Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 Next
Comments 102351 to 102400:
-
cjshaker at 20:27 PM on 3 December 2010We're heading into an ice age
scaddenp said at 07:05 AM on 23 March, 2010 "I hate to be reiterating an old point but its all about rate. The transition into and out of ice age is extremely slow by human terms. (around 10,000 years). The rate of warming we are creating is by comparison very fast. Rates of change that overwhelm species capacity to adapt are the danger." It seems that these claims are incorrect. Natural systems have caused huge and rapid temperature change in the recent past. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ice-core-reveals-how-quickly-climate-can-change "Following this abrupt shift, as much as 20 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius) of warming occurred over the subsequent decades—a change that ultimately resulted in at least 33 feet (10 meters) of sea-level rise as the ice melted on Greenland." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080619142112.htm "The ice core showed the Northern Hemisphere briefly emerged from the last ice age some 14,700 years ago with a 22-degree-Fahrenheit spike in just 50 years, then plunged back into icy conditions before abruptly warming again about 11,700 years ago. Startlingly, the Greenland ice core evidence showed that a massive "reorganization" of atmospheric circulation in the Northern Hemisphere coincided with each temperature spurt, with each reorganization taking just one or two years, said the study authors." Note that the Woolly Mammoth, giant sloth, and Sabre tooth tiger went extinct during one of the most recent temperature excursions, only 12,900 years ago. Chris Shaker -
RSVP at 20:26 PM on 3 December 2010The human fingerprint in the seasons
Daniel Baily #16 "all other forcings have been flat or declining " Correction. Albedo has changed. Human waste heat has only been increasing. Urban heat islands are unfortunately real. Waste heat is real energy, over and above that provided by the sun. (i.e., unlike the flash-in-the-pan diurnal greenhouse effect.)Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Please do not reprise the waste heat discussion here. 356 comments on that topic and counting; if you feel you have something to add that shows waste heat amounts to more than 1% of GHG forcings, go back to that thread and comment on it there. UHI has been thoroughly debunked and rebunked, both here at SkS and by Tamino, to mention but two places. Use the search function to find the most appropriate UHI thread. Waste heat and UHI comments are off-topic on this thread. -
Peter Lang at 20:26 PM on 3 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
scaddenp, I should have explained for others that a small proportion of wind power with a large proportion of hydro generating and storage capacity can work because when the wind is blowing the water stored in the reservoir (stored potential energy) is saved because the hydro generators are turned down when the wind is blowing. When the wind power decreases the hydro power is turned up to meet the demand. In short, wind power avoids using stored hydro energy. Whether this is economic or not, is another question. It can be, in some situations, just! In New Zealand you, like Australia, have a ban on (unprintable), so we have no way of knowing if your generating system is the least cost option. -
Peter Lang at 20:18 PM on 3 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
scaddenp, I agree that wind can make an economically viable contribution where it is matched with large hydro generating capacity. This is the case in Denmark/Norway, New Zealand, China, Brazil and parts of Canada (although they are beginning to realise that it is not economically viable at all even with huge baseload hydro generating capacity). -
Peter Lang at 20:13 PM on 3 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
People, This discussion is silly. The questions posed in the lead article have been answered - and supported in previous posts. Read back through the posts and the links provided. 1. Yes, baseload generators are essential. (about 75% of our electricity demand is baseload). 2. No. Non-hydro renewables cannot provide a significant proportion of baseload generation (except where there is volcanic geothermal) 3. There is little likelihood that non-hydro renewables (and volcanic geothermal) will ever be commercially viable (at the scale required to make a significant contribution). All the sources to substantiate these statements are provided in earlier posts. -
cjshaker at 20:12 PM on 3 December 2010It's a 1500 year cycle
The numbers I see for temperature increase caused by man claimed by the IPCC is about .7C. We reached 4.5C higher during the previous glacial cycle. I think the bottom line is that climate modelers don't really understand the glacial cycle, nor how it really works. Chris Shaker -
damorbel at 20:05 PM on 3 December 2010Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
Re #40/41 Bob Guercio you wrote:- "the fictitious planet that I am using is a physical impossibility" You don't need to imagine a fictitious planet to see that O2 is essential for a 'stratosphere effect'. Venus has no stratosphere, the image below is a temperature profile of the Venusian atmosphere from 30km to 100km. (the lower part contains various extrapolations to the surface, further, you can open the image in another application to get a better quality). The green/red horizontal lines 2/3 up on the left are at 50-60km altitude and a pressure detween 1000 and 2000mB - thus the profile is similar in pressure terms to Earth.
