Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 Next
Comments 11201 to 11250:
-
michael sweet at 12:32 PM on 11 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Thinkingman,
And yet as I have already stated, wind and solar underbids gas plants. Perhaps if you analyzed the actual bids you could provide more understanding.
I am not surprised that you can generate very high cost estimates for renewable energy using unrealistic parameters. For starters, renewable energy does not require 5% spinning reserve and that figure should be completely removed from your calculations. Solar complements wind since it is usually windier at night and sunnier during the day. Wind and solar combinations are cheaper than either alone.
Your calculation is a fake product developed by the fossil and nuclear industries to fool the uninformed. Please provide a peer reviewed citation to support your wild claims.
From the site you linked:
"Renewables such as wind and solar now account for the majority share of new electricity generation capacity being built globally." and
"Beyond policy goals, the growth of renewables is supported by their improving cost outlook. According to Lazard’s year-end 2017 estimate, levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for utility-scale renewable electricity continues to fall, averaging $45 per megawatt-hour (MWh) for unsubsidized wind power and $45 to $50 per MWh for utility-scale solar, compared to approximately $60 per MWh for combined-cycle natural gas." and
"As technology costs fall and environmental concerns grow, renewable-energy systems offer more and more opportunities for incumbents and new entrants alike."
These quotes hardly support your wild claims.
Jacobson 2018 and Connolly 2015 describe cost effective renewable energy systems that suppply all power for the economy.
Coal pollution alone kills over 10,000 people in the USA alone every year and results in over $40 billion in helath care costs. Switching to renewable energy would save all those lives and the cost of the hospitalizations. You and I are the ones who pay for that hospital care.
Why would you choose to continue to subsidize the fossil fuel industry by paying for all those health care costs (not to mention the people they kill)?
-
curiousd at 11:48 AM on 11 April 20192015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #5C
I have been reading the new work by Laliberte, that analyzes the earths atmosphere as a heat engine and predicts fewer but more violent storms.
This brought to mind that there a heat engine aspect to textbook analysis of Global Warming I have never quite understood. Consider the standard treatment of the Earth with no GHG. One knows the flux incident on the Earth from the Sun and considers the earth as having no GHG but an albedo of about 0.3. The Earth and Sun are clearly in themal balance in this case and the average Earth temperature comes out about 254 K.
In all textbooks I have read, one assumes that, even with an atmosphere, there must be thermal balance between the Earth and the Sun. Then if there is some forcing by - say - a burst of methane, eventually the Earth reacts to that forcing F by attaining a corresponding increase in temperature at the Earth's surface.
But consider the First Law of Thermodynamics: If the Earth's intermal energy is U then U2 - U1 = F. But the new internal energy U2 could have a mechanica component. Say the forcing F is applied; then concieveably U2 = U2(T) + U2(mechanical) --I could apply heat to a container of water and not only incrrease the temperature but also produce a convective flow in addition.
Perhaps one could argue that the forcing acts adiabatically on the water molecules in the atmosphere so that U2(mechanical) is small. But I have never seen this covered in any text to date; the assumption is always made that all the forcing goes into a temperature increase.
As far as Climate Change is concerned, the U2(mechanical) term could be as or more damaging as if the entire U2 -U1 were thermal.
Comments?
-
ThinkingMan at 09:19 AM on 11 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
The prior post discussed why reliable service needs to be considered when selecting sources for electricity. This post discusses the cost of reliable service. Because readers appear to value reasoning, how costs were arrived at is explained. Then, the cost estimates are shown.
At present and for the next several years, the lowest cost way to structure reliable service around wind turbines is to supplement them with natural gas fired generators. The latter have lower capital requirements, life cycle costs, technical risks and operating risks than pumped storage, grid scale battery storage and other storage systems. For more information go to https://www.mckinsey.com/search?q=renewable%20electricity . This web site has numerous articles providing insights into conventional and clean electricity systems. McKinsey is a well-respected consulting company.
Thus, for this post, wind turbines are combined with natural gas fired generators into an integrated, coherent operating unit that supplies a steady flow of electricity every minute of every hour, every hour of every day and every day of a year. A steady flow system is easier to design and to discuss. Furthermore, a large fraction of the grid’s need is steady. All equipment is assumed to be new and dedicated to the unit. Again, this simplifies discussion.
The mix of generating capacity is: Every 100 units of rated wind turbine capacity is supplemented with 50 units of cycling, dispatchable gas fired capacity plus 5 units of gas fired spinning reserves. Cycling, dispatchable gas fired capacity is similar to “gas peaker” capacity (the green line) in the first graph in the SkepticalScience article that started this discussion.
The 100/50/5 mix suffices to make big points. Optimization is not necessary. Nor is optimization appropriate here because optimization is site specific. In Texas, this mix will supply about 5,250,000 MWh of reliable electricity per 1000 MW of rated wind turbine capacity. Wind’s share is 61%. Cycling reserves contribute 29%, and spinning reserves contribute 10%.
In New England, it will supply about 4,800,000 MWh. The respective shares are 49%, 43% and 8%.
