Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098 2099 Next
Comments 104551 to 104600:
-
Chris G at 06:57 AM on 12 November 2010Climate cherry pickers: cooling oceans
muoncounter at 13:50 PM on 11 November, 2010 FWIW, Temperature is only one indicator of energy within a system. Given a set number of moles of water, there is a lot more energy in water at 0 degrees C than there is in ice at the same temperature, the same applies at the water-vapor boundary temperature. So, there is more energy in humid air at a given temperature than there is in drier air at the same, that is assuming other factors don't change. The heat content of a body of water depends not only on the temperature, but also on the composition of impurities within it. A moving mass has more energy, kinetic, than a still mass, or a mass moving at a lesser velocity; I'm thinking of winds and currents with this. There are other examples, but I hope you get the point. Kinetic energy tends to get distributed via friction to become thermal energy, which can be radiated, used to perform a phase state change, etc. Measuring temperature tends to put you in the right ballpark, but it would be a mistake to assume a direct correspondence. -
CBDunkerson at 06:24 AM on 12 November 2010Climate's changed before
KirkSkywalker, to expand on the comments by KR and doug... you have essentially shown that CO2 cannot be a solid at the temperatures found in ice cores. Instead, it must be a gas. Of course... that is exactly what studies of ice core samples have stated all along. That they are examining the amount of CO2 gas found in air bubbles. Since those air bubbles date back to when the ice was formed this allows us to determine the CO2 content of the atmosphere at various points in the past. The website you reference in another post and its argument which you repeat here make no sense whatsoever. Indeed, if the CO2 were in solid form it would be much more difficult to isolate it and determine past atmospheric concentrations. Even making such an argument shows a complete lack of understanding of the underlying science. -
Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Berényi - "I think the problem is not coal as such, but regulations and enforcement". Having grown up in Appalachia, I would have to disagree. Additional regulation would help matters, but even when a strip mine is refilled and 'reclaimed', the underlying mineral formations are destroyed, turning the filled pit from solid rock into a giant percolator that seeps various minerals and mine tailings into the water table. Mountaintop mining cannot be undone - a mountain gets topped off, the rubble goes into a nearby valley, and no-one can rebuild the mountain. Again, the rubble acts as a percolator, the valley is permanently destroyed, and you have the water table contamination once more. That includes some heavy metals that had been bound in the rock formations, but are now accessible since the 'reclaimed' rubble piles are essentially gravel covered with sod/grass. These effects "don't go away" either - except on geologic time scales. Coal for power is just not a good idea. -
Albatross at 06:21 AM on 12 November 2010CO2 effect is saturated
Berényi Péter @53, "Well of course it is", referring to my question as to whether or not the CO2 effect is saturated. Let us put aside the rest of your post for now, because your statement raises some relevant questions. 1) Could you please tell us at what CO2 concentration you believe the CO2 effect became saturated in all bands and at all altitudes. 2) Perhaps a moot question in view of your belief that the CO2 effect is saturated, but what is your understanding of expected warming arising from doubling CO2 (without feedbacks). 3) What is your understanding of warming arising from doubling CO2 (with Charney and slow feedbacks). -
Berényi Péter at 05:56 AM on 12 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Let's see the other side of the coin. National Geographic, March 2006 When Mountains Move The quest for Appalachian coal has led to mountaintop removal, a process that's been called strip mining on steroids. By John G. Mitchell Photograph by Melissa Farlow It's gruesome, but I think the problem is not coal as such, but regulations and enforcement. If these companies would be allowed to do solar or wind or whatever under such lax rules, they'd destroy even more land and human lives. #100 JMurphy at 04:06 AM on 12 November, 2010 Sounds like the nuclear waste problem - but not nearly as bad. Perhaps we should wait for the technological breakthrough there too ? The toxic waste from used batteries is much worse than nuclear stuff, as it is supposed to be generated in a distributed manner in residential areas. Under these circumstances proper handling and enforcement is next to impossible. For nuclear waste we already had the basic technological breakthrough many decades ago, just development was halted by the same people now trying to throttle economy altogether. It is called nuclear breeder technology which could use present day nuclear waste as fuel, leaving behind a hundred times less waste product. Not only that, but the light radionuclides in it would have a vastly shorter lifetime, making nuclear waste harmless in several centuries (instead of hundreds of thousand or million years). Compare it to heavy metals, that never go away. Increased efficiency of breeder technology would also make nuclear fuel reserves practically inexhaustible. -
