Recent Comments

Prev  1835  1836  1837  1838  1839  1840  1841  1842  1843  1844  1845  1846  1847  1848  1849  1850  Next

Comments 92101 to 92150:

92101. Rob Honeycutt at 02:31 AM on 20 March 2011
       We'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.
92102. Charlie A at 02:18 AM on 20 March 2011
       Sea 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.
92103. les at 01:58 AM on 20 March 2011
       Those 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.
92104. Bern at 01:47 AM on 20 March 2011
       And 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?"
92105. Bern at 01:38 AM on 20 March 2011
       Those 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?).
92106. Bern at 01:30 AM on 20 March 2011
       Zero 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.
92107. les at 01:16 AM on 20 March 2011
       Zero 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.
92108. les at 01:14 AM on 20 March 2011
       Those 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.
92109. Alexandre at 01:08 AM on 20 March 2011
       Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
       Of course, not to mention risk management...
92110. Alexandre at 01:04 AM on 20 March 2011
       Zero 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.
92111. Joe Lalonde at 00:54 AM on 20 March 2011
       Zero 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.
92112. les at 00:16 AM on 20 March 2011
       Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
       12 Joe: "next storm damage"... Worth noting: Japan’s wind farms save its ass while nuclear plants founder
92113. Charlie A at 00:08 AM on 20 March 2011
       And 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
92114. CBDunkerson at 23:56 PM on 19 March 2011
       The 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).
92115. Joe Lalonde at 23:56 PM on 19 March 2011
       Zero 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.
92116. Bern at 23:54 PM on 19 March 2011
       Zero 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.
92117. Charlie A at 23:52 PM on 19 March 2011
       And 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.
92118. les at 23:36 PM on 19 March 2011
       Those 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.
92119. Charlie A at 23:32 PM on 19 March 2011
       Maize 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.
92120. les at 23:01 PM on 19 March 2011
       2nd 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.
92121. angusmac at 22:59 PM on 19 March 2011
       Climate 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:
       1. 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.
       2. 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.
       3. 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.
       4. 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].
       5. 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.
       In summary, I have compared real world temperature data with the particular emissions scenarios chosen by the relevant peer-reviewed authors. Contrarily, you have cited a chart which compares real world temperature data with average model data which the author states does not represent "truth." I hope that the above answers your "patently false" and "gross misrepresentation" accusations against me.
92122. RickG at 22:58 PM on 19 March 2011
       2nd 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.
92123. Bern at 22:55 PM on 19 March 2011
       Zero 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.
92124. Gilles at 22:40 PM on 19 March 2011
       Zero 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.
92125. Gilles at 22:36 PM on 19 March 2011
       Zero 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.
92126. Rob Painting at 22:13 PM on 19 March 2011
       Maize 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.
92127. shoyemore at 22:09 PM on 19 March 2011
       Maximum and minimum monthly records in global temperature databases
       I should add that the second reference above - Wergen(2010) - also contains "reversible time" analysis.
92128. Rob Painting at 22:00 PM on 19 March 2011
       We'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.
92129. Marcus at 21:46 PM on 19 March 2011
       Zero 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.
92130. Marcus at 21:39 PM on 19 March 2011
       Zero 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.
92131. michael sweet at 21:34 PM on 19 March 2011
       Those 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.
92132. Marcus at 21:20 PM on 19 March 2011
       Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
       Actually, John D, I'd say Gilles is doing extremely badly. All he ever does is keep repeating the same unfounded assertion, without ever once providing any evidence to back it up. If there is such a clear correlation between fossil fuel, then all he needs to do is post data-any data-that proves that correlation. We've shown here a major disparity between modern levels of fossil fuel consumption (per $ of GDP) & quality of life-even between First World Nations &-given sufficient time-I'm sure I can find the data from the Energy Information Agency that also shows little or no correlation between per capita energy consumption & per Capita GDP. I used to have that data somewhere, but now can't seem to find it. Anyway, at least you're correct about the amount of food waste we're currently seeing in the First World, but it goes further than that-even today, in the world of supposed "Free Trade", we see farmers dumping-or stockpiling-large amounts of food, in order to drive up prices, whilst farmers in developing nations are forced to abandon their own crops in favor of the expensive, imported variety. That represents a massive waste of resources too, in my opinion.
