Recent Comments

Prev  2102  2103  2104  2105  2106  2107  2108  2109  2110  2111  2112  2113  2114  2115  2116  2117  Next

Comments 105451 to 105500:

105451. Ann at 20:44 PM on 29 October 2010
        What 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.
105452. transjasmine at 20:29 PM on 29 October 2010
        Carbon 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 today
        Moderator 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!
105453. Peter Lang at 19:22 PM on 29 October 2010
        What 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).
105454. MarkR at 19:22 PM on 29 October 2010
        Isn'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.
105455. Ann at 18:30 PM on 29 October 2010
        What 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 ?
105456. Peter Lang at 18:13 PM on 29 October 2010
        What 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.
105457. Ann at 17:47 PM on 29 October 2010
        What 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 !
105458. transjasmine at 17:14 PM on 29 October 2010
        It 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.
105459. Peter Lang at 15:50 PM on 29 October 2010
        What 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!
105460. KR at 15:39 PM on 29 October 2010
        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.)
105461. dr2chase at 15:02 PM on 29 October 2010
        What 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.)
105462. KR at 14:56 PM on 29 October 2010
        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.
105463. quokka at 14:54 PM on 29 October 2010
        What 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.
105464. quokka at 14:35 PM on 29 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        #105 Ann

        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).