-
michael sweet at 20:02 PM on 3 December 2010The human fingerprint in the seasons
I like this post showing strong data supporting the AGW argument. Do the people arguing WV claim that the sun evaporates more water in the summer and then wind blows it to the other hemisphere so that it is warmer in winter? The WV would rain out on the way. WV would enhance solar warming during the summer but not during the winter. This is the opposite of CO2 warming that is observed. Can the WV people clarify the mechanism whereby WV causes warming similar to CO2 which is always present in the atmosphere. Please provide a link to a detailed argument that supports your claims. -
Peter Lang at 20:02 PM on 3 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
muoncounter @392 and referring to my post #297. You are correct in that my statement in #297 is loose and not correct. I should not have said the "consumer pays" 5 to 20 times more for electricity from renewable generators. What I should have said is that the distributor must pay a higher price for electricity for renewables. The LCOE (cost) of electricity is 5 to 20 times higher from renewable generators than from conventional power stations. The cost must be recouped by the power station so, over time, on average, the wholesale price paid by the distributor must be at least that much higher for electricity generated by renewable energy generators than by conventional power stations. The distributors higher cost must be passed on, with profit and all the other costs, to the consumer as a higher price. I hope this clarifies my too brief statement that you so rightly picked up on :) -
Peter Lang at 19:48 PM on 3 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Ogemanic, "Solar has been tracking right along this path the last several years, and prices are lower than ever." I see. (sarcasm alert) In that case, why did the cost of solar generated electricity in the USA increase 30% beteween 2009 and 2010 (part of an ongoing upward trend), and why did the cost of Solar Tres / Gemasloar (Spain) increase by 250% from 2005 to 2009? Furthermore, why did the NEEDS analysis project that costs would fall by about 30% (from memory) between 2007 and 2010, yet they have increase by over 100% (in real terms). You might also apply your argument of decreasing cost with increasing roll outs to the unprintable technology. Once we get over the fear factor and remove the impediments in the western democracies, the cost will reduce for this technologuy too. China is now building it NPP's for $1,500/kW in 52 months. Ogemanic, I do no what you are getting at, but it is based on the price of solar panels not the full cost of commercial scale solar power stations (200 - 1000MW) with 24 hour generating capability including through prolonged periods of overcast weather and short winter days. -
cjshaker at 19:42 PM on 3 December 2010It's a 1500 year cycle
I don't have any idea where the 1500 year cycle claims come from. I take exception to the claim that "Ancient natural cycles are irrelevant for attributing recent global warming to humans." Chris Shaker -
michael sweet at 19:40 PM on 3 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Peter, Your claim that renewables must currently generate 24/7 in order to supply 24/7 in the future is absurd. Why should we build expensive storage today when it will not be needed for decades? Demonstration plants have shown that it is possible to store the energy. It is currently not stored because storage is not needed with the current grid. Solar plants generate power during peak demand, why would they store the energy to sell later at a lower price? When you make absurd claims like this no-one listens to what you say and it makes nuclear proponents look bad. I have moved further away from nuclear due to your arguments. If your arguments are the best nuclear can do, nuclear is not worth much. You have made your point numerous times on this thread that you think that renewables cannot supply baseload. You have not provided convincing arguments or links to peer reviewed studies. I suggest you stop posting more of the same, the rest of us know what you think and disagree. If you try to link a new study every time you post you will contribute much more to the discussion. If you cannot link to a new study, you are just repeating yourself and wasting everyone elses time. I am still paying monthly for an unapproved nuclear plant which will not generate electricity for at least 10 years. If nuclear is so good why do I have to subsidize it for 10 years? I pay for renewables only when I get the electricity. We agree that wind generates GWhrs of electricity, without subsidy, economically in Texas using wind. We agree that nuclear cannot be used in much of the developing world. You have made no suggestions of how to deal with the nuclear waste. You are a proponent of thorium reactors that have not yet been built and cannot contribute to electricity generation for at least 20 years. I am not convinced by your repeated rants. Post on the what should we do about renewable energy thread that you previously hijacked for nuclear discussion if you want to continue the debate, not here. I notice that you have stopped responding to the questions raised there. Do you find them impossible to answer? -