Michele at 05:43 AM on 12 November 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
@ leading post The explanation of the greenhouse effect with the blanket works well and don't contradict at all the second law of thermodynamics as in this case the energy (heat) flows from higher temperature (ground) to lower temperature (atmosphere) and the ground has to rise its temperature for winning the thermal resistance of the blanket, as in the conduction through a wall. There exists also the explanation of “back radiation” that is mostly supported too. Well, it is, really, the back radiation that contradicts the second law assuming that the energy (heat) flows from lower temperature (atmosphere) to higher temperature (ground). Then, what’s the matter? -
Phila at 05:30 AM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
Tarcisio José D'Avila @ #47 Yes, the physics is wrong for do not consider the evaporation of water from the soil. By failing to analyze whether the soil has enough water to control the temperature of the planet. Are you arguing that climatologists, geologists etc. have "failed to analyze" evapotranspiration? I've been reading papers on AGW for nearly 30 years, and I've never noticed any lack of attention to this topic. Here's an article by the Royal Society from 1948: Natural Evaporation from Open Water, Bare Soil and Grass. Here's a more recent paper from the NOAA: Energy Budget-Based Simulation of Evapotranspiration from Land in the Great Lakes Basin. And here's a recent article on a global study of evapotranspiration, which states: Most climate models have suggested that evapotranspiration, which is the movement of water from the land to the atmosphere, would increase with global warming. The new research, published online this week in the journal Nature, found that's exactly what was happening from 1982 to the late 1990s. But in 1998, this significant increase in evapotranspiration -- which had been seven millimeters per year -- slowed dramatically or stopped. In large portions of the world, soils are now becoming drier than they used to be, releasing less water and offsetting some moisture increases elsewhere. I could post many, many more links on this subject. What makes you say scientists have "failed to analyze" it? -
Paul D at 05:24 AM on 12 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
I wrote a longish comment about energy inputs at a mine and transport which should be included in a coal analysis, but it disappeared into the ether when I clicked on submit. -
clonmac at 05:23 AM on 12 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
I don't understand why there is a debate about the land use differences between a solar plant and a coal plant. It makes no sense to me. Regardless of which fuel uses land more efficiently, one is self sustaining and clean and the other is neither of those. If both of these fuels were clean and sustainable, then that is when land use could be argued between the two to determine which would be the better option. But the future is clearly solar power (and other self-sustainable options) which is why investments need to be made in it. Debating about small differences in land usage while ignoring the fact that a coal power plant spews more CO2 into the atmosphere than miles and miles of forest could ever make up for is like debating which of two cars you should drive based on looks even though the engine is broken in one of them. Also @TOP: Sequestration was mentioned, but it isn't always that simple. Trees are good and all, but they don't fix the problem. It simply will mask the symptoms for a short time. Obviously deforestation is a problem that needs to be fixed too. But you can't just plant a forest anywhere you'd like (including the desert). The levels at which we've been emitting GHGs over the last 50 years cannot simply be controlled through natural plant consumption. However, it does make for a good wedge in part of the solution. -
