Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 Next
Comments 102951 to 103000:
-
actually thoughtful at 16:24 PM on 29 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Actually thoughtful: "I do agree with the poster who points out renewables tend to favor a national grid (actually - everyone benefits, even coal - more open market)." Quokka:"Why do we have to have this absurd conversation. It widely acknowledged, indeed advocated by the best renewables experts that HVDC must be substantially upgraded for renewables to be able to run a viable grid." Perhaps because you can't even be bothered to read my posts? To think beyond your ax of the evening - nuclear everywhere? Quokka: "King Island is, remarkably, an island with a small population and NOT a city in Tasmania. " My source for that is: "A 200 kW, 800 kW·h (2.9 GJ) output leveler in use at the Huxley Hill Wind Farm on King Island, Tasmania." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery Look I am not a citizen of Australia - I have been to Tasmania, but did not visit King Island (I guess because it is not there...). If both the original poster of this information and Wikipedia are incorrect - I certainly apologize for continuing the misinformation. Where is King Island? As for the mythical nuclear so cheap we won't even meter it! (yep, I can use a straw man too). Well, again, read my posts - where I find (using well, er, US DOE/EIA estimates!) that nuclear is ~$60/unit and wind, coal and gas are ~$53-55/unit (and to be fair solar PV weighs in at $100/unit (minimum) - but historically PV goes down by 20% for each doubling of installed base). And all of this relies on an overnight cost of nuclear at ~2k/KWHe - which is, as you so colorfully put it "tosh." (in the United States) So we are having this conversation because you don't read my posts, nor my sources, which back up my posts and you are frustrated that all of us enlightened folks don't bow to the alter of nuclear. Nuclear in the US is destined to be a partial solution as it is in China (China leads in nuclear. China leads in coal. China leads in renewables. China is big. Really big.) As to whether the DOE is accurate in pricing renewables - probably not. They are still not admitting there is such a thing as peak oil. They are relatively neutral, but if they have any bias, it is pro-fossil, pro-nuclear, and in NO way pro-renewable. Here is some background on a national electric grid (US) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=110997398 (not saying you need background - the conversation about "the grid" is amorphous for more posters than just myself) Look there is a lot going on - I now have an electric meter that I can't read, that the electric company calls a "smart" meter. We already have a national grid - I am honestly asking you what you mean when you talk about improvements to the grid. I mean better interconnections between regional grids, replacement of aging infrastructure, better ways to control and price flows between regional grids, connections from remote sources (utility size wind, solar, and nuclear are all going to be sited far from current loads due to NIMBY). All of these things benefit current utilities. That it will benefit renewables is obviously true. That a wind plant in BFE will need a connection to the grid is obviously true - as will nuclear. -
Daniel Bailey at 16:06 PM on 29 November 2010Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
Re: gallopingcamel (71) I think the Christidis et al paper is of tremendous value, as it documents a unique (thus far) way to determine the attribution of climate change's effects on both CRM and HRM. That is what it set out to do and the authors accomplished that mission. But the making of any inferences above and beyond what the study was designed to do is simply wrong. What CO2Science is doing, using the Christidis et al paper to support its contention that warming (not that it's happening, mind you, just if it hypothetically is) is good for people because it lengthens lifespans (which is clearly different from lowering mortality) is flat out deceptive and wrong. That is what all on both sides of intelligent discourse should be challenging and decrying, deception and manipulations of sources to say things that they simply don't do. But it has been a pleasure, GC. Hope your mission to NOAA was enlightening. Which center did you visit? The Yooper -
quokka at 15:57 PM on 29 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
actually thoughtfull @136 Why do we have to have this absurd conversation. It widely acknowledged, indeed advocated by the best renewables experts that HVDC must be substantially upgraded for renewables to be able to run a viable grid. There is no question about this. How do you think this electricity generated by desert CSP is going to be moved to where it's needed? Quantum entanglement? Why are people always banging on that if the wind is not blowing somewhere, it is blowing somewhere else and electricity will be moved over an enhanced grid? This is so fundamentally basic to intermittent renewables, that to deny it is expose complete ignorance. King Island is, remarkably, an island with a small population and NOT a city in Tasmania. What is economic on an island with a small population where the alternative is most likely diesel generation may very well not be at all relevant to national grids. Is this so astonishingly difficult to grasp?Which is why nuclear is having such trouble in this thread - in the real world it is wickedly expensive.
