the last twenty years this deceleration, if anything, is more pronounced, not less so.
Therefore any talk about accelerating sea level rise is rooted in fantasy, not facts.
Of course fantasy is a great resource for advertising, but for highways and countryside to actually get under water as claimed by your celebrated ad above a bit more is needed. Some considerable acceleration, that is. And sorry, it is not observed so far.
-
RW1 at 04:53 AM on 21 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel (RE: 700), "Trenberth's diagram is deficient in so many ways it is beyond revision. The so-called 'back radiation' has the concept behind it that there is a place in the atmosphere from where 'back radiation' comes; but even John Tyndall knew that this is not the case. He measured both the emission and absorption by GHGs and found that their emitted radiation was completely absorbed by gases at a lower temperature." Yes, the Trenberth diagram is a confusing and misrepresents many things. What Trenberth refers to as 'back radiation' is really mostly downward emitted radiation - some of which last originated from the Sun, some of which last originated from the surface emitted, and some of which last originated from the kinetic energy (latent heat and thermals) moved from the surface into the atmosphere. As I was trying to explain earlier in this thread, the proper definition of 'back radiation' is the downward emitted radiation from the atmosphere that last originated from the surface emitted radiation. "This last means radiation emitted by GHGs is immediately absorbed and re-emitted by adjacent GHGs. This is so when the pressure and temperature gradient are zero; in the atmosphere the density reduces with altitude so the upwardly emitted radiation is not completely reabsorbed, an increasing %age gets ever higher until it escapes completely; that is the mechanism for heat radiation from the Earth." The key thing to note is that the 239 W/m^2 of post albedo energy entering becomes about 390 W/m^2 at the surface. The absorption and isotropic re-emission of the outgoing surface emitted infrared by GHGs and clouds is slows down the rate at which energy can leave, causing a 'back up' of energy at the surface. Essentially, what this means is it takes a 'back up' of 390 W/m^2 at the surface to allow 239 W/m^2 to leave the system, offsetting the 239 W/m^2 coming in from the Sun. -
dana1981 at 04:46 AM on 21 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Ken #40 - the report suggests combining solar thermal with biomass burning. You can use much of the same infrastructure, and then you can still provide power during long periods without sunshine. -
Gilles at 04:42 AM on 21 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
MattJ#19 : In #3, I just gave some facts and asked some questions - so I don't know which "claims" you're talking of. Concerning Iceland, this is the most recent news I heard from "hydrogen economy" http://www.eenews.net/public/climatewire/2009/07/01/1 That's interesting, because my claim is that modern economies is possible only with cheap and convenient energy. So "alternatives" are not really interesting if they're neither cheap, nor convenient. A corollary is that when cheap and convenient energies (and despite their drawbacks, FF ARE cheap and convenient) will exhaust, economy will sink - and it just happened that some years after the peak of conventional oil , the barrel went up to the stratosphere, and western economy plunged into the deepest recession since the war -including Iceland, Denmark , and Spain, despite their high level of renewable electricity - which didn't help them at all to resist the economic tsunami. So for the moment, I just considering facts , and facts support my claims. -
CBDunkerson at 04:30 AM on 21 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
ranyl #46, keep in mind that the current CO2 level is 'artificially inflated' in the sense that it represents an overflow rather than equilibrium value. Basically, about half the CO2 we emit each year is currently being sequestered (mostly in the oceans). If we were to drop to zero emissions that sequestration would continue and the atmospheric concentration would start dropping... probably at a rate of about 2 ppm per year. Thus, even if we hit 450 ppm before zero emissions goes into effect, we would not stay at that level once emissions stopped. As to 2C vs 3-5C... the difference is between fast feedbacks and slow feedbacks. A doubling of CO2 (about 560 ppm) will likely cause about 3C warming from fast feedbacks (i.e. within a few decades), but more likely around 6C when slow feedbacks (i.e. within a couple of centuries) are considered. However, both of those would require that the atmospheric CO2 level remain elevated... which it would not if our emissions drop significantly below the rate at which atmospheric CO2 can be sequestered. -
RickG at 04:07 AM on 21 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel @ 703 Your basic misconception concerning Trenberth's schematic appears to be about what the schematic is not about. It is not depicting the Stefan–Boltzmann Law and black body radiation. The schematic is based on actual instrumental data showing how energy is distributed globally. Once again, please read the Trenberth et al paper. Earth's Global Energy Budget. -
idunno at 03:49 AM on 21 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Hi several people, I retract. I had assumed that most of the pylon of a wind-generator was also concrete. If anybody else has published correct info, ignore that bit of my comment #41. I still do think there may be more potential in water-driven generation, specifically subsurface marine and/or tidal. As I say, I have really no idea if the claims made for thorium are credible. About the whisky and the cricket though, ;p -
Alexandre at 03:41 AM on 21 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel #703 Just a reference about emissivity values. ε=1 is not that bad an assumption at all.