        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.
105465. gallopingcamel at 14:17 PM on 29 October 2010
        What 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.
105466. gallopingcamel at 14:06 PM on 29 October 2010
        What 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.
105467. Ken Lambert at 13:36 PM on 29 October 2010
        The 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?
105468. Phila at 13:33 PM on 29 October 2010
        What 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.
105469. muoncounter at 13:12 PM on 29 October 2010
        What 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.
105470. Sarah at 12:54 PM on 29 October 2010
        Satellite 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).
105471. KR at 12:31 PM on 29 October 2010
        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
105472. KR at 12:21 PM on 29 October 2010
        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.
105473. dr2chase at 12:21 PM on 29 October 2010
        What 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.
105474. KR at 12:18 PM on 29 October 2010
        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.
105475. Daniel Bailey at 12:16 PM on 29 October 2010
        Isn'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
105476. Peter Lang at 11:51 AM on 29 October 2010
        What 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.
105477. adrian smits at 10:36 AM on 29 October 2010
        Isn'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!
105478. Philippe Chantreau at 10:27 AM on 29 October 2010
        The 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.
105479. Daniel Bailey at 10:02 AM on 29 October 2010
        IPCC 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
105480. adelady at 09:59 AM on 29 October 2010
        Medieval 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.
105481. Daniel Bailey at 09:55 AM on 29 October 2010
        What 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
105482. Kooiti Masuda at 09:52 AM on 29 October 2010
        IPCC 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".
105483. h pierce at 09:24 AM on 29 October 2010
        What 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.
105484. Kooiti Masuda at 09:17 AM on 29 October 2010
        Climate 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.
105485. markl at 09:12 AM on 29 October 2010
        Medieval 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 ?
105486. Vinny Burgoo at 05:07 AM on 29 October 2010
        Skeptical 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?
105487. Ann at 05:06 AM on 29 October 2010
        What 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.
105488. KR at 04:52 AM on 29 October 2010
        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.
105489. muoncounter at 04:15 AM on 29 October 2010
        What 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.
105490. daisym at 04:12 AM on 29 October 2010
        What 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.
105491. muoncounter at 04:09 AM on 29 October 2010
        What 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.)
105492. h pierce at 04:06 AM on 29 October 2010
        What 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.
105493. h pierce at 03:58 AM on 29 October 2010
        What 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.
105494. Eric (skeptic) at 03:55 AM on 29 October 2010
        What 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.
105495. michael sweet at 02:23 AM on 29 October 2010
        What 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?
105496. Argus at 02:10 AM on 29 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Ann #92: " – as far as I know – they have never actually replaced fossil fuel based plants. " I think Denmark have replaced some old fossil burning plants already, they do have a lot of wind power, and they are definitely aiming towards closing them all. The following is a rough Google translation of (part of) an article recently found on the Swedish TV website, svt.se: "By essentially a proliferation of wind power, Denmark shall be completely free of fossil fuels by 2050. After two years of work, the Government's Climate Commission presented its ambitious proposal, which is claimed to be surprisingly cheap (costing one half percent of GDP in 2050, scientists believe). Each year between 2015 and 2025, one offshore wind farm that generates 200 megawatts each, is erected. Wind power as a share of energy production should be increased from (now) 20 percent, to 60-80 percent in 2050. When there is no wind energy will be met by biomass and waste incineration."
105497. gallopingcamel at 02:05 AM on 29 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Marcus (#51) and Argus (#84), Yes, those are real numbers and they surely cast doubt on the viability of future nuclear power projects in the USA . However, the prospects look much brighter in some other countries including China where NPPs are being built for $1.5/We. In France they already built their fleet of NPPs, so they enjoy raking in huge sums by exporting electricity to Germany, Italy, the UK and Denmark. Apparently the French have a base cost of less than $0.05/kVAh. http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/10/25/2060-nuclear-scenarios-p4/ Finally, I pay Florida Power & Light about $0.12/kVAh for my electric power. That company has a wide variety of generating technologies but their lowest cost sources right now are their two NPPs. This is based on inside information that I hope to be able to share on this blog when (if?) I get permission.
105498. Berényi Péter at 01:38 AM on 29 October 2010
        The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
        #107 Philippe Chantreau at 07:40 AM on 28 October, 2010 BP, I'm curious. Is it your personal opinion that the atmospheric greenhouse effect has been falsified indeed, as G&T or Kramm seem to argue? No, it is not falsified and at the present level of discussion never will be (as it belongs to the "not even wrong" category). Therefore the very title of that infamous paper is misleading. Gerlich and Tscheuschner in their reply to Halpern at al. say: "In other words, we analyze the rationale and the inner contradiction of derivations of the atmospheric greenhouse effects communicated in the standard climate literature from the viewpoint of a physicist. In part, we are arguing within the context of the standard assumptions put forward by mainstream global climatologists. Nowhere we offer our own model, and we never will." And it is exactly that's what they do. Current formulations of the atmospheric greenhouse effect fail to meet standards of theoretical physics. It is as simple as that. The correct response of course is not to debunk the messenger, but to understand the message and having completed that task to present such a clear definition of the concept, that makes sense even for theoretical physicists. This job is not done so far. Of course I would never deny atmospheric emissivity in thermal IR has a role in maintaining quasi-adiabatic thermal structure in the troposphere. Without it (in a pure N₂ - Ar atmosphere for example) vertical thermal profile would be much closer to an isothermal model. It may even be interesting to analyze the effect of adding some more IR emitter to an already saturated narrow emission band, but analyzing its effect on what? Let's consider the problem of average temperatures. It is often stated with no atmospheric greenhouse effect "equilibrium temperature" would be 255 K (-18°C). In fact it is the approximate effective temperature of Earth as it is. However, as you can see, geographic distribution of outgoing thermal IR radiation at TOA (Top of Atmosphere) is very uneven. Effective temperature of an object is defined as the actual temperature of an isothermal perfect black body with the same surface area and same radiative power output. For the Earth this temperature does not