Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2102 2103 2104 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 2116 2117 Next
Comments 105451 to 105500:
-
Daniel Bailey at 23:14 PM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
Re: Ann (106, 121, 123, 125) I did see your comment at 106, but I was busy at the time formulating a response to daisym (103). Your summation of both the situation we face and your position is spot-on. From my closing comments at 108:"It is one thing to understand the various bits and pieces of the physics and mechanics of climate change. It is completely another thing altogether to synthesize it into one cohesive whole as Hansen has done."
As a species, we have been crawling on all fours across the lush savanna grasses. Some of us have raised up, erect on our knees & have sniffed smoke from a raging grass fire approaching quickly. It is not enough to merely shift the course of the herd, the task before us is to get the herd up off their hands and knees and stand...and to then run from the disaster that comes ever so swiftly now. Green energy tech, nuclear, hydro, tidal: all rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Not inherently bad things, but actions that address the symptoms only, not the underlying disease state itself. Only education can do that. Unless a critical mass of people can be reached and educated in a short amount of time to mobilize and take resolute action, it will be too late. What bitter medicine to swallow. It is little wonder few, even here, speak systemically. It may be that we have more time yet, wherein even a phased-in replacement of fossil fuels plus energy use efficiency and curtailment programs can allow us to turn the corner. That would be a wonderful, dreamlike end to the nightmare we are in. Or, instead of watching the clock wind down at the end of the 3rd quarter we discover, to our dismay and chagrin, that it is actually the 4th and last quarter...and time is all but gone. If it is a sin to calculate the worst outcome and to then plan accordingly, then sinner I be. The Yooper -
Peter Lang at 22:47 PM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
Ann, I don’t understanding what you are advocating. Do you have a better proposal? What is the solution you are arguing for? What is the time-line you are arguing for? If you set an impossibly short time frame, then there is no 'realistic' solution. But whatever time frame you set, nuclear will have to be a major contributor to cutting CO2 emissions from energy use. You are exaggerating, twisting or misunderstanding much of what I’m saying, so I’ve lost what it is you are trying to say. Here are some examples: “My statement is: “No matter what amount of nuclear power is provided, it will never reduce the burning of fossil fuels to zero (or even close to zero)."” What do you mean by “never”, and I didn't say "zero"? The transition will be progressive. I believe we can cut the use of fossil fuel used in electricity generation by 80% by 2050, and, if electricity is cheap, this will cut total emissions by 40% to 50%. Land use, land use change, agriculture, etc. will contribute more cuts. The point is we do have an alternative to fossil fuels for electricity generation and we should be putting our energies into allowing it, not prohibiting it. Unfortunately, the most ardent activists for fast reduction of CO2 emissions are also the people most stridently opposed to nuclear power. That makes others wonder: 'what is their real agenda?' It’s a fair question. “Do you really believe that the massive deployment of nuclear energy will cause humanity to abstain from burning fossil fuels?” I didn't say 'abstain'. That is misrepresenting what I said. But, eventually, there will be little use of fossil fuel. Eventually! It will take time and will never be zero, but surely that is irrelevant. “Massive deployment” is not a forced solution. It is an allowed solution. The problem is we have been preventing that solution by our irrational fears for 40+ years. We will overcome that. But it will take time. “Nuclear energy must become so cheap that it will replace fossil fuels everywhere in the world, including the less developed countries.” Yes. That will happen (eventually). Fossil fuels are little cheaper than nuclear now, and are more expensive in many places. The under-developed countries struggle to build any electricity system. Where nuclear is cheaper than coal, they will, and do, build nuclear. Why do you think all but one of the G20 countries have nuclear already or are on the path to get it? It certainly isn’t because it is more expensive than coal. And the cost could and should be far less than it is. “It must become so cheap that functioning coal plants will be shut down, because it is economically more beneficial to build a brand new nuclear plant.” All power plants reach the end of their economically viable date. As they reach the end of their lives, they are replaced by whatever type of plant seems it will give the lowest cost electricity over the life of the new plant (e.g., 60 years for nuclear, 40 years for coal, or 20 years renewables). The question about replacement of fossil fuels with low emission technology applies equally to replacing with renewables, except that renewables cannot do the job and are far more expensive. “There must be an oversupply of nuclear energy (both globally and locally), otherwise people will still resort to more expensive options e.g. fossil fuel.” They will implement whichever technology they expect will provide reliable power at least cost for the life of the plant. I don’t know why you think there must be an 'oversupply of nuclear'. What does this mean? Are you referring to availability of new plants or the fuel? There will be sufficient of both to meet demand. That is not a problem. And it is much easier to transport nuclear fuel around the world than coal - about 20,000 times smaller volume to transport for the same energy. And that is with the current technology that only uses 1% of the available energy. With Gen IV reactors we’ve mined enough uranium to provide all the world’s energy needs for all of this century. “This just isn’t realistic” I don’t understand what you are arguing is the realistic solution. Please explain. Renewables cannot make any significant contribution now or for a very long time, if ever. Cutting population growth: The best way to do that is to allow the underdeveloped world to develop as quickly as possible and to assist them to get cheap clean energy. Fertility drops as peoples standard of living rises and they can have more fulfilling lives through education and work rather than sitting at home producing and feeding children. Banning use of fossil fuels. Unrealistic. Banning access to energy causes wars. Carbon trading scheme. It would have to be international, based on consumption not production, and auditable. That is impossible. Carbon tax. That will raise the cost of electricity in the developed countries, avoid the real problem (which is impediments to low cost energy) and slow the rate that we develop low cost energy. That will slow the rate of uptake of low emissions electricity by the underdeveloped and developing countries. Raising the price of electricity is the wrong policy! Ann, what is your “realistic” solution to cutting emissions. -
RSVP at 22:06 PM on 29 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
CBDunkerson #352 "No, that is an observed fact which even most 'skeptics' no longer challenge." My post #317 was a very crude estimate of how much energy it takes to heat a mass of air comparable to a good part of the troposphere. As I said earlier, the calculation is not precise (nor has to be for what we are discussing) given that density varies with altitude, etc., It can be said that it approximate, and moreover, if making the same assumption about constant density, it can allow us in the same to compare and examine how GHG could possibly be raising the temperature of the atmosphere 30 degrees. That is, when you use the same value 5E21 J/C (which is the energy required to raise that 5E18 kg mass of air 1 degree centigrade), it would then require 150E21 (or 1.5E23) Joules to do so for 30 degrees (which is supposedly where GHGs have left things). According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Earth, the surface area of the Earth is 5.1E8 km2 or 5.1E14 m2. But only half of that is receiving sunshine at anyone time, which requires us to consider only 2.55E14m2. Likewise, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation, the average amount of energy received on the Earth's surface is around 1000 W/m2, multiplying by the surface gives us 2.55E17W. Assuming 12 hours of sunshine (43200 sec), we get 1.1E22 Joules from the Sun. This is interesting, because it takes 1.5E23 Joules to raise the air temperature 30 degrees, which is ten times the amount of energy actually coming