I have already provided on this thread references to both the IEA and US DOE/EIA 2010 estimates of the costs of electricity generation which show nuclear to be competitive with fossil fuels given a carbon price and broadly cheaper than wind and far cheaper than solar, but apparently you for some reason, yet to be explained, know better. I should think that IEA and DOE have a far more substantial connection to the real world than some of the tosh being peddled here. -
Bern at 15:50 PM on 29 November 2010A basic overview of Antarctic ice
Er, don't mean to butt in to a robust discussion, but I also looked at the abstracts for the articles that Robert referenced. Camburn, you're right, the error margins are huge. But that error cuts both ways. It could be that EAIS is losing 100Gtpa or more. That's a phenomenal amount of mass loss for an area that, until recently, was thought to be *gaining* mass... So, we have best estimates (with a lot of uncertainty) showing WAIS losing about ~130 Gtpa, and the EAIS either stable, or losing ~50Gtpa. That's a whole lot of ice. Either way, Antarctica as a whole is losing ice. Sure, it may be a small percentage of the total ice sheet down there, but when you start talking about tens (or hundreds) of cubic kilometres of ice falling off that continent into the Southern Ocean, you don't think that's cause for concern? -
robert way at 15:47 PM on 29 November 2010A basic overview of Antarctic ice
Actually Wu et al. 2010 (the skeptics favorite) show that ice losses are occurring in the EAIS outside of the error bars. I believe Chen et al. 2009 show it outside the error bars also (slightly) -57 plusminus 52Gtyr. I think you have to remember that Error bars go both ways but yeah EAIS is probably stable for the most part. WAIS is VERY unstable as my presentation will even attest to. It is not "negligible" because it represents a small portion of its mass. That's a ridiculous statement to make. If Antarctica loses 1% of its mass over the next 50 to 100 years we're in deep trouble (0.5m SLR) but according to you that is "negligible". -
Camburn at 15:39 PM on 29 November 2010A basic overview of Antarctic ice
Robert: I don't have a nature sub anymore, but from the abstract of the papers you posted, it confirms what I stated. WAIS is loosing ice. EAIS is stable. Look at the error bars in the abstracts please. Thank you. And once again, the loss of ice in Antarctica on a whole is neglibable as a percentage of mass. -
robert way at 15:35 PM on 29 November 2010A basic overview of Antarctic ice
You conflate subglacial meltwater with surface meltwater that percolates down. The two are not required to exist co-dependently you realize? Subglacial "meltwater" in Antarctica is generally caused by the warmth underneath thick ice sheets providing insulation enough that free-flowing water can exist. This is NOT the same thing as melt ponds on the surface percolating down and creating the "Zwally-effect". See no trend in melting on the surface of Antarctica tells us nothing about what is going on for ice losses in Antarctica of which 90% originates through calving. Mostly driven by the mechanisms I described from the paper by Bell 2008. If you want we can get more in depth about this? Meltwater percolation likely plays very little part in the accelerations of ice streams in the WAIS because these ice streams are already fastmoving ice streams which have reached their basal saturation rate as has been seen on Jacobshavn by Pelto. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/10/what-links-the-retreat... Thus if you introduce more meltwater through the so called zwally effect (NOT THAT YOU COULD IN WAIS) then you wouldn't see the accelerations that have been found to be occurring due to ocean warming. For anyone of who might be interested here is a presentation I did on Antarctic ice changes (in 2009) Camburn, it might be of use to read it. http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Antarctic_Presentation.pdfModerator Response: Please don't use all caps. Use italics, or, if you must, bold. -
Camburn at 15:28 PM on 29 November 2010A basic overview of Antarctic ice
Sorry. I meant this paper. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6215004 -
Camburn at 15:25 PM on 29 November 2010A basic overview of Antarctic ice
Ok....I am done. Read this paper. Thank you. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/2003/00000049/00000164/art00013 -
Camburn at 15:21 PM on 29 November 2010A basic overview of Antarctic ice
Robert: I am not talking about "melting glacier sheets". I am talking about melt ponds, just as the auther of the paper I cited did. Melt water DOES play a role in the WAIS. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/2003/00000049/00000164/art00013 -
robert way at 15:14 PM on 29 November 2010A basic overview of Antarctic ice
Camburn, Steig et al (2009) has not been "put in the trash bin" the methods were fine. Just because Hu and them over at CA found that they forgot to correct for autocorrelation doesn't mean it was trash. They submitted their correction and the correction was published without any noticeable difference. "Back to ice loss" Yeah you are going way back. All the way to 2006. How about we stick with more recent studies shall we? http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n12/full/ngeo694.html http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n2/abs/ngeo102.html http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n12/full/ngeo694.html No trend discernible? What are you saying? You do realize that paper you cited was about MELT not ICE LOSS. The two ARE NOT the same. That is the whole reason I had to do the rebuttal to Goddard in the first place. Antarctica as a whole is not neglible. If you see the post I mentioned earlier (response to goddard) you would see that almost ALL estimates show a significant total ice loss from land ice. Finally, Melt plays 10% of the role, calving plays 90% of the role. Sorry but melting just isn't terribly important in Antarctic Ice Mass trends. End of story. -
gallopingcamel at 15:05 PM on 29 November 2010Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
