Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098 2099 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 Next
Comments 104801 to 104850:
-
Norman at 08:50 AM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
#53 scaddenp Not sure what you are asking. My field is Chemistry. It is one of the Classic and solid sciences. Scientific proof is not achieved by a series of math equations even if they add up. Scientific proof is empirical evidence. An experiment or test that either confirms or rejects an idea about how something behaves. Fuzzy science is the realm where you stretch back in time or go smaller than you can test. Places you can not directly test. Earth's climate millions of years ago is fuzzy. It is based upon lots of proxy data that may be valid but then again maybe it doesn't work the way researchers believe it does. You don't have a way to verify the proxy with an actual test or measurement. You have to make assumptions, you have to trust some unknown that you did not think of is effectin a proxy. If a system gets too complex the model gets fuzzy really fast. Case of point. Our solar system functions in a nice model perdictable fashion. We have One much larger central mass and the laws of gravity can do very well to predict orbital motions of planets. But in a Solar system with multiple stars and planets the simple law of gravity will not allow a simple model to predict the motions of such planets. They become much more chaotic and unpredictable. Climate is a similar complex system. The fundamental science behind climate is well established and tested (radiation properties, thermodynamics etc) but the overall system is complex and chaotic and even models with the largest computers will not be able to contain all the interactions. Albedo can change, the Earth does change its position to the sun in orbital cycles, clouds are really random and dynamic and very hard to model, water vapor is very complex as it will increase and decrease based upon other variables in the system. Don't know if this helps. I am working to understand what your points are, what are you getting at. -
Berényi Péter at 08:41 AM on 12 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
#109 RSVP at 07:41 AM on 12 November, 2010 Has anyone produced a study that the world's photovoltaic production could actually sustain itself energywise, not to mention contributing this so called wedge? You know, it actually takes quite a bit of energy to create a solar cell (i.e., energy to get people to factories, turn on the diffusion furnaces, power the factory, package, ship, install, refurbish, and in the end clean the land of high tech poison left from all the exotic chemical processes.) The point is no such study is needed. Just a free market with no subsidies whatsoever and proper regulations (to ensure for example no high tech poison is left behind). If it takes more energy to put solar panels in operation than they are able to produce in their lifetime, power sold would not cover production costs, therefore only madmen (and government agencies) would invest their money in such projects. Let people think for themselves. In this respect the distributed information processing system called free market is much more efficient than any scientific study could possibly be. In the rare cases expert opinion is really needed, people would contract and pay for it. -
Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Unfortunately, Berényi, original contour restoration may not be possible (rubble is not stable/safe at angles of repose that the original solid rock hillsides often had), and the damage to the water table from rubble percolation is unaffected by top contours. Currently mountaintop mining is the prevalent up-and-coming technique, due to it's low (financial) costs compared to deep mining or even strip mining. I have some hopes that regulation will be developed to minimize this, but not strong ones. $$$ speaks loudly... I'm (personal opinion warning) a big fan of carbon taxes - if it's financially advantageous to use renewable energy, companies will do just that. Taxes, like regulations/penalties, are one of our available behavioral modification strategies. -
johnd at 08:20 AM on 12 November 2010Keep those PJs on: a La Niña cannot erase decades of warming
Ned at 03:31 AM, you are correct in making the comparison between the ENSO cycles and the drop in temperature from day to night, or from summer to winter and the recognition that the diurnal cycle and the seasons are short-term cyclical phenomena, because they are all effects, effects that are recognisable and measurable. However the big difference is that whilst we all know and understand the cause of the night/day cycle, and the seasonal cycle, this discussion hasn't addressed the cause, the real drivers of the El-Nino/La Nina cycle, and until that has been done, none of the questions raised have been answered. -
Berényi Péter at 08:18 AM on 12 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
#107 KR at 06:21 AM on 12 November, 2010 Coal for power is just not a good idea. Let's say mountain top removal mining is not a bright idea. The story is not about coal as such, but regulations permitting a particular method. There are other, more benign ways to extract coal. You should clearly change section 515(c) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. Current version reads like this: SECTION 515 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PERFORMANCE STANDARDS [30 U.S.C. 1265] [...] (c) Procedures; exception to original contour restoration requirements (1) Each State program may and each Federal program shall include procedures pursuant to which the regulatory authority may permit surface mining operations for the purposes set forth in paragraph (3) of this subsection. (2) Where an applicant meets the requirements of paragraphs (3) and (4) of this subsection a permit without regard to the requirement to restore to approximate original contour set forth in subsection 515(b)(3) or 515(d)(2) and (3) of this section may be granted for the surface mining of coal where the mining operation will remove an entire coal seam or seams running through the upper fraction of a mountain, ridge, or hill (except as provided in subsection (c)(4)(A) hereof) by removing all of the overburden and creating a level plateau or a gently rolling contour with no highwalls remaining, and capable of supporting postmining uses in accord with the requirements of this subsection. etc., etc. Original contour restoration has to be enforced without exception. No "may permit" or "may be granted" in law, it's just call for corruption. In addition to this, topsoil has to be removed and stored in a separate location until open mining of a segment is finished. After contour restoration, soil has to be put back and the area reforested. It is as simple as that. As far as I know the US is still a democracy, at least in theory. Laws are supposed to be written and rewritten by representatives of the people, by the people, for the people and not by corporate lobby groups. Am I missing something? -