Peter Lang at 19:31 PM on 3 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
muoncounter, scaddenp is correct. The relationship between cost and price is extremely complex. For example, in the Australia system coal generated electricity may be around $30/MWh but the price bid ranges from -$1,000 to +$12,500/MWh. The price changes rapidly and by very large amounts. That is the wholesale price. The retail price includes the transmissions and grid operating costs, distribution, retail operating costs (including managing and paying the fees for mandated renewable energy, profit, etc. Price is extremely complicated. Better to stick with Levelised Cost of Electricity (LCOE). -
Peter Lang at 19:23 PM on 3 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
scaddenp, Yes, France is required by EU requlations to build 20% renewable by 2020 (or something like that) despite it already having near zero emission electricity. France is required to buy electricity from the renewables first (obviously - otherwise they wouldn't be built). That shows how dumb all this renewable energy advocacy is. I'm with you regarding dumping subsidies and market distortions. I argue to dump all subsidies, all regulations that favour one technology over another, all tax breaks and remove all market distortions. Once that has been done, and not until it has been done, then consider what else needs to be done. However, I expect if that is done properly, there may be no need to do much more because low emissions electricity would be cheaper than fossil fuel generation and would become even cheaper as time progresses. If we do need to give some extra shove then, as a first step, I favour regulating emissions for new generators, with the increasingly restrictive emissions requirements being phased in between now and 2025. For existing generators I'd advise them they will have to meet increasingly stringent emissions rates from a date to be determined. Once the G20 countries reach agreement on a way to price emissions then we would, of course, be part of that international agreement. -
Riduna at 19:04 PM on 3 December 2010The human fingerprint in the seasons
The final sentence of the article reads … What we observe instead is the poles warming around 3 times faster than the equator. I have read that Canadian/Alaskan temps have risen by 5C, a lot more than 3 times the increase at the equator – or does the “3 times” refer to Antarctic temp increase rather than Arctic? Can anyone refer me to material which explains difference between average global temps and polar arctic temps please.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] This post by Ned covers much of that. The use of Arctic-only stations relative to the global datasets shows the ongoing polar amplification present in the Arctic. -
VeryTallGuy at 19:00 PM on 3 December 2010Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
Sphaerica 71 "it could/would still be a net emitter in the end, but just with a smaller differential, and with some IR redirected back to the surface." I wouldn't dispute this, but if it is true, why do we need to consider the troposphere at all, as in the original post? Surely if CO2 is always a net emitter, then adding it will always reduce the temperature, regardless of what spectrum of radiation comes up from the troposphere? Your explanation was also my original understanding of statospheric cooling - that CO2 made the stratosphere more efficient at radiating than a blackbody by converting thermal energy to radiation at the absorption bands. To maintain the same overall emission, the temperature drops. But Bob's post says it's a whole lot more complex than that. Actually, as I write the last paragraph, maybe that's it - the internal radiative emission from the stratosphere (as opposed to mere transmission of ground level or troposheric radiative heat) actually falls because of reduced tropospheric tranmission in the CO2 absorption band. So are there two effects: 1) increased emission in the CO2 emissions bands increases thermal to radiative heat conversion and thereby reduces the temperature necessary to maintain overall heat balance AND 2) decreased absorption in the same spectrum because CO2 in the troposphere has already taken it out reduces the total heat input to the stratosphere -
Daniel Bailey at 18:03 PM on 3 December 2010Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
Re: garythompson (77) Try this:
(BTW, the zero-year baseline is 1950)
Source here.