A conventional choice for baseload power is a combined cycled combustion turbine fueled with natural gas (CCGT). Per unit of electricity, its CO2 emissions are about half that of a coal fired generator. Its full production costs (capital charges + operating costs) are also lower than coal fired generators. So, this post compares CCGT costs with the reliable wind unit. CCGT fit into the “gas baseload” category (light brown line) on the graph.
The graph supports the main, challenged, point of my initial post. The point is: Total production costs for reliable electricity service structured around wind turbines substantially exceed costs for a baseload gas generator. Reliable costs for the former are around $90 per MWh, 1.65x the latter. This is based on TX experience with wind. In New England, reliable cost is In New England, the figures are $112 and 2x.
The $90 and $112 estimates are based on 2018 values eyeballed off the graph. Eyeballed values suffice for this discussion. The value for electricity sourced from a gas peaker is $205/MWh, wind turbines $40 and gas baseload (proxy for spinning reserves) $55. The reference point is the center of each line. The values by generator were weighted by each generator’s share of system energy to calculate the reliable wind figure. The shares for TX are .29 for cycling reserves, .61 for wind and .1 for spinning reserves. The arithmetic for TX is: $90 = (.29 * $205 + .61 * $40 + .1 * $55). The shares for New England are respectively, .43, .49 and .08. The arithmetic for New England is: $112 = (.43 * $205 + .49 * $40 + .08 * $55).
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:59 AM on 11 April 2019Protecting oil companies instead of the climate-vulnerable is elitist
nigelj,
The opening statement of Sunspot's comment @22 is contradicted by the content of the 3rd para. of that comment. That was what prompted me to not accept the opening statement of the comment.
-
nigelj at 06:43 AM on 11 April 2019Protecting oil companies instead of the climate-vulnerable is elitist
OPOF @26, yes the probabilities of problems has only got worse. And will continue to get worse if we do nothing.
I do think the realclimate.org article on worst case scenarious is good science overall. It's a sober, solid risk assessment in most ways. Some people get a little carried away with climate risks and have made big exaggerated claims about imminent human extinction, imminent methane bombs etc. The denialists use this to then discredit global warming theory and the whole scientific extablishment by association.
Having said that, the realclimate article struck me as too conservative in some ways. Essentially their theory is there are a number of dangerous tipping points that could lead to rapid change including relatively sudden methane releases, amoc slowdown, thwaites glacier collapsing, but these are all very unlikely, things will be slower. Ok I accept this, but if the experts are wrong about even one of these tipping points it could be catastrophic. With so many potential climate problems the chance of an underestimate increases. I hope I dont sound contradictory.
I agree Sunspot was sending very mixed messages, which I initially found frustrating and confusing. He's not the first to do this. However he clarified his point @22 in the first paragraph, and that was good enough for me.
-
william5331 at 05:55 AM on 11 April 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #14
As Attenborough says in his latest program, since we first went into space 50 years ago, the population of the world has more than doubled. We are in the last phase of an exponential growt curve. Exponential curves are not bell curves with a smooth rise and then smooth decline. In the real world they rise and then go vertical......straight down. It may already be too late with our friend Trump giving the final nudge over the edge of the cliff. Even with Bernie we my not have been able to save ourselves from our sorry selves. At least we would have had a chance.
-
michael sweet at 18:30 PM on 10 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Turco:
It sesems to me that one of the important reasons more renewable energy is not being built yet is institutional inertia.
It takes many years to plan, get approval and build a new fossil fuel plant. Nuclear takes even longer. Renewable energy has only been the cheapest option in most areas for 2 or 3 years. Plants planned 5 years ago assumed that renewable energy would be more expensive.
No-one anticipated that renewable energy would drop in price so fast. With the new reality that renewable is cheaper many more renewable plants are being planned and built. China and India are proving more flexible than the USA.
In addition the utilities have to learn how to use large amounts of renewable energy. Producers of fossil fuels faslsely argue that large amounts of renewable is unreliable. Utilities have to see renewable implemented before they plan large amounts of renewable energy. See Thinkingman's argument.
Before countries tried it planners thought over 20% of renewable energy would be hard to regulate. Now they know that they can implement renewable energy without supply issues. Gas peaker plants, already built and currently supplying most peak power, can be used to supply all back up power for renewables on calm nights. In the future renewable energy will be stored so the fossil plants are no longer needed.
-
scaddenp at 13:28 PM on 10 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Yes, I cant figure out fracking either. Income flows seems to be hiding underying lack of profitability. Investors must be seeing something I cannot. I hope so because given the amount of money invested, an industry crash could be next financial crisis.
-
michael sweet at 12:15 PM on 10 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Scaddenp,
In additon to your points, it is relevant to keep in mind that the price of gas will go up in the future. Since fossil fuels are limited in supply all fossil fuels will go up over the long term. The sun and wind will always be free.
The question is will prices go up in a few years or in a few decades?
Fracking currently produces a very large amount of cheap gas (and oil) in the USA. The fracking industry loses billions of dollars every year. The fracking industry has never had a money making year. It appears to me that the fracking industry is a giant Ponzi scheme waiting for investors to figure out that they have been had. When investors wise up fracking will stop and prices will substantially increase.
Pray that the collapse of fracking will not knock off the economy too.