92133. cjshaker at 21:15 PM on 19 March 2011
       We're heading into an ice age
       Please take a look at the 100,000 year glacial cycle again http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png You can see the 100,000 year cycles. You will note that warming occurs very rapidly at the start of each interglacial. Subsequent cooling occurs very gradually. You can also see the temperature delta over those 100,000 years is only 10 to 11 C. You also see how repetitive the saw tooth wave form is. We are still 4.5 C below the peak temperature normally achieved during an interglacial. Ie - we are only just above half the temperature delta normally experienced during an interglacial. This source provides that number http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070705-antarctica-ice.html Why is our climate still so cold during this interglacial? We are only about 6.5 C above the lowest temperature we normally experience during the 100,000 year glacial cycle. Chris Shaker
92134. michael sweet at 21:13 PM on 19 March 2011
       Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
       Gilles, You forgot to read the post again. The third paragraph says "Five future reports are planned on how to eliminate emissions from other sectors (Transport, Buildings, Land Use and Agriculture, Industrial Processes, and Replacing Fossil Fuel Export Revenue)." It is good to have you point out that many developed economies have lower carbon intensities than the USA and Australia. If we all copy the features of these countries we can all reduce carbon emissions. And it has already been proved that does not reduce quality of living!
92135. Capoeiranick at 21:08 PM on 19 March 2011
       Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
       That is pretty weak Gilles. The Plan does not call for zero emissions tomorrow but rather once the generation is built. As for the other countries CO2 emissions, that would be off topic and beside the point. The title clearly states "zero carbon Australia". Scientists and engineers in other countries around the world are undoubtedly addressing their unique challenges in creative and ingenious ways and are not likely to be troubled with your pessimistic, can't do attitude.
92136. alan_marshall at 21:01 PM on 19 March 2011
       Examining the impacts of ocean acidification
       garythomson @ 39 Thanks for the links to these two papers. Regarding the graph of the lab experiment which plots calcification against pH, it is not clear to me what the context is. Specifically, you have not told us what is going on with CO₃^2-, which as I will discuss below, is the critical parameter. The other paper (Schneider & Erez 2006) is the one that relates to the mechanics of ocean acidification. I quote from the abstract: "In all of these experiments, calcification (both light and dark) was positively correlated with CO₃^2- concentration, suggesting that the corals are not sensitive to pH or CT but to the CO₃^2- concentration. A decrease of 30% in the CO₃^2- concentration (which is equivalent to a decrease of about 0.2 pH units in seawater) caused a calcification decrease of about 50%. These results suggest that calcification in today’s ocean (pCO₂ = 370 ppm) is lower by 20% compared with preindustrial time (pCO₂ = 280 ppm). An additional decrease of 35% is expected if atmospheric CO₂ concentration doubles (pCO₂ = 560 ppm)." This is entirely consistent with my article, which states “This reduces the concentration of CO₃^2-, making it harder for marine creatures to take up CO₃^2- to form the calcium carbonate needed to build their exoskeletons.” However, it is probably time to take the chemistry further, and include the extra material currently in my draft of the advanced rebuttal. If we combine equations (1) and (2) in my article above, and remove H⁺ from each side, we have: CO₂ + CO₃^2- + H₂O <=> 2 HCO₃^- An article on RealClimate.com (The Acid Ocean – the Other Problem with CO₂ Emission) explains the significance of this equation: "Since this is a chemical equilibrium, Le Chatlier’s principal states that a perturbation, by say the addition of CO₂, will cause the equilibrium to shift in such a way as to minimize the perturbation. In this case, it moves to the right. The concentration of CO₂ goes up, while the concentration of CO₃^2- goes down. The concentration of CO₃^- goes up a bit, but there is so much HCO3- that the relative change in CO₃^- is smaller than the changes are for CO₂ and CO₃^2-. It works out in the end that CO₂ and CO₃^2- are very nearly inversely related to each other, as if CO₂ times CO₃^2- equalled a constant." The parameter that directly affects calcification is availability of CO₃^2- rather than pH. However, there is a relationship between the parameters as shown in the diagram below. The blue column shows the fall in pH since pre-industrial times. Note that more acidic conditions caused by rising dissolved CO₂ correlates with falling CO₃^2-. The source of the problem is the increase in dissolved CO₂ due to anthropogenic CO₂ in the atmosphere. The immediate agent of the problem is the reduced availability of CO₃^2-. A convenient way to track the availability of CO₃^2- is to monitor pH.