depend on its IR emissivity, neither on the IR emissivity of any atmospheric ingredient. It is perfectly determined by ASR (Absorbed Shortwave Radiation), that is, short wave (visible & near IR) albedo and incoming solar radiation flux. Outgoing longwave radiation is not only uneven, but neither it is thermalized perfectly, because at such low temperatures no material approximates a black body and due to the semitransparent nature of atmosphere radiation escaping to space originates in different layers with vastly different temperatures. Therefore it is a tricky business to assign (radiative) temperature to each and every point of the globe. Nevertheless it can be done. If it's useful or not, is another matter entirely. If the surface of the globe is divided up into a grid, having measured the distribution of OLR (Outgoing Logwave Radiation), effective temperature can be calculated for each gridcell, then one can take the (area weighted) average of these temperatures. As <T>⁴ ≤ <T⁴>, the finer the grid the smaller this average will be. A decreasing series bounded from below is convergent, therefore with a fine enough grid we can calculate a well defined unique average temperature for the globe as it is seen from the outside. This temperature is much smaller than the oft quoted -18°C, it is certainly somewhere below -30°C. In defining the atmospheric greenhouse effect it also has the advantage of having a chance to be the correct choice to compare average surface temperature against, because comparing average temperatures to an effective temperature hardly makes sense in the first place (like apples to oranges). Is the atmospheric greenhouse effect more than 45°C then (instead of 33°C)? One also wonders what is the correct choice for surface? I know we live at the bottom of the atmosphere, so the special surface separating it from the rest of the globe is important for us. However, at least from the 16th century on we are moving away from an anthropocentric viewpoint, not by pure chance, but it has turned out the Universe is not centered around mankind after all, at least not in any trivial sense. So the correct question to ask is "Which surface is the important one for the climate system?" The question put this way has a unique straightforward answer: the upper surface of crust. The interface between the atmosphere and ocean is a busy one, both material and heat flows are several orders of magnitude higher there than those between the crust and atmosphere/hydrosphere combined. The whole AGW issue is started by the realization of a small, but in a geological sense still fast flow of the element carbon from crust to atmosphere effected by industry. It can be considered a "forcing" precisely because this interface is usually much more "closed" than the one between air and ocean. So when talking about "average surface temperature" we'd better compute it along a true boundary surface of the climate system, that is, along the surface of land and bottom of ocean. This average would be less than 7°C and much more stable than the usual one. In this case is the atmospheric greenhouse effect 25°C? or 37°C? I have no idea if average temperature of the globe as it is seen from space is increasing, decreasing or just fluctuating around some value. Neither do I know if among the several possible definitions of atmospheric greenhouse effect which one has a trend and in what direction. But it would certainly be interesting to know. Average temperature is probably not as important as some say. Entropy fluxes could be calculated in a similar, although slightly more complicated manner (one would need spectral resolution as well) and that would be way more informative than average temperature at an arbitrary interface.
105499. h pierce at 01:26 AM on 29 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        MC "...free in Nature.." means not in incombined form such as most metals and most elements. The most abundant materials free in Nature are water, the gases in the atmosphere. This includes small amount of gold, silver and coppper. There are about 10-15 trillion barrels of unconvential oil which are heavy and extra heavy crude oils, tar sand and oil shale. Coal which can be converted to liquid hydrocabons is not included in this catatgory. During WW II Germany obtained most of its fuel from coal using the Fischer-Tropsch proccess as does South Africa. Google "SASOL"' Shell R&D has several pilot projects in north western Colorado in the oil shale basin that uses in situ resistive heating to produces liquid hydrocarbons from kerogene, a waxy material in the shale. Obtaining hydrocabons from oil shale is well-known. During WW II the US Navy has a pilot plant in the Green River basin. They found that heating a ton of average oil shale would yield 25-30 gallons of liquid hydrocarbons and about 10,000 cubic feet of methane and ammonia. "Nope again. The oil companies I worked for are skeptical of climate change because it threatens their bottom line." No way. The transportation sector will always use hydrocabon fuels. If I were the CEO of a big oil company, I would tell the goverment "no carbon taxes and regulations of emisions or I will shut this company down, dismantle the refinery and move it and HQ to a tax haven." If workers can go on strikes so can compsnies. Presently, I pay a carbon tax of Can $0.9935 per Gj of natural gas which costs Can $4.976 per Gj in British columbia. That a tax rate 19.96% The general sales tax on junk food and beer is 12%. No sales tax on good food. Note: Fossil fuels are use for producing distilled spirits. Are you willing to pay a lot more for whisky, vodka, etc. You want to pay a carbon tax on propane for the barbie? In BC there free passes on the carbon tax for low income wage earners who receive a carbon tax credit, for companies exploring for nat gas, oil and minerals, cement producers and smelters making aluminium, lead and zinc. In the domestic economy the cosummer will eventually pay all carbon taxes. I have already noticed that the cost food in the supermarket has risen across the board since trucks bring it to the store. If a goverment can regulate ghg emission and impose carbon taxes, it can not only seize control of the means of production but every aspect of your life. Would you like the lady premier running your life? I don't think so!
105500. KR at 00:59 AM on 29 October 2010
        Climate sensitivity is low
        Berényi - Further reading into non-equilibrium thermodynamics is proving interesting; in particular the internal fluctuations of such a system. You are correct, the climate is a non-equilibrium system, due to the energy flows. So: You hypothesize that maximal entropy production will prevent positive feedback to greenhouse gases, minimizing climate sensitivity. First objection to your hypothesis: I would hold that the climate has stable stationary states, where there is a local max of entropy. Given the internal fluctuations (including seasons, PDO, ice ages) over the history of the climate, I would find it difficult to believe that the climate could find nearby local entropy maxima to switch to based on small linear forcings; surely the climate would have long since hit those maxima based simply on climate variability. not impossible, but highly unlikely. There may indeed be critical points (ice age initiations, major clathrate/permafrost upheavals); those are points of concern, but certainly not involved in response to small linear forcing changes. Second objection: Climate sensitivity has been measured, and shown to have positive feedback. Your claim that the MEP effect would cause "no positive feedback" (your words) is thereby falsified. Until you recognize this (and you've spent quite some time ignoring this issue raised repeatedly both by me and also by 'e'), the conversation will go nowhere, and I will continue to consider this a lengthy thought experiment unrelated to the real world.

Prev  2102  2103  2104  2105  2106  2107  2108  2109  2110  2111  2112  2113  2114  2115  2116  2117  Next