Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 Next
Comments 105601 to 105650:
-
Phila at 03:25 AM on 28 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
transjasmine, i'm being censored yay! While you're perusing the links that JMurphy kindly provided for you, please take a moment to look up the definition of "censorship." As far as I know, it doesn't include being asked to take arguments on a private website to the threads specifically provided for those arguments. -
Berényi Péter at 03:16 AM on 28 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
#96 Kooiti Masuda at 12:53 PM on 27 October, 2010 The story of the principle of maximum entropy production (MEP) is related to the general title "The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect", but MEP is something distinct from the 2nd law, and is much less established [...] the formulations of the model systems that should represent the real world is different among scientists [...] and that the answer to the preliminary question "maximum among what?" is different accordingly Yes. MEP, even if related, is distinct from the 2nd law. I also agree proper definition of boundary conditions is crucial. Anyway, I move discussion of MEP and its suggested relevance on climate sensitivity to the How sensitive is our climate thread. All interested parties are invited to continue there. The message of the main text of this thread is that such assertion that "greenhouse effect contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics", as Gerlich and Tscheuschner made in their paper published in 2009, is false Slow down, please. The statement you've put in quotation marks is not found in the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper. It is important to get quotations right, otherwise you can easily get what others have got in [2]: "Since Halpern et al. communicate our arguments incorrectly, their comment is scientifically vacuous." These guys may be physicists, but not fools. Perhaps it's worth checking out what they've actually said. I don't think their paper has got properly refuted either. I know there was much talk about it in the blogosphere, but according to the standards of this blog, only peer reviewed papers can be relied on and of those we do not have too many, just one (along with a counter-refutation from the original authors). [1] International Journal of Modern Physics B Vol. 24, No. 10 (2010) 1309–1332 DOI: 10.1142/S021797921005555X COMMENT ON “FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS” JOSHUA B. HALPERN, CHRISTOPHER M. COLOSE, CHRIS HO-STUART, JOEL D. SHORE, ARTHUR P. SMITH & JÖRG ZIMMERMANN [2] International Journal of Modern Physics B Vol. 24, No. 10 (2010) 1333–1359 DOI: 10.1142/S0217979210055573 REPLY TO “COMMENT ON ‘FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS’ BY JOSHUA B. HALPERN, CHRISTOPHER M. COLOSE, CHRIS HO-STUART, JOEL D. SHORE, ARTHUR P. SMITH, JÖRG ZIMMERMANN” GERHARD GERLICH & RALF D. TSCHEUSCHNER "Naturally, from our own experience we know — and we often point this out in discussions — that individuals, who — escaped from the science department — flew to and finally got lost in the domains of global climatology often suffer from a barely modest infection by mathematics and physics." Quite rude. Although not a peer reviewed paper, but this one from the same authors may be of some interest too: arXiv.org > physics > arXiv:1003.1508 Physics > Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (physics.ao-ph) Cite as: arXiv:1003.1508v2 [physics.ao-ph] On The Barometric Formulas And Their Derivation From Hydrodynamics and Thermodynamics Gerhard Gerlich & Ralf D. Tscheuschner "Since the measurable thermodynamic quantities of a voluminous medium, in particular the specific heat and the thermodynamic transport coefficients, naturally include the contribution from radiative interactions, we cannot expect that a change of concentration of a trace gas has any measurable effect" -
JMurphy at 02:47 AM on 28 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
Hey, I like the taxonomy bit - very impressive and helpful. I must pay more attention when these changes are brought in... -
JMurphy at 02:43 AM on 28 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
transjasmine, you can reply to any comments from anyone, as long as they are on the relevant thread. If you have any responses to any of the links I gave as a response to your assertions, reply after clicking on the relevant link. As for your 'do nothing' attitude, because you think that climate change is all natural, please read the following : Climate's Changed Before Humans are too Insignificant to affect Global Climate It's Not Us Or look at any of the threads that counter arguments about it all being down to the sun, the oceans, etc. At any of those, you can bring forth your arguments and present the evidence for them. -
What should we do about climate change?