92137. johnd at 20:46 PM on 19 March 2011
       Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
       Gilles at 19:40 PM, I'm not going to get into this exchange, you seem to be doing OK anyway. I wanted to add to your comment about reducing food consumption, at present there are about 1 billion obese people in the world with a similar number without sufficient food. About 25% of food is wasted, mainly by those who are already overfed. Not only is the food wasted but also all the nutrients, fertilisers and energy that went into producing it. It seems very clear where the starting point is.
92138. Marcus at 20:45 PM on 19 March 2011
       Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
       "And I say that just through the simple observation that wealth is MUCH BETTER correlated with the use of FF than with the average temperature -and this is not a mere correlation of course, there are plenty good physical reasons for that. Cars and planes can travel by 30 °C or by 10 °C, but never without fuel." You can say it all you like-but it doesn't make it true, especially as you continue to fail to provide any *evidence* to back your assertions, just platitudes that sound like they were quoted from a fossil fuel industry pamphlet. We've already established that cars can run on either fuels derived from algae (grown up on the CO2 absorbed from power stations run on bio-gas), or directly from electricity generated by those self-same power stations. Its also been shown in the lab that the fuels derived from algal biomass can also be used as aviation fuel-so again your assertion that we simply can't get by without your beloved fossil fuels is just so much hyperbole. I suggest you don't bother posting anything more until you're prepared to back your assertions with something more than your *Beliefs*. Personally, I think everyone here has been more than patient with someone who-in spite of your protests-is not here to learn, but simply here to spread "The Good Word" about fossil fuels.
92139. Marcus at 20:40 PM on 19 March 2011
       Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
       "sorry, I'm not thinking that " people are smart enough to find substitutes.""is granted : for the moment, it's just wishful thinking." We already have, Gilles, but weak-kneed governments-with the help of a lot of propaganda from paid-up lobbyists-have failed to make them widely available, because they've been sold the lie that only fossil fuels are a viable option for our energy needs. Perhaps if we cleared out our parliaments of all the fossil fuel industry lobbyists, & instead gave our politicians access to the best scientific evidence relating to renewable energy, then we would see a hastened demise of the most polluting & inefficient sources of energy ever invented-coal power stations & cars with internal combustion engines.
92140. Tom Curtis at 20:38 PM on 19 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       LJR @676, I like the continuation of that quote:

       "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."

       You would have thought that Alan Siddons, having noticed that the mean global surface temperatues 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". This is particularly the case when the formula for the cavity based temperature requires that the cavity by isothermal, while the rotating sphere is known to be anything but.