Note that there exists much more than mere charts establishing a link between rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ - Edit - :
In the graph I supplied, temperature changes occur a few hundred years before CO2 changes. CO2 does contribute to the temperature increase but as a feedback rather than a forcing. CO2 can act as a forcing (and has, post-1970 or so), but it's effects as documented in the paleo-record have been -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 17:09 PM on 3 December 2010The human fingerprint in the seasons
Not at all, Albatross :) BTW, with regard to water vapour. Some of what goes up must come down. Water comes down more quickly than CO2. And where I live we've been getting a whole heap of it coming down - unseasonally so and in unusual torrents and record breaking amounts. This follows a record long and hot drought. All this weird weather signals a changing climate. -
garythompson at 16:55 PM on 3 December 2010Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
where can i find a long term graph of the troposphere temperatures and data showing that its temperature increase is correlated with increased CO2 in the atmosphere? the following link doesn't show it so there must be some other data that is validating this thesis. and by the way, i enjoyed this post, well done. -
Albatross at 16:19 PM on 3 December 2010The human fingerprint in the seasons
Sout @9, You are quite right. Hope you don’t mind if I elaborate a bit on what you said. We are increasing CO2 (a GHG), as a result the planet is experiencing a net energy imbalance (e.g., Murphy et al.2009) which is causing warming of the oceans and atmosphere. Warming of oceans is increasing WV in the atmosphere (e.g., Dessler et al. 2010), and the air can hold more WV as it warms, one result is an acceleration of the hydrological cycle (e.g., Syed et al. 2010). Another result is that higher WV (a powerful GHG) is causing a positive feedback which is further enhancing the warming that we humans have kicked off. To summarize: From Braganza et al. (2004): “ Observed linear trends over 1950–1999 in all the indices except the hemispheric temperature contrast are significantly larger than simulated changes due to internal variability or natural (solar and volcanic aerosol) forcings and are consistent with simulated changes due to anthropogenic (greenhouse gas and sulfate aerosol) forcing.” And “It is found that anthropogenic forcing accounts for almost all of the observed changes in surface temperature during 1946–1995”. From Dessler et al. (2010): “All of the other reanalyses show that decadal warming is accompanied by increases in mid and upper tropospheric specific humidity.” Anyway, sadly the point of this post has clearly been lost on some readers. Did they even read the post and references therein? John Cook and Braganza et al. 2003, 2004 have laid out their reasoning very clearly and this final sentence of John’s post sums things up: “All these pieces of evidence paint a consistent picture - greenhouse gases, not the sun, are driving global warming” Now do any of the resident “skeptics” take issue with that statement? I think not, they would rather argue this WV strawman that they have created. -
robert way at 16:18 PM on 3 December 2010The human fingerprint in the seasons
I'm Glad to hear that both John and HR acknowledge that water vapor is a positive feedback though. It is good to see when individuals who are skeptical join the scientific consensus. -
robert way at 16:13 PM on 3 December 2010The human fingerprint in the seasons
Couple Questions for John and HR, Is the theory that a solar (For example) perturbation is what is causing the initial temperature increase which then results in a positive feedback from water vapor causing the GHG signature to be present in the post 1975 warming? I don't buy it. I think this graph is very good because it shows that initially summers were warming quicker than winters and that as the effect of CO2 increased so did the rate of winter warming when compared to summer. That makes sense based upon what we already know which is that the early warming of the 20th century was solar induced mostly (I say oceans too but I digress) but that the late century warmth has a large anthropogenic component. What we have is a theory, early warming natural, late warming anthropogenic which we can then compare to the data, summers warm more than winters early, winters warm more than summers late. We also know that with increasing CO2 it was predicted that winters warm more than summers. For me its a pretty strong case. There's not really a need to always choose the 2nd or 3rd best theory when the evidence suggests theory #1 is well substantiated. Secondly I ask, wouldn't the initial solar warming being most prominent in summer counteract much of the winter warming caused by your GHG feedback? -
scaddenp at 15:50 PM on 3 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
muoncounter, I would have to say that retail electric cost isnt entirely correlated to generation cost, especially with the layers of subsidies that apply in US. -
scaddenp at 15:45 PM on 3 December 2010The human fingerprint in the seasons