transjasmine - You might also want to look at the various arguments by taxonomy; it might be easier to find the relevant thread for your argument points that way. In the meantime I suspect the moderators will continue to delete 'off-topic' posts... -
What should we do about climate change?
transjasmine - Your initial posts on this thread were quite the laundry list of skeptical statements; I count ~12 of them in a couple of paragraphs. They are popular skeptic arguments; they have been discussed here before. I would recommend that you compare your post here to the list of Skeptic Arguments, and if you wish to argue specific points, go to the appropriate thread where folks can track what's being talked about. -
Albatross at 02:29 AM on 28 October 2010Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
Jesús and MarkR, Thanks for clarifying (and for the informative links). Yes, our chosen emissions trajectory will be key to this, and I too am concerned about the possibility of slow feed backs biting us in the you-know-what. The work by Hansen et al. and Lunt et al. is sobering. The NRC in the USA released a comprehensive report earlier this year. From their summary: "Because carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe. Emissions reductions decisions made today matter in determining impacts experienced not just over the next few decades, but in the coming centuries and millennia." [Sourced here] The changes induced from this huge pulse of CO2 (and other GHGs) are very likely going to be significant and long-lived. We are creating quite a mess for future generations are we not? -
transjasmine at 02:25 AM on 28 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
actually my posts were not off-topic, the question is what should we do about climate change, my answer was "nothing" because the climate is always changing, has always changed and will continue to change and there is nothing we can do about it. the facts i gave and questions i posed were to reinforce my answer. i cant answer you comments JMurphy because i'm being censored yay! -
Alexandre at 02:09 AM on 28 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
quokka #35 I have talked to people working with wind energy, and it looks like it is more predictable and reliable than it seems at first glance. Of course, if you are able to assemble them into an extensive grid you can smooth out even seasonal variations. But even local generation can be climatologically predictable, and therefore useful and reliable. Yes, you may need some old-style generation as a backup on the predicted drops, but it can be significantly less than now. Maybe some more posts on the subject could raise our overall culture on this subject and help us distinguish between true limitations and uninformed resistance to clean energy. -
Climate sensitivity is low
Berényi - You argue that MEP would limit climate sensitivity and eliminate positive feedbacks. This is contradicted by real world measurements, model results, paleo-temperature records, etc., which are well demonstrated in Knutti and Hegerl (2008) - where any number of small linear forcings are used to estimate climate sensitivity, all ending up roughly in the 2–4.5 °C range. That means a range of non-negative positive feedback. The lower end of that range, still with a moderate amount of positive feedback, is quite solid. If MEP is a factor, it's always been a factor, and can be considered to be included in measured climate sensitivity. There is no data supporting your assertion of "no positive feedbacks", and in fact quite a lot of data showing that assertion to be incorrect. I would consider this 'low sensitivity' hypothesis clearly disproven, as contradicted by all the evidence. -
Yvan Dutil at 01:41 AM on 28 October 2010Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
By the way, you should point out this is a world average. Since Earth is 75% water most heating will occur on ground. We are already at something like +5 in the Canadian arctic and things are just starting. As for ma previous comment, I wanted to put the emphasis on the fact that the transition is not expected to be smooth. This will create more problem for the adaptation. -
quokka at 01:41 AM on 28 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
adelady, I find this argument about local generation with solar and wind to be very unconvincing in the absence of economic storage. All grand plans for renewables require electricity to be provided via much expanded grids over large geographical areas to (partially) offset local weather effects. Even then, they are up against it as weather systems can also span large geographical areas. Electricity supplied by local wind and solar would be exceptionally and unacceptably unreliable. -
adelady at 01:31 AM on 28 October 2010Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
If we're talking small temperature changes having big effects, the LIA was barely 1C less than the 1950 temperature. Has anyone suggested that +1 should have a smaller effect than -1? There may be something in the idea. But there's no disputing that 2C, an additional 1C on top of that, is a very big deal. -