92141. Marcus at 20:37 PM on 19 March 2011
       Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
       "You can also easily without harm reducing your own food by 20 %, I guess. Many people live comfortably and eat much less than western citizens. Would you deduce that food is by no means necessary to life ? why not ? - well, the answer to this question gives the answer to the other one." Complete errant nonsense Gilles-much as we've come to expect from you so far. The reality is that agriculture can be done more successfully with a *reduced* carbon footprint. The Green Revolution has proven to be a double edged sword-wrecking the land which it initially helped, though rampant overproduction hasn't helped either. None of my family growing up in the early 1900's ever went hungry-& none of them were exactly wealthy people I might add. Also, its perfectly possible to have modern luxuries *without* having a massive carbon footprint to go with it. I've got a computer, a flat-screen TV, a fridge/freezer, an A/C unit, a stereo & a DVD recorder but-guess what? My energy consumption is less than 6kw-h per day, & *none* of it comes from fossil fuels. I'm also smart enough to know that using a car to drive during peak hour is going to leave more poorer-not richer-because I'll be wasting 20% of the fuel I put in the car to sit still in the traffic-something you seem to advocate. Seriously though, Gilles, when are we going to see hard facts from you, rather than your repetitive, unfounded platitudes? Seriously, if you have nothing sensible to offer, why don't you go off & hang out with your mates at Watts Up with That instead?
92142. Marcus at 20:30 PM on 19 March 2011
       Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
       "What you're totally missing is that energy intensity worsened a lot during industrialization and after the war. Energy consumption grew faster than GDP. Subsequent improvement was only possible because we spoiled a lot of energy just before (and also, thanks to globalization, because we exported heavy and energy consuming industries, closed almost all our exhausted coal mines in Europe, etc...). Just take the numbers." At least I give *real* numbers-we're still waiting for you to present anything other than blatant propaganda. You still have failed to disprove my point-that nations which increased their energy intensity have not necessarily improved their GDP output (in almost 30 years), whereas 1st World Countries have reduced the energy intensity of their economies whilst still enjoying rising GDP growth-thus disproving your point about the apparent causal link between energy consumption (aka fossil fuel use) & wealth. You've also failed to show contrary evidence that it was the accumulated wealth of the 1st world which came *before* the rise in fossil fuel use-not because of it as you've constantly contended. There are other things which are far, far better correlated to wealth than fossil fuel consumption-like education levels, wage parity, quality of health care, access to abortion & contraception-all of which occurred in the West *before* the rise in fossil fuel consumption, in spite of your lame attempts to claim the contrary.
92143. Gilles at 20:07 PM on 19 March 2011
       And so castles made of sand fall in the sea, eventually
       Yvan : does it mean that New Orleans is expected to drop by 5-1 = 4 meters whatever we do against GW and SLR ?
92144. Tom Curtis at 19:47 PM on 19 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       LJR @684: 1) My claim in 647 was about a particular model, model 2 in 677. It is true about that model. Model 3 in 677 is different, and analysis of that model in terms of photon numbers will not work. 2) All three models do accumulate energy, and all three do not violate any of the laws of thermodynamics. However, if I am mistaken about that, and you are able to prove (not merely say, but prove) that the third model violates the laws of thermodynamics, it will not prove that the others do not. It may only prove that I am mistaken about their relevance to the debate. 3) If you prove that the third model violates the laws of thermodynamics, you will not have proved that no possible implementation of a greenhouse effect can exist without violating the laws of thermodynamics. You will only have proved it of one case, all though that may make it easier to prove of all cases. This works both ways. If I prove that the 3rd model does not violate the laws of thermodynamics, it is still possible that other examples of the greenhouse effect do. Whether or not the green house effect in the Earth's atmosphere violates them will still be up for debate. What will not be up for debate is whether the fact it is a greenhouse effect is sufficient to prove that it violates the laws of thermodynamics. What I strongly suspect is that every feature of the actual green house effect in Earth's atmosphere which people point to as a reason to suspect violation of the laws of thermodynamics will also be a feature of model three, which will thereby disprove the claim that that feature proves a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Which brings me to the main point. I have just proved that an example of the green house effect can exist without violating the laws of thermodynamics. You may not be able, or willing to follow the proof, but that is your look out, not mine. 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.