TIS - if climate models work the way you seem to believe they do, then can you find me an example from ANY of the 15 or so models where the Antarctic is behaving like the Arctic? On the other hand, SH is most definitely warming. Why do think 0.25SW/m2/100year (max) has more effect than 3.7W/m2/100 year? Do you believe that energy received at the surface is an inconsequential factor in global climate?Moderator Response: Use italic or bold instead of all-caps, please. -
Daniel Bailey at 15:37 PM on 3 December 2010The human fingerprint in the seasons
Re: HumanityRules (14) We know CO2 is rising; all other forcings have been flat or declining (source here). We know the increasing CO2 comes from us. Because increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 drives temperatures up, and the increased CO2 is shown isotopically to be of human origin, ergo: human fingerprint. Off road, stuck-in-sand, spinning-wheels. The Yooper -
Ogemaniac at 15:29 PM on 3 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Peter: You said: "Moore's Law does not apply. These are very high cost systems with long life times and so turn over and learning takes decades." Moore's Law may not apply, but the laws of scaling do. In developing technologies, the rough rule of thumb is that a doubling of production lowers costs by 15%. Solar has been tracking right along this path the last several years, and prices are lower than ever. If we were to scale solar to about one hundred times what it is now, prices would likely fall more than half from where they are now. This would also be enough production capacity to replace every every fossil fuel plant within a generation. The scale of this industry would be similar to that of the auto industry...certainly not impossible. -
Daniel Bailey at 15:22 PM on 3 December 2010The human fingerprint in the seasons
Re: The Inconvenient Skeptic (12)"Why isn't the Antarctic warming in its winter in the same manner as the Arctic if the cause is CO2"
You present a logical fallacy. Comparing the Arctic, an ice-covered ocean surrounded by landmasses, with the Antarctic, a glaciated continent over 2 miles high: apples and oranges. A question to you: Why, exactly, would anyone expect the Antarctic to warm similarly to the Arctic? The Yooper -
HumanityRules at 15:21 PM on 3 December 2010The human fingerprint in the seasons
11 Daniel Bailey We could argue about solar variation but that would be going OT and is for another thread. The contention in John's argument is GHG fingerprint = human fingerprint That seems wrong. The suggestion that the solar fingerprint will not contain a GHG component is wrong. The question is whether identifying a GHG fingerprint means you've identified a human fingerprint. The problem I have is to call this a fingerprint of human warming it should stand alone, that would be the nature of a fingerprint in this context. As you demonstrate it's only through bring in other arguments that you can make this stand up. This isn't a pedantic arguement. Part of the strength of the AGW arguement is the heaps of independant arguements that point to CO2. I think this and the previous human fingerprint point to a warming trend not a human warming trend. Back on the road, DB. -
Philippe Chantreau at 15:21 PM on 3 December 2010The human fingerprint in the seasons
Both poles should be showing the same behavior" Why? I don't believe that at all. The poles are very different, so are the oceanic circulations around them. I think that they actually should not be showing the same behavior. -
scaddenp at 15:10 PM on 3 December 2010It's a 1500 year cycle
cjshaker - please see comments to you on this at We're heading into an ice age where this comments belong (the ice cycle is not a 1500 year cycle). -
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 15:10 PM on 3 December 2010The human fingerprint in the seasons
There are a couple of problems with this article. There is no time when the Earth is in winter or in summer. By showing only part of the Earth it is certainly possible to miss what is happening as a whole. I do agree that the NH is the main driver of the Earth's climate. I have shown that here. The basis is a Jones paper in 1999 that shows that the NH winter and summer drives the global average as shown here. The global temperature shows that the anomaly in the Dec-Feb time frame has gone up more than in the June-August time frame. This isn't a surprise as Antarctica has not shown the winter warming that the Arctic region has in its winter. But that is a problem. Why isn't the Antarctic warming in its winter in the same manner as the Arctic if the cause is CO2. Both poles should be showing the same behavior, but they are not. So while I agree that Dec-Feb are showing more warming than Jun-Aug, the answer is not as simple as CO2. The current orbital obliquity trend should also be favoring warming Dec-Feb as the NH receives slightly more insolation during those months. That would also correlate to cooling Antarctic trend is also observed. John Kehr The Inconvenient Skeptic -
Daniel Bailey at 15:06 PM on 3 December 2010The human fingerprint in the seasons
Re: HumanityRules (10)"My suggestion is that solar warming will contain a sizable GHG component because of the role of water vapour."