-
damorbel at 03:34 AM on 21 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re 701 RickG you wrote:- "Since I asked you to post your revised edition correcting Trenberth's short-comings on how it should appear, I gather your above comment is code for you can't support your claims?" Looking at the Trenberth pdf you cite: on p5 he has:- "At the surface, the outgoing radiation was computed for blackbody emission at 15°C using the Stefan–Boltzmann law R = εσT4, (1) where the emissivity ε was set to 1." Emissivity set to 1? As John McEnroe might have said "he can't be serious" Using such a figure for the Earth's surface inevitabl gives the wrong answer because the Earth's surface does not, by any stretch of the imagination, match the specifications of a black body. Worse still he claims 333W/m^2 from clouds. Clouds are even further from being black bodies. You make no reference to the fact that GHGs absorb and emit radiation only as a function of their temperature, not of their altitude. You must attach some importance to this. These things are the very essence of heat transfer in the atmosphere and anywhere else; I do think they should be examined by climatologists. -
pohjois at 03:21 AM on 21 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
@energy storage I would like to draw your attention to the interesting storage technology from the British startup called Isentropic. They store electric energy as a heat, claiming 80% accuracy of energy recovery. They use two storage tanks filled with gravel. One is heated to 500C and the other cooled to -150C, with the argon that is heated and cooled by heat pumps powered by electricity. Then, when the electricity is needed the heat pump works as generator recovering energy from the gravel. As far as I know they have built two small scale prototypes, working according to specs. They claim the storage costs between $55 and $10 per kWh, the latter for a large scale installations, which quite impressive. Certainly it could be very interesting alternative to the molten salt heat storage. Their web page. -
RW1 at 02:55 AM on 21 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Tom Curtis (RE: 635), "RW1 @630, as it is difficult to carry on two discussions at once on the same thread, do you mind holding of on the discussion of the relevance of the light box until we have settled that it does not violate any law of thermodynamics? And to that end, do you agree that the light box does not violate any law of thermodynamics?" I'm not sure why you are asking me this. I do not believe that the GHE effect violates any of the laws of thermodynamics. -
Tom Curtis at 02:37 AM on 21 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Further to my 44, at a reasonable efficiency (35%), the CO2 from the concrete foundation would be fully compensated for after 75 days. Of course, I have assumed that the foundations are entirely cement, whereas concrete consists mostly of steal and gravel, much reducing that figure. Also, some turbines require up to 800 tonnes of concrete for their foundations, increasing the time required by a factor of five. All in all, three months is about the top time that should be required. -
ranyl at 02:28 AM on 21 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Rahul #23 - the plan is based on limiting warming to 2C, which is about 450 ppm, but only if every other major emitter follows suit. Dana but isn't that wishful thinking, that 450ppm is 2C, when the pliocene was 3-5C warmer at 350ppm? Basically 450ppm means we won't even be able to adapt! -
Tom Curtis at 02:10 AM on 21 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
idunno, further to your 41: Fluvial water power could not supply even a very small fraction of Australia's power needs. Hydroelectric power, on the other hand, already supplies a significant amount, but opportunities for new stations are limited. On the other hand, I personally believe that wave power is the way forward for much of Australia's renewable power needs. It is, however, an undeveloped technology and is unlikely to be readily available by 2020. (2040 is a bit different.) Finally, I have seen a number of people pushing Thorium as a magic bullet for nuclear safety. I have seen exactly the same people come out on mass a few days ago to declare that the problems at Fukujima power station were very minor and would not lead to significant exposure to radiation for anyone. That, in fact, the event was a squib and wouldn't even rate with Three Mile Island. Jokes were made comparing the expected radiation exposures from the event to those experienced from eating a banana (which are very slightly radioactive because of their phosphorous content). I take it with a grain of salt, or perhaps a grain of iodine. -
Tom Curtis at 02:00 AM on 21 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
idunno: CO2 emissions from fossil fuel power generation: Pollutant CO2 (Tonnes/GJ) Hard coal 0.0946 Brown coal 0.101 Fuel oil 0.0774 Other oil 0.0741 Gas 0.0561The average CO2 intensity ranges from 0.65 to 0.92 tonne of CO2 per tonne of cement across countries with a weighted average 0.83 t CO2 /t. The global average CO2 intensity in cement production declined by 1% per year between 1994 and 2003.