-
michael sweet at 12:02 PM on 10 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Thinkingman,
And yet, as I pointed out before, wind and solar underbid fossil fuels and nuclear. Newbuild wind and solar are cheaper than just running coal and nuclear power plants. New gas is more expensive than new wind and solar. Scaddenp has demonstrated that when wind is built the cost of electricity goes down.
Your point about Germany is interesting. I was not aware that we were discussing what wind and solar used to cost, I thought we were discussing what it costs to build wind and solar today. Wind and solar are much cheaper today than they were 5-10 years ago.
Yesterday I was looking at the cost of a solar system for a boat. The cost of the panels was astonishing it was so low. I purchased a similar system 25 years ago and the panels were most of the cost. Today the panels are only about 1/3 of the cost.
Even in Germany, the wholesale price of electricity has declined as they built out renewable energy. Taxes account for the higher prices paid by households.
Your claims about South Australia electricity costs are simply false and easily Goggled. You need to raise your game if you expect anyone to believe your wild claims.
-
scaddenp at 11:42 AM on 10 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Well for a lot of the industry, renewables are what businesses are jumping on but if you look at the graph in the article, you see the margin between gas and renewables is very narrow - much more so than gap between renewables and coal/nuclear.
A carbon tax would shift that. Depending on actual location, just removing subsidies on fossil fuel would shift the economics. US spent $20B on FF subsidies in 2015/16 according to this.
Storage is an issue but it depends on what the whole network looks like in terms of energy sources. Here we have a lot of hydro. Just holding back water when wind generating plenty is a form a storage. Tesla's battery plus windfarm has been a huge success in Australia. This article reports on further advances with 12 storage projects in the pipeline. Grid-scale storage is already here.
-
Turco at 10:30 AM on 10 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
@eclectic
I agree that externalities for fossil fuels are higher and add to the total societal cost . But I was referring to dollar costs as experienced by companies and consumers today without a Carbon tax.
I still think if renewables are really cheaper, business would jump at the opportunity . If it is an issue of sunk costs, we should see a slow replacement of old fossil based power plants with renewables ( why fix an aging powerplant if a new wind/solar farm produces cheaper electricity).
If it is an issue of stubborn CEOs , other companies and venture capitalists can move in and compete with them . Yes , the market is not perfect , but competition generally wins in the end .
I do not know why renewable is not yet cheaper (after all wind and sunshine are free whereas oil is not ). Thinking man is arguing that the inability to store power ( which you mentioned also in your post ) is the big technological bottleneck.
-
RedBaron at 10:29 AM on 10 April 2019Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change
I understand that in certain cases it might not be wise to use "grey literature". However it is also not reasonable to expect the same results repeating published papers be published over and over again in every state and/or country too. At some point there has to be an understanding that yes indeed this is a legit way to sequester large quantities of carbon deep in the soil, and all that remain is to project the number of acres we use it on. The biophysical aspect of what Savory discusses is well established enough that this is all that remains!
Will we change Ag or not? The more we change to holistic management, the more carbon gets sequestered! And also since agriculture is about 20-25% of emissions, it means a reduction of emissions too.
Oh and I just ran across this again.
"Across-farm soil organic carbon (SOC) data showed a 4-year C sequestration rate of 3.59 Mg C ha−1 yr−1in AMP grazed pastures. After including SOC in the GHG footprint estimates, finishing emissions from the AMP system were reduced from 9.62 to −6.65 kg CO2-e kg carcass weight (CW)−1, whereas feed-lot (FL) emissions increased slightly from 6.09 to 6.12 kg CO2-e kg CW−1 due to soil erosion. This indicates that AMP grazing has the potential to offset GHG emissions through soil C sequestration, and therefore the finishing phase could be a net C sink."
convert to CO2e 3.59 x 3.67 =
13.1753 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr and yet again another replication of the work Jones recorded, dead center in the 5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr.And that doesn't even count the fact that we could simultaneously take a similar acreage of corn out of production replacing it with grass. So we are reducing emissions and increasing sequestration simultaneously. Twice the efficacy at 1/2 the cost!
Clearly the Myth that needs debunked from this website is the Myth that HPG doesn't work.
-
TVC15 at 10:23 AM on 10 April 2019CO2 lags temperature
@590 scaddenp,
The thing he is wrong about is his claims in the first graph. He states over and over that "there is no relationship between CO2 and Temperature"...Then he posts these graphs.
-
scaddenp at 09:38 AM on 10 April 2019CO2 lags temperature
Remember that he is correct that increasing temperature will also increase CO2 on century scale. CO2 is both forcing and feedback. There is no argument on that. The increase of CO2 that comes the milankovich-driven NH warming is what magnifies the event and what turns the NH-only forcing into a global forcing. The mechanism doesnt operate when exactly the same milankovich effect is working on the SH.
-
TVC15 at 09:24 AM on 10 April 2019CO2 lags temperature
@ MA Rodgers
Well the denier went bezerk when I pointed out what you showed me he did with his graphs. This was his come back. Instead of the word tiny as you used I used the word minute.
"Minute?"Are you that far out in left field?
Graph #2 starts at 151,423 years before present and ends at 131,455 years before present.
That covers 19,968 years.
How is 19,968 years "minute?"
The first interval on Graph #2 is 151,423 years before present to 149,921 years before present.
That's 1,502 years.
How is 1,502 years minute?