Paul D at 05:22 AM on 12 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Berényi: regarding the link: You have the losses in mining the coal because you have an energy input, you have losses transporting it because you have an energy input, you have losses at the generator. The energy input used to mine and transport are a loss and should be included in the efficiency figures, which would lower the 38% figure. You also need to include the production of the trains, machines and vehicles to shift the coal. That is another loss, although if they are used on other sites as well, then this energy loss could be a percentage of the total. As Bern has pointed out, you need a life cycle analysis. For a solar farm you would include energy used to maintain the site, such as vehicles and fuel. Also as I stated earlier, it's a mine field and simple online calculations on a blog just don't work on such a complex subject. On the issue of energy payback issues there is plenty of research, where all energy inputs are included. But there is little (or nothing) on land use that is integrated with it. -
Norman at 05:17 AM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
#48 JMurphy, Check out Post 21 by Poptech. -
Norman at 05:04 AM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
#49 JMurphy Your Is your "Really?" in the same tone as the cell phone commercial? The comment "...prior to 1970 all warming was natural, according to the IPCC" was based upon the visual analysis of the Model runs from IPCC. Look at the graph. He did not put a quote around the statement as it did not come from any text. Before 1970 the natural and anthropogenic CO2 produced the same effect. Look at the Global Land temp (middle graph at bottom), Natural warming and Anthropogenic overlap for the temp line. IPCC model runs with natural and anthropogenic forcings. So did you take the time to look at any of his graphs and conclusions? Or did you stop at this statement and conclude he was incorrect and the rest of the site was useless? -
TOP at 04:37 AM on 12 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
AAAARGH! No mention of removing CO2 from the atmosphere. It has obviously happened in the past. Plant trees, lots of trees. Trees in the desert. Trees everywhere. Trees obviate the need to control emissions. Everybody Talks About the Weather, but Nobody Does Anything About It. Yatir Forest Project -
michael sweet at 04:28 AM on 12 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Bren, Do you know how many mines have 15m thick, high quality seams? It is my understanding that in the US they mountaintop mine seams as thin as 1 meter, and the coal is not high quality. They dump the spoil in nearby streams. The total impact would be at least 10x your best case. That puts energy density around 10% of the solar farm, even without counting the destruction of the downstream environment. To rehabilitate the solar farm you just have to remove the infrastructure, the mountaintop mine is essentially permanently destroyed. BP: Since you like worst cases, can you put together an estimate of W/m2 for mountaintop mining? Consider the life of the plant, not just one year. -
DSL at 04:27 AM on 12 November 2010Temp record is unreliable
Kirk: "And since this Global Warming has only this physical evidence (witll all else being ambiguous), then their argument FAILS." Kirk, if you want physical evidence for global warming, go here and also here and here. You might also truck on over to here if you want to get a grip on the physics of GW. -
JMurphy at 04:06 AM on 12 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Berényi Péter wrote : "Unfortunately current battery packs are both prohibitively expensive and are turned into highly toxic waste at the end of their lifetime. Proper handling of toxic waste distributed all over the country is a real nightmare. We are clearly a technological breakthrough or two away from efficient, cheap and benign storage." Sounds like the nuclear waste problem - but not nearly as bad. Perhaps we should wait for the technological breakthrough there too ? -
dana1981 at 03:41 AM on 12 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
BP #92 - "We should clearly wait until price of solar panels gets closer to that of ordinary roof tile." And how exactly are solar panels supposed to reach such a ridiculously low cost? I mean, if we're not supposed to buy the current technology, where is the R&D funding supposed to come from? -
JMurphy at 02:50 AM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
Norman wrote : "Here is a link that questions the warming of the Siberian region." A few paragraphs into your link, I read : ...prior to 1970 all warming was natural, according to the IPCC. Really ? So why does AR4 WG1, Chapter 9 (Understanding and Attributing Climate Change) state : "...anthropogenic forcing accounts for almost all of the warming observed between 1946 and 1995 whereas warming between 1896 and 1945 is explained by a combination of anthropogenic and natural forcing and internal variability." You would do well to check the sources you rely so much on. -
JMurphy at 02:14 AM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