Per this link, there has been no increase in TSI in the past 32 years and thus, no solar-driven warming over that period. It's not the sun, yet temps still rising. Water vapor would be a feedback, so it can't drive itself up via driving up temps. Ran outta road, HR. The Yooper -
muoncounter at 14:51 PM on 3 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
#297: The claim that the consumer pays much more for renewable electricity suggests that there should be a strong correlation between retail electric costs and renewable generation. Here is a graph for the US retail electric cost vs renewable generation from EIA data:
There is no such correlation.
-
HumanityRules at 14:40 PM on 3 December 2010The human fingerprint in the seasons
9 sout What is hard to follow is John's suggestion that any GHG warming signal is a fingerprint of warming. I think it's summed up in the over-simplification of the solar-fingerprint. My suggestion is that solar warming will contain a sizable GHG component because of the role of water vapour. Any process that warms the world presumably increases water vapour. This is a GHG. It's not quite the simple all or nothing situation that John sets out. Let's use the example you vividly describe i.e. warming from CO2. A) The direct effect from the CO2 molecule of doubling CO2 is a temp increase of 1.2oC. B) The IPCC estimate for a doubling of CO2 in the earth’s complex system is 2-4.5oC. The increase from A is due to feedback’s (primarily albedo and water vapour) C) In simple climate models when clouds, aerosol and ice are held constant (albedo is fixed) then doubling CO2 gives 2-3oC warming. The difference between A and C is essentially the water vapour feedback. That means 40-60% of the warming trend from a doubling of CO2 comes from the water vapour feedback. 40-60% of the GHG fingerprint comes from water vapour. The water vapour effect is not specific to CO2 but is a consequence of a warming world. All things being equal, any process that warms the world is going to have this 40-60% water vapour feedback. As water vapour is a GHG then any process human or natural that warms the world will have a sizable GHG component to its fingerprint. I don’t think this is sceptical science, it seems mainstream. A study that reports a GHG fingerprint is not reporting a human fingerprint. I understand the significance of that, maybe you don't. Finally you really should stick to criticising the points I put forward rather than speculating on my mental processes, it does nothing for your argument. -
scaddenp at 14:30 PM on 3 December 2010We're heading into an ice age
Also "AGW believers don't seem to want to admit that the glacial cycle is happening, as it has been happening for millions of years. We're supposed to believe that the glacial cycle has magically stopped working just because the CO2 level is elevated." This from over in 1500 year cycle borders on the offensive. You will find no science published that asserts milankovich cycles arent continuing. Only that what causes the ice age is just one of the forcings affecting climate and its being trumped by high CO2 - just as it was when world had more CO2. Do think the milankovich cycles werent operating "magically" to use your word, at times before we had ice caps? -
Daniel Bailey at 14:27 PM on 3 December 2010It's a 1500 year cycle
Re: cjshaker (13)"We reached temperatures 4.5C warmer than today during the previous glacial warming phase, without mankind's CO2 influence. "
Were you aware that the study cited in that article used 1950 for its "today"? Have a look-see for the warming since 1950:
The climate during that interglacial was warmer than today, sure. For known, natural reasons. Said known, natural reasons are not the same today. But...if CO2 were as high then as now:
Then conditions then would have been dramatically higher still.
As muoncounter (14) ably says, "We've blown our way out the top of the 'natural cycle'."