Daniel Bailey (#69), If we have a disagreement it appears to be in semantics. We seem to draw slightly different inferences from the Christidis et al paper. If you are saying that the paper is of limited value owing to covering just one country, I agree with you. In fact I would go further and say that such studies of countries in high latitudes are bound to show what they found. To put it in layman's terms, temperature increases in high latitudes make countries more livable by lengthening the summers (when "the living is easy" according to at least one song writer) and shortening the winters. The adaptation issue is a complex one. Mankind has been wearing clothes and heating dwellings for many thousands of years, so we have had plenty of experience at adapting to cold conditions. On the other hand, when it comes to high temperatures, the ability to adapt through air conditioning and drinking Gatorade is relatively new. Like you, I enjoy the "pleasant dialog" and must congratulate John Cook and the good people who post on this blog for making it possible. -
Camburn at 15:02 PM on 29 November 2010A basic overview of Antarctic ice
Robert: Yes, the warmer water that has infiltrated under the WAIS is accelerating the loss. Melt aslo plays a part further inland on that sheet. I checked my archive and foolishly didn't save that paper. The observers were quit astounded with their find. -
actually thoughtful at 15:00 PM on 29 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Quokka - the counter to your claims about "ridiculous and unfounded claims" is reality. This is why I posted earlier about my customers who have cut their winter heating bills (in a cold climate) by 75% - this is the type of thing people like you claim can't be done. Likewise, if a city in Tasmania is running 50% off of wind by using a vanadium flow battery - this is a real-world proof of concept. Will it roll out to the world? Perhaps, perhaps not. But lessons learned there will be useful in other renewable base load projects. Likewise, my local utility with their 25% power at one substation - again proving the concept. Nothing beats real world to establish a claim. Which is why nuclear is having such trouble in this thread - in the real world it is wickedly expensive. I agree we should start now to put some nuclear in place - that means we should see it on line around 2020-2025 - by which time I HOPE we have correctly priced carbon and many of these "impossible things" you keep railing against will be part of our everyday reality. The single most important thing any/all of us can do is take action now. Just as we can't get government to turn on a dime - none of us can build a nuclear plant. But all of us can install solar or wind on our homes, or work with the landlord to get it installed on their property. Bring it up at work and see if you can't make something happen. I know when we put solar in at businesses the employees are all quite pleased (obviously the owner is or we wouldn't have the job). Given the failure of governments worldwide to deal with this crisis - we are going to have to act as individuals to create the momentum (and yes - economies of scale) to bring these technologies into the mainstream. -
Camburn at 14:59 PM on 29 November 2010A basic overview of Antarctic ice
Steig et al has been put in the trash bin. The mythology of that paper was pure junk. Back to ice loss: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/311/5768/1754 The WAIS has credibily lost ice. The EAIS not so credibly. NO trend discernable. The loss on the whole of Antarctica is still neglible as a percentage. -
quokka at 14:56 PM on 29 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
sailrick @132 I made no claim about water used in CSP, you are mistaking me for somebody else. But I will make one comment on the Brightsource project. Has it been built and operated and if so what was the cost and has it met the design claims? I'm not saying that it won't. I'm just saying that it pays to maintain a skeptical - in the good sense - attitude to first of a kind large scale civil engineering projects with brand new designs and technologies. Oh, and last time I looked "homes" were not a SI unit for energy or power. Would authors of pieces on renewable generation please drop the deplorable habit of specifying generation capacity in "homes". And your point about HVDC is what? I was replying to nonsense about renewables not needing expanded grids because of local generation and grid storage. I did not say this was good or bad - just trying to drag the discussion back to some connection with reality. -
robert way at 14:51 PM on 29 November 2010A basic overview of Antarctic ice
Camburn, If you understand the "physics" of glaciers quite well then you will know that the mechanism through which antarctic glaciers have accelerated is not the same as those in many areas of greenland where the zwally effect (the melt water lubricating the base) is key. In Antarctic the key important factor is the removal of longitudinal compression forces. Warming ocean waters cause grounding line retreat which removes the compression forces and let the glaciers flow quicker. This is also well-understood "physics". If you really read the article's that I posted, you would see the following phrase "In terms of a grounding line retreat, an inland shift of the grounding line causes less backpressure through increased calving and basal melting. This process results in increased glacier velocities and subsequent inland thinning as more ice is being pulled from the accumulation zone (Bell 2008)." Finally, You seem to indicate that East Antarctica has cooled whereas Steig et al. (2009) refute your impression. -
Daniel Bailey at 14:48 PM on 29 November 2010A basic overview of Antarctic ice
Re: Camburn (8) Not having access to the full study you reference, if (as Robert points out) that the focus of the study is melt trends, then I'd have to say that using the paper to invalidate the documented losses of Antarctic ice (through observed calving and retreat of grounding lines) is an apples-to-oranges comparison. We can visually observe how the Antarctic is losing ice and we can document by how much. Melt as yet is a non-factor. The WAIS and the EAIS are both losing mass, in the multi-gigaton range yearly. The Yooper -
actually thoughtful at 14:45 PM on 29 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