Norman wrote : "Have you looked at the posts on this webpage about Climate Models. Your statement: "What you do have though is a theory of climate (of which AGW is an outcome), based on fundamental physics that has proved exceedingly good at predicting climate and accounting for paleoclimate." Seems many do not agree with this and do have valid counter points." Do you have more details of these "many", and what scientific evidence they are using for their "valid counter points" ? -
Temp record is unreliable
KirkSkywalker - Thinking back, I recalled something like this before. Googling a bit, I found that you had posted the same error about ice cores here, on Oct. 23. And had received the same reply from me. Are you reading this website (the point of a discussion is to, in fact, discuss), or just posting and walking away?Moderator Response: KR, thank you for your vigilance in noting that the same point is being raised in multiple threads. The thread where you responded to KirkSkywalker's comment last month (What does past climate change tell us about global warming?) is probably a better fit than this one for discussion of ice cores. Let's have any further discussion of KirkSkywalker's claims about ice cores take place over there. -
Bern at 01:46 AM on 12 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Ok, I just had a quick look at that article. The "1000W/m2" figure is arrived at by assuming a 15m thick seam of very high quality coal, and looking at the area required to generate power each year. So, over a nominal 30-year plant life, that 1000W/m2 area impact is looking closer to, what, 33W/m2? And that's assuming 100% efficiency in extracting the coal (i.e. the total mine area is exactly equal to the area of coal seam extracted). In my experience, it's probably closer to 50%, so we're looking more like 16-17W/m2. All of a sudden, that coal-fired plant doesn't look ten times better than solar in terms of land usage. And that's a best-case scenario, with coal conveyored from mine to plant, and fly-ash dumped in the old pit (doubt you'd be able to manage that with strip-cut mining - the pit is needed to dump the spoil from the next strip). If we look at a power station with remote mine, then we're looking at numbers the same, or worse, than that solar plant in Ontario. I guess that highlights why John wants to try to stick to peer-reviewed sources, even when looking at mitigation approaches. It makes the numbers a whole lot less rubbery, as both sides of the argument have been known to massage the figures a bit... -
Tarcisio José D at 01:40 AM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
scaddenp @ 45 "What you do have though is a theory of climate (of which AGW is an outcome), based on fundamental physics that has proved exceedingly good at predicting climate and accounting for paleoclimate. What have got for a competing theory? That somehow physics is all wrong and some deep unexplained phenomena is responsible instead? Any other aspects of your life where you would take kind of bet?" Yes, the physics is wrong for do not consider the evaporation of water from the soil. By failing to analyze whether the soil has enough water to control the temperature of the planet. By leaving all the control of evaporation to the oceans. While the weather is wrong just by analyzing the air temperature at two meters tall, as if the ground was not part of the climate system. -
Temp record is unreliable
KirkSkywalker - Your referenced web page is mistaken. CO2 is not retained as dry ice in ice cores, but rather as gas bubbles (little icy air tanks). Since that's the only argument presented on the page, I find it lacking content. To include the quote from that page: “A single fact will often spoil a most interesting argument.” –William Feather -
Norman at 01:31 AM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
#46 scaddenp, "What you do have though is a theory of climate (of which AGW is an outcome), based on fundamental physics that has proved exceedingly good at predicting climate and accounting for paleoclimate" Have you looked at the posts on this webpage about Climate Models. Your statement: "What you do have though is a theory of climate (of which AGW is an outcome), based on fundamental physics that has proved exceedingly good at predicting climate and accounting for paleoclimate." Seems many do not agree with this and do have valid counter points. "As for cycles, of course there are cycles, with real physical causes, not some mystery" Do you have links to sites that have solved the cause of the cycles with some actual proof? I have not found any. The basic one is planetary wobble and orbit combo that effect how much solar radiation regions of Earth receive. -
KirkSkywalker at 01:19 AM on 12 November 2010Temp record is unreliable
ice-core samples are WORTHLESS EVIDENCE, as proven at http://GlobalWarmingTruth.webs.com . And since this Global Warming has only this physical evidence (witll all else being ambiguous), then their argument FAILS.Moderator Response: Please be sure to review the Comments Policy before posting. In particular, we ask that you refrain from posting duplicate comments in multiple threads, and avoid the use of ALL CAPS. -