Around 150 tonnes of concrete are used in the foundations of a single wind turbine.
So, in the least efficient case, when we substitute wind for gas power generation, the cement in the wind power station would produce the same amount of CO2 as the Gas power station would produce after producing 2,460 GJoules. So, over 30 years, and assuming no power production due to maintenance for two days in every 7, the wind turbine would have to produce all of 3,650 Watts on average during operational times. For a 1.5 MW wind turbine, that represents an efficiency of 0.24%. Somebody was feeding you a furphy. And just a minor point, how much cement do you think there is in a gas fired power station? -
idunno at 01:42 AM on 21 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Hi RickG, Sorry, absolutely no idea. -
RickG at 01:29 AM on 21 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Idunno: 1. About 5% of all anthropogenic CO2 is generated by cement production. 2. So much cement goes into a wind turbine that it takes 30 years to save the equivalent in CO2 emissions. But how much of total cement production is used to construct wind turbines? -
idunno at 01:08 AM on 21 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Hi all, I have a bit of a gripe against wind turbines. In your article, John, you say at one point "...zero-carbon, not counting emissions from construction."... Well, a couple of points of information, of dubious accuarcy, as I quote from a fallible memory: 1. About 5% of all anthropogenic CO2 is generated by cement production. 2. So much cement goes into a wind turbine that it takes 30 years to save the equivalent in CO2 emissions. I also strongly suspect that there is something to be learned from our forefathers here. Windmills were historically only ever widely built where there was absolutely no other choice, in areas such as Holland and the English Fens. Wherever anybody ever had a choice between building a watermill or a windmill, you see very few windmills. Now, I'm not at all sure that fluvial water power would be adequate to supply Oz's power needs, though it would be more reliable than wind, where available. But there might be a good deal of point you lot keeping a very close eye on the latest developments in tidal and otherwise maritime power generation. The latest scheme I heard of is to supply the Island of Islay in Scotland with all of its household power needs, and enough to run 8 single malt distilleries, entirely from submerged marine generators of some kind. Given that loads of Ozzies seem to have settled along the coasts, so you can practice surfing and being bad at cricket, and that the Roaring Forties of the Southern Ocean aren't that far away... Anyway, I'm no expert, and unlikely to be one any time soon, but just thought I'd say. Also, I only just came across this yesterday, and haven't looked into it at all, but I have seem it claimed that thorium is the magic bullet. Safe nuclear. Hmmmmmmmm... P.S. Anybody wishing to encourage Islay in its efforts to go carbon zero can probably find a most enjoyable way to express your appreciation in the most expensive section of the drinks aisle. -
RickG at 00:39 AM on 21 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
domorbel @ 700: Trenberth's diagram is deficient in so many ways it is beyond revision. Since I asked you to post your revised edition correcting Trenberth's short-comings on how it should appear, I gather your above comment is code for you can't support your claims? The data that goes into the schematic is massive and from numerous independent sources including ISCCP-FD, NRA, ERA-40, JRA, WHOI and HOAPS. It is not an ad-hoc meaningless diagram as you claim. "Again", read and absorb the paper (Earth's Global Energy Budget) by Trenberth et al that displays and explains the schematic in vivid detail. Here's the link: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/BAMSmarTrenberth.pdf -
Ken Lambert at 00:07 AM on 21 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Original Post Has James considered the situation of a large weather system such as has deluged Queensland this summer where heavy cloud and rain persist for several days (up to a week or more) - and there is much reduced solar and not much wind. The molten salt would not cover more than 12-15 hours storage. Looking at the map - 4 or 5 power towers and some of the wind would not be producing much at all. What would be available to avoid power cuts and disruption to nearly all our work and domestic life? -
Bern at 23:51 PM on 20 March 2011The Climate Show Episode 9: Nuclear power and hot spots