adelady - I wish you would disagree with me more often! This is exactly what I am talking about - you yourself with the real world experience of 20 years of solar hot water (systems now do a lot more to tell you what is happening - less of a black box (at least the ones I design...)). And then your mother! My goodness 190 households full of matriarchs and patriarchs telling their offspring and bridge/golf buddies - solar works! This is what we need to change the world! (Yes - it should be a government/industry led thing - but in the US at least - the political body is already owned by the corporations that stand to lose - so we MUST find effective means of change that work outside of our institutions - thus the call for INDIVIDUAL and IMMEDIATE action - if you understand climate change - how can you not act at the home/business level?) Please! Argue louder with me! ;-) My neighbor - a red neck, right wing, anti-environmental gun-totin' smoking radical - just signed up to have the local power company install solar PV in exchange for a fixed electricity payment for the next 20 years. I really am in awe - he doesn't give a fig about global warming - but he does want a fixed cost for electricity. This is APS - Arizona utility monopoly. I have to admit they are the most enlightened utility I know of (after fighting PV for a few decades...). They are proving false the idea that back feeding the grid causes problems. They are going to have 25% plus of the power that goes through our local sub-station come from decentralized PV. I thought I would throw out some unrelenting good news to break up all the denier class BS we all deal with everyday! -
Camburn at 14:43 PM on 29 November 2010A basic overview of Antarctic ice
Robert: I understand the dynamics of glaciers quit well. Melt plays an important role in the advancement of the glacier as the melt water lubricates the base. And contrary to Mr. Goodard, there are melt pools on Antartica. The ice sheet in Antarctica seems to respond more to pressure than surface temperature. Western Antarctica has warmed. Yes, it is still very cold but that is not an issue in this dynamic. Eastern Antarctica has cooled, with a net over the continent of even temperature with regional variations. -
scaddenp at 14:42 PM on 29 November 2010A basic overview of Antarctic ice
no reason not to "believe" Monaghan. Its just that the paper doesnt say what you think it does. ie land ice loss != melt. See sealevel curve. What's worrying about antarctic ice loss is that models didnt predict any, though in fairness most of EAIS is behaving as expected thankfully. Getting seawater under the WAIS is the concern. -
muoncounter at 14:40 PM on 29 November 2010A basic overview of Antarctic ice
#10: "10 years is not" Long enough to deflate your 'lack of GPS' objection. How long has GRACE been up? "I believe the NCAR fellow" That's good science, picking the study that fits your preconceived ideas? Hey Yooper, cherry-picking season came early this year! -
Camburn at 14:33 PM on 29 November 2010A basic overview of Antarctic ice
muon@6: 10 years is not a very long time. I believe the NCAR fellow. And actually, the paper about drift etc confirms the NCAR fellow in Geo. -
robert way at 14:31 PM on 29 November 2010A basic overview of Antarctic ice
Camburn, Maybe I should have shown you this post: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Antarctica-absolute-temperatures-too-cold-ice-loss.htm If you read it carefully you would realize that melting on Antarctica is virtually irrelevant because ice losses primarily occur through glacier accelerations. So your paper on Antarctic melt trends is irrelevant to this debate. -
Camburn at 14:31 PM on 29 November 2010A basic overview of Antarctic ice
Yooper: The abstract on this paper was quit good. If you don't have access to the whole paper, if you live near a college, you can get access to it. The Geo paper is peer reviewed and shows that overall there has not been a trend established as far as land ice loss. One of the main reasons is the sheer mass of the ice field. -
quokka at 14:30 PM on 29 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
@dana1981As a general comment, this article really has nothing to do with nuclear power, and it's kind of aggravating that the comments have been hijacked into a nuclear argument. It's hard to resist, because people are making incorrect statements about nuclear power, and then moving the goalposts so that the argument keeps going. But this really isn't the place to be arguing about nuclear power. Please stick to the topic on hand, which is the ability of renewable energy to provide baseload power, and whether it's even necessary.
If I might make a constructive criticism. Your article is essentially a shopping list of technologies - many of which are at best very immature. This leads to commentors here making ridiculous and unfounded claims such as "renewables don't require a much beefed up grid" not because it is true, but they think that repeating nonsense reinforces their position which is political and not based in science, engineering and economics. Just pick some whizz bang thing like vanadium flow batteries and shout loudly that it "proves" that grid level storage is viable and HVDC expansion is not needed. I think a much better and more fruitful approach would be to take some of the "grand plans" for energy, dissect and criticize them. The fact that none of these plans that I have seen have a significant element of grid storage should tell us something about grid storage - especially when the plans are prepared by the some of the most fervent and knowledgeable of renewables advocates. One such plan might be for Australia, ZCA2020, there are analogous plans for Europe and possibly the US. For a plan with a large slice of nuclear, Ontario’s Long-Term Energy Plan might be interesting to look at. It is impossible to overestimate the importance of cost. Being forced to deal with a complete plan, rather than just a bunch of hand waving about the next big thing, means that the overall system cost must be addressed. For example LCOE does not fully price wind power as there is a system and emissions cost in backup generation. Existing grids act as a kind of slush fund for wind, but that game is only good up to some level of wind penetration, maybe of the order of 20% or so. As far as I can see, system wide analysis where the system components must be costed on the most authoritative basis available is the only way to productively address questions such as "Can renewables do baseload?" -
Daniel Bailey at 14:24 PM on 29 November 2010A basic overview of Antarctic ice
Re: Camburn (4, 5) So, please tell me how your linked study materially differs from the information contained in Robert's post? The Yooper -
muoncounter at 14:24 PM on 29 November 2010A basic overview of Antarctic ice
#1: "The lack of GPS stations affect the corrections." Really? See Geodesy in Antarctica 10 years of Continuous GPS measurements for geodetic tying of Antarctica and India Then there is GLONASS; even the Argentinians are in the act:
-
Camburn at 14:18 PM on 29 November 2010A basic overview of Antarctic ice
Yooper: Unless you want to tell me that NCAR is not a reliable source of information. -
Camburn at 14:15 PM on 29 November 2010A basic overview of Antarctic ice
Yooper: I read his post. I will stand by my post. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010EO010001.shtml -