Riccardo at 00:57 AM on 12 November 2010Climate cherry pickers: cooling oceans
Eric (skeptic) we al know the heat budget is not (yet) closed, but ... the current estimate of TOA imbalance is 0.85 +/- 0.15 W/m2. The upper 700 m of the oceans contributes 0.64 +/- 0.11 W/m2. The abyssal oceans adds some 0.1 W/m2, explicitly excluding Arctic Ocean and Nordic seas which we know are warming, so this is a lower bound. Add other smaller contributions, like land, ice and atmosphere. Do you really think we are that far away from closing the budget? Or, following Tremberth's call, we need a better measurements network? -
Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Berényi - Given the obvious biases of the fossil fuel oriented blog you referenced, I find it difficult to take their numbers seriously. Do you have any less biased references for these comparisons? Anything peer reviewed would be nice, but something other than a blatantly tilted perspective would be nice; perhaps a survey document from energy planners or something? -
Daniel Bailey at 00:16 AM on 12 November 2010Climate cherry pickers: cooling oceans
@ Eric (skeptic): P & J 2010 do not rule out more of Trenberth's "missing heat" yet being found in the oceans deeps...or in the Argo/XBT errors. This is not yet a closed chapter. -
Eric (skeptic) at 00:01 AM on 12 November 2010Climate cherry pickers: cooling oceans
From Purkey & Johnson 2010, table 1, there is 0.1W/m2 of heat being stored in the deep ocean. The current TOA imbalance is 0.9W/m2 (Trenberth 2009). So only 11% of the extra heat is being stored in the deep oceans. The rest of the heat should already be noticed in the sea surface and atmosphere, but it's not (unless sensitivity is much lower than claimed). Related: my CAGW incoherence claim was never responded to (search for coherence, post 77). -
Riccardo at 23:19 PM on 11 November 2010CO2 effect is saturated
Norman somewhat offtopic here. Disproving the real science is not as easy as you (and many others) apper to think. Look here for some problems related to ISCCP cloud data. Be carefull and, if in doubt, rely on the published litterature. -
Berényi Péter at 22:07 PM on 11 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
#94 The Ville at 21:35 PM on 11 November, 2010 You have presented some rough calculations based on easily available data on solar panels, but you have produced nothing regarding coal. Look again. Under #70 I have provided a link where the question is discussed at length. Power Density Primer: Understanding the Spatial Dimension of the Unfolding Transition to Renewable Electricity Generation (Part II – Coal- and Wood-Fired Electricity Generation) by Vaclav Smil May 10, 2010 "In order to provide a useful approximate bracketing we might thus conclude that, depending on their specific circumstances, most large modern coal-fired power plants generate electricity with power densities ranging over an order of magnitude, from just around 100 W/m2 to 1,000 W/m2." -
Paul D at 21:50 PM on 11 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Berényi Péter: "Sarnia Solar Farm in Ontario, Canada is not a 30 year old thing, it is being built right now by Enbridge using state of the art thin film PV collectors purchased from First Solar in the 3rd quarter of 2010." Agreed, it uses the latest Thin Film technology with an efficiency probably between 8 and 9 percent. Which means your 2.25% figure is misleading. It should be pointed out that the older technology is more efficient but more expensive. Berényi Péter: "However, land use efficiency also includes the necessary tilting of panels (to optimize insolation angle), gaps to avoid shading, service roads & buildings, etc." That is irrelevant unless you are going to do more detailed and similar checks on land use for other options. -
Paul D at 21:35 PM on 11 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Berényi Péter: "I am just trying to tell you land use efficiency of coal based power generation is up to a hundred times better than that of solar (mining, transportation & waste disposal included)." 1. Your calculations are dubious and clearly weighted. 2. You haven't at all compared solar with coal land use. I haven't seen any research that does. Please reference some if you have. The subject I suggest is a potential mine field and can't be simplified. You have presented some rough calculations based on easily available data on solar panels, but you have produced nothing regarding coal. And lets not forget that in engineering terms coal fired power stations are no angels when it comes to real engineering based efficiency calculations (excluding land use). -
Paul D at 21:17 PM on 11 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