You would do well to ponder the comment made by adelady (15). If you had any idea of the radiative physics of CO2 and the temperature anomaly already in the pipeline (and it's very obvious you don't), you wouldn't be making the comments you do. The Yooper -
muoncounter at 14:27 PM on 3 December 2010It's a 1500 year cycle
#16: "graph of CO2 going sky high only means something" Actually, such a graph means quite a lot, if you understand such measurements. "We're supposed to believe that the glacial cycle has magically stopped" Who told you that? Open eyes, look at graph. The right-hand edge of the red curve suggests that we might turn colder due to 'natural cycles' sometime in the next 10-20000 years, but if that's what you're planning on, good luck with it. "you did not catch my remarks about needing to emit more CO2 " Yeah, I caught it. Pop fly to short. Next batter? -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 14:25 PM on 3 December 2010The human fingerprint in the seasons
HR, greenhouse gases are increasing. Humans are adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere which is causing them to increase. The greenhouse gases are causing global warming. Humans are causing global warming. What is so hard to follow about that? (Like I say, probably a mental block to the logic of it all. Some people don't want to accept the obvious so they don't :)) -
scaddenp at 14:24 PM on 3 December 2010We're heading into an ice age
cjshaker - the deeper down (further back in time) you go with ice core, the more resolution you lose due to compaction and consequent changes in the ice - so yes, the data going back is effectively smoothed. Its the nature of the record. As to worrying about the next ice age... The milankovitch forcing that drives ice age is due to change in forcing that is about 0.25W/m2 per hundred years at 65N. Globally, its maybe a tenth of that. By comparison, anthropogenic GHG is about 3.7W/m2 over last 100 years on a GLOBAL scale. Ie the +ve anthropogenic forcings far exceeds the negative milankovich forcing. Estimate are that we arent going to see an ice age for 50,000 years.Moderator Response: No all-caps, please. -
Tom Dayton at 14:24 PM on 3 December 2010We're heading into an ice age
cjshaker, I suspect the line on the left side of the figure is skinnier than on the right side, because the line on the left side is smoother, because there are fewer samples of times longer ago. The author of the graph could have created a best-fit smoothed line through the entire graph, but probably refrained in order to present as much useful information, including uncertainty, as possible. -
cjshaker at 14:11 PM on 3 December 2010It's a 1500 year cycle
Obviously, you did not catch my remarks about needing to emit MORE CO2 and hope that the AGW believers are right. You must not have caught the AGW believer's claims that we're supposed to be starting the cooling phase of the glacial cycle. If that is true, and if the AGW theory is true, CUTTING CO2 emissions would be a really dumb idea. Unless you''re actually interested in bringing about the collapse of agriculture and the failure of mankind's civilization, as occured during the dark ages. Chris ShakerModerator Response: Please do not use all caps. Use italic, or if you must, bold. -
actually thoughtful at 14:11 PM on 3 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Scaddenp - if we price fuel accurately (drop all incentives and price in the carbon externalities) - Renewables win by a mile. But our collective governments have all proved themselves incapable of doing that. So what do we do given our broken governments, and a relentless threat to our civilization? -
Bob Guercio at 14:07 PM on 3 December 2010Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
Humanity Rules 75 Why? -
cjshaker at 14:05 PM on 3 December 2010It's a 1500 year cycle
Another hockey stick graph of CO2 going sky high only means something to AGW believers. The graphs I was talking about show temperature and ice extent, derived from the ice core. The temperature graph is what I care about. AGW believers don't seem to want to admit that the glacial cycle is happening, as it has been happening for millions of years. We're supposed to believe that the glacial cycle has magically stopped working just because the CO2 level is elevated. Chris Shaker Chris ShakerModerator Response: This thread is inappropriate for the specific topic of impending glaciation that you have focused on. Read the post "We’re heading into an ice age," which answers some of your questions and contentions. If you still have comments, make them on that thread, not this one. -
scaddenp at 14:04 PM on 3 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Peter, that is interesting. I didnt know that. I'm from NZ. Clearly the wholesale market does not work in those places in the same way as it works here. So even in France, you have to buy wind before you buy nuclear? I'm for dump all subsidies, including any form on fossil fuel. Then you have something to work with. On the other hand, I'd be open to punitive pricing of fossil fuel going climate change adaption and let markets decide what is the best alternative. -
actually thoughtful at 13:59 PM on 3 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