Climate sensitivity is low
Moderator - Starting from the "Advanced" version of this topic, then going to page 2 of comments, I see the "Basic" version appear as the topic header. Using the "Prev" link, I get the "Basic" version again. Is this the desired behavior? I would think that the advanced discussion should remain if starting there... -
adelady at 01:21 AM on 28 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
One issue not often mentioned with renewables for power generation, is the capacity for distributed generation to shield communities from some of the anticipated impacts of unavoidable change. If towns well away from power plants were equipped with a mix of wind and solar - which they could feed back into a grid when they have surplus - they could easily sustain themselves even if raging storms or fires knocked out a large part of the transmission network. As for nuclear power, unless we're talking salt cooled thorium I think it's just silly. A plant ordered today isn't going online very quickly and we expect it to last many decades. Unless we're *guaranteed* sufficient cooling water and *guaranteed* no SLR rise to impact seawater cooled plants, we'll finish up like Tennessee this year and Europe in 2003 being unable to run plants at all when they're most needed. Noone's mentioned geothermal? -
quokka at 00:57 AM on 28 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
#28 Marcus, I think you should wait for the publication of Barry Brook's paper before making too assumptions about his sources. Wikipedia reports the cost of electricity from Andasol 1 as 0.271 euros per kWh. At current exchange rate that is $0.374 per kWh. The IEA in it's 2010 report on the projected costs of electricity generation finds nuclear to range from $0.059 to $0.099 per kWh in OECD countries. The IEA includes decommissioning and waste management costs. -
Tarcisio José D at 00:54 AM on 28 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
"What should we do about climate change ?" Water into sahara desert, is the answer. Img.gif. -
JMurphy at 00:51 AM on 28 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
transjasmine wrote : "JMurphy i dont believe what i have said contains any "fallacies" but if you would care to enlighten me as to what and why it was wrong?" Follow the links I gave, to discover that : Breathing doesn't contribute to the increase in CO2, so it doesn't need to be taxed; Plants and trees need a lot more than CO2 to survive, and a warming world will inhibit their growth; CO2 is a pollutant; 'Climategate' was a storm in a tea-cup, which didn't show scientists doing any falsification because there was no falsification to show. Read the links for further information and I will provide more links to counter the rest of your misinformed views when I have more time.Moderator Response: Transjasmine, further responses to your off topic comments and questions will be deleted from this thread. Look on the relevant threads. -
Marcus at 23:56 PM on 27 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
Perseus, my own rather modest energy efficiency measures (like replacing my hot water tank with a continuous flow gas system, installing tinted windows & switching to compact fluorescent lights) has cut my electricity use *in half*-& led to only a marginal increase in my gas use. This means I've achieved a phenomenal reduction in my CO2 emissions-with no loss in my quality of life. I'm also on a 50% Green Energy scheme & I use public transport for all routine commutes, which is cutting my CO2 footprint still further & saving me money. So you see, in truth, that energy conservation stands to significantly reduce CO2 emissions-at least cost to the consumer. A shift away from large centralized coal-power plants (with their 15% Transmission & Distribution losses, only 35% Thermal Efficiency & massive electricity surpluses at night) to smaller, decentralized & scalable sources of electricity (like gas, wind & solar) would also allow for massive reductions in our CO2 footprint, without the disastrous impact on the economy that the fossil fuel defenders claim! -
Marcus at 23:49 PM on 27 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
Barry Brook, the cost estimates for Nuclear Power that you cite are based on the deliberate underestimates supplied by the nuclear industry itself. They frequently quote costs of around US$2500 to US$3000 per KW of installed capacity-when actual experience has shown costs to be closer to between US$4000 & US$6000 per kw-even when the projects come in under budget (which is almost *never*, btw). By contrast, Andasol-in Spain-has an installed capacity of 100MW & cost US$380 million-or a cost of $3800 per MW of installed capacity. The system also has around 8 hours of storage on top of the amount of energy it generates directly. Nevada Solar One, with a capacity of 75MW, for a cost of US$270 million-or US$3600 per kilowatt of installed capacity. Solar Energy Generating Systems (SEGS) in the Mojave Desert, was installed, in stages, at a cost of between $1800 & $3000 per kw of installed capacity. So, in fact, solar thermal power stations have an established track record of coming in at-or even below-the installation costs of nuclear power stations-even though nuclear power has enjoyed a much longer period of development & government subsidies. Also, this constant reference to the need for 24/7 power from coal or nuclear is utter rubbish. The worst thing about nuclear & coal is that they're hugely inflexible-producing far, far more electricity between 8pm & 8am than is actually required. A far better approach would be to introduce better energy efficiency measures (like weather-proofing houses, which would make the need for all-night A/C totally unnecessary) & supplying our energy needs from a *mix* of distributed energy generation systems-Gas (Natural & Biogas), Wind coupled with Vanadium Flow Batteries, Solar Thermal-with thermal storage, grid-interactive Photovoltaics & even Tidal Streams. This could be done without *any* recourse to nuclear power. -
mistermack at 23:39 PM on 27 October 2010CO2 lags temperature
This doesn't really strengthen the sceptic argument, but I've noticed in the graph above that the CO2 timelag is pretty obvious most of the time, EXCEPT for the apparent runaway warming phase, out of the coldest ice-age, right up to the hottestp peaks. Maybe it's there, but not obvious in that graph, or maybe there is no lag for that runaway warming phase. If so, I would find that very interesting indeed. If CO2 doesn't lag temperature for that period, it would seem that something else is causing the release of CO2, maybe on top of the rising temperature. Something to do with fresh water meeting saline, perhaps? -
transjasmine at 23:36 PM on 27 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
@JMurphy i dont believe what i have said contains any "fallacies" but if you would care to enlighten me as to what and why it was wrong?Moderator Response: You need to make your comments on the appropriate threads. Off topic comments will be deleted from this thread. -
beam me up scotty at 22:53 PM on 27 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
Good comments guys. Thanks -
CBDunkerson at 22:40 PM on 27 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP #350: "And more to the point, if the heat flow outward is being restricted by GHGs (and that is a big IF)" No, that is an observed fact which even most 'skeptics' no longer challenge. Indeed, the latest fad seems to be claiming that this is a strawman invented by warmists because no one would ever actually question something so obvious. "The follow, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law ...starts by saying... "The Stefan–Boltzmann law, also known as Stefan's law, states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body per unit time" ...and continues, "...is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature T:" The amount of energy radiated is directly proportional to the temperature. Ergo, if the temperature goes up the energy radiated goes up. Precisely what I've been saying. No 'fixed limit'. And with that stunning example of deliberate misrepresentation on your part, I'm done here. -
Alexandre at 22:06 PM on 27 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
Thanks Kevin. I'm interested in the cheap solar energy claim, as well. In a quick and lazy research, I found this on Wikipedia: Cost of electricity by source. It shows solar photovoltaic energy as the most expensive, and solar thermal the second one (see table). It's a very interesting subject that would deserve more posts. Maybe the discussion that follows would bring in more information. The link about investment from Google is also good news. Thanks Marcus. -
nealjking at 21:58 PM on 27 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
#98, Joe Blog: However you define the 2nd law, the usual model of the greenhouse effect is "in compliance" with it. -
Paul D at 21:38 PM on 27 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
Yes, indeed Arkadiusz. Of course the idea of developing the Sahara for just Africa isn't considered! Instead Europe seems to be interested in mainly exploiting another African resource to support our own life styles. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:22 PM on 27 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
EU Commission, concluded that the cost is only the acquisition of solar energy in the Sahara. To get from the source 100% of Europe's demand (for electricity), you must cover the solar panels (the latest, yet non-existent generation), more than 30% of the Sahara. It would also develop entirely new ways of transmission of this energy. The current could generate up to 30% of losses. -
Berényi Péter at 21:05 PM on 27 October 2010Climate sensitivity is low