from the Sun. Supposedly, the GHG effect represents only a fraction of a quantity of energy that is deficient in its totality to produce the said result. Furthermore, air temperature fluctuations (manifested as what we call "weather") change on a daily and hourly basis with excursions that fully "outwit" the theory. What does this all mean? For one thing, energy is being stored whether you like it or not, and it is being liberated from all whereabouts and materials, primarily the oceans. Second, in my calculations, I must be considering too much air (the problem at hand must be limited to a lower altitude). This makes sense, because we know that its much colder at 27,000 feet than "near the ground". But remember that the both calculations used the same mass of air, and you have been using a comparison of energy numbers to claim that GHGs dwarfs waste heat, aside from other claims about energy not accumulating. One more thing, and if you decide to reply, please dont pick what you may consider the easiest issue to contest. I was thinking maybe there is confusion about hot air and heat. There is a difference. Air may cool, but that doesnt mean the heat is lost, this having to do with idea that hot air disperses. By this I mean that if a huge warm mass of air spreads out, that heat may raise the temperature of air somewhere else very little. And as you say, since radiation radiates as the temperature to the fourth power, heat will be lost much slower for lower temperatures. -
JMurphy at 21:11 PM on 29 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
transjasmine, you still don't appear to be reading anything on this site properly, or are ignoring the majority of stuff which seems to go against your beliefs. Let me highlight the bits you missed/wanted to ignore : greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare....The major assessments by the U.S. Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council (NRC) serve as the primary scientific basis supporting the Administrator’s endangerment finding." Now, you probably don't want to accept that because of the mention of the IPCC bogeyman, but that's your problem. Facts are facts, whether you like them or not. "[Pollution] :...the addition of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or any form of energy (such as heat, sound, or radioactivity) to the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form." You seem to accept that the levels of CO2 have increased/are increasing, so you have to accept the above definition unless you want to appear incoherent...or have your own definition of pollution. Your thoughts on water vapour are desperate, so perhaps you should read more about it here. You won't, though, will you ? -
funglestrumpet at 21:10 PM on 29 October 2010Climate's changed before
What an enormous pity that this level of debate is not centre stage. One would think that given the urgency of the matter it would be possible to get a permaneant link printed on all newspaper title boxes directing those interested in the topic to this site. I have been interested in global warming for many years, yet have only happened on this site today by pure fluke. Please keep up the good work. -
Ann at 20:44 PM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
Peter, The analogy doesn't mean much to me. I prefer to stick with energy and facts and figures. OK, I will no longer mention my analogy. We do not have a problem with shortage of energy. Nuclear fuel is effectively unlimited. This is not the issue. My statement is not: “Nuclear power plants will not be able to provide the power currently provided by fossil fuel power plants.” My statement is: “No matter what amount of nuclear power is provided, it will never reduce the burning of fossil fuels to zero (or even close to zero)." So even in the most optimistic scenario, deploying nuclear power (or green power) will slow down, but not stop global warming. Do you really believe that the massive deployment of nuclear energy will cause humanity to abstain from burning fossil fuels ? Some pretty strong preconditions must prevail: - Nuclear energy must become so cheap that it will replace fossil fuels everywhere in the world, including the less developed countries. It must become so cheap that functioning coal plants will be shut down, because it is economically more beneficial to build a brand new nuclear plant. - There must be an oversupply of nuclear energy (both globally and locally), otherwise people will still resort to more expensive options e.g. fossil fuel. Of course an oversupply leads to a greater demand, and a faster population growth (population will always grow proportional to the available resources). Nuclear energy deployment will have to keep ahead of this exponentially rising demand. - As the demand for fossil fuel plummets (this is part of YOUR assumption, not mine), fossil fuel prices will collapse. Nuclear energy will have to remain competitive with ever lowering fossil fuel prices. This just isn’t realistic. -
transjasmine at 20:29 PM on 29 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
a study has been done that shows increased c02 actually has beneficial effects on the environment, such as increased biomass, faster growing times, increased yield, larger produce, and greater water efficiency (less need for water by plants in a c02 rich environment) "emissions of which, in his judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare" the current c02 level is about 380 ppm give or take, co2 itself is not hazardous to human health until 5000-10000 ppm, is it reasonable to expect co2 levels to rise that much? given that the definition of pollutant was so broad that it includes pretty much everything, including things that are already in the atmosphere. you could say then that water vapour is a pollutant and a far more prolific one as it makes up 90% of our atmosphere, if it is considered a pollutant, why is there only emphasis on c02 as a pollutant, i wont answer that because my comment will be deleted, but it ends in ganda. the idea that c02 can be considered a pollutant is a dangerous one i wont say why its something you all need to think about. btw look up the un document my global neighbourhood it was written in 1984 and has some striking similarities both to what we are discussing and to what is going on in the world todayModerator Response: Please provide a link to your source you refer to; failing that, how about the author, publication date, title and publisher so others here can benefit. Thanks! -
Peter Lang at 19:22 PM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
Ann, The analogy doesn't mean much to me. I prefer to stick with energy and facts and figures. We do not have a problem with shortage of energy. Nuclear fuel is effectively unlimited. The build rate of power stations is also not a limitation. We've built at the required rate 30 to 40 years ago and that was with early, big clunker designs. Smaller modular units will become available as soon as the market sends the signals. Investors will move from fossil fuels to nuclear as soon as we send the right signals. That hasn't happened yet in the western democracies. As time goes on, we start sending the right signals and people get over their fear of nuclear (as people who live with it have already), we will send the usual market signals to the electricity industry - "we want least cost electricity". We will slowly unwind the ridiculous requirements we currently place on nuclear power (and don't place on any other industry). -
MarkR at 19:22 PM on 29 October 2010Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
RE: #22/23/24, corrected 3.5 to 3.4 C (was a typo) The estimate is based on a doubling of CO2, which is the emissions pathway we're on, and for eventual warming, i.e. including the entire Charney sensitivity. The best estimate for low CO2 emissions is 1.8 C by 2100, but for a high emissions scenario (which we're currently on, and most 'climate skeptics' are working to maintain) it is 4 C. Of course, this is by 2100 and warming will not stop then; so I considered the full Charney sensitivity. The result was mainly for illustrative purposes, it's pretty close to what we expect and it demonstrates that even a few C of warming can have serious impacts. -
Ann at 18:30 PM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
@Peter I actually agree with you. We cannot stop the world from using fossil fuel. That is exactly my point. “There is an alternative to your proposal. The alternative is we allow (yes, allow) clean electricity to be cheaper than fossil fuel electricity. We allow it to be as cheap as we can.” So, to extend my party analogy: your solution is: we make the carrots tastier than the cake, and hope this way people won’t eat the cake anymore. But be aware that the number of visitors to this party is unlimited and will even grow, the more food you provide. Are you sure the cake is not going to be eaten ? As I see it, the whole plan to fight climate change now hinges on the assumption that the massive deployment of either green energy or nuclear energy will cause humanity to abstain from burning fossil fuels. How realistic is that ? -