Well, it was worth the time. Nice interview with Barry Brook, and John, I thought you did quite well explaining the tropical tropospheric hotspot (that *is* a mouthful!), but, yes, Gareth's one-line summary was a pearler. I hope you'll be putting that into the basic version of that rebuttal? :-) -
damorbel at 23:30 PM on 20 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #695 RickG you wrote:- "All I can say is I don't know of a single climatologist on the planet when describing the Earth's Energy Budget, uses anything other than W/m^2." Is this a reason to accept it? Doing it the W/m^2 way without temperatures has, from the thermal physics point of view (even Newton knew it was wrong), never been justified; it is unjustifiable. Again, you wrote:- "If you are unwilling to accept that simple fact, then I suggest you redo Trenberth's schematic in your terms of temperature and show everyone how it should done." Trenberth's diagram is deficient in so many ways it is beyond revision. The so-called 'back radiation' has the concept behind it that there is a place in the atmosphere from where 'back radiation' comes; but even John Tyndall knew that this is not the case. He measured both the emission and absorption by GHGs and found that their emitted radiation was completely absorbed by gases at a lower temperature. This last means radiation emitted by GHGs is immediately absorbed and re-emitted by adjacent GHGs. This is so when the pressure and temperature gradient are zero; in the atmosphere the density reduces with altitude so the upwardly emitted radiation is not completely reabsorbed, an increasing %age gets ever higher until it escapes completely; that is the mechanism for heat radiation from the Earth.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] The only thing deficient in this thread is your continued repetition of the same 'objections' to the same accepted body of work. What is preventing you from taking your comments to Dr. Trenberth, rather than belaboring them here? -
Marcus at 23:14 PM on 20 March 2011One of the best climate change ads I've seen
Also, how *exactly* do you come up with a deceleration from that graph? A shift from an anomaly of -25mm to almost +25mm-in only 18 years-doesn't seem like much of a "deceleration" to me. Sounds like someone is just faking it now. -
Henry justice at 23:12 PM on 20 March 2011Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
I'm looking at a TOPEX/Poseidon Jason-1/2 (CSIRO)chart showing 200 mm of rising ocean level over 130 years. This equates to a 1.54 mm per year rise. There is not much of an uptick in the curve corresponding to the increased levels of CO2. Let me check Rob's graph. Yes, it now shows 3.0 mm rate of rise. Almost double. Now I will go back to the latest CSIRO to see if they have similar data. Darm, you guys are making a believer out of me yet! -
Marcus at 23:11 PM on 20 March 2011One of the best climate change ads I've seen
BP @ #17-as if to prove my previous point, there you go with your Cherry Picking. Why 18 years BP? Would 20 or 30 years have disproved your argument? Got to love you contrarians, always so very selective of what "data" you use to "prove" your case-probably because the *whole* picture doesn't do your case any good at all. Still, nice to see that, along with all your other arguments, you're very clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel now. -
Alexandre at 23:05 PM on 20 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
R. Gates #37 Well, I understand the point of publishing such a study is try to raise public interest and political will via showing the possibilities. -
Alexandre at 23:02 PM on 20 March 2011The Climate Show Episode 9: Nuclear power and hot spots
My way to work takes some 25~30 min. This time the show will last 3 trips, then. No problem at all to me... -
les at 22:49 PM on 20 March 2011One of the best climate change ads I've seen
17 Berényi: does really say "below Current levels"!?!? No one could seriously tell if that graph is curve like a parabola or asymptotic. -
Bern at 22:25 PM on 20 March 2011The Climate Show Episode 9: Nuclear power and hot spots
80 minutes this week? Eeek! Ah, well, I've got a nice cuppa handy and no pressing demands... :-P -
Berényi Péter at 22:22 PM on 20 March 2011One of the best climate change ads I've seen
#12 Marcus at 16:17 PM on 20 March, 2011 though its true this doesn't represent peer-review science, it is *backed* by the vast bulk of peer-review science Presumably you mean papers like this one. Environmental Research Letters, 2007, Volume 2, Number 2, 024002 doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/2/2/024002 Scientific reticence and sea level rise J E Hansen "There is enough information now, in my opinion, to make it a near certainty that IPCC BAU climate forcing scenarios would lead to a disastrous multi-meter sea level rise on the century timescale".
