Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 Next
Comments 105801 to 105850:
-
Kooiti Masuda at 07:35 AM on 28 October 2010Climate sensitivity is low
Maybe we discuss different things by the same term MEP (Maximum Entropy Production). I am not familiar with Swenson's theory, but as I browse abstracts shown at links by KR (#59), they seem to say too far-fetched things to be demonstrated by physical science (though they may be interesting philosophical thoughts). I do not think it helpful to discuss matters of physical science following Swenson's reasoning. What I remember by the key word "maximum entropy production" is something like the Wikipedia articles Non-equilibrium thermodynamics and Extremal principles in non-equilibrium thermodynamics mention by the key word. (Wikipedia may be rewritten. I mean the contents as of today.) I do not fully understand these theories, but I understand themes which some of these authors wanted to discuss. -
scaddenp at 07:34 AM on 28 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
Just on "I say a climate scientist who is actively publishing peer-reviewed papers on climate science." I'd agree but in Doran which I assume is the source of data, the 97% refers to "climate scientists publishing about climate change". The "climate experts" number would be 90%. I know its nit-picking but I think is helps the argument to get it correct. -
Argus at 07:31 AM on 28 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
This is interesting. This is the first blog post I have seen so far, among hundreds on this site, that actually begins to adress the important subject of 'What should we do about climate change?'. All the others seem to say, in many different ways, that our climate is heading towards a disaster, and that anyone who says otherwise is a humbug. Unfortunately, after four lines about using 'less energy', and turning to 'renewable energy', even this post went on into the usual raving about 'disinformation', 'propaganda', '97% of all scientists', 'conspiracy', etc. This post was a great disappointment. How about telling us more about what we really can and should do about climate change, in stead of this constant complaining about how skeptics ruin everything? -
mfripp at 07:14 AM on 28 October 2010Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
The average temperature at the equator is about 30C. The average temperature at the North Pole is about -15C. If we assume that the temperature varies linearly with latitude, then the average temperature changes by 1C for every 2 degrees of latitude. If the Earth experiences a 6C temperature change, then this is the equivalent of Minnesota eventually having the weather of Louisiana which is 12 degrees of latitude to the south. Minnesota having the average weather of Louisiana is a big deal. And this is from the "best estimate" of a 6C temperature rise. If the estimate is wrong, then this could be larger. -
Daniel Bailey at 07:08 AM on 28 October 2010Skeptical Science Firefox Add-on: Send and receive climate info while you browse
Sweet, John! I look forward to using this! The YooperResponse: I look forward to you sending climate links to the database :-) -
Riccardo at 07:07 AM on 28 October 2010Climate sensitivity is low
Berényi Péter following your definition, the entropy production (EP) is determined by the temperature of the atmosphere at TOA (Ta), the temperature of the sun (Ts) and the earth albedo (α). Starting with the system in steady state, by suddenly increasing IR atmospheric absorption you're indeed lowering the EP via a reduction in Ta. Restoring steady state requires to increase Ta back to its original value and/or lowering the "incoming part" of EP through α. The latter alone would lead to a positive feedback which decreases Ta further. This is as far as we can get with this simple use of the MEP principle. We see the possibility of a negative feeback, which we already knew, and cannot rule out other positive feedbacks. Definitely more work need to be done in this field to obtain usefull insights from the use of the MEP principle in climate science. As of now, scientists are just looking at its range of validity mainly studying steady state situations, which presumably won't give new "practical" informations. Quoting Kooiti Masuda, "So MEP does not seem to me helpful as a piece of policy-relevant science of climate at present.". -
Kooiti Masuda at 07:02 AM on 28 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
I admit that the sentence in the quotation marks in my comment shown as #96, "greenhouse effect contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics", is not a quote from Gerlich and Tscheuschner. I consider that the main subject of this thread is to discuss such a notion that may be expressed by the sentence I showed in the quotation marks. I think it is rather irrelevant whether it comes from Gerlich and Tscheuschner or not. -
Andy Skuce at 06:55 AM on 28 October 2010Measuring CO2 levels from the volcano at Mauna Loa
Arkadiusz: Thanks for those links. The paper by Massen and Beck contains the following figure, comparing CO2 readings for a station in Luxembourg and at Mauna Loa over the same four days in July, 2006.
The graphs show the variations through the day at both stations, with the variations at Mauna Loa being much smaller. The dips in the afternoon readings on two of the days at Mauna Loa are probably due to upslope breezes bringing air from the lower reaches of the mountain that is slightly depleted in CO2 due to plant respiration.