Peter Lang at 18:13 PM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
Ann, I did see your comment, but I do not agree that trying to mandate the world stop using fossil fuel is a practicable suggestion. Are you going to try to tell the the people living in India, Indonesia and in the under developed countries they cannot have electricity? Are you going to tell them they cannot have hospitals, schools, industry, jobs, an improving standard of living and a fulfilling life because some rich people in the western democracies say so? Good luck. There is an alternative to your proposal. The alternative is we allow (yes, allow) clean electricity to be cheaper than fossil fuel electricity. We allow it to be as cheap as we can. To do that we remove all the impediments we've imposed on nuclear over the past 40+ years. I recognise we cannot do it all at once, but we can change our thinking from loading more and more requirements on nuclear to dismantling them. We can develop the next generation of nuclear power stations with the first requirement being low-cost electricity. With a clear signal from government that this is the direction we intend to take, the investor risk premium - that is raising the cost of nuclear in the western democracies - would reduce progressively over time and would increase on the fossil fuel technologies instead. But we prevent that while so many people who argue for reducing carbon emissions on one hand are at the same time strongly opposed to nuclear. The answer is clear. It has been for at least 30 years. -
Ann at 17:47 PM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
I am frankly amazed that nobody reacts on my earlier statement (#106): The massive deployment of green energy will not stop global warming (and of course the same applies for nuclear energy). You all agree ? Why the hell is green energy promoted in that case ? I just found a very good analogy : let’s say you organise a party. You have provided cake and carrots for snacks. And you think if you only provide enough carrots, nobody will eat the cake. I think not. No matter how much nuclear or green power is installed, it won't stop the world from using fossil fuels until they are depleted ! -
transjasmine at 17:14 PM on 29 October 2010It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low
oh ok, so back then it was a few things causing the warming but now its only co2? 386 ppm is relatively small considering our atmosphere has sustained life with a co2 count of 10000 ppm, albeit a rather long time ago.Response: "so back then it was a few things causing the warming but now its only co2"
No, CO2 is not the only driver of climate but currently it's the strongest climate forcing and also the fastest rising.
"our atmosphere has sustained life with a co2 count of 10000 ppm"
In past periods when CO2 was much higher, solar output was also much lower. What really hurts species is when climate changes quickly - the species cannot adapt quickly enough. This is why in past periods when climate has changed quickly, it's been accompanied by mass extinctions. -
Peter Lang at 15:50 PM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
Pushing massive life style change will delay acceptance of the policies needed. For those who believe cutting CO2 emissions is urgent, I'd urge they should delay pushing for massive life style change. It is defeating your purpose. Pushing for polices, at this time, that many believe will seriously damage the economy, will increase resistance to those policies, slow the rate they can be implemented, and cause major compromises to get them through parliament. Instead of pushig for policies (that many beleive will seriously fdamage the economy) I'd suggest changing the approach. It is possible to have low emissions electricity and reduce the cost of electricity. This will have major benefits for the world, especially for the poorest people on the planet. And it will lead to the fastest reduction of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. It is a Win-Win. To achieve this means throwing off the anti-nuclear rhetoric. It means removing all the impediments to low-cost nuclear (as distinct from high-cost nuclear; high-cost nuclear is what the public demands in USA, UK, EU. I'd argue that is what we do not need and should not want). Low cost, clean electricity is what we should be aiming for. Not renewables. Forget that idea. And not a carbon tax on electricity generation - yet! -
What should we do about climate change?
dr2chase - I don't disagree on the preference for bicycles, just noting that US cities are rather deliberately designed to make them rather impractical. I've spent time in the Netherlands (Leiden in particular, lovely town), and bicycles work there. But in a lot of the US it's a long long ride with no bike lanes to get to the store, to the bookshop, to work, etc. I live near Washington DC, where everything is 45 minutes from everything else by car! Proper city planning is required to make bikes (and walking, and neighborhood electric cars) practical. Given the current development in the US, it's going to take some time, effort, and $$$ to make it practical. Which I despise, but can't do much about at the moment, other than encouraging pedestrian/cycle/mass transit friendly development, which I certainly do (supporting additional Metro lines, bike paths, etc.) -
dr2chase at 15:02 PM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
@KR - I think I disagree, but you may have something different in mind that I do. There's where we are now, where we could be with just changes in behavior, and where we could be when things change. Consider that the question is, what do we do about climate change? Cars, as they stand, are simply not an option. Either they go all electric (and the grid goes carbon free), or we radically change our use of them, or they go away. The reason to propose "bicycle" is that this is an extremely well-understood, incredibly efficient technology with few-to-no impacts to worry about. There are two concerns for bicycles. One is safety, but if cars are gone, then that is gone. Note, by-the-way, that this is innumerate, subjective safety, not real safety -- the risk from not-biking is far higher (it's relatively unhealthy, to a degree that dwarfs crash risks of cars or bikes). The second is distance, and there are distances at which a bike is not practical. However, there are known solutions to this problem, too. First, assuming we go for bikes, we will somewhat modify the infrastructure. Traffic lights are much less necessary, rotaries are often sufficient (for bikes). Bikes are small, their riders see and hear far better than anyone driving a car, this is not a crazy idea. Second, you get legs. Combine that with the better infrastructure, most people will find a trip in the 5-9 mile range tractable. Third, you can improve the bike. Aerodynamic fairings are a huge help. Entire aero fairings exist in tricycles you can buy, now. Not rocket science. Fourth, you can add an e-assist. This puts you at 20mph, easy. Again, an existing consumer product, not rocket science. Fifth, bikes enable mass transit. Right now, popular choices for getting to train, subway, and bus stops are walking and driving. Walking is too slow, driving (and parking) is too high-impact, which causes towns to get picky about where stops are. Insufficient parking also limits access to mass transit, which in turns cuts profitability and service levels (we see this NOW, in the Boston area). Bikes win here. Because biking is faster than walking, more people can get to the station without a car. Because bikes are low-impact, traffic and the parking lot are not an issue for siting the station. Because bikes can be parked in a small space, access is not limited by full parking lots. Another thing to throw into the pile-o-facts -- already, at least 1/3 of us live in places as dense as a Dutch town (Assen) with high ride share. It could be more -- the census data I used to figure that out, only considered "places" with population more than 50k. I live in a dense place not on that list, so I know it is more than 1/3. And I must add, sometimes it is hard to imagine a place without the cars. I grew up in the St. Pete/Clearwater area, and right now, it is hard to imagine a place more unfriendly to bikes, but mostly because the only arteries are filled with fast cars, and there are not even very good crossing points. HOWEVER, if there are no cars, it all changes -- bikes (and busses) get to use the arteries. That's not what you think when you look at it -- what you think is, "peak oil comes, these people are screwed". But that's not necessarily so -- it's dense, there's services close by, it's mostly flat. (It's also really hot, but that didn't stop me from biking when I was a kid.) -