The time intervals are those in the US Government's NCDC NOAA Excel Chart for EPICA Ice Core Data.
That's how your own government published it.
[B][I]You're going to accuse and fault me, because you don't like how your own government published the data?[/I][/B]
Man, you people are cult-like.
Why join them together?
I know why....you want people to look at incredibly large time-intervals which hides the fact that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature.
Graph #1 starts 131,329 years before present and ends at 111,862 years before present.
That covers 19,467 years.
How is 19,467 years a "minute" time interval?
Explain that to us.
No, all you've done is proven you're in total panic mode.
Again, I encourage and urge everyone to download the data and make your own graphs, so you can see CO2 does not increase temperature, but temperature does increase CO2.
See scaddenp what I mean? He's a sly devil bully.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:19 AM on 10 April 2019Climate change poses security risks, according to decades of intelligence reports
The USA is experiencing the harmful reality that John Stuart Mill warned about in "On Liberty" when he stated "If society lets a considerable number of its members grow up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives, society has itself to blame for the consequences." Narrow would apply to a limited range of the population (Tribal), a limited geographic range (Regional), and a limited time frame (dismissive of the future)
The USA population is complicit in allowing 'mere children' to be able to compete for political popularity. And they have been doing it for a long time.
The extremely narrow worldview and short time-frame concerns of many of the 'successful' political leadership in the USA has been developing for a while (and infecting other regions), and apparently the population of the USA has been reluctant or helpless to do anything significant about it.
The solution may require international intervention, and the related temporary setting aside of recognition of sovereignty. As a minimum the international community that understands the moral requirement for significant correction of what has developed should be intervening in support of the portion of the USA population that 'understands and supports the needed corrections'.
The international community has a history of eventually collectively intervening when global concerns require such action. That potential development of the need for international intervention in the USA should be a significant National Security concern.
-
scaddenp at 09:18 AM on 10 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Thinking man - you seem to be basing your conclusions on newpaper articles from unreliable sources. The AFR claim doesnt stand basic scrutiny (https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/electricity-rates-around-the-world.html)
whereas James Taylor is a Heartland misinformer. By all means do an analysis but please get your information from a reliable source. Ie, do your work in google scholar.
For Texas, I do seem some interesting analysis on wind. eg here, and similar conclusion for Germany here and for Italy here.
-
ThinkingMan at 08:40 AM on 10 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Michael Sweet challenged my 3 April post’s main point: The full cost of RELIABLE electricity service structured around wind turbines SIGNIFICANTLY EXCEEDS the full cost of reliable service based on a combined cycle natural gas turbine (CCGT). This post begins the process of supporting the statement. At least one more post will be needed to complete the process.
RELIABLE is a key word in the initial post. Reliable service has for decades been characteristic of Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, North America, Europe and elsewhere. Thus, globally, electricity users are now accustomed to getting all the electricity they want when they want. Lights glow when switched on, and stay on until switched off. Personal devices, laptop computers, Teslas and other battery operated items get charged when needed. Stop lights function full time, and electric trains run on schedule. Refrigerators and freezer s work round the clock. Meals are cooked when needed. Stores are open, fully illuminated and operational when shoppers visit (ditto schools, hospitals and bureaucracies). Work schedules are regular, and one puts in a full day every day.
Whereas society is accustomed to reliable electricity, wind turbines generate unreliable electricity. Their output is intermittent, variable and unpredictable. And, other traits can differ from electricity produced by conventional generators.
How unreliable is wind electricity? In Texas, the wind turbine capacity factor routinely fluctuates FIVEFOLD during 24 hour periods. Fivefold means the highest capacity factor is 5x the lowest. For example, the capacity factor was 63.7% at 4 a.m. (an off peak time) on 31 Dec 2018 and 12.1% at 5 p.m. (a peak demand time) 30 Dec. . More than one quarter of the time, the capacity factor is less than 20%. One quarter is equivalent to 6 hours per day. The 6 hours tend to occur during business hours—when electricity demand is strong. Each year, seasonal forces reduce the capacity factor 35% while concurrently raising demand 45%. For the source data, go to the “Hourly Aggregated Wind Output” entry on www.ercot.com/gridinfo/generation.
Wind electricity is also unreliable in New England. For the source data go to: https://www.iso-ne.com/isoexpress/web/reports/operations/-/tree/daily-gen-fuel-type
For the benefit of readers not familiar with industry jargon, capacity factor is a measure of utilization. When generation equals rated capacity, the capacity factor equals 100%. A 50% capacity factor indicates rated capacity is half utilized. 10% indicates one tenth.
Because wind turbine output is erratic and frequently mismatched with electricity demand, wind turbines must be supplemented with additional equipment so society gets reliable electricity service. The additional equipment adds capital and operating costs to the system, thereby raising the full cost of service.