scaddenp at 08:03 AM on 12 November 2010CO2 effect is saturated
Norman - so we are having "unusual" weather at the moment. Does that make it unique? A unique event would by unusual but not the other way round. But instead of playing word games, look at the sentence that you quoted from the IPCC. Has climate4You refuted this statement? No. -
scaddenp at 08:00 AM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
Post 21 by Poptech - seriously?? perhaps you should study how modelling is climate modelling is actually done and verified to evaluate that. -
scaddenp at 07:57 AM on 12 November 2010Real experts don't know everything
Norman, which comments do you think raise "valid objections" - based on published science please? You go on about proof again. Proof belongs to mathematics. What do you think scientific proof looks like? We have a working model of what causes ice-ages that claims orbital-induced variations in insolation magnified by feedbacks in albedo and GHGs reproduce the effect. To harp on a point, IPCC WG1 Chapter 6 discusses this and points you to the seminal papers. Better than a website. If you want entertain the idea the orbital cycles can do this by themselves, then why arent hemispheres anti-phased? And the early objection to milankovich cycles was that the insolation change is way too small to create that much variation. You need the feedbacks. (Note that you can introduce all manner of fantasy models for explaining the world if you remove the constraint that the arithmetic must add up - but that isnt science). -
RSVP at 07:41 AM on 12 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
clonmac #104 "But the future is clearly solar power (and other self-sustainable options) which is why investments need to be made in it." I agree, but more so because it is supposedly a sustainable energy source. Or maybe I said too much. Has anyone produced a study that the world's photovoltaic production could actually sustain itself energywise, not to mention contributing this so called wedge? You know, it actually takes quite a bit of energy to create a solar cell (i.e., energy to get people to factories, turn on the diffusion furnaces, power the factory, package, ship, install, refurbish, and in the end clean the land of high tech poison left from all the exotic chemical processes.) -
dana1981 at 07:41 AM on 12 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
BP - "current battery packs...are turned into highly toxic waste at the end of their lifetime." What sort of battery packs are you talking about? I know lithium ion battery packs (which are cetainly current technology) are recycled (i.e. see Tesla), and don't contain heavy metals to begin with. clonmac #104 - very good point that land use efficiency is a relatively minor concern when it comes to energy production and associated environmental impact. There's no shortage of unused land, particularly in deserts, and of course rooftops. -
Eric (skeptic) at 07:38 AM on 12 November 2010Climate cherry pickers: cooling oceans
Thank you for that info Riccardo. I now see some on the Trenberth's travesty page. My quick calculation for the .64 w/m2 is 10^22 Joules per year. If applied to 700m of ocean (approx 2.5 * 10^23 grams of water), that's 0.01 degrees of warming per year (although my estimate for the 700m ocean mass is probably high). So yes, we need a better measurements network, but perhaps impossible given the small change we will have to measure. -
Tom Dayton at 07:32 AM on 12 November 2010CO2 effect is saturated
Norman, Ned is understating his case. "Unique" really means one of a kind, not merely unusual. In everyday conversation, "unique" is used casually as a synonym for "unusual," but the IPCC has gone out of its way to be careful in its choice of words, due to certain people jumping to conclusions based on the IPCC's more casual usage in the past. -
Tom Dayton at 07:25 AM on 12 November 2010CO2 effect is saturated
I need help from someone more knowledgeable, but it seems to me that BP is incorrect in assuming a 2 degrees increase in brightness temperature equivalent to blackbody temperature in the narrow band of 750 cm-1 and 900 cm-1 requires a layer of atmosphere having increased its measured "temperature" by 2 degrees. -
Ned at 07:23 AM on 12 November 2010CO2 effect is saturated
Norman, in general the IPCC tend to be very cautious in their use of words. I would not recommend reading "unusual" and substituting the word "unique". -
Norman at 07:21 AM on 12 November 2010CO2 effect is saturated
#62 Riccardo I read through your link. It does not make the claim that the cloud cover percentage has not changed. They just warn against using this data to form any conclusion about climate because of problems with how the cloud cover is measured. As far as this article goes, Cloud cover could still be the dominant driver. There argument is don't use the cloud cover data at this time. -
Ned at 07:19 AM on 12 November 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Michele, your writing is a bit unclear, probably due to language issues. 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). There is a net heat flow from the warmer surface to the cooler atmosphere. But the presence of the (GHG-laden) atmosphere keeps the surface warmer than it would be in the absence of greenhouse gases. There's no contradiction of the 2nd law. As it happens, there is a nice discussion of this right now over at Science of Doom. -
Norman at 07:17 AM on 12 November 2010CO2 effect is saturated
#57 scaddenp "The text never uses the word unique. There is no argument easier to demolish than a strawman." From the IPCC page: "Palaeoclimatic information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years. The last time the polar regions were signifi cantly warmer than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4 to 6 m of sea level rise. {6.4, 6.6}" IPCC source of above quote. Look at the Thesaurus for the word unusual...do you see unique in that list? -
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).
Prev 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098 2099 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 Next