The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Ken Lambert - Have you been accounting for the varying T^4 temperature relationship with radiated energy since AD1750? And was 1750 truly at equilibrium? (My opinion is that it would not, being near the end of the LIA, including the 1650, 1770, and 1850 Northern European minima with warming between them) Given the known inaccuracies of TOA radiation, PDO and other cyclic ocean heat sequestrations, etc., I don't believe you can do absolute imbalance calculations over 160 years like that. -
quokka at 14:54 PM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
#103 daisym, The contribution of low CO2 sources of electricity generation world wide are around these numbers: Hydro 16% Nuclear 14% Wind, Solar and Geothermal 3% In Europe and the US, nuclear is about 20%. Wind and solar make a trivial contribution to averting global warming. -
quokka at 14:35 PM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
#105 AnnI think it’s admirable that Denmark has such ambitious goals concerning renewable energy, and if they achieve these goals it will be a lesson and an example for many countries. Besides, it is also a smart strategy, as it will make Denmark eventually independent of foreign energy suppliers (and we don’t know what is going to happen on the energy market, but we can be sure it is going to be a bumpy ride).
No it won't and paradoxically it may in fact make Denmark more dependent on foreign energy supplies. The reason is quite simple - the variability of wind power. I believe that Denmark exports much of it's wind power and also imports electricity from it's northern neighbours. As the proportion of wind in the grid increases, the dependence on something to back it up also increases. There will be days, and probably periods of a week or more when there is next to no electricity generated by wind. You can import electricity or for example burn gas but it's got to come from somewhere. All grand plans for powering Europe from renewables are utterly dependent on an expanded super grid, based on the assumption that the wind is always blowing or sun shining somewhere. Without going into the practicalities of this, the obvious conclusion is that nations would become critically dependent on importing electricity and if those imports fail, the lights would go out. This is a very serious question for energy security. Fossil fuels can be to some extent be stockpiled, and several years of nuclear fuels stockpiled, but imported electricity can go off in the blink of an eye. This might be acceptable between good friends, perhaps some western European nations, but how about western and eastern Europe, Russia, Middle East, Nth Africa? I'd suggest that all nations are going to think long and hard about their energy security and the degree that they may participate in super grids. It has huge implications for the limitations of renewables on a scale that could supplant fossil fuels in electricity generation. -
gallopingcamel at 14:17 PM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
dr2chase (#110), East Kilbride in Scotland is a strange place to live until you realize that it was built on a "Green Field" site by people who shared your notion that bicycles should be the dominant personal transport system. This was all done long before there was concern about rising concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. Sadly, not even the Scots could be persuaded to abandon the motor car, so East Kilbride remains a monument to the hubris of central planners. -
gallopingcamel at 14:06 PM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
muoncounter (#112), The author of that interesting study you quoted has been participating in this thread. While it is reasonable to call Peter Lang's study "pro-nuke", that is hardly a criticism when none of the alternative energy sources come close to eliminating CO2 emissions on the scale that nuclear power can readily achieve. -
Ken Lambert at 13:36 PM on 29 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
BP #110 Been following the discussion with great interest. As a humble applied scientist (Engineer) with a passable knowledge of thermodynamics, my interest has been in the purported imbalance of about +0.9W/sq.m oft quoted by Dr Trenberth, Hansen et al..which is adding energy to the 'Earth system' - atmosphere, land, oceans etc. This is the much feared AGW. I have been trying to piece together a complete set of forcings from NASA GISS data and IPCC AR4 - which includes S-B radiative cooling. Dr Trenberth - a leading scientist (of travesty fame) uses a figure for positive feedback of +2.1 W/sq.m (Water Vapor + Ice Albedo), and a Figure of -2.8W/sq.m for S-B radiative cooling derived from the assumption of a 0.75 degK surface temperature rise since AD1750 which is importantly assumed to be approximately the same as the increase in the Earth's radiating temperature since AD1750. These are the climate responses added to the net of all the forcings (+1.6W/sq.m) from Fig2.4 of AR4. (ie +1.6 + 2.1 - 2.8 = +0.9W/sq.m imbalance) Assuming an average of about 240W/sq.m incoming solar radiation (TSI of 340 minus 100 Reflected), and a current radiating temp for the Earth of 255 degK the sum is simply: (T2/T1)^4 x 240 viz: (255/254.25)^4 x 240 = 242.8W/sq.m, hence a increase of 2.8W/sq.m in outgoing IR or a forcing of -2.8W/sq.m. This implies that there is no 'insulating' effect of the atmospheric column in the Trenberth calculation which equates the surface and Earth radiating temperature increase to 0.75degK (AD1750 to AD2005). The positive feedback term of +2.1W/sq.m from Water Vapour and Ice Albedo implies a higher surface temp increase than the radiating Earth temp increase - which is the proposed 'enhanced greenhouse effect of CO2GHG interacting with Water Vapour' - I presume. It seems that the two are inconsistent. Would anyone care to comment on this? -
Phila at 13:33 PM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
#99 First of all, asking Americans to change their culture is not going to work. That explains why we still have slavery and segregation, support for gay marriage is stuck at about one percent, most cosmetics are tested on animals, you can smoke anywhere you like, and women still wear bloomers. Talking about "American culture" as though it's some monolithic, irreducible entity is an enormous ideological imposition. The concept is largely imaginary; to the extent that it exists, it's actually pretty malleable. I submit that "skeptics" know this as well as I do, if not better. There'd be little point in spending millions to prevent or forestall cultural change, otherwise. -
muoncounter at 13:12 PM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
#109: "70% of greenhouse gas emissions come from our use of fossil fuels. Of this, 30% is from electricity generation." Excellent points. Here's an Australian study, admittedly very heavily pro-nuke, that details the cost of various emission reduction scenarios. Conclusions are sobering, but they demonstrate that emissions reductions are feasible: Business as Usual (mostly coal) is the least cost option but has the highest CO2 emissions. The Nuclear power option will enable the largest cut in CO2-e emissions from electricity generation. The Nuclear option is the only option that can be built quickly enough to make the deep cuts required by 2050. The Nuclear option is the least cost of the options that can cut emissions sustainably. Wind and solar are the highest cost ways to cut emissions. A mixture of solar thermal and wind power is the highest cost and has the highest avoidance cost of the options considered. Mixing these technologies does not reduce the cost, it increases the cost. At the same time, we live in this world: PGE profit gets federal tax boost Empire District Q3 Profit Rises El Paso Electric Q3 Profit Surges The list of electric utilities with impressive profits goes on and on. Some cite huge electricity demand during this hot summer as the reason their profits jumped. Isn't that just perfect? Making a mess that you don't have to clean up gets you more profits. Yet a 2000 study at MIT found the cost of carbon capture to be on the order of 3cents per kwH. Why couldn't utilities be required to use these 'windfall' profits to cover some of the cost of cleaning up their mess? Nah, that would be an alarmist scam. -
Sarah at 12:54 PM on 29 October 2010Satellite error inflated Great Lakes temperatures
Furthermore, Lake Superior summer temperatures measured at water intakes and by buoys have increased 3.5 degrees C in the last 100 years, with most of the increase occurring since 1980. (Austin and Colman, Limnology and Oceanography, 2008, 53: 2724-30). -
What should we do about climate change?