sailrick at 14:05 PM on 29 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
quokka "CPS uses more water per mwh than any other source of power" Not so. It can be water cooled, air cooled, or closed loop cooled as in a Heller system. This last one uses very little water. Brightsource says their 410 MW Ivanpah site uses less than 100 acre feet annualy. Enough power for 140,000 homes while using 300 homes worth of water. "The secret to low water ue, high efficiency CSP" http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/29/csp-concentrating-solar-power-heller-water-use/ quokka "grand plans for renewables require very significantly expanded grids with large deployment of new HVDC transmission lines. Precisely to avail themselves of spacial smoothing" How about significantly improved grids? And much of the need for HVDC is because of the remote areas where CSP or Wind might be built. Giving CSP the ability to add power to the long distance grid via HVDC thereby enabling "spatial smoothing" not just "availing" itself of the HVDC. Like I posted earlier, there is over 300 GW potential for CSP near existing power lines. -
Daniel Bailey at 13:56 PM on 29 November 2010A basic overview of Antarctic ice
Why is it that "skeptics" must always immediately comment on any new post here with a comment that makes it obvious that they have either not read the post and the linked sources or have not understood them? Camburn, please read Robert's linked references in his response to you above. As it stands, most of your comment is simply wrong. The Yooper -
robert way at 13:55 PM on 29 November 2010A basic overview of Antarctic ice
I think it might help you to check out the following link http://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-ice-sheet-losses-overestimated.html I don't think that you are giving an honest assessment of the literature when you say that "the loss of land ice in Antarctic is very negligible" or that "it is virtually impossible to discern with any certainty what land ice is doing". Perhaps the following posts might be helpful. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Part-2-How-do-we-measure-Antarctic-ice-changes.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/Part-Three-Response-to-Goddard.html In summary there are a multitude of measurement techniques that have been employed and they all show the same consistent pattern of Antarctic ice losses. Furthermore, we do not need to correct for GIA as much with other datasets and radar interferometry does not find it at all and yet we see the same results. When you know the amount of snowfall stayed the same from last year to this year and yet you see an increase in ice velocity you know that the basin is not in balance. Finally, How does percentage relate to all this? It may be a small percentage of all of Antarctic ice but it still has implications for sea level rise. Lets consider that if Antarctic loses 1% of its total ice volume, it is a 0.7m sea level rise which is a lot for just from Antarctica alone. -
adelady at 13:51 PM on 29 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
123 actually thoughtful. I'm not a great advocate of individual action to solve the problem, but it's great for changing the mindset. (Must confess I've had solar hot water for 20+ years.) My mum lives in a retirement village which organised bulk purchase of solar PV for 190+ households. Now there's a bragging rights competition. One neighbour is crowing to the world at large that her power bill for the last 2 months was a measly $20. Where retired people have enough money and simply look at moderate investment / expenditure options, this is a surefire winner. -
Camburn at 13:46 PM on 29 November 2010A basic overview of Antarctic ice
The problem with Grace is evident in the earlier literature. The lack of GPS stations affect the corrections. On a percentage basis, the loss of land ice in Antarctica is very neglible. Because the percentage is so small, and the Grace data is subject to correction, it is virtually impossible to discern with any certainty what the land ice on Antarctica is doing. -
Daniel Bailey at 13:44 PM on 29 November 2010We're heading into an ice age
Re: NQuestofApollo (122) Technically we are still in an ice age (defined as the existence of continental ice sheets in any such form), so we actually are in what is called an interglacial period. Of super-sized form. Glaciated conditions typically form through draw-down of atmospheric concentrations of CO2, as seen here:
Given that the residential lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is on the millennial timescale, we can be safe in assuming no glaciers bugging temperate latitudes anytime soon.
We have known about the GHG effect of CO2 for nearly two centuries - this is well-understood and not seriously questioned by any competent scientist anywhere. Google Tyndall, Arrhenius or Fourier sometime.
As far as a slow release of CO2, that would be nice. But it in no way reflects the reality of what is actually happening. There simply is no comp in the paleo record for such a quick rise in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere (other than during the PETM). So past periods of climate change occurred over much longer periods than what is happening today. Past periods of rapid climate change were always accompanied by many mass-extinctions (during periods when CO2 concentrations changed more slowly than today. Except during the PETM...).
You can certainly disagree with Dr. Tyrrell and his understanding of the carbon cycle all you want. My money's on Dr. Tyrrell.
As far as growing crops in a rapidly changing climate, that is easier said than done. Aridity of agricultural soils has gone from 8% in the 60s to over 21% as of 2001. Projections show greater than 50% aridity by 2035 and over 70% by 2052. Evapotranspiration of the soil is decreasing (soils are drying out) while humidity has increased by 4% (the equivalent extra volume of Lake Erie is now floating in the air, waiting to dump on someone).
So what does that mean? Less rainfall events and drier soils; when it does rain, the "gas tanks" are greater, so more moisture falls (once-in-a-thousand year rainfall events start fall every century then every decade) in shorter burst, yielding more runoff and more erosion and flooding. And more crop damage.
Global warming = Droughts, famines. In a world struggling to feed its existing populace, what will people do in 20 years when half the food is being produced for another 2 billion more people to feed than today's totals?
muoncounter can answer whatever scaddenp didn't above.