92145. Gilles at 19:41 PM on 19 March 2011
       Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
       sorry, I'm not thinking that " people are smart enough to find substitutes.""is granted : for the moment, it's just wishful thinking.
92146. Gilles at 19:40 PM on 19 March 2011
       Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
       Marcus : you argue that the wealth was already very large in the 50's, but you give only figures after 1980. Why don't you give the figures for the 50's ? What you're totally missing is that energy intensity worsened a lot during industrialization and after the war. Energy consumption grew faster than GDP. Subsequent improvement was only possible because we spoiled a lot of energy just before (and also, thanks to globalization, because we exported heavy and energy consuming industries, closed almost all our exhausted coal mines in Europe, etc...). Just take the numbers. You can also easily without harm reducing your own food by 20 %, I guess. Many people live comfortably and eat much less than western citizens. Would you deduce that food is by no means necessary to life ? why not ? - well, the answer to this question gives the answer to the other one. Besides, I'm happy to know that people living in Australia and UK lived with cars, electricity , or maybe TV and computers ? they didn't say they were "poor" just because poverty is a RELATIVE notion - of course they probably compared their standard of living with the average one of their time - not ours. But I'm not saying it is impossible to live like them - it is quite possible of course. What is impossible is to live LIKE US without FF. Michael : Gilles: By definition FF are limited in amount and will eventually run out. Is your contention that when that happens civilization will collapse? What will happen when the FF runs out? I think people are smart enough to find substitutes." OF COURSE I'm contending that - or I wouldn't be logical. That's exactly what I'm saying : the main risk is , by far, a collapse of civilization through the exhaustion of FF and NOT through a few degrees of warming. And I say that just through the simple observation that wealth is MUCH BETTER correlated with the use of FF than with the average temperature -and this is not a mere correlation of course, there are plenty good physical reasons for that. Cars and planes can travel by 30 °C or by 10 °C, but never without fuel.
92147. Gilles at 19:04 PM on 19 March 2011
       Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
       I'm sorry, I missed a point. 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 ? you concentrate on power generation. May be you're ignoring that some countries have ALREADY electricity with a very low or zero carbon intensity : Norway, Iceland, some canadian provinces, thanks to hydroelectricity , France, thanks to nuclear. Here are their CO2 production per capita : Norway : 9.1 Iceland : 7.6 France : 6 Quebec : 11.1 the average is around 8 TCO2/capita. Note that 8 times the soon 8 billion people in the world are 64 billion t CO2 per year ( !!!!) so what do yo say to these countries to reduce this production ? forgive the electric power - it's already solved. What do you say them for all the rest ?
92148. Rob Painting at 18:56 PM on 19 March 2011
       Examining the impacts of ocean acidification
       Gary Thompson @ 39 - just to clear up your confusion: 1. The Pelejero 2005 study does not suggest the PDO is the cause of ocean acidification, rather that natural variations in pH (read deep ocean upwelling here) correlates with the PDO at that site. Where do you get the idea about calcification and pH?. 2. As for Schneider & Erez 2006, you have that wrong too. They find that coral calcification correlates with carbonate concentration, not CO2. Increasing CO2 causes ocean pH to fall and carbonate concentration too. End result; more CO2 = very bad for coral.
92149. johnd at 18:55 PM on 19 March 2011
       Maize harvest to shrink under Global Warming
       Rob Painting at 17:52 PM, re "All due to selective breeding?" For goodness sake, read the whole statement so you don't keep taking things out of context. If you were not up to imagining what "many factors" might include, I would have thought the very next sentence would have given some idea.
92150. johnd at 18:47 PM on 19 March 2011
       Maize harvest to shrink under Global Warming
       Rob Painting at 17:55 PM, If you read the comment it was responding to Charlie A at 13:06 PM!!!!!!

Prev  1835  1836  1837  1838  1839  1840  1841  1842  1843  1844  1845  1846  1847  1848  1849  1850  Next