dr2chase - I would completely agree; it would be great to replace the 4-seat auto in the US for most trips. Unfortunately: - US cities are optimized for cars, not bikes. - Monied interests (GM, primarily) bought up and destroyed efficient streetcar companies decades ago in order to sell cars. It's still worth trying. I recently attended the Progressive X-Prize awards ceremony for autos, where $10M was offered as prizes for 100mpg cars. This would at least be a starting point, and many of the cars were electric. Search Flickr for "X-Prize" or google "X-Prize 100mpg" for some details. I would love to see minimalistic cars used instead of the @$$!#@* SUV's. Progressive X-Prize 100mpg contest Flickr contestant photos -
Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
Adrian smits - I just followed Daniel Bailey's comment, and looked at your previous postings. You have been present on the DMI thread - and apparently you have not read it. Your questions have been clearly answered there. -
dr2chase at 12:21 PM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
Regarding transportation (which some think demands hydrocarbon fuels). A good chunk of US transportation is devoted to hauling one person and a small amount of personal stuff a few miles. This could easily be done with bicycles. It might not be popular, but it is clearly possible, and it is fantastically more efficient than using a car for the same purpose. For hot climates, frequent steep inclines, and the fitness-challenged, an electrical assist for a bike is a big help, but uses much less energy than an electrical assist for a car. The Dutch experience suggests that this can be a much more popular method of transportation than here, and markets are emerging there for things like small, aerodynamically faired tricycles that go faster, keep the weather off, and provide some interior storage. There are also old and new cargo bike designs that, while much smaller than a car, can often carry bulky loads that will not fit in a car. (As a fat old guy who already rides a cargo bike 50 miles/week in a place where it snows, I'm not interested in hearing what people "can't" do, though I am well aware of what they "won't" do.) A non-trivial reduction in greenhouse emissions can come from diet -- this is especially important if you are biking enough to add another "day" or two of calorie burning to your weekly total. Much less meat, especially beef, lamb, pork, and deep sea fish. Not no meat at all, merely much much less, and more often poultry and small fish than mammals (less mercury in the small fish, too). Shipping, it's hard to say. We did use sails once upon a time, and we build more more interesting wind devices nowadays (traction kites, fancy windmills). However, I compared the size of the engine of a large ship (Emma Maersk, 110MW total) with the sunlight on its decks at the equator (22 MW, never mind conversion), and the power of the largest windmill built so far (6-7MW), it seems that it would be dicey. However, as near as I can tell, power required is quadratic in ship speed (I checked, it seems to not be cubic in this case) , and I don't know whether the full engine power is often needed. Once upon a time, we also moved quite a lot of cargo by barge and by train; presumably we could do that again. It would be different now, given the widespread use of standardized containers for cargo. -
Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
adrian smits - I'm afraid the DMI data doesn't show what you think it does. Take a look at the rather extensive explanation on DMI data on Arctic temperatures: Hide the Increase?. In short: Summer temperatures are pinned to just above zero C, due to the presence of ice. Average temps over the year are rising twice as fast in the Arctic as the global average. Some of the variance in the DMI data may be due to the fact that enough ice has melted to expose water at -2C, rather than ice at 0C. -
Daniel Bailey at 12:16 PM on 29 October 2010Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
Re: adrian smits (32) I just spent a half-an-hour reading your latest comment, all of your previous comments and the excellent responses that others (and a few by myself) have offered you in response (ironically, I believe I have replied to you more than any other visitor). I have to ask, did you read any of those responses? If so, did any of them make sense? Because after reading this comment, I conclude that the only part you actually are correct on is this:"I'm sorry folks but I just don't get it."