SNRatio, I think your scenario is a little bit to rosy. But perhaps you are thinking of an urban setting, and I am thinking of stand-alone buildings. In particular - I have found that it takes 8 200 watt PV panels to recharge the Nissan Leaf if you drive the full 100 miles of it's range (this may not be disagreeing with you - but that is so cool it is worth saying, and then saying again - YOU and I can wink out of the carbon economy completely - all I can tell you, Yogi Berra style, is: the more people who check out of the carbon economy, the more people will check out of the carbon economy. Once YOU (and I) demonstrate how easy it is - others will follow. It is how humanity works. Government is in the middle of failing us on this most crucial of all issues - individual action is required at this time in history. That is just the truth. We cannot count on our institutions to solve this one - they were designed to handle a completely different threat, and our hamstrung by an invisible, slow and pervasive threat to our existence. OK - actual areas of disagreement - I haven't seen any of the combined PV and solar thermal panels that are as efficient as the two separated (well it is obviously good for PV - but I don't think the economics work out; you are better off to buy solar thermal as solar thermal, and buy an extra PV panel to overcome the losses-due-to-heat). But you are 100% correct that virtually all residential heat needs can be solved by solar hot water. Smart people (who can afford it) are investing now, in this period of incentives. Once fuel prices go up and it pencils without the incentives - they will dis-appear. Much better to buy it now than wait until it is obvious at face value. -
actually thoughtful at 13:51 PM on 3 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Peter Lang, If you want to follow the STRICT definition "power all the time, every day" - then sure, solar or any renewable is always going to be challenged (some of the ideas will mitigate that). However, if you look at the big picture it doesn't follow that solar can therefore supply no baseload. Because: 1) Regional diversification 2) Pricing structures and smart meters that save people money if they use electricity when it IS sunny (so you charge your car on a sunny day for X and on a cloudy day for 2X). 3) Grid-scale storage 4) Source diversification (wind/solar/geothermal/tidal) - the last two are directly dispatchable. As many posters has pointed out - this translates to needing less backup than it first appears. Rather than, as you claim, needing 100% backup - you need some decimal backup. Exactly how much depends on how well 1-4 are implemented. Note that the backup will more likely be natural gas rather than nuclear as you can quickly spin up NG. Right now we are in a sweet spot where EVERY bit of renewables is easily usable by grid operators (in the US - I can't speak for Australia). Thus the concept of "grid storage" - here meaning pump energy into the grid to meet peak load, and pull it back out during non-demand periods, when those poor nuke operators have all this electrical production and no where to use it. So for the first 20% (per the original article) - we don't have any real issues with renewables. At the current rate of growth we will hit 20% between 2020 and 2030. So we know we have at least 10 years to scale up grid-scale storage and maybe 20. If you could admit that much, it might be easier to have a real conversation, instead of just talking across one another. If you continue to insist renewables have exactly zero role in our energy future - sorry, but I invoke reality - real people have already proved this false by installing and selling renewable energy, that real, for-profit companies have purchased - resulting in fewer fossil or nuke plants being built (see Excel in Colorado for a plant-not-built - plus others). -
muoncounter at 13:45 PM on 3 December 2010What should we do about climate change?
#379: "while nuclear works out its problems. " Some problems just keep hanging around. Jinxed Plant Slows A Nuclear Rebirth Originally slated to cost around $4 billion (€3 billion), its price tag has nearly doubled to $7.2 billion (€5.3 billion). And it is four years behind schedule. ... "If it were any other product, it would have been binned by now," says Steve Thomas, professor of energy policy at London's University of Greenwich. -
Peter Lang at 13:42 PM on 3 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
scaddenp, I don't know where you are from. However, in USA, UK, Europe and Australia the electricity distributers are required by regulation to take the power generated by renewables before they take any other power. There are various types of regulations but it all amounts to the same thing. The consumer pays about twice to three times as much for wind and about 5 to 20 times as much for solar as they would pay for the same energy from a baseload generator. -
HumanityRules at 13:36 PM on 3 December 2010The human fingerprint in the seasons
Robert Way I agree. My point is water vapour is a feedback to whatever is causing warming. Earth is a wet place. The theory goes when it gets warm evapouration increases. 5 muoncounter Again I'm not claiming water vapour is the driver here, I'm cliaming water vapour is a feedback in any scenario that warms the earth. Whether the driver is human or natural. The point I'm making is GHG fingerprint does not equal human fingerprint. That's the assumption in John's article again.
Prev 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 Next