Actual experience and data suggest the cost of reliable electricity correlates with wind & solar’s combined share of electricity supplies. In Europe, electricity rates are highest in the two countries most dependent on renewables. The two countries are Denmark and Germany. Furthermore, rates rose more in Denmark and Germany than elsewhere in Europe while these two countries installed the bulk of their wind capacity. In Australia, rates are highest and rose fastest in the state most dependent on wind & solar (South Australia). Germany, Denmark and South Australia have the highest electricity rates in the WORLD (source: https://www.afr.com/news/australian-households-pay-highest-power-prices-in-world-20170804-gxp58a ). In the United States, electricity rates in the top 10 wind producing states as a group ROSE 7x faster than the U.S. average. The comparison period is 2008-2013 (source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/10/17/electricity-prices-soaring-in-top-10-wind-power-states/#70c08fbe6112 ). The conflict between experience and claims about the cost of wind electricity prompted me to look into estimates of wind turbine costs. Insights will follow in a future post.
-
Daniel Bailey at 07:40 AM on 10 April 2019There is no consensus
"that's a great resource!"
The best part about using it on a denier is that you can tell him that the information was released by the Trump Administration...I never fail to remind them of that.
-
scaddenp at 07:18 AM on 10 April 2019Asteroid to hit Earth in August 2046 - Emergency IPCC UN panel formed
IA - short answer is that there are a no. of geological processes operating over long time scales which tend to remove carbon from the atmosphere. For the longer answer, try this paper for the details.
-
scaddenp at 07:03 AM on 10 April 2019Climate sensitivity is low
Could be interesting to gather up Scarfetta past prediction papers and see how well they have panned out compared to reality.
Notrickszone were so confident that many reader were willing to bet on cooling. You can see here how well that is panning out so far.
Doesnt pay to believe your own nonsense.
-
TVC15 at 06:48 AM on 10 April 2019There is no consensus
@ 782 Daniel,
Thanks so very much that's a great resource!
-
Daniel Bailey at 06:16 AM on 10 April 2019There is no consensus
Sea level rise estimates are largely based on the future emissions concentration pathways that we would need a crystal ball to foresee. Hence the estimates are dependant on those future decisions society makes. And those decisions matter a very great deal to future SLR by 2100.
Per the NCA4, Volume 1, Chapter 12, Table 12.1:
For reference, we are currently following RCP 6.0 pathways, so I would look at the Intermediate-High set of values.
-
nigelj at 06:05 AM on 10 April 2019Climate change poses security risks, according to decades of intelligence reports
If climate change continues unmitigated, it seems to me that refugee problems may make a border wall necessary on Americas southern border. It appears latin america and mexico will be hit quite hard by climate change according to the UN. So Donald Trump is currently trying to fix a non existent border crisis, and ignoring the climate problem that could generate a real crisis mid century or later.
-
TVC15 at 05:45 AM on 10 April 2019There is no consensus
I have come across a climate denier who makes statements such as:
It is difficult to know what exactly is the scientific consensus on the predictions about the effects of climate change in the future.
I have read estimates that the global sea level is expected to rise anywhere from 6 inches to 6 feet by the year 2100.
What I am looking for is a consensus among climate scientists about the specific effects of climate change in the coming several decades.
I'm sure there is a souce here on Skeptical Science if someone could kindly point me to it.
-
michael sweet at 04:36 AM on 10 April 2019Climate sensitivity is low
Artmemidor,
The "no tricks zone" is a well known denier site. They only cite denier papers and not the much more numerous papers supporting the IPCC position. (There are more than 30 real papers for every denier paper published).
Scafetta, the lead author of the paper they cite, is a well known denier who has been debunked many times. The paper is published in the International Journal of Heat and Technology, a journal that is unrelated to climate change. One technique of deniers is to publish papers in unrelated journals where the editors are sympathetic to denier views or will publish anything that pays the fee. If it was a real paper then they would publish in a climate journal.
At Realclimate, a web site run by real climate scientists, the current lead article is a simulation of the past three million years of climate that estimates the climate sensitivity at 3C per doubling, the midrange of the IPCC report.
Carbon dioxide concentrations have risen from 280 ppm pre industrial to current levels of 410 ppm. Temperatures have risen by 1 degree C or more. About 0.5C is estimated to be unrealized heating or masked by aerosols.
Currently measured temperature increases are already too high for a climate sensitivity of less than 2C and are not well described by a sensitivity of less than 3C. If the arctic sea ice melts out that will increase the climate sensitivity since open water absorbs more heat that ice covered water.
The article you cite is intended to confuse the uninformed and not to help increase understanding of climate.
-
John Hartz at 03:37 AM on 10 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Recommended supplemental readings:
A Virtual Solar Power Plant for L.A.? ‘It Will Happen’ by Jill Cowan, California Today, New York Times, Apr 3, 2019
Batteries are key to clean energy — and they just got much cheaper by Eric Holthaus, Grist, Apr 3, 2019
How State Power Regulators Are Making Utilities Account for the Costs of Climate Change by Iliana Paul & Denise Grab, DeSmog, Apr 3, 2019
Utilities Starting to See Green in the EV Charging Business — and Competition by James Bruggers, InsideClimate News, Apr 4, 2019
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:18 AM on 10 April 2019Climate sensitivity is low
I only spent a few minutes on this, but I found the following item to be sufficient to lead me to be very skeptical of any claim posted on NoTricksZone.