And it's not because you weren't offered excellent advice from others here much smarter than me (I won't name them to avoid swelling their egos, but they are legion). So, to recap:1. You're wrong about the DMI, again 2. You're wrong about the accuracy of the arctic temperature records 3. You're wrong about UAH 4. You're wrong about 6 month trends having any meaning relative to data encompassing many decades 5. You're wrong about _______ (fill-in the blank with whatever I've missed)
I won't bother to provide you with any sources to substantiate anything I've said (go back and read all of the responses to your previous comments; the answers with sources are all there); you won't read them anyway, so why should I waste my time? The Yooper -
Peter Lang at 11:51 AM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
“What should we do about climate change?” I don’t know what we should do about climate change. I do know what we can do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 70% of greenhouse gas emissions come from our use of fossil fuels. Of this, 30% is from electricity generation. If electricity is cheap enough it will substitute for gas for heating and oil for transport. Clean electricity, if cheap, could reduce Australia’s greenhouse emissions by 50%. That is just by implementing low-cost, low-emission electricity. The cheaper electricity is, the faster it will displace fossil fuels for heat and transport The cheaper electricity is the faster it will be adopted in the developing world. That will save millions of lives per year, improve their standard of living and many other advantages. If the under-developed and developing countries can implement cheap clean electricity instead of cheap, dirty electricity, world greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced much faster than if they have to go through the fossil fuel stage. Therefore, the most important thing we, in the developed countries, need to do is to focus on is implementing lost cost, clean electricity. We will not do that while we allow unfounded beliefs to dictate policy. Raising the cost of electricity through pricing carbon and mandating and subsidising renewable energy is exactly the wrong policy if we want the world to take the fastest path to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. -
adrian smits at 10:36 AM on 29 October 2010Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
I'm sorry folks but I just don't get it.You all claim the arctic has warmed 5 or 6 degrees but the DMI record above 80 in the high arctic shows over half a degree of cooling in the summertime over the last 50 years.Isn't that when most of the melting is supposed to be happening up there.This cooling is in total disagreement with the GISS record by the way,which kind of brings the arctic temperature records into some disrepute.Now I also read the Roy Spencer article and my take on it was a total increase of 1.7 degrees with a c02 doubling .I just read it and He said some changes where made after it was posted so there might be some misunderstanding there.As far as the UHA near sea surface temperatures go they have cooled close to 8 tenths of a degree in only 6 months. That is more cooling than any 6 month period in the last decade. This is serious cooling and could lead to serious problems with crop failures if it lasts much longer! -
Philippe Chantreau at 10:27 AM on 29 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Much ado about nothing. You're picking on words. I do not believe it matters that much how the problem is sliced, as long as all the meat is still there. I see no evidence that climatologists lost or added any. Picking on the wording used to communicate the ideas to a larger public is just rethoric. I have not followed the back and forth exchanges, in which it appears that G&T somewhat recant on the language quoted by KR above. That quote is pretty clear and indeed well summarized by the punch line used to sell the original G&T "paper" to skeptics. I have only so much time and will certainly not spend it on G&T's wirtings subsequent to their first paper, when I could play with my daughter or practice my trumpet instead (that choice is a no brainer). This is not worth anywhere near that much attention. I'm done here. -
Daniel Bailey at 10:02 AM on 29 October 2010IPCC were wrong about Himalayan glaciers
I'm glad to see, at least in the Intermediate version, that WG1 and WG2 are differentiated. There exist those that would invalidate all of WG1 on the basis of, effectively, a typo in WG2. The Yooper -
adelady at 09:59 AM on 29 October 2010Medieval Warm Period was warmer
There is no such thing as "skeptical research" as you used the term. There is only research applying normal 'sceptical' analysis and review type science. Funding is or isn't granted on the basis of dribs and drabs (very big dribs and drabs for multi purpose satellites) of funding allocated to projects on varous criteria. If someone wants to write a paper, they're best off using commonly available data with good methods and r.o.c.k. s.o.l.i.d maths, physics and stats. And then there's the language. If you want scientists and science at large to take notice of your work, get the language right. Claiming that you've overturned the whole of physics of gases or the thermohaline circulation model is not the way to et a hearing. Use standard "we did this, then that. when we analysed the data, this is the result." Dry as dust language backed up by impeccable observations and calculations is the only way. If the claims really are spectacular, save the hyperbole for the press release. -
Daniel Bailey at 09:55 AM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
Re: daisym (103) Apologies for not interpreting your question(s) correctly. I'm glad you found some of what I wrote of value. Let me try again:"How much of a potential global temperature increase was averted by using wind and solar devices?"
Not having run the numbers or even seen the numbers run, I couldn't tell you with any certainty (KR, Marcus, JMurphy, Neil King or kdkd could probably tell you off the top of their heads). But given the magnitude of the fossil fuel releases compared to the extremely limited (as yet) negative CO2 footprint of green energy tech like wind, tidal or solar, the CO2/temp "savings" thus far have to be microscopic (i.e., lost in the "noise" of the standard fluctuations of temps over time)."This is what I was lamenting in my earlier comment. Government is heavily subsidizing wind and solar, but what effect will use of wind and solar have on global temperature? Is this giving us enough "bang for the buck"? Will it stop the increase in global temperature, or merely slow it down? We're not being told. I doubt that anyone has done the calculations, else why haven't we been told?"
I would have to disagree with you slightly on your first point here: government expenditures/subsidies of green energy tech is a drop in the bucket compared to that spent on the fossil fuel industry. You must remember to include mineral and liquid hydrocarbon lease costs (which are a fraction of the true value of the resource) into the equation. If fossil fuel interests had to pay commercial market acquisition costs for those green energy tech would begin to look much more cost effective. But I prolong the inevitable, sorry. This part sucks, but here goes: Lets say, in a perfect world, we're able to convert over 100% of fossil fuel derived CO2 emissions to green energy tech (hang the details, a thought experiment). So we replace the 31.8 gigatonnes of CO2 (2008 data) injected from fossil fuels with...zero CO2. Balance restored, right? Not quite. Due to the built-in feedbacks in the pipeline (that darn thermal mass of the ocean getting redistributed again), the world will continue to warm for a while (25 to 50 years timeframe). With zero fossil fuel derived CO2 inputs, about another 0.6 C on top of the 0.8 C already achieved. CO2 concentration levels will then probably level off in the 440-450 PPM range, ~ 2100 or so. Long term feedbacks (as there is no paleo comparator for the CO2 slug we've injected into the natural carbon cycle) maybe add another 0.5 to 1.0 C, for a grand total of 1.9 to 2.9 degrees C (referenced to preindustrial levels). So under a perfect-case scenario, with the economy magically transitioned to a zero-sum fossil fuel CO2 game, we will get additional warming roughly equal to what we've already received. Or more. So why bother? Unless we pull out all the stops, the odds of a methane hydrate release in the Arctic go from an already non-zero chance with the minimum warming in the pipeline to a near-certainty of another 30 to 50 years of Business-As-Usual. So we either pay the piper now, and suffer