RSVP@90 You make a good point! I wasn't shrugging anything off. My comparison was with a really massive increase in nuclear energy (mainly), probably bigger than is practically or physically possible. In which case renewables are probably better because they don't add to the system, they take an existing input from a 'nuclear' source external to the Earth. -
Berényi Péter at 21:00 PM on 11 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
#88 Marcus at 11:03 AM on 11 November, 2010 your desperate attempts to defend a dirty & inefficient source of power-straight out of the 19th century (i.e. coal)-are really quite quaint. I am not defending coal. I am just trying to tell you land use efficiency of coal based power generation is up to a hundred times better than that of solar (mining, transportation & waste disposal included). It is a fact. Even in a worst case scenario when the plant is located far away from the mine its efficiency in this respect is more than ten times better. Of course nuclear outperforms coal by another factor of ten-to-a-hundred, so we should clearly go for it. Yet your increasingly specious reasoning betrays the weakness of your original argument-that being the use of a 30 year old solar farm to "prove" that solar power is a bad investment. Sarnia Solar Farm in Ontario, Canada is not a 30 year old thing, it is being built right now by Enbridge using state of the art thin film PV collectors purchased from First Solar in the 3rd quarter of 2010. I do not think it is a bad investment either. At least as long as the public lets the Government collect the money for an expensive PR campaign of an oil company (that's what Sarnia is about), it's just a piece of cake. I mean, if you want to quibble over numbers, then I can always talk about [...] Well, there is a several thousand years old European tradition which involves extensive quibbling over numbers before making decisions called "rational" by the natives. This tradition may be fading away in Europe quickly, but during an aggressive past period of European history known as "colonization" it was exported mindlessly all over the world using transient military might and may still be practiced in backwater corners. I am glad the New World is proudly joining the fight for getting rid of this old burden. Plain talk is so much nicer and as you say, we can always do that almost effortlessly. This means that, even for this poorly lit region of the world-using the most inefficient solar panels of the time-should get around 16 Watts/square meter. The 14.2 W/m2 efficiency for net panel surface claimed by Enbridge is not much less than that. However, land use efficiency also includes the necessary tilting of panels (to optimize insolation angle), gaps to avoid shading, service roads & buildings, etc. BTW Sarnia is not so poorly lit as you claim. In June it gets 24% more power flux at TOA than the equator and even the annual average is only 24% less here than there. The atmosphere may be a bit more transparent in arid or semi arid regions (except for airborne dust), but destroying sensitive desert ecosystems by building extensive road systems there, sending in heavy machinery over large areas and turning them into tramped down construction sites (remember the meager land use efficiency) is not always a good idea. Also, large population and industrial centers tend to be outside deserts, so power transmission losses also come into play. Yet, as I've said before-ad nauseum-the *real* beauty of photovoltaics is that you don't need to build them as "Solar Farms", you just build them on available roof spaces-& other vacant areas-& you can get the equivalent of a power station. I would agree with that. Except if the technology is far too expensive for large scale installations, it is even more expensive for a distributed system. We should clearly wait until price of solar panels gets closer to that of ordinary roof tile.
Anyway, if you do not have local energy storage capacity, electricity generated on rooftops is not terribly useful. Of course it can be used for air conditioning, because it is sunny most of the time when it is hot, but PV panels make a low albedo (dark) surface per definitionem, collecting heat effectively and making electricity as a byproduct just to get rid of this heat using complicated machinery. Does it make sense?
Painting rooftops white may be a low tech solution compared to this, but it is much cheaper.
Pre-heating water with old style solar heat collectors to be used by washing machines, dishwashers, in shower and family pools may also make more sense on rooftops, than PV.
On the other hand, if you could store the electricity generated in sunny hours locally for later use, when it is really needed, that would be a game changer. Unfortunately current battery packs are both prohibitively expensive and are turned into highly toxic waste at the end of their lifetime. Proper handling of toxic waste distributed all over the country is a real nightmare. We are clearly a technological breakthrough or two away from efficient, cheap and benign storage.