The Yooper
-
muoncounter at 13:42 PM on 29 November 2010We're heading into an ice age
#122: "it is a bit obvious (at least to me) that a warmer globe is better than a cooler globe." You seem to be suggesting that if an ice age is coming, some beneficial greenhouse warming due to CO2 (let's lose the 'assuming CO2 does cause warming') would be a good thing. The first problem with this is the obvious: Who says an ice age is coming? I congratulate you for your personal chunk of face centered carbon crystals; hope it is of respectable carat weight. The issue is indeed atmospheric CO2; roughly 50% of the 30 Gtons CO2 we are releasing from fossil fuel combustion each year stays in the atmosphere and the globally measured concentration now increases by more than 2 ppm by volume per year. I'm sure some of the others here can enlighten us why C and CO2 seem to be used semi-interchangeably. Until then, remember to multiply by 3.664. -
Marcus at 13:38 PM on 29 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
"PV on a roof sounds noble, but in reality is expensive per kwh." What, & nuclear isn't? Totally laughable Camburn. You can purchase enough solar power capacity to meet nearly *all* your year-round electricity needs for *less* than the cost of a car. Also, wheras the car will continue to *cost* you money after you buy it, the solar system will *save*-or even earn-you money from day 1. Also, there is nothing wrong with backfeeding solar into the grid. Take a look at *any* power use graph, & you will see that it is *peak* electricity we most desperately need-not more baseload power. The fact is that in the time it takes to get just *one* nuclear power plant online, you could already have installed over a thousand megawatts worth of wind, PV, concentrated solar & land-fill gas plants-& have a significant proportion of it already generating electricity over a 4-5 year period. This is because that, whilst a single nuclear power plant to take upwards of 10 years to build & bring online, most wind farms, PV farms & land-fill gas plants can be up & running in *half* the time. Also, wind & solar can be producing electricity once the first generation units are put in place-without even waiting for the entire project to be completed. Also, whilst nuclear power usually displaces existing land use, biomass gas & solar can be sited in locations already being used for other things (like rubbish tips, sewerage treatment plants & housing) & even wind farms-on a small enough scale-can be placed in locations *without* displacing what was already there. -
scaddenp at 13:37 PM on 29 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
"A lot of posts on this topic show that co2 is not an immenent threat to climate at all." They do?? Any with any scientific credibility at all? "The above is one of the main reasons that no action has/will be taken. The "threat" that demands this action does not seem credible simply because of the lack of use of "what we have" to solve a that percieved threat. " I cant see how this makes any sense at all. Replace climate change with "asteroid heading for earth". I cant see how you link "what business needs" with nature of threat. You are saying that business depends on fossil fuels, you can cant see any alternative, ergo we will do nothing even it will cost a great deal more in the long run than doing something about it now? -
scaddenp at 13:27 PM on 29 November 2010We're heading into an ice age
'So, the real argument would be against a rapidly warming globe." (my emphasis). YES! Rate is everything. Arguing about what would be a global optimal temperature would be tough. The problem is change faster than we can adapt in things like food production and infrastructure upon which we have become dependent. Re: use of "carbon". Well diamonds and such are not emissions. CH4 and CO2 are. While there might be an undesirable shorthand in common use, any document that matters on emission levels, is usually in terms of CO2e (CO2 equivalents). -
Ken Lambert at 13:25 PM on 29 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
archiesteel #102 Seems to be troubling you though archiesteel. Have a look at this thread for reference. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Robust-warming-of-the-global-upper-ocean.html see posts #30, #43, #67 for a sample of the weakness in the AGW case as it relates to signals in the oceans. As you can see BP and I are a couple of dunces who don't understand the science or the numbers. Let's have your response to this vital area of measurement and verification of theoretical warming imbalances. -
Marcus at 13:23 PM on 29 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Quokka, the reason that both France & the US pursued Nuclear Power with such vigor was because of its close relationship with the development of nuclear weapons. Its no coincidence that the nations with the largest investment in nuclear energy just happen to be those with the biggest stockpiles of nuclear weapons (France, US, UK, China, Russia). Its also the reason why these nations used tax-payers money to subsidize the nuclear power industry. Also, if you look at how desperately the Conservative Political Forces are trying to undermine the NBN here in Australia, you'll see that they'd actually be *very* unwilling to pony up the kind of cash needed to fund the building of an extensive, local nuclear power industry. However, given our extensive coast-line, our good sunshine & wind & our rich geothermal resources, I see no reason why Australia even *needs* an expensive-& time-consuming- construction of a nuclear industry! -
Camburn at 13:14 PM on 29 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
A lot of posts on this topic show that co2 is not an immenent threat to climate at all. There seems little interest to use tech at hand to solve emission problems. The development of a super grid nationally is foolish and unnecessary. There are leakage losses with long line transmission no matter what current tech is used. PV on a roof sounds noble, but in reality is expensive per kwh. The rich folks can do this and feel good. The idea of "backfeeding" the grid is also a very poor way of transmitting power. There has to be baseload generating stations. People expect the light to turn on when the switch is activated. Business expects the lights to be on when the switch is thrown in the morning. Commerce depends on this, humanity depends on this. The above is one of the main reasons that no action has/will be taken. The "threat" that demands this action does not seem credible simply because of the lack of use of "what we have" to solve a that percieved threat. -
NQuestofApollo at 13:13 PM on 29 November 2010We're heading into an ice age