not immodestly economically, but we all survive. Or we go off the cliff: BAU for 30-50 years puts us on a trajectory, counting a likely methane hydrate release (which has happened before) of 800 to 1,000 PPM (timeline unknown). But a global temp increase of 5 to 7 degrees C (estimates vary, but the effects of that are explained well here). And a good chance most of humanity ceases to exist. Sorry to be alarmist. But if you were in the World Trade Center in New York the day the planes hit, what would you have done when management said that there was no cause for alarm and not to worry? Would you have gone about your regular routine or would you have exercised caution and immediately vacated the premises, just to be safe? Obviously, hindsight colors this analogy. But it still holds for what we face today: Deniers and delayers, some with vested interests and some not, tell us everything is fine and even if not, that we should wait before acting hastily. Some in the World Trade Center acted hastily...and lived. If we wait until we're sure, due to the delays, it would be like being in a military conflict and waiting until you can see the sniper picking off your men before opening fire in return. In that case, you're already dead. The difference, also, between the weight gain analogy from my earlier post and what we face with climate change is this: with an appropriate response, an individual can make a dramatic change in their weight. In the case of our lifestyles and the world fossil fuel based economies, all of humanity now has to "go on a diet". So why does no one in government want to discuss this? Good question. Probably because they fear the same reaction you are experiencing right now: utter disbelief. It is one thing to understand the various bits and pieces of the physics and mechanics of climate change. It is completely another thing altogether to synthesize it into one cohesive whole as Hansen has done. Well, I've probably done enough damage for one day. The Yooper -
Kooiti Masuda at 09:52 AM on 29 October 2010IPCC were wrong about Himalayan glaciers
I am afraid both the current versions of "Basic" and "Intermediate" need some revision. I think that the issue of the Himalayas proper and the issue of the central Asian highlands including the Himalayas should be distinguished. I have made some comments on the blog article of "Himalayan Glaciers, Wrong Date, Right Message. I am tempted to write clarification myself, but, regrettably, I cannot promise it. At least, Kehrwald et al. (2008) should not be used as a reference for the issue of population who depend on glaciers. Kehrwald et al. just quoted from IPCC AR4 WG2 (including the errorneous "prediction") and Barnett et al. (2005) about that. Kehrwald's paper seems to be a good reference about the mass balance of certain glaciers they studied. Also, the word "IPPC" in the title should be "IPCC". -
h pierce at 09:24 AM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
mc The in situ processes that Shell and also Chevron are using avoid many of these problems. The projects are long term development. The big problem is energy. The Shell process requires several years of heating before producing wells can start pumping out oil. Did you google "SASOl" South Africa obtains about 40% of their liquid hydrocarbon forn coal using the Fischer-Tropsch process. Exxon Mobil was about to bring a heavy oil field into production in the Orinico basin a few years ago until Hugo C wanted 51% of the action. They walked away and sued Hugo for a few billion dollars. By walking away, they avoid sharing trade secrets. If Hugo got his hand on these he would sell them to the Chinese. Google "SAGD" and "toe to heel injection" These are newer methods for recovering heavy oils. -
Kooiti Masuda at 09:17 AM on 29 October 2010Climate sensitivity is low
Berényi Péter makes many interesting remarks, but I am afraid his arguments are incoherent in the sense Stephan Lewandowsky wrote here in the areticle The value of coherence in science. I admit that my own arguments are sometimes incoherent, but I then also admit that I am not confident about what I say. I read his comments on the blog article here The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect. Though it may be different from his own summary, I think he effectively say that the way how to apply thermodynamics to the actual climate of the earth is not very sure on one hand, and that he can say something certain about the climate of the earth by applying the maximum entropy production (MEP) principle, that is an advanced part of thermodynamics, on the other hand. Also, in his recent comment in thread on the 2nd law, he suggested that the average temperature at the surface (the surface between air and sea or between air and land) may not be a good measure for thermodynamic discussion of the climate system. On the other hand, the concept called "climate sensitivity" conventionally by climate scientists is defined in terms of the average surface temperature. It may be coherent from his position to say that the "climate sensitivity" is not a well defined quantity and we cannot say anything certain about it. I do not think he can be sure that the value must be low. -
markl at 09:12 AM on 29 October 2010Medieval Warm Period was warmer
A couple of questions: 1 - The map appears to have around 3500 Pixels. I can easily understand how it is possible to get accurate data for today, but I am unsure how anybody can seriously expect to produce a credible version using 'over 1000 tree-ring, ice core, coral, sediment and other assorted proxy records'. That would be enough to cover 1/3 of the map (assming the proxies were remotely accurate). Where did the other "data" come from ? (Please don't tell me it was extrapolated from the other points!) 2 - It is often argued that it is impossible to get funding for "skeptical" research. Who are "the powers that be" who decide which research is to be funded or not ? In the US I assume it primarily is 'big business' and in Europe, Government, is this correct ? How did a bias creep in ? -
Vinny Burgoo at 05:07 AM on 29 October 2010Skeptical Science Firefox Add-on: Send and receive climate info while you browse
A very nifty tool. I'm not sure I'll find a way of using it (until playing with it, I'd forgotten how narrow Skeptical Science's remit is) but it seems very well done - although I did get a freeze when trying to close some tabs that Firefox created when I tried to close Report windows. I didn't think of the obvious - just click anywhere except on the Report window. (Firefox 3.6.11, Windows XP.) Some more nitpicks. 1) One of the arguments has a misspelled 'exaggerate' (only one g). 2) Three choices are offered for categorizing submissions: 'Skeptical', 'Neutral' and 'ProAGW'. I can guess what the first means (Skeptical Science uses 'skeptic' to mean 'denialist') and the second is probably meant to be half way between the first and third choices but what does the third mean? Does 'ProAGW' have an established meaning here at Skeptical Science? To an outsider, it's an unfortunate term because it is a valid description of the attitudes of various groups on both extremes of the 'debate', both denialist and alarmist. I suspect that it is supposed to mean 'More or less convinced by the "consensus" position as presented by the IPCC'. Unless the term is well-established here (in which case, ho hum), wouldn't something like 'consensus' or 'AGW is real' be less confusing? -
Ann at 05:06 AM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
Argus #97 I think it’s admirable that Denmark has such ambitious goals concerning renewable energy, and if they achieve these goals it will be a lesson and an example for many countries. Besides, it is also a smart strategy, as it will make Denmark eventually independent of foreign energy suppliers (and we don’t know what is going to happen on the energy market, but we can be sure it is going to be a bumpy ride). However, I am wondering if the deployment of renewable energy will have any lasting effect in the battle against climate change. The fossil fuel that isn’t consumed in Denmark will not remain in the ground. It will be burned elsewhere. So that is basically my statement: Climate change can only be fought by stopping new carbon from entering the carbon cycle (or by removing the same amount of carbon that is added to it). Deployment of renewable energy will -possibly - slow down the consumption of fossil fuels, but it will not stop the burning of fossil fuels. And therefore it can at most delay, but not avoid catastrophic global warming. Of course, even delaying AGW can be a crucial part of the solution. But it cannot be the whole solution. -
What should we do about climate change?