-
Paul D at 20:47 PM on 11 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Bern: "I think the 2.25% figure comes from considering the entire area of the facility, which is four times the area of the actual solar panels.| Yes that is what I was thinking overnight (UK). That was the only explanation. That is a distinct distortion of any engineering or scientific methodology that is credible. He is mixing up economic calculations with engineering calculations, in a way misleading way. The only currently reasonable way of using watts per metre squared calculations regarding solar panels is for comparisons with other solar power stations. Once you go beyond that, and start using pseudo economic/engineering calculations to make comparisons with other options, the simple calculations break down dramatically. Even my assumption that you can reduce it to the solar panel area and compare it to a coal fired power station, is clearly incorrect, but is is less of a bodge than Berényi Péters attempt. -
scaddenp at 18:02 PM on 11 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
Norman, you arent going to find proof. This is science after all. There is always the possibility that human imagination will create a better model that explains all of existing observation and more. What you do have though is a theory of climate (of which AGW is an outcome), based on fundamental physics that has proved exceedingly good at predicting climate and accounting for paleoclimate. What have got for a competing theory? That somehow physics is all wrong and some deep unexplained phenomena is responsible instead? Any other aspects of your life where you would take kind of bet? As for cycles, of course there are cycles, with real physical causes, not some mystery. Now are you comfortable with 1st law thermodynamics? If some "cycle" (outside any that we know and account for) is moving energy enough to account for surface temperature trend, then where is that energy coming from? -
scaddenp at 17:49 PM on 11 November 2010Tai Chi Temperature Reconstructions
"any educated person " - how about cutting the rhetoric and getting educated? Start with IPCC WG1, then come back here. "Finally, various data must be discounted due to spoliation-- particularly ice-core samples, which are completely worthless due to polar-ice temperatures ALWAYS rising above the -70C maximum required for validity." Care to give us a cite for this amazing opinion? -
scaddenp at 17:44 PM on 11 November 2010CO2 effect is saturated
Norman - so? So do various fossil fuel shills. Does he have any expertise in climate science, radiative physics etc? Has he published his critique in peer-reviewed journal? If you don't have enough expertise in an area to be able to evaluate competing claims, (I'm assuming you havent been able to follow the critiques above) then unfortunately you have either got to acquire the expertise yourself, preferably from textbooks and papers, or you have to rely on expert opinion from people actively working in the field with appropriate domain knowledge. Now where in physical geography do they teach thermodynamics and radiative physics? Not my idea of expert opinion. In my opinion, if you are interested in climate science, then you start with IPCC WG1. This reflects the published science and gives you an almighty index into it. You can see what is actually claimed rather than the zillions of strawmen that denialists like to doubt. You dont have to agree with the assessment but at least you get it one place. If you are looking a "skeptic" claims, then only bother with what's been published for reasons I stated earlier. -
Norman at 17:40 PM on 11 November 2010CO2 effect is saturated
#58 Daniel Bailey, "Let me ask you this, Norman: Post-1976, what forcings other than CO2 have had any significance on global temperatures? Simple question, right?" Yes and Climate4you does have an alternative forcing. If I am successful I will Post the graph. Alternate forcing that can affect Global temps. Quote from the page on Climate4you that had this graph (from the Homepage click the Climate & Clouds tab): "Within the still short period of satellite cloud cover observations, the total global cloud cover reached a maximum of about 69 percent in 1987 and a minimum of about 64 percent in 2000 (see diagram above), a decrease of about 5 percent. This decrease roughly corresponds to a radiative net change of about 0.9 W/m2 within a period of only 13 years, which may be compared with the total net change from 1750 to 2006 of 1.6 W/m2 of all climatic drivers as estimated in the IPCC 2007 report, including release of greenhouse gasses from the burning of fossil fuels. These observations leave little doubt that cloud cover variations may have a profound effect on global climate and meteorology on almost any time scale considered" -