Thank you, both, muoncouter and Daniel - I really appreciate the help. Daniel (121) - I guess I have to start with questioning whether or not stopping an ice age is necessarily bad. Since it is rather difficult to grow things, like food, in ice - it is a bit obvious (at least to me) that a warmer globe is better than a cooler globe. So, the real argument would be against a rapidly warming globe. Assuming that CO2 in fact causes the globe to warm, causing glaciers to melt and frozen tundra to unfreeze - then a SLOW release of CO2 would be necessary to allow the increased water and vegetation to act as carbon sinks and absorb the increasing CO2. Based on my primitive understanding of the Carbon cycle - I must respectfully disagree with Dr. Tyrrell. muoncouter (120) - I would like to express my sincerest gratitude for your explanation, as it clarified the error of my ways. At first, I felt pretty silly thinking that the "C" in "Gton C" meant "carbon dioxide" - I've since discovered that this seems to be a common misconception. In fact, "carbon" is often used in reference to "carbon dioxide" - as in "carbon sink". However, I am now more frustrated than I was before. Last year, POTUS made the following statement: "… this legislation is paid for by the polluters who currently emit the dangerous carbon emissions that contaminate the water we drink and pollute the air that we breathe." Now, I have a solid piece of carbon hanging around my neck - in today's vernacular it is called a diamond. I can guarantee you (and I'm not even going to offer up a study to prove I'm right) that diamonds are NOT contaminating the water we drink and polluting the air that we breathe. So, now I'm noticing that the discussions about global warming interchange accumulated atmospheric carbon and carbon dioxide emissions. Here is an example: "Humankind is releasing CO2 at a rate of about 7 Gton C per year from fossil fuel combustion, with a further 2 Gton C per year from deforestation. Because the atmospheric CO2 concentration is higher than normal, the natural world is absorbing CO2 at a rate of about 2 or 2.5 Gton C per year into the land biosphere and into the oceans, for a total of about 5 Gton C per year." http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/how-much-co2-emission-is-too-much/ But, Carbon is not a greenhouse gas - Carbon Dioxide is. Without the O2 part - why would carbon have any impact on the temperature of the globe? Or, to make a short story long: why do we care about the amount of Carbon as a stand alone element vis-a-vis global temperatures? -
Daniel Bailey at 13:09 PM on 29 November 2010Antarctica is gaining ice
Re: albertsonrich (58) This isn't really the proper thread for your questions, but as they span multiple potential threads I'll attempt a brief answer of each point. If you're looking for a more in-depth answer with source references, use the search function in the upper left of each page to search for the most appropriate thread for any questions you may still have. Assuming (we both know what that makes us) you wish a cut-to-the-chase, give-me-a-straight-answer to your questions, here goes: 1. No real easy answer to this one, as what is tracked is energy, typically in the form of Watts/square meter or temperature in the form of anomalies or ocean heat content in joules. Due to the GHG effects of CO2, yes, energy is accumulating in the system (about 93% in the oceans, the remainder in the air). 2. Yes (land ice in the form of alpine glaciers and continental ice sheets and sea ice in the Arctic are all in net decline). 3. Most will shy from giving you a solid answer to this one. It is not 100% certain, but overall, I think that you have the right of it; caveated that 100% attribution cannot be made.
4. Complex question. Unlike other GHG's, CO2 has a long residence time (a long "tail"). Full sequestration involves chemical weathering processes taking thousands of years. Assuming that humans cease playing the "pile it on" game...(cue next question)
***********************************************
1. As long as human-derived CO2 emissions are greater than zero, in the absence of some CCS program, the atmosphere will still be out of radiative balance. Once net emissions = zero, approximately 30-50 years must elapse before radiative balance will be achieved (mostly due to thermal lag of the oceans and subsequent smaller feedbacks). Dwell for a moment on the thought that we are just now experiencing the effects of the carbon slug injected during the 70s...
2. No. Much too simplistic of a question. There appears to exist tipping points for Arctic sea ice, the Greenland Ice Sheet and the West Antarctica Ice Sheet (Hansen 2008, I think). Given that the last time CO2 concentrations were this high, global temps were some 3 degrees C higher and sea levels some 6-12 meters higher. Given the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere, we're faced with the loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic (a 2010 study indicates that the system supports only a full-ice or a no-ice solution for the Arctic; i.e., once summer ice is lost, the system proceeds to a no-ice solution within as little as 6-10 years, depending on the model run). Given that, we must resign ourselves to the eventual loss of the GIS and the WAIS sometime within the next millenia (Hansen's study indicates 5+ meter sea level rises per decade by 2100 is a possibility due to ice melt and outlet glacier calving).
3. Unknown. If we continue BAU for another 20 years, the probability of an Arctic methane clathrate/hydrate release goes from its already non-zero status to perhaps an eventually likelihood. If we "burn it all", including the shale sands fossil fuels, Hansen maintains we can't rule out a runaway GHG "Venus Effect" or a hydrogen sulfide release such as seems to have occurred during the PETM. This is an area fraught with uncertainty, so your guess is as good as mine here. My thought is that the temperature increases and sea level increases will be the least of our worries (Google evapotranspiration decreases, soil aridity increase; an upcoming study proposes 70% of today's arable soils will be too dry to support crops by 2052...).
Understand this: a synopsis-type answer such as I have given you in answer to your questions must necessarily be reflective more of my opinion of the consensus of understanding of the field than a considered opinion by the academic societies, the IPCC or even skeptical Science.
Any further questions, please search for the most appropriate thread and post there. Thanks!
The Yooper
-
muoncounter at 12:48 PM on 29 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
#182: "I thought this is rather to be a matter of science," One believes what the science says. As opposed to refusing to believe it, no matter how many times it is demonstrated, referenced, explained, etc. The New Scientist article you cite refers to methane from melting permafrost bubbling out into the Arctic Oceans. There do not appear to be 'semi-solid hydrocarbons' in the oceans, unless you are applying that designation to methane hydrates, colloquially known as 'ice that burns'. The discovery will rekindle fears that global warming might be on the verge of unlocking billions of tonnes of methane from beneath the oceans, which could trigger runaway climate change. ... The team located more than 100 hotspots where methane is leaking from seabed permafrost. Most of the water in the region had methane concentrations more than eight times the normal amount in the Arctic Ocean, and concentrations of the gas in the air above averaged four times the Arctic norm. Yes, methane is a GHG, but this is clearly a response to warming that is already underway. This added methane will indeed make things worse; whether it is 'runaway climate change' or not remains to be seen. Let's hope it's not. The headlines 'Arctic Ocean catches fire' will be too hard for even Watt$ to spin. The problem is now that your argument will break down if you are OK with water vapor as a GHG, but refuse to accept CO2. As yocta explained earlier, they are both molecules with the vibrational modes needed to capture IR radiation from the surface. You can't believe that one is a GHG and the other isn't; that just wouldn't be scientific. -
quokka at 11:45 AM on 29 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
The Ville @88The reason for the need of government guarantees is because the private sector is unwilling to fork out the dosh for the capital costs and the risks involved. Nuclear energy suffers the same problems as renewables in that when fossil fuel prices drop no one will make the long term investment in nuclear.