Hansen's statement is unfortunately not supported by actual measurements. If it goes on like this, sea level would stop rising by 2027 and would be 23 cm below current level by 2100.
-
Bern at 22:22 PM on 20 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Marcus - yes, you're right, there are many options out there for energy storage. I understand it's a rich field of research at the moment. The molten salt option was chosen by ZCA, as I understand it, because it's easy, proven, and off-the-shelf. It's also all you need if you only want to provide storage for ~12-15 hours or so. I do like the "long term storage" that some of the chemical options give you, very much worth looking in to. Oh, re methane - as I understand it, it's 77 times worse than CO2 over 20 years, and 25 times worse over a century. So biogas is an even better option than you state (and is why landfill gas projects are sometimes considered to be greenhouse negative). R.Gates - yes, the political will needs to be there. I was going to comment further on that, but it's seriously off-topic for this thread, which I think is focussing more on the technical side of things. -
Marcus at 22:12 PM on 20 March 2011One of the best climate change ads I've seen
Also, BP, its worth noting that China has considerable investment in the Australian Coal & Natural Gas industry, & I'd be surprised if it wasn't the same in the US-so I'm sure we'll hear you kicking up a massive stink about that...well actually we probably won't, because Chinese investment in fossil fuels is *fine*-its only a problem when they invest in renewable energy. Isn't that right BP? -
Marcus at 22:03 PM on 20 March 2011One of the best climate change ads I've seen
As JMurphy says-so you'd be OK with the Chinese withdrawing *all* investment from the US economy? If you do, then say good-bye to the US economy altogether. Secondly, does this support for energy sources that aren't dependent on foreign dictatorships also extend to *oil*, which comes largely from the most non-democratic nations in the World (like Saudi Arabia & the United Arab Emirates). Seems like you're cherry picking in order to create a straw-man argument, which is pretty much all you ever do. -
JMurphy at 21:52 PM on 20 March 2011One of the best climate change ads I've seen
Berényi Péter, does your aversion to Chinese investment extend to all of it or just that bit invested in renewables ? -
John Brookes at 21:43 PM on 20 March 2011Sea level rise: coming to a place near you
That wasn't a wise man, it was Bob Dylan! -
Berényi Péter at 20:34 PM on 20 March 2011One of the best climate change ads I've seen
#11 Marcus at 16:15 PM on 20 March, 2011 The second part of your argument is just naked racism I see. If one prefers a constitution based on checks and balances in order to secure the Blessings of Liberty to one built on people's democratic dictatorship and the principle of democratic centralism, that's naked racism. I have not heard this line of argument in more than two decades but I can't say it is unheard of. In fact I was fed this BS ad nauseam during my youth. -
R. Gates at 17:26 PM on 20 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
While I appreciate the optimism and logic you display in your article, from what I can see going on politically in the U.S. and elsewhere, I think the momentum for making serious changes has slowed to a near stand-still and in some respects reversed. To make the kinds of changes you suggest will require a different mind-set of the majority of citizens-- something akin to a "war footing" and that is not currently in place. It will only be to the extent that climate change related "inconveniences" impact the lives of the average person that they get a war-footing mentality and support the kinds of changes suggested. In short, even if the majority of politicians were behind what you suggest (which they aren't), they'd still need to convince the majority of voters to go along with these changes as their will be the upfront costs. -
Rob Painting at 16:36 PM on 20 March 2011Examining the impacts of ocean acidification