There was a discussion of MEP (Maximum Entropy Production) principle and its possible bearings on climate sensitivity under The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect. We were asked to move it to this thread. MEP theme was started here and after some lengthy exchanges there's a clarification attempt. If valid, it would mean equilibrium climate sensitivity, whenever "forcings" are small enough to warrant a linear approximation, is moderate (no positive feedbacks). There could still be large shifts in climate, either forced or unforced, but they would not fit into the standard climate sensitivity formalism and entirely different analytical techniques would be required to uncover them (e.g. topological analysis of the entropy production rate function over the phase space of climate states). -
Paul D at 21:04 PM on 27 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
oops that last comment of mine was in response to perseus. -
Paul D at 21:03 PM on 27 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
addition: Not only are your views about renewables wrong, but your support for a fossil fuel back up plan with desperate geo-engineering add ons is junk. -
Jesús Rosino at 20:59 PM on 27 October 2010Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
Fixing broken link in #16: "slow feedbacks [...] I wouldn't consider there is a scientific consensus yet (see for example James Annan's comment here (7/3/09 1:58 PM)" -
Paul D at 20:58 PM on 27 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
Concentrating solar wouldn't work very well in the UK or the Northern hemisphere in general. Biomass, wind farms, photovoltaics, solar water heating, ground source heat pumps, tidal and numerous other alternatives are appropriate here in the UK. perseus: "Moreover whilst some renewables work well up to a percentage of power, further increases lead to grid instability and expensive storage is necessary." Your view about renewables assumes that technology and engineering is stuck in a time warp with no innovation. Here in the UK a lot of work and effort is taking place to develop new ways of managing renewables connected to the grid. Including a big smart grid test project involving some 14,000 homes and businesses. The problem we have now is that the old grid was designed for the generating sources developed over 70 years ago, it will be changed to suite todays needs. That includes better energy management at the customer end with smart devices that know when the grid is under strain (actually quite easy, you just monitor the frequency, which is what the human controllers do manually). Basically your basing your ideas on ideas that are being bypassed by research and development. -
Jesús Rosino at 20:56 PM on 27 October 2010Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
Thanks for your clarification in #15, Mark. When I read about 6 ºC, I also thought of slow feedbacks (Hansen et al 2008 and Lunt et al 2009), about which I wouldn't consider there is a scientific consensus yet (see for example James Annan's comment here (7/3/09 1:58 PM)). In any case, slow feedbacks would be something more to take into account. In Gavin's own summary: "even with the (substantial) uncertainties in the calculations and underlying assumptions, the conclusion that the Earth System sensitivity is greater than the Charney sensitivity is probably robust". Lenton et al 2005 (published in Climate Dynamics) addresses the question of long-term Charney sensitivity. Their Figure 9.c would be the graphical summary: "A conservative estimate of known conventional fossil fuel resources is 4,000 GtC and this forms the basis for scenarios C [red curve], emitting this reserve rapidly, and D [cyan curve], emitting it slowly.". This is considering only fast feedbacks. Anyway, I think that, in the long term, the uncertainties are mainly in the emission scenario rather than the climate sensitivity The IPCC don't go beyond 2011, but they have a graph with the temperature up to 1.000 ppm here. Cheers. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:46 PM on 27 October 2010Measuring CO2 levels from the volcano at Mauna Loa
Early attempts to measure CO2 in the USA and Scandinavia found that the readings varied a lot due to the influence of growing plants and the exhaust from motors. the prevailing winds are offshore breezes, which bring clean air from high in the atmosphere down to the observatory This not completely precise. The influence e.g. of wind on measurements of CO2 for a long time ago was a scientist of Luxembourg physicist dr. F. Massen (Seasonal and Diurnal CO2 Patterns at Diekirch., 2007; and Pattern of CO2 and other atmospheric gases during a cold weather inversion., 2009.) Interestingly, he concluded that this effect can be estimated also for measurements over land and ... that the measurements from Mauna Loa, Barrow vs. example, can be used to statistically based validation of old - historical measurements of CO2, leading to the paper: Accurate estimation of CO2 background level from near ground measurements at non-mixed environments., 2009). In this work a more precise description of why it is the type of Mauna Loa station gives the best results: ” The daily pattern of the CO2 mixing ratio depends essentially on the presence and/or the strength of the near ground inversion layer. This layer (which exists mostly at night, during the morning hours or at late afternoon) prevents