One of the more important points made on this thread. A carbon price only partially addresses this. There is an all too common blind faith in the ability of the "free market" to abstractly get things right. One way of debt financing might be to somehow draw on the capital of pension/superannuation funds perhaps though some sort of government guaranteed bonds. Pension funds would possibly have an interest in this type of very long term investment at least for part of their portfolio. It would be useful to hear from financial economists on what sort of possibilities may lie here. One thing I think is vitally important is long term energy policies from national governments. Politically this can be represented as being in the national interest. That is why France is nuclear powered - for the "good of the republic" and not because there was a race to nuclear for a quick buck. For those that think that such large scale government intervention is no longer possible, I think the National Broadband Network in Australia shows that it is entirely possible to achieve the political support required if the public believe it to be in the national interest. This is not holding up the NBN model as something to be necessarily replicated, but as an indication that we are not entirely at the mercies of the "free market". -
scaddenp at 11:41 AM on 29 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
h-j-m, if you are trying to find a correct description which somehow misses a measurable phenomena like back-radition, then good luck. How do you account for what DLR pyrgeometers actually detect then? People have pointed you at many good resources for getting a correct description - you appear to have rejected all because they dont conform to your incorrect understanding of physics. I suggest that you go to the textbook and read it from there, correcting your misinterpretations of science as you go. eg "Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, Incropera and DeWitt (2007)". And as for methane - hydrate release would be a disastrous feedback but not likely. We can tell from isotopic composition that bulk of methane going into atmosphere is not from fossil/hydrate sources. I do agree that that "insulator" analogy is poor because most people think in terms of a conductive insulator and its easy to jump to the wrong conclusions. I dont like "heat storage" in atmosphere because the convention use of the term does not strictly apply. This is all about the physics of radiative heat transfer and better understood in those terms rather than by analogy. -
Marcus at 11:28 AM on 29 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Another point, tt3. If you want an example of *why* renewable energy doesn't need massive geographic distribution, just consider King Island in Tasmania. A population of 2,000 people receive over 50% of their electricity from a single Wind Farm consisting of just 5 generation units-courtesy of a Vanadium Flow Battery. Now if you were to double the number of generation units, & make a modest increase to the size of the Flow Batteries, King Island could run almost *entirely* off Wind Power. Of course, I'm not suggesting that the whole world takes this approach, but it just shows how a Distributed Generation approach-when coupled with a decent storage system-can supply more than 50% of a local areas electricity needs *without* the need to be distributed over a wide geographical area. The same is true of both roof-top solar & Mid-Sized PV Power plants (50MW or less). Of course, as the efficiencies of both Wind, PV & CSP technology improves, the land area needed per MW of output will continue to decline-whereas the land area required for coal or nuclear will remain the same. -
Marcus at 11:18 AM on 29 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
tt3, here are some actual price-tags of various nuclear power stations either being built in the US, or on the drawing board. "The reported prices at six new pressurized water reactors are indicative of costs for that type of plant:[17] * February 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at its Turkey Point site Florida Power & Light calculated overnight capital cost from $2444 to $3582 per kW, which were grossed up to include cooling towers, site works, land costs, transmission costs and risk management for total costs of $3108 to $4540 per kilowatt. Adding in finance charges increased the overall figures to $5780 to $8071 per kW. * March 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors in Florida Progress Energy announced that if built within 18 months of each other, the cost for the first would be $5144 per kilowatt and the second $3376/kW - total $9.4 billion. Including land, plant components, cooling towers, financing costs, license application, regulatory fees, initial fuel for two units, owner's costs, insurance and taxes, escalation and contingencies the total would be about $14 billion. * May 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station in South Carolina South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. and Santee Cooper expected to pay $9.8 billion (which includes forecast inflation and owners' costs for site preparation, contingencies and project financing). * November 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at its Lee site Duke Energy Carolinas raised the cost estimate to $11 billion, excluding finance and inflation, but apparently including other owners costs. * November 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at its Bellefonte site TVA updated its estimates for overnight capital cost estimates ranged to $2516 to $4649/kW for a combined construction cost of $5.6 to 10.4 billion (total costs of $9.9 to $17.5 billion). * April 2008 — Georgia Power Company reached a contract agreement for two AP1000 reactors to be built at Vogtle, at an estimated final cost of $14 billion plus $3 billion for necessary transmission upgrades. All of the above prices of course assume no time overruns but, as Finland can attest, overruns are actually quite common. What we see, though, is that China's "cheap" nuclear power stations are the exception, not the rule. Power Stations in the US & Europe come in at anywhere from US$2500 up to US$7,000 per KW. Hardly cheap-& certainly not as cheap as the cost assumed in the EIA's life-time energy cost study. Yet still that study leaves nuclear as *more* expensive than Wind or Combined Cycle Gas. That this is still the case after *sixty* years-& hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies-really suggests this fascination with nuclear power is totally fantastical in nature.
Prev 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 Next