Note that the figure caption warns us that the scales are different.I digitized the two CO2 curves and plotted them at the same scale so that they can be directly compared, as shown below.
This illustrates how steady the Mauna Loa CO2 readings are relative to inland stations like the one in Luxembourg.
-
perseus at 06:35 AM on 28 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
The Ville at 20:58 PM on 27 October, 2010 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. One of the most effective means of reducing carbon for any individual is through various home improvements, particularily insulation, however this should really be standard construction nowadays. With respect to your case, to calculate the true saving in carbon you would have to calculate the amount of carbon required in manufacturing and installing these windows, similarily for the boiler and the lights. Moreover, to this you would have to add any carbon products purchased through whatever monetary saving you achieved through these measures. The main point however, is that although some of us in developed countries may be making some energy and carbon savings, how much are these measures more than offset by all those people in developing countries upgrading to a Western lifestyle? You are comparing a limited saving with an unlimited increase. -
Jesús Rosino at 06:31 AM on 28 October 2010Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
Albatross #20, Regarding the "for how long" question, your paper is Solomon et al 2008: "climate change that takes place due to increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop." And that's the crux of the problem: decisions must be taken before the impacts arise because there's no way back. Wait and see = too late. Cheers. -
Berényi Péter at 06:19 AM on 28 October 2010Climate sensitivity is low
#59 KR at 04:42 AM on 28 October, 2010 At most (if correct) it will affect the speed of climate convergence upon equilibrium when forcings change, not the final equilibrium. Dear KR, what you say, does not make sense. Until you learn to differentiate between thermodynamic equilibrium (isolated system, no entropy production) and steady state with energy flowing through the system and entropy produced by it at a constant rate, unfortunately we can't move a single step further. -
Berényi Péter at 05:57 AM on 28 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
#101 KR at 03:46 AM on 28 October, 2010 Perhaps the clearest refutations of G&T come from Arthur Smith, "Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect" (well worth reading) If we delve into arXiv.org, it should be read along with its counterpart. arXiv.org > physics > arXiv:0904.2767 Physics > Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (physics.ao-ph) Cite as: arXiv:0904.2767v3 [physics.ao-ph] Comments on the "Proof of the atmospheric greenhouse effect" by Arthur P. Smith, arXiv:0802.4324 Gerhard Kramm, Ralph Dlugi & Michael Zelger "Smith's discussion of the infrared absorption in the atmosphere was scrutinized and evaluated. It was shown that his attempt to refute the criticism of Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2007, 2009) on the so-called greenhouse effect is rather fruitless." -
archiesteel at 05:40 AM on 28 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
@nealjking: a brilliant explanation, thank you! I want more kangaroo-related metaphors. -
nealjking at 05:32 AM on 28 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
#100, BP: "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" In that case, G&T would be "not expecting" wrong: change of concentration of a trace gas CAN have a measurable impact. I will write up a rebuttal of this error later, but briefly: The fact that the active agents of the greenhouse effect are an extreme minority of the atmosphere tells you absolutely nothing about the greenhouse efficacy of this minority. What matters is not the ratio of the number of greenhouse molecules to the total number of gas molecules, but the number of greenhouse molecules to the number of IR photons that are being blocked. As long as you have enough greenhouse molecules to catch the number of IR photons, you will have a greenhouse effect - pretty much regardless of the non-greenhouse molecules, which are incapable of interacting with the IR photons. In fact, to 1st order, if you increased the number of non-greenhouse gases by a factor of 10, so the trace GHG becomes 10 times "tracier", it would have NO EFFECT on the greenhouse capability of this minority. To 2nd order: the increase in the total amount of gas would increase the pressure of the atmosphere 10 times, resulting in pressure broadening of the IR absorption lines of the GHGs. So in fact, the GHGs would become even more efficacious, even as their relative concentration was reduced by 10. An analogy: You have a population of 10,000 people in a walled city, which is afflicted by invasions of kangaroos. So you hire 10 hunters to discourage the kangaroos. Do you ask, "10 hunters out of 10,000 people? That's only 0.1% ! How can 0.1% of the population protect against the kangaroos?" No, you don't, because the question is silly: What matters is not how many hunters there are relative to the population, but how many hunters there are relative to the number of kangaroos (and possibly, to the circumference of the walls). If there are 2 kangaroo intrusions per night, 10 hunters might be more than enough; if there are 100 kangaroo intrusions per night, probably not. In any case, it has NOTHING to do with the whether the population is 10,000 or 10,000,000. It would be an issue if we were talking about policemen trying to control crime among the populace: In that case, there would be an important difference between having 10 policemen for 10,000 people and 10 policemen for 10,000,000. But that is because policemen have to influence the populace, so their relative concentration is important. But the GHG molecules don't have to influence the non-GHG molecules: They just have to go after the IR photons. So the correct analogy is to the kangaroo hunters, and it doesn't matter how small a minority they are in the atmosphere. -
Climate sensitivity is low
To address some of what I might expect as a response to my last posting, I would like to note that if some mechanism (such as maximum entropy production, MEP) were operative in regards to thermodynamic equilibrium, it would certainly operate at all times. If it operated in the fashion described by Berényi, by increasing energy release to space and preventing temperature rises when GHG forcings would otherwise cause them to occur, it would operate at all times to maximize entropy, lowering the climate temperature as far as the system degrees of freedom allowed. TSI increases, for example, as seen in the early 20th century, would have no effect. Unfortunately for Berényi's formulation, it does. The 2nd law of thermodynamics sets the equilibrium (and yes, the steady-state) points, not an MEP effect, which is merely a constraint on how systems reach such states under the 2nd law. Climate sensitivity exhibits positive feedback. MEP cancellation of positive feedback is therefore prima facie incorrect; that emperor has no clothes. -
Daniel Bailey at 05:04 AM on 28 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
Re: transjasmine (37) I would augment the comments made by the others so far with this: from your first comment (and my reply to it) to your most recent, you have shown a lack of understanding of the subject matter you are commenting on. Did you learn anything from the pointing-in-the-right-direction I gave you? We are here to help those with questions, that's our role here. But when guidance is offered (by myself, JMurphy, KR and Phila), it is incumbent upon the person to whom it is given to then act upon it. Or to demonstrate, with supporting links, why it is wrong. It is expected that you will still have questions, certainly. And please do ask them. But to keep the moderators happy (☻), try to find an appropriate thread for them. There is always room for one more honest learner at this banquet table. The Yooper -
Philippe Chantreau at 04:49 AM on 28 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
The eternal story of climate "skepticism." Such nonsense as G&T does not have to be really peer-reviewed but the refutation has to be, despite the obvious nonsense. When was that double standard established? What justifies it? -
Climate sensitivity is low
Berényi - I did read what you wrote, ad hominem responses on your part not-withstanding. There is considerable evidence for positive feedback in climate sensitivity, and none for the "no positive feedbacks" claim you have made. In fact, the MEP is inappropriate when discussing the final destination in thermodynamics. "A system will select the path or assemblage of paths out of available paths that minimizes the potential or maximizes the entropy at the fastest rate given the constraints" (Swenson, R. 1989). This means that the MEP principle will "select the pathway or assembly of pathways that minimizes the potential or maximizes the entropy at the fastest rate given the constraints" (Swenson, R. and Turvey, M.T. 1991), emphasis added. The Second Law indicates that systems act to minimize potential/maximize entropy. It does not say by what path. MEP is an additional constraint on the 2nd law, not a replacement thereof. At most (if correct) it will affect the speed of climate convergence upon equilibrium when forcings change, not the final equilibrium. To quote Christopher Hitchens: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." MEP certainly qualifies in regards to climate sensitivity. -
archiesteel at 04:21 AM on 28 October 2010Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
@ClimateWatcher: "my analysis supports a best-estimate 2XCO2 climate sensitivity of 1.7 deg. C" I believe that's not including feedbacks. "There is not a great deal of evidence of net positive feedback taking place" That's your opinion, but it is not supported by evidence. The role of Water Vapor as a feedback mechanism is quite well understood, as well as the fact that warming oceans will release additional CO2 in the atmosphere. "Also, the Eemian and Holocene Climatic Optimum temperatures (~ 6000 ya, ~120,000 ya ) exceeded current temperatures." Indeed, but not by much - we should go above these temperatures much before 2100 (we are already at temps rivaling the HCO). Consider what sea levels were in those times to get an idea of what might be in store for us. Not fun. "The IPCC best estimate for the low scenario is 1.8 °C" The "low scenario" is unlikely, considering we are still pouring gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere at a record rate. I think you're being overly optimistic, here. The best survival strategy is still "hope for the best, prepare for the worst." Since "preparing for the worst" entails moving away from fossil fuels - soemthing we need to do for a lot of other reasons - your optimism seems unwise, from an existential point of view... -
Berényi Péter at 04:17 AM on 28 October 2010Climate sensitivity is low
#57 KR at 01:44 AM on 28 October, 2010 If MEP is a factor, it's always been a factor, and can be considered to be included in measured climate sensitivity No, it is not that simple. Please try to understand what was said before you venture in. You would make me happy if just once you could abandon the holistic approach and concentrate on the problem at hand with an analytical mind. This kind of thinking, although requires some discipline, is surprisingly effective and is much more in line with our own cultural heritage.Moderator Response: BP, out of respect to KR and his reply to this I won't delete this, but please try to be less adversarial in the future. Disagree, certainly, but keep it cordial. -
ClimateWatcher at 03:56 AM on 28 October 2010Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
"Finally, 6 °C, the actual “best estimate” for eventual global warming from current CO2 trends still sounds small." The IPCC best estimate for the low scenario is 1.8 °C and even that exceeds the thirty year trends. The best estimate is not 6 °C. -
ClimateWatcher at 03:54 AM on 28 October 2010Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
"Secondly, if we cause a ~2 °C warming, some scientists think feedbacks such as melting permafrost releasing more greenhouse gases might kick in. Ice and sediment cores suggest we haven’t been this warm in at least 600,000 years so we’re not sure – but this could trigger a lot more warming." There is not a great deal of evidence of net positive feedback taking place ( based on temperature anyway ). Also, the Eemian and Holocene Climatic Optimum temperatures (~ 6000 ya, ~120,000 ya ) exceeded current temperatures. -
ClimateWatcher at 03:49 AM on 28 October 2010Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
"There are 3 problems with even small sounding global warming. Firstly, 2 °C is a very optimistic assessment: if the skeptical Dr Roy Spencer is correct here then we’re on course to get more like 3.5 °C." The Spencer reference you cite states: "my analysis supports a best-estimate 2XCO2 climate sensitivity of 1.7 deg. C" That is also about the thirty plus year trend for multiple measures ~ 1.6 deg C per century. Looks like less than 2C. -
transjasmine at 03:46 AM on 28 October 2010Other planets are warming
the thing for me is, all this stuff is great, what troubles me is that the climate debate has "been settled" its all ready considered a fact that we (humans) are causing 'dangerous climate change' when other factors are still largely being debated. legislation already being put in place without conclusive evidence that global warming is man made. evolution is considered a fact because of the amount of evidence and no other scientifically plausible explanations, but that is not the case with climate change, it seems to me like every other theory is thrown out without the slightest consideration. there are plenty of plausible explanation for why the earth could be heating but none of them have undergone testing. for example, i cant recall ever seeing a news report or debate where the participants were not already in agreement that humans are causing climate change, yet there are professors and such out there who do not agree with the UN's models so why don't we ever hear from them? while different causes can still be debated there can be no settlement and laws should not be made to reinforce a theory that has yet to be proven, that would make it a religion, and not scienceModerator Response: Thank you for trying to post on a relevant thread. But this thread is not appropriate for this particular comment of yours. Your comment is too general, and so belongs in one of the more general threads. Please either comment on this thread about other planets warming (but read the post at the top of this page first), or look through the list of "Arguments" to find one that is more relevant to your general comment. A good candidate is "It’s not us." But please do read the post on that page before commenting there. -
The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Berényi - Keep in mind that Gerlich and Tscheuschner was not peer-reviewed. It was a multiply reworked version of their Arxiv paper that was published as a "review" article in an extremely off-topic [condensed matter???] journal, approved only by the editor. The paper has been thoroughly disproven. Figure 32 in their paper, pg. 78 of 115, represents the core of their 2nd law argument, and is both deceptive and incomplete; they show 'heat' flowing the wrong direction, and do not show the bi-directional energy flows. The rest of the paper is a massive collection of mis-statements, strawmen, and flat out incorrect claims. Perhaps the clearest refutations of G&T come from Arthur Smith, "Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect" (well worth reading), and the Halpern et al (peer reviewed) reply. It's utter garbage - I would suggest reading the extensive discussions on Deltoid, Science of Doom, and Rabett Run. They're not worth rehashing here. Gah. I'm not going to re-argue this bit of junk science here. -
jasjr7273 at 03:40 AM on 28 October 2010Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
The point is, humans weren't around 600,000 years ago, so it didn't matter much then, did it. If you want human misery and displacement, 2C is problematic into the future. -
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.
Prev 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 Next
