Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2350 2351 2352 2353 2354 2355 2356 2357 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 Next
Comments 117851 to 117900:
-
ClimateNow at 10:59 AM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
In the following article, on the subject of the Alliance of Small Island States seeking data from the IPCC prior to 2014 (which is being blocked by oil producing countries Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Venezuela) Monckton is referenced as follows: Meanwhile, vocal climate change critic Lord Christopher Monckton – a one-time adviser to Margaret Thatcher – gave a lecture to the press on how we shouldn’t “fall into worshipping” wind turbines and solar panels “merely because [they] are fashionable”. He claimed that switching to renewable energy would make only a marginal difference to the climate, that fossil fuels would remain “the cheapest way of generating electricity in poorer countries” and that adapting to climate change would be less costly that cutting emissions. When his thesis was challenged by John Vidal, environment editor of the Guardian, Lord Monckton responded: “Ah the Guardian, bless their little cotton socks. Wake up, sir, and smell the coffee.” [end quote] --- Article URL: Request for scientific data blocked by oil states June 11, 2010 http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0611/1224272267819.html -
Spencer Weart at 10:35 AM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
Plus, the MWP very likely was not global. The graph you show is for Northern Hemisphere only, and it seems that a "see-saw" tends to make the NH warmer when the SH is colder, and vice versa... except now, when both hemispheres are warming. Evidence for a non-global MWP is assembled by Michael E. Mann, et al., "Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly." Science 326 (2009): 1256-60 [doi:10.1126/science.1177303]. -
JSFarmer at 10:11 AM on 11 June 2010It's the sun
Thanks, I appreciate that there are many factors. I am trying to focus though, since its a complicated subject for me. I am trying to examine Skeptics' #1 argument, sunspots- that the sunspots are increasing, and the Science rebuttal that they are decreasing. Can you elaborate on your statement that the Skeptics' sunpot claim is true only if you exclude the last half century? The chart you provided is more of a visual representation so I'm not sure how to interpret it. The lows in the chart seem pretty consistant- seems to hit 0 every decade like clockwork. The vaiations seem to come in the highs. If I break it down into roughly half century segments (segments of 5 highs each), I get this for the highs: years abt 200 abt 150 abt 100 abt 50 1960 - now 3 2 1905 - 1950 1 2 2 1850 - 1895 2 3 1790 - 1840 2 2 1 The last half century is the highest when eyeballing the highs. Can you be more specific on the decline for me? Is the decline hidden somewhere in middle of these cycles? -
Marcus at 09:55 AM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
Another fantastic post Prof. Abraham. Just one question though-do any of these papers deal with average *global* temperatures during the MWP, or merely the Northern Hemisphere? If the latter, then it further highlights the error in Monckton's claim. Indeed, to the best of my recollection, there remains precious little data about SH temperatures prior to the Mid-19th century. Another point Monckton & his cronies fail to point out is that, if you average out all the proxies we have to date, you see something in the order of a 0.5 to 0.6 degree warming-over a period of around 300-400 years. In some reconstructions, I've seen a 0.6 degree warming over as much as a 600 year period. My point is that this warming is extremely *slow*-on the order of 0.1 degree per century-as compared to the 0.1 degree per decade of warming that we've been seeing since 1950. This is what I think gets lost in the debate about the MWP-its not about the comparisons between the total anomalies involved, but the comparative rate of change that we should be looking at! -
yocta at 09:37 AM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
Well done John A. My hat off to you. It reads very succinctly! -
David Horton at 09:35 AM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
Excellent work John (well, both Johns). It is clear that not only doesn't Monckton bother contacting the scientists whose work he refers to, but he seems not to actually read their papers, limiting himself, apparently, to grabbing at a graph which appears to confirm his ideology and pasting it on to a slide. I know that we are beyond the realm of rational with this stuff. But you would think, wouldn't you, that Monckton might understand two things. First, that even if one granted, hypothetically, everything he believes about the MWP, he is (a) still referring to a "period" of several hundred years, not the thirty or so years of rapid increase in temp we are now seeing and (b) given that increased CO2 wasn't a factor in, say, 1000AD, the fact that it clearly is now would make you more worried, not less. Which leads me to http://davidhortonsblog.com/2010/05/28/swings-and-arrows/ where I argue in a summary form, that knowing climate changed substantially in the past should also make us more worried not less. Big changes mean that there is not, as deniers are increasingly claiming, any built in short term process on the planet that stops temperatures increasingly rapidly once CO2 begins to increase. Long term, thousands of years, millions of years, yes, short term no. -
kampmannpeine at 09:25 AM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
Thanks John, I also downloaded the Monckton Video - and I must confess: listening to him brings a lot of fun, not to say seduction. You pulled him down to reality ... this is good to know -
Rob Honeycutt at 09:17 AM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
It's very strange. I was trying to see if I could google something up about who Monckton's 700 scientists are who show that the MWP was warmer than today. What I get is a list from Senator Inhofe of 700 scientists who reject AGW. I wonder if there is a connection? The number 700 seems too coincidental. -
KeenOn350 at 09:16 AM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
Another superb post - excellent clarification of up-to-date info on the MW. Thanks again, Prof. Abraham -
Tenney Naumer at 09:09 AM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
You're on a great roll! Please keep it up! -
Megan Evans at 08:19 AM on 11 June 2010Radio interview with Skeptically Speaking
Great interview John! Well worth the listen. -
scaddenp at 07:07 AM on 11 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
BP - this sounds like rehash of long-resolved questions from the 1970s. The reactions require of course require energy - supplied by geothermal heat. For this reason, basin modelling concentrates so hard on the thermal evolution of a basin. The theory gets tested every time someone drills a well where we have a prediction for thermal regime and hydrocarbon chemical history. (Though by the way, coaly source rocks are generally poor oil sources - producers of gas instead. Favoured source rocks are marine black shales.) -
Kaare Fog at 06:19 AM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
Comment to # 2: "How is it possible for Monckton to keep getting away with all these falsehoods ? I really can't understand it. " Yes, it is difficult to understand. I keep asking the same question about Bjørn Lomborg. When these guys are proven wrong, why do the media etc. still cite them as authorities? How do they prevent criticism from having any effect? I have written a little about the role of the media in this on www.Lomborg-errors.dk/Media.htm. My text there may be a little naive when I assume that the media have any intent to seek the truth - but it may also give a few hints and ideas to be followed up on by others concerning the way that sceptics present their ideas in ways that seem convincing to lay people. More discussion of this might be useful. -
Ned at 03:38 AM on 11 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
doug_bostrom writes: I don't think it's axiomatic that we absolutely must burn enormous quantities of natural gas in order to extract helium, there are undoubtedly more optimum arrangements that could be engineered. Besides burning it, natural gas is fairly important in fertilizer production. -
Doug Bostrom at 03:08 AM on 11 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
BP while the helium problem is somewhat complicated it is significantly due to an ideological fixation with "the market" causing the U.S. government to tamper with a long-term policy that considered helium to be a strategically important element and thus maintained a policy of