Gary Thompson @ 45 - Eye-balling the graph does indeed tend to convey similar pH levels to present during past interglacials, however that isn't the case. The graph simply lacks sufficient detail. Here's what the authors from Pelejero 2010 have to say: "The current human-induced perturbation of seawater pH starts at the low end of glacial–interglacial pH variability. From this perspective, and given that the surface oceans have already acidified by 0.1 pH units since the pre-industrial period, current conditions are already more extreme than those experienced by the oceans during glacial–interglacial cycles (Figure 2). Moreover, by the end of the twenty-first century, the projected decline in seawater pH might be three- times larger than perturbations observed as the Earth’s climate has oscillated between glacial and interglacial periods" Note that the 0.1 units referred to by the authors, represents almost a 30% increase in acidity over pre-industrial levels. Atmospheric CO2 (as contained in the ice cores) is a proxy for global ocean pH because of Henry's Law. More CO2 in the atmosphere dissolves into the oceans as concentrations in the atmosphere rise, causing pH to fall. (See the equations in the above post) . As atmospheric concentrations of CO2 fall (as in entering into a glacial period), CO2 dissolved in the oceans decline raising pH. The chemical reactions move in the other direction. Of course the ice cores only go back 800,000 years, and that's where the boron isotopes come into play as a paleo pH proxy. So your question as posed, is invalid. As stated earlier ocean pH levels have not been this low for millions of years. Here's what Pelejero 2010 have to say on that: "The average surface pH levels that oceans have reached today are already more extreme than those experienced by the oceans during the glacial–interglacial changes and beyond, probably being more extreme than at any time during the last 20 million years" Read the study, it summarizes the subject very well. -
Marcus at 16:17 PM on 20 March 2011One of the best climate change ads I've seen
Also, BP, though its true this doesn't represent peer-review science, it is *backed* by the vast bulk of peer-review science. Meanwhile, the propaganda being pushed out to the public, by the Contrarians, isn't backed by peer-reviewed science, but I bet you don't object to that-even when its funded by tax dollars? -
Marcus at 16:15 PM on 20 March 2011One of the best climate change ads I've seen
Yes, Beranyi, & how much tax-payers money do you think the US Coal & Nuclear industries get-in spite of being "mature" technology? Lets just say that it is way, way more than $450 million. So you're really just putting up a straw-man argument right there. The second part of your argument is just naked racism, which I'm sure you'd hate were it directed towards you. I see that, after months of posting bogus arguments, you're finally just scraping the bottom of the barrel. -
Marcus at 16:06 PM on 20 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
I think there's something we need to ask in relation to the title of this post-how are we defining "Zero Carbon"? I mean, are we talking net zero CO2 (i.e. where the amount of CO2 put out is at least matched by the CO2 soaked up by new & existing sinks), gross zero CO2 (i.e. no CO2 emitted from Human Sources at all), or net/gross CO2e (i.e. where the amount of *actual* CO2 produced is offset by a reduction in the production of other, worse, greenhouse gases). If its defined as net CO2e, then I think Bio-gas is an oft overlooked option for base-load energy production. After all, human waste streams are *always* going to produce methane, which is an 8 times worse GHG than CO2. So every tonne of methane converted to a tonne of CO2 means 7 tonnes of CO2e effectively saved (at least as I understand it). Also, every tonne of CO2 produced from burning bio-gas to generate around 2 MW-h of electricity saves around 2t of CO2 produced by burning coal to generate the same amount of electricity. So, unless I misunderstand it, burning 1t of methane to generate around 2 MW-h of electricity saves approximately 9t CO2e. Of course, this benefit can be extended further by (a) using any waste heat to heat local buildings or heat for industrial uses & (b) if the bulk of the CO2 gets captured in algal biomass, which can then be gasified & re-used to produce electricity/heat. Anyway, just a thought.
Prev 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 Next