a thorough mixing up of the atmosphere and coincides usually with large CO2 peaks (Massen, 2007). During the midday hours, solar heating is normally at a maximum and creates the strongest convective air movements. As a consequence, the atmospheric boundary layer is well mixed up, and CO2 mixing ratios fall to their daily minimum. This minimum is seen as the most representative measure of the regional CO2 background level. The inversion periods are much shorter and less intense at the border of open sea or at smaller islands, where a quasi continuous breeze mixes up the boundary layer at most periods of the day. As a consequence, the daily CO2 variation is much lower at these locations; that are considered as the most suitable for background CO2 measurements.” -
JMurphy at 20:30 PM on 27 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
transjasmine, just your first paragraph has many fallacies - if only you had read more on this site. Anyway, here are the threads you need to read to help with your misunderstandings : Does Breathing Contribute to CO2 Build-up in the Atmosphere ? Global Warming 'Positives' CO2 - Everyone's Favourite Pollutant ClimateGate Like I say, that is just from your first paragraph - there is a lot more but I don't have time at the moment to point you in the right directions. Maybe later...unless someone else can be bothered to waste their time on this ! Basically, perhaps you had better start here : Newcomers Start Here -
Esop at 20:03 PM on 27 October 2010It's cooling
The deniers jumped on the same cooling train back in 2008 and predicted that we were going to enter a Maunder Miniumum due to the combination of the lowest solar minimum in more than 100 years and a negative PDO. With 2010 smashing all sorts of records, the deniers were proven dead wrong, but they are getting away with it. The MSM is all over tiny dicrepancies in the predictions of the real scientists, but dead quiet on the massive failure of the skeptic cooling predictions from 2008. Those predictions were all over the blogs and deniers even went on television proclaiming rapid cooling. Henrik Svensmark is one of the most high profile ones. Last month was the warmest (by far) in the UAH record, despite maximum cooling effect from the lowest solar slump in more than a century, despite the cooling effect from the much heralded (by deniers) negative PDO, and despite the onset of the second strongest La Nina on record. Nature is turning all the natural drivers to Max Cool and September was still the warmest by far. Food for thought. 2011 will flatten out and perhaps cool slightly, due to the strong La Nina, so the deniers will make their usual noise and the MSM will bite, hook, line and sinker and make first page material out of pretty much every single bit of denier disinformation. 2012 temperatures will come back with a vengeance, however, as we will likely enter an El Nino, and the solar cycle will have gained some momentum, in addition to the always present and increasing warming from the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. -
Peter Lang at 20:01 PM on 27 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
Bern@16, I cannot give your reply the detailed answer it needs here. You might be interested in the “Zero Carbon Australia – Stationary Energy Plan- Critique”. http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/ This provides cost estimates for solar thermal and wind power, with biomass and hydro backup, to meet our projected demand for electricity. The cost is around $500/MWh ($270 to $1,200/MWh), but these costs are based on highly optimistic assumptions. The power supply would be unreliable. -
h pierce at 19:51 PM on 27 October 2010Measuring CO2 levels from the volcano at Mauna Loa
ATTN: All FYI After analysis, the concentration for CO2 in a sample of local air is reported for purified dry air (PDA) which does not occur in the earth’s atmosphere and is comprised of nitrogen, oxygen, the inert gases, which are the fixed gases, and CO2. The composition of PDA (i.e., the relative amounts of the fixed gases and CO2) is fairly uniform through out the atmosphere and is independent of location, elevation, pressure, temperature, humidity, biological and human activities except for minor local variations in particular with respect to CO2. This is the origin of the term “well-mixed atmospheric gases.” For PDA at STP (i.e., 273.15 K and 1 atm. pressure), there are presently about 390 ml, 17.4 millimoles, 766 mg, or 0.000766 kg of CO2 in 1 cubic meter. The density of PDA at STP is 1.29 kg per cubic meter. The concentration of CO2 in PDA is 390 ppmv. In real air there is no uniform distributon of the masses of the consituents including water vapor and clouds in the atmosphere in space and time as is shown by daily weather maps of the various regions of the earth. High pressure cells have more mass of the gases than do low pressure cells, and thus there is no uniform distribution of CO2 in the atmosphere. Air containing water vapor is less dense than dry air and has less mass of the fixed gases and of CO2 both of which will vary