-
artmemidor at 01:26 AM on 10 April 2019Climate sensitivity is low
According to the following article, the Recent CO2 Climate Sensitivity Estimates Continue Trending Towards Zero
https://notrickszone.com/2017/10/16/recent-co2-climate-sensitivity-estimates-continue-trending-towards-zero/
What is your view on this article? Is it reliable? Do you share its findings?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:25 AM on 10 April 2019CO2 lags temperature
scaddenp,
I agree. Morally corrupted people who know better but choose to try to keep others from being more aware and better understanding of what is really going on are a serious threat to the future of humanity.
Those who have been easily impressed into a Dunning-Kruger Effect belief in their Brilliance and Correctness in spite of the fact that they have been fooled into passionately holding an incorrect harmful belief is tragic.
Unfortunately the popularity and profitability of fossil fuel use motivates many people who do know better to behave in morally corrupt ways. And it makes it easier for them to tempt people into Dunning-Kruger Effect delusions supporting the incorrect claims used to justify less correction of the harmful unsustainable activity that has become so popular and profitable.
-
Imminent Apocalypse at 23:55 PM on 9 April 2019Asteroid to hit Earth in August 2046 - Emergency IPCC UN panel formed
It's strange how the temperature andco2 concentration drop over time. I'm aware of glaciation and interglacial periods, but why they tend to decrease over the millions of years? it's just a personal curiosity
-
Imminent Apocalypse at 23:51 PM on 9 April 2019Asteroid to hit Earth in August 2046 - Emergency IPCC UN panel formed
As this is your first post, Skeptical Science respectfully reminds you to please follow our comments policy. Thank You!
Mh, this is kind of strange how the industry is trying to intimidate the science or to suppress it... this is the source of all my bad thoughts about envoirment. I mean how can you do that to us young people and kids?
Whatever SirCharles thank you for the graph, they are cool.
-
Eclectic at 20:21 PM on 9 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Turco @28 , these are certainly difficult matters to make judgment about.
For starters : a perfect market is not in existence. Additionally, there are many externalities which are difficult or impossible to put a dollar cost on.
Long-term levelized costs might point to a particular line of action as being cost-effective ~ but the short-term changeover costs may act as an immediate deterrent to the shareholders of private companies, and especially to the directors/executives who may temporarily lose much of their bonuses/benefits. Strangely, most directors/executives would prefer to receive generous monies into their own pockets now, than have the benefits go into the pockets of their successors. It is simply human nature to be more selfish than saintly.
Future hospital & other health costs (from coal-related particulates, etc) generally get little or no consideration at the boardroom table. And future social and political ructions do similarly receive no real consideration.
And there is presently a rather elastic limit to the amount & speed of introduction of renewables : at least until such time as cheap bulk energy storage is widely available (another example of more foot-dragging by companies & governments).
Then there is the matter of "invisible subsidies" to renewables ~ and also "invisible subsidies" to legacy coal/oil/gas industries (sunk-cost subsidies, and present & future subsidies through physical & social subsidies/infrastructure).
Ah, if only life were simpler !
-
Turco at 15:29 PM on 9 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
I'm a bit skeptical about *unsubsidized* renewable being cheaper than fossil . If it is , then the market would take care of switching everyone towards renewable without the need for CO2 emission controls, or a carbon tax.
In other words why haven't energy companies switched to renewable en masse already to maximize their profits if renewable was cheaper.
-
scaddenp at 12:27 PM on 9 April 2019CO2 lags temperature
The real devils are the ones that know they are lying rather than self-deluded. This one sounds more like they have acquired undue confidence from being deeply mired in denier myths.
-
TVC15 at 11:56 AM on 9 April 2019CO2 lags temperature
@585 scaddenp
Trust me he's a sly devil. He berates anyone who challenges his climate myths. He's a bully and his posts are very sneaky. He posts those two graphs so many times and tells people to "learn from them".
He's the most sneaky climate myth posting person I've ever encountered. He truly thinks he's smarter than all the rest.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:42 AM on 9 April 2019Milankovitch Cycles
stonefly:
I've been AFK, but yes, it's the earth-sun distance variation that causes the seasonal changes. Inverse square law and all that. Combine that with the geographical (land/ocean) difference between southern and northern hemispheres, and you get variations in climate.
As glaciation is strongly a northern hemisphere phenomenon, the glaical periods tend to be linked to periods of low summer NH insolation.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:42 AM on 9 April 2019Protecting oil companies instead of the climate-vulnerable is elitist
nigelj,
I understand the current very low probability of a catastrophic future climate impact event triggered by accumulated human impacts. But as the decades of slow action to curtail fossil fuel use drag on, the probability of such unbelievable events increases. And the distraction of a search for improved understanding of 'other possible emergency actions' becomes more tempting. And the 'lesser of the evils' arguments become tragically more likely.
The current generation already faces a tragic 'lesser of evils' decision making process in the face of a more daunting requirement for action because of the lack of corrective action by previous generations. Popular and profitable over-development in incorrect directions has created a bigger problem needing more rapid correction that is actually harder to increase the rate of correction of (because many more fortunate people would be less fortunate because of the required correction, especially if the progress of poverty reduction has to be maintained and improved upon, which it does).
Sunspot's comments lead me to believe that they likely consider global dimming to be a potentially helpful action. They may also support delaying actions to reduce the global dimming produced by the current use of fossil fuels. Sunspot may even support increasing the global dimming impacts from use of fossil fuels while the global economy is being corrected by leadership taking actions to more rapidly curtail the use of fossil fuels.