KirkSkywalker at 17:32 PM on 11 November 2010Tai Chi Temperature Reconstructions
Overall: a tentative 1-degree shift over a 150-year period is hardly what any educated person might call "conclusive." Likewise, simply averaging various claimed indicators is no "magic carpet" to the truth, without weighting each according to its respective accuracy. Finally, various data must be discounted due to spoliation-- particularly ice-core samples, which are completely worthless due to polar-ice temperatures ALWAYS rising above the -70C maximum required for validity. Overall, this article simply assumes far too much-- and discounts far too *little*-- to be considered reliable in even its conservative conclusion.Moderator Response: You have posted the same claim about ice cores in at least five different threads on this site. Please do not spread discussions of a single, narrow topic across many different threads. Another commenter (KR) has already responded to your claims in the thread where you first posted this material ((What does past climate change tell us about global warming?), so it would be a good idea to respond there. Thank you. -
RSVP at 17:31 PM on 11 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
The Ville #78 "The solar panel would cause a delay in warming via conduction or emission. eg. if it was hundred percent efficient, eventually the energy would be converted to heat or work by the device(s) it was connected to. But this energy would escape, as it does in the natural world." It's funny you shrug off that "small" detail when in fact supposed warming due to delays in cooling brought on by anthropogenic CO2 enshrines the cornerstone of AGW theory. -
Norman at 17:28 PM on 11 November 2010CO2 effect is saturated
#57 scaddenp The person who runs Climate4you, has a lot of peer-reviewed publications. -
Norman at 17:14 PM on 11 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
#38 Daniel Bailey "So, your eyes show you that, considering all the data, the world is warming. Polar amplification is taking out the multiyear ice in the Arctic. Put aside your cognitive bias and first prove the globe is not warming." I can't prove the globe is not warming. In fact my opinion is that it warms and cools in cycles not fully understood at this time. I am sure of one thing, climate seems to cycle. More cycles. On your link it shows Siberia as one of the locations warming the fastest. This is the claimed proof of AGW as CO2 warms polar areas devoid of water vapor (the dominant greenhouse gas) and also is at a temp where the IR spectrum peak is closer to the 15 micron wavelength maximizing CO2 GH effect. Here is a link that questions the warming of the Siberian region. Questions the Global anomaly of Siberian Temps. -
Norman at 16:37 PM on 11 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
#40 Daniel Bailey I have read Goddard's report (I visit WUWT as often as these sites). I was not sure how his idea worked. If a gas is compressed it will heat up, but then it will give up its heat to it surroundings. It will not stay hot. -
Norman at 16:34 PM on 11 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
#39 Tom Dayton I have already been there and posted some questions. I posted at Venusian mysteries part-two. -
Phila at 16:14 PM on 11 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
PaulPS: Other than the implied assumption I might do that, thanks for the advice. I'm very sorry I gave you that impression. That wasn't my intention at all. The point of my comment was simply that the "Ken treatment" resulted from an approach that was insulting and — as JC notes above — totally unnecessary. I certainly didn't intend to cast any aspersions on you.Moderator Response: This is not targeted at either Phila or PaulPS, just a general request: No more discussion in this thread of who may or may not have insulted whom, please. The comment that started this all should never have been posted, and nothing more needs to be said about it. Thanks! -
Daniel Bailey at 16:14 PM on 11 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
Re: Norman (37) Um, you haven't been reading anything by Steve Goddard have you? Full discussion of the Venus Syndrome here. The Yooper -
Tom Dayton at 16:06 PM on 11 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
Norman, there is an excellent series of posts about Venus on the Science of Doom site Venusian Mysteries. -
Daniel Bailey at 15:59 PM on 11 November 2010Ice-Free Arctic
Thanks, Dodger! Busy day on tap tomorrow, but I'll check that out tomorrow night. Looks cool (sorry)! BTW, my wife and son went to the MSU:UM game this year (I had to work on getting ready to move into our new house out of the old one). Lucky buggers. The Yooper
Prev 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098 2099 Next