with humidity. Mountains are a prominent geological feature of the continents and the density of the air in them is less than at sea level and diminishes rapidly with elevation. Real air is the term for local air at the intake ports of an air separation plant and usually contains aersols, reactive gases, volatile organic compounds, water vapor, fog, rain, snow, CO2, nitrogen oxygen and the inert gases which are the fixed gases and comprise about 99% of PDA. The metric used for CO2 in climate model calculations is ppmv and is incorrect since the concentration of CO2 is only valid for PDA. The metric that should be used is either mass per unit volume or moles per unit volume. This is flaw in climate model calculations since the mass of the air is complex function of the variable mentioned above. The mass of CO2 per unit volume in local air will usually be less for elevation upto ca 30,000 ft. (i.e., the height of the tallest mountains) than that calculated for PDA. Climate models that use concentation of CO2 for PDA will give results that are to slighty too high. Moist tropical air (e.g.,90 deg F and 100% humidity) can contain 20% less CO2 than PDA. For much useful into on the properties air go to Universal Industrial Gases Inc.'s website at http://www.uigi.com/air.html By Harold, the chemist. -
MarkR at 19:50 PM on 27 October 2010Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
Re: Albatross #11 The 6 C I gave was for 2 doublings of CO2, as our current emissions pathway is along the IPCC SRES A1. Warming by 2100 seems almost certain to be less than this, but even the 3-4 C we may see by then is an absolutely massive change. It's not just warmer nights and evenings, but climate zones moving hundreds of miles north and hundreds of millions of people needing to protection against rising seas. -
perseus at 18:45 PM on 27 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
I'm afraid relying on conservation, nuclear or renewables is merely tinkering at the edges, and it could be like cutting off a few of the the Hydra's heads! Jeavons paradox reminds us that efficiency savings may not be as great as expected. Moreover whilst some renewables work well up to a percentage of power, further increases lead to grid instability and expensive storage is necessary. Nuclear is limited unless we move to thorium. However bear in mind that most of our carbon emissions are non grid based and widely diversified. Although I generally support most 'green' initiatives, we really have focus on reducing the key drivers. Economic, and population growth, the latter being a delayed effect. Consumption is a social illness which our politicians and media encourage us to participate in so we need political change. With regards to technologies as unpopular as these are I suggest the following should be our focus Carbon capture and storage Reforestation in the tropics and possibly beyond depending on albedo effects 'Reversible geoengineering' such as increased cloud cover (yes this could be an oxymoron) but only in conjunction with genuine carbon reduction initiatives. 'Industrial geoengineering', by focusing on carbon reductions in transport emissions rather than on industry which according to NASA has a net cooling effect Increased research into technologies such as algae based Biofuels and artificial carbon capture from the atmosphere should be encouraged. -
John Brookes at 18:21 PM on 27 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
Bern@16 - "Why design systems to deliver 100% all night?" Well, not all night maybe, but on those really hot nights in Perth, there is no doubt that everyone will keep their air conditioners going, at least until the early hours of the morning! -
Bern at 17:54 PM on 27 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
@Peter Lang, I'd have to disagree with your comment that solar thermal with storage can "only provide a few hours of full power generation when the sun is not shining" - the output post-sunset depends on the amount of storage you have. If your demand curve *needs* full output after sunset, then you need to make larger storage tanks and increase the size of your collectors, that's all. But given most (all?) demand curves show a significant decrease post-sunset, why design the system to deliver 100% all night? I agree with you, though, that the cost is an issue - the price per MWh delivered is important. But I'm also interested - was the cost for solar thermal based on the limited scale projects that have been deployed in the past, or on projected costs of large-scale baseload generators? I'm sure the early nuclear systems cost a bit more than they do now, given the 60-odd years of (highly subsidised) development that's gone into them. The bigger problem with nuclear, at least in Australia, though, is political. 60-odd years of scaremongering about the dangers of nuclear waste will be hard to overcome... -
Peter Lang at 17:43 PM on 27 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
Further to Barry Brook's comment, the $165/MWh cost for solar energy is not comparable with the cost of energy from nuclear. Nuclear provides power on demand, whereas solar provides power when the sun is up and the sky is relatively clear. They do not provide much power in winter. Even solar thermal power stations that have some storage (such as molten salt storage) can only provide a few hours of full power generation when the sun is not shining. There is no such thing as a solar baseload power station and probaly never will be (other than with huge subsidies). I agree with the statement: "Most importantly, we must stop listening to disinformation." -
transjasmine at 17:31 PM on 27 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
john chapman, its interesting to me that you would suggest curbing the population growth, how exactly would one do that? i have an opinion on this issue relating to global climate change but i'll let you answer before i rant. -
Barry Brook at 17:13 PM on 27 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
Marcus, I'm sorry, I have to dispute this on a number of grounds. First, you're quoting a few cherry-picked assumed costs, not real-world costs. Second, you're not considering LCOE. I have an article in press in the journal Energy (the DOI is 10.1016/j.energy.2010.10.039 but it's not online yet), and based on a meta-review of the last 10 years of authoritative energy literature (encompassing the IEA, EIA, MIT, IPCC, RAE, NREL, NEEDS etc), normalised to 2009 USD, we found the median LCOE for nuclear was $54/MWh (n=8), and for solar thermal it was $165/MWh (n=4). Your statement is not supported. -
transjasmine at 17:09 PM on 27 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
hmm now what could we do to fix this huge problem? how about some kind of tax, we'll call it a tax on carbon, something that everyone has to pay because we all breathe, don't take into account that plants and tree's need Co2 to survive, its poison a dreadful poison. ignore climate gate the scientists were joking about falsifying data. oh just ignore the ice cores showing co2 following temperature, the ice cores were joking as well, just to confuse you haha do you get it? ignore ice core and sea core data showing just 500,000 years ago a temperature 5 degree's higher than today which heated at a faster rate 15 degrees per century. ignore the urban heat island effect and the iris effect. ignore the fact that a small period known as the Holocene climatic optimum was warmer than it is today. so what can we do about global warming? absolutely nothing, its a natural occurrence you may as well try and stop the sun from burning. -
Marcus at 16:29 PM on 27 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
Also, Bern, you can find more info on Concentrated Solar Power here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power -
Marcus at 16:28 PM on 27 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
The closest I can get, Bern, is this: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58867I20090911?pageNumber=1. I hope that helps. Also, I've heard of capital costs for coal power stations of between $1.80 & $2.20 per watt. Its also worth noting that the Coal Industry enjoys many tax breaks-especially in Australia. Water costs, waste disposal costs, land rehabilitation costs, diesel fuel costs-*all* are, in part or full, covered by tax payers! -
Glenn Tamblyn at 16:25 PM on 27 October 2010Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
The projections for warming due to a CO2 doubling - 3 Deg, 6 Deg etc need to be considered in the context of time scale. Most estimates of temp change that fall into that 3 Deg band are based on the Charney Sensitivity - how much the climate will change to a doubling considering only shorter term factos, typically on time scales up to a few decades at most. The full temperature response to a forcing may take centuries to manifest as it involves other feedbacks on longer time scales - Ice Sheet changes, altered vegetation patterns and ocean currents. These are the ones suggesting figures up towards 6. One area that often seems to get under-represented when we consider the impacts of any temperature change is the impacts on food production. Our domestic crops co-evolved with us during the Holocene and are often quite tied to temperature regimes. The argument is sometimes put that it has been warmer in the past. Yes it has but we weren't trying to feed 9-10 Billion people at the time. A few DegC change means that every ecosystem on the planet will experience an adaptation pressure due to temperature and precipitation changes. Ecosystems can adapt, but they need time to do so. The pace of these changes, perhaps more than therir absolute magnitude is a huge ecosystem stressor. The risk is that they cannot adapt fast enough. And the technical term for many of these ecosystems is 'farm paddock'. The big risk from AGW, because it compounds with all the other environmental pressures, is the threat to food supply, and the flow on social chaos that may follow. And just a few degrees can cause that in a world that is already close to not being able feed everyone.
Prev 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 Next