daisym - If you want to compare power sources and their temperature increases, you might want to look at the Waste heat vs greenhouse warming page. Long story short: the CO2 emitted by burning carbon fuels causes ~100x the warming that the energy released does, 2.9W/m^2 versus 0.028W/m^2. So every MW converted from carbon fuels leads to reducing 100MW of warming. In terms of temperature, the current 15TW produced and used in all countries will (at equilibrium) warm the world by 0.015°C to 0.034°C. Compare that to the 1.5-3.5°C (depending on your estimate of climate sensitivity) from the CO2 we've put into the air so far. Further discussion on this, however, should probably take place on the Waste heat vs greenhouse warming page. -
muoncounter at 04:15 AM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
#98: "a great many bases for wind generators the last time I flew over Texas." Texas is rapidly converted the land above old, depleted oil fields into wind farms. See the wikipedia article for some history. Table 3 here shows that electrical generation using wind power in Texas may be as much as 500% of electrical consumption. -
daisym at 04:12 AM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
RE: Daniel Bailey #72 Thank you for responding. What you wrote makes sense. I understand that we won't see temperatures coming down very quickly because of the reasons you explained. The main question I was asking was: "Energy is being generated by wind and solar devices. As a result, no CO2 was introduced into the atmosphere from energy produced by these devices. If the equivalent energy had been produced from carbon fuels, then "X" tons of CO2 would have gone into and warmed the atmosphere. How much of a potential global temperature increase was averted by using wind and solar devices?" This is what I was lamenting in my earlier comment. Government is heavily subsidizing wind and solar, but what effect will use of wind and solar have on global temperature? Is this giving us enough "bang for the buck"? Will it stop the increase in global temperature, or merely slow it down? We're not being told. I doubt that anyone has done the calculations, else why haven't we been told? If a dietician can estimate the effect of 100 calories per day (either added to or removed from the diet) on a persons weight, I'm hoping that climate scientists can do the same thing regarding the net change in CO2 (and thus temperature) resulting from generating power by wind and solar devices, instead of carbon fuels. -
muoncounter at 04:09 AM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
#95: "There are about 10-15 trillion barrels of unconvential oil which are heavy and extra heavy crude oils, tar sand and oil shale." Plans for oil shale recovery come and go whenever there is a price shock. Oil shale production is characterized by high front-end capital and operating costs and long lead times between capital investments and operating revenues. The potential for changes in economic conditions, energy markets, capital markets, government leadership and policies, and public support for oil shale projects, imposes greater risks than many other energy project investments. -- Oil Shale Roadmap, 2004 That problem is anathema to an oil industry dogged by price and demand concerns. Nor is oil shale a 'free in Nature' as you specify in #95. The extraction process is an environmental mess, especially involving the water requirements: Current water supply from the Colorado River Basin System is likely to be adequate to support the initial phases of oil shale industry development. However, the quantity of water required for a large-scale industry, producing 2-4 million barrels per day or more, could present a significant hurdle. -- same source (And that's what keeps this on topic -- warming climate means disruptions to water supplies.) -
h pierce at 04:06 AM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
Eric Those folks are so filthy rich that they can afford their own power systems and many have back up power. After all you can't have all that really expensive wine in cellar and steaks in the freezsr go bad. Or no power for the heated pool and sauna. -
h pierce at 03:58 AM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
Peak oil only refers to oil that can be recoverd by present convential methods. These are (1)flow from the reservior under natural pressure,(2)pumping, (3)water flodding and (4)gas injection suchas CO2. At the temperature and pressure in the reservor CO2 can be a super critcal fluid which has good solvent power for many materials. A super critical fluid has a density greater than the gas phase but less than the liquid phase. The CO2 on Venus is supercrical fluid not a gas. The critical temperature and pressure for CO2 31.1 deg C and 72.9 atm, resp. Above 31.1 deg C CO2 will not form a true liq phase no matter how much presssure is applied. The oil coming out of the damaged BP well in the Gulf of Mexico was flowing at pressure of ca 3000 psi iirc. It probably a real good idea to get as much of this high pressure oil out the reservor. An earth quake that cause release of this deep oil would be a true catastrophe and there would no easy way to stop it. There is nat seepage in the Gulf and this oil washes up on the beach as tar balls. In fact there huge amount of oil coming from nat seepage but lots gets eaten by microbes. Wind, solar, concentrated solar power aren't really going to make a dent in power usage especially in cold climates and at higher latitudes where there are about 8 hrs sunlight. Icing of the blades of wind turbines is a problem in really cold climates. The main draw back of these power surces is that these are unreliable (i.e., producing or not producing power) and unpredicatable (i.e., the amount of power produced is quite variable). The most important draw back is that for every megawatt of power from these sources there must be availble the same amount of power from convential sources. When it is -40 deg C in really cold climates, you must have stable and reliable power for furnance fans and electric heaters. Many farms in cold climate have beck up generators in case of power failure. At -30 to-40 deg C you will freeze to death quite quickly unless you can get heat PDQ. Go over to WUWT and read the article about how the Spanish gov shafted all the people who invested their life savings and mortaged the properties for wind farms. A lot of them are face with bankruptcy. -
Eric (skeptic) at 03:55 AM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
h pierce brings a good point about culture (diamonds). First of all, asking Americans to change their culture is not going to work. Non-Americans on this forum who aren't familiar with American culture may not realize this. Imagine a country road with driveways every 200-300 meters or more. Properties will be 20 to 40,000 square meters or more. The driveway is another several hundred meters and leads to a house in the open (no shade trees or winter protection partly due to wildfire concerns, partly for the view). The property may contain some hunting area or a range, a tree harvesting area, or a rough road down to the river. I could write a book, not just a paragraph, about the benefits of such a lifestyle. Changing the equation might include the cost of convenience offset by self sufficiency. For example, do the property owners desire 100% constant and reliable electric power or is they willing to put up with somewhat intermittent power at a lower cost? Are they willing to pay less for a limited range heavy vehicle registration (e.g. haul from home supply store)? Would they be willing to save on commuting costs but still have a reliable and comfortable service (e.g. privately-run luxury van) using express lanes or similar incentives? What I propose is in addition to many good alt energy production suggestions above along with alt energy basic research. -
michael sweet at 02:23 AM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
H pierce: "The transportation sector will always use hydrocabon fuels" What do you think people will do in 50 years after the full affects of peak oil? The AGW problem will just make us adjust sooner to the shortage of fossil fuels. I noticed a great many bases for wind generators the last time I flew over Texas. In the US wind is supposed to be more cost effective than solar. Spain got 40% of their energy from wind one month last spring. Does anyone have informed comments about wind energy?
Prev 2102 2103 2104 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 2116 2117 Next