The consideration of the benefits of particulate reduction started in your comment @12. And our back and forth comments quickly clarified our alignment on the ethical points related to that issue, concluded with my comment @15.
Sunspot then commented @16 indicating concern about reducing particulate, implying the potential benefits of artificial global dimming. And Daniel Bailey @17 correctly challenged Sunspot's claim that very rapid and significant change of global average surface temperature would occur today if the artificial global dimming due to fossil fuel use was to suddenly be stopped.
Sunspot @18 added the concern about massive methane release from the Arctic, implying a potential support for the idea of artificial global dimming to reduce the risk of that potential result.
Sunspot @22 then declared there were ethical benefits from global dimming. Sunspot's response to my comment @20 included “So, a bad and immoral (I guess) action by humans actually has a beneficial effect. Maybe everything isn't so black-and-white after all...”. That presumption of Good being produced by a 'supposed immoral' action needed to be challenged in depth.
I will go through it in a little more depth because it is so important for people to be aware of.
The core ethical argument against that line of thinking starts by pointing out the moral risk of leaders allowing more CO2 to accumulate because global dimming is popularly claimed to be able to counter-act it. If that excusing of more CO2 emissions was actually successful, then the disaster threat of the rapid ending of global dimming could indeed become a very tragic reality that was avoidable (the only barrier to it being avoided being the moral corruption of leaders). It would be the result of promotion, research and discussion regarding global dimming that incorrectly encourages people to care less and do less about reducing the burning of fossil fuels.
Additional ethical arguments against artificial global dimming would include the likely negative impacts of the global dimming on life in many regions of the planet, impacts that are in addition to the added risk of more massive future harm because of a loss of focus on the core ethical requirement to rapidly curtail the harmful impacts of the use of fossil fuels. And the negative impacts of use of fossil fuel include the artificial global dimming it also produces.
The discussion of artificial global dimming being potentially helpful in a socioeconomic-political system that is already morally compromised can develop a very insidious potentially popular claim-making. It could be claimed that as the use of fossil fuels is wound down they should be burned without abatement of the production of global dimming impacts, because dimming is beneficial.
There is a clear moral peril associated with the consideration of any alternative to the actually required rapid termination of the use of fossil fuels and all of the associated negative impacts. Other actions need to limited to being potential supplementary beneficial actions. As such, as supplementary actions deemed to only be helpful additional actions, they must not have any potential negative aspects related to them. And the worst negative aspect would be 'less focus and effort on curtailing the use of fossil fuels', resulting in increased probability of future catastrophic climate change events.
-
scaddenp at 07:17 AM on 9 April 2019CO2 lags temperature
TVC - I think "sly devil" is unkind - he is just doing what is natural for all of us, namely indulging in motivated reasoning to justify a preferred belief. If you have a reason to deny AGW (usually ideological or identity based), then there is a vast reserve of misinformation out there to provide comfort. Sadly, debunking those points will only result in either denial of facts or moving on to the next cherry-picked point. At best, you are talking to observers of your discussion. Ever tried discussing evolution with a young earth creationist? It becomes obvious quickly that discussion is never about the science but more about the importance of particular way of reading the bible to their beliefs. That is where the discussion needs to happen before they can be even open to talking about science. Hayhoe's TED talk I pointed to earlier suggests a similar way forward.
-
nigelj at 07:09 AM on 9 April 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #14
Regarding arctic sea ice: Watch: Hundreds of walruses face plunging to death due to climate change
-
ThinkingMan at 04:38 AM on 9 April 20193 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
Mr. Sweet & scaddenp,
Pls do not misconstrue my delayed replied to your comments as a lack of interest. Regrettably, because skepticalscience's insights are appreciated, I can read the website only 1x or 2x per week.
To reply sooner rather than later to your comments, I will do so in a series of replies.
Mr. Sweet, we will have to agree to disagree about the quality of Alberta's day ahead wind power forecasts. Reality is routinely outside forecast range. Reality is outside the range even though the high end of the forecast range is typically 4x the low end of the range. Broken clocks forecast better than that.
On the other hand, day ahead forecasts predict well the direction of change. That can help guide decisions about preparing reserves for use.
-
SirCharles at 03:28 AM on 9 April 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #14
This meta study got published today:
Key indicators of Arctic climate change: 1971–2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asKIeN0pYTk
Also see this article at Inside Climate News on the study:
Global Warming Is Pushing Arctic Toward ‘Unprecedented State,’ Research Shows
-
TVC15 at 16:16 PM on 8 April 2019CO2 lags temperature
@582 MA Rodger
@scaddenp
Thanks once again! This particular denier is one sly devil for sure.
The tactics used by climate deniers will never cease to amaze me!
-
nigelj at 10:01 AM on 8 April 2019Protecting oil companies instead of the climate-vulnerable is elitist
OPOF @24, what you say is true and needs to be said, however I dont think sunspot was advocating some form of solar geoengineering. I think he was just listing various concerns, although in a rather haphazard sort of way.
Regarding rapid, sudden climate change, methane clathrate bombs etc the following article is a good assessment of worst case scenarios.
-
scaddenp at 08:06 AM on 8 April 2019CO2 lags temperature
This is pretty typical climate ball even if graph is honest. Ignore that climate is always the result of net forcing and focus on CO2 only. Scan the data looking for anything, anywhere to find an interval where CO2 and temperature out of sync, ignore other possible causes and declare it a proof. Especially ignore the other overwhelming evidence of the effect of CO2 particularly in the modern era where, unlike ice core, we can know the value of all the other forcing in play.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:59 AM on 8 April 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #14
nigelj,
The fact that decades of 'deliberate lack of correction, particularly by the wealthy and powerful' have over-developed human activity to the current degree is a very poor excuse to 'reduce the rate of correction'.
The continued 'diminished amount of correction, because of concerns regarding lost perceptions of prosperity and superiority' only develops a bigger future problem. And knowingly participating in creating more harm is almost criminal (should be limited by criminal penalty).
This cycle of making problems so big that catastrophe is the result has to be broken. And every current generation is 'the only ones' who can 'break the cycle of harm'. And every current generation, particularly the wealthier and more powerful, that does not act aggressively to break the cycle of moral corruption is complicit in the increased future harm done.
-
BaerbelW at 00:54 AM on 8 April 2019Getting involved with Climate Science via crowdfunding and crowdsourcing
Updated the post with ClimateAdam's recently launched Patreon project.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:41 AM on 8 April 2019Protecting oil companies instead of the climate-vulnerable is elitist
sunspot,
I strongly recommend that you read Stephen Gardiner's "A Perfect Moral Storm-The Ethical Tragedy of Climate Change" published in 2011. Gardiner's 2016 article in the Washington Post "Why climate change is an ethical problem", is a partial presentation of his ethical argument about the moral corruption that can be observed to be occurring in matters related to climate change.
Re-read my comment with the awareness that people can be easily tempted into moral corruption. Ethically artificially 'dimming' the sky would require 'proof that the artificial action chosen to be allowed to be done by humans is almost certain to not harm life in any region of the planet'. The same moral obligation, or governing limit of behaviour, is the reason for the need for the rapidly correction of the incorrect over-development of the use of fossil fuels.
Almost everything I have read about the impacts of global dimming indicate that such an action is almost certain to result in harmful impacts on life in many regions of the planet (admittedly some shallow presentations make no mention of that aspect of artificial global dimming).
It is essential to appreciate the moral obligation to protect the entire robust diversity of life on this planet that humans survive as a part of. That obligation includes the need to limit actions based on the obligation to not harm people in remote regions that we will never meet and future generations who, of course, never can be met.
Humans have very little understanding about the parts of the web of life that they do not need to survive. Future generations find out after the fact what parts of the diversity are helpful to our survival, typically most tragically after popular and profitable human activity develops that resists correction. And more tragically, it is impossible to find out 'after the fact' what aspects of life that our actions cause to become extinct could have been helpful.
The challenge of 'proof of no harm done by deliberate artificial global dimming' is unlikely to be provided. My point remains, discussion of global dimming can become a morally compromising problem if it in any way distracts from the needed focus on efforts to rapidly correct the incorrectly over-developed use of fossil fuels. And the greatest danger of discussions of how to do such a thing in an already morally corrupted socioeconomic-political environment is the potential that morally corrupted leaders In One Nation could try to get away with benefiting from it to the detriment of others by delaying the reduction of use of fossil fuels by the population of their nation 'because it is claimed that something like global dimming can deal with the problem', or worse that the nation Unilaterally causes global dimming in a way that they 'believe and claim will benefit their nation'.
In an already morally corrupted socioeconomic-political system the helpful actions need to be restricted to actions that correct harmful developed attitudes and actions. It is morally corrupt to consider additional artificial actions to be a 'cure' based on the unjustified hope that they will fully helpfully counter-act a harmful artificial action that needs to be stopped, no new harms done.
Based on that understanding about the only artificial action I see as morally justified is the addition of CO2 scrubbing if it can be proven that there are no harmful side effects. And as nigelj has correctly pointed out, ethical helpful (no harm done) CO2 scrubbing is unlikely to be able to be significantly helpful.
-
MA Rodger at 18:39 PM on 7 April 2019CO2 lags temperature
TVC15 @581,
I'm not sure what has happened to the red trace on your version of the EPICA data - I think its x-axis is stretched perhaps three-times longer than it should be.
As for the denialist, hs is simply taking tiny bits of EPICA data and graphing them in a way to hide any CO2-T relationship. Frankly, I would not accept his trustworthiness unquestioned. If he tries such deception, why not start fiddling with the data being plotted to assist the deception?
His two graphs are the lead-up-to and the follow-on-from the height of the Eemian interglacial. If they had been joined together, his little game would be clearly exposed.
The graph below was taken from this RealClimate page. The denialist hides the obvious CO2-T correlation in the lead-up by flattening the CO2 plot with a y-axis from 0-to-300ppm (while his follow-on graph plots a little more sensibly from 220-to-300ppm). With his graph of follow-on CO2 & T, the graph below does show that temperature fell away from the height of the Eemian while CO2 levels were a little less depressed. (Figure 1 in the OP above shows this quite well.) Of course, CO2 isn't the only driver of climate and the EPICA data plotted below does show methane levels dropping quickly through that follow-on period.
Prev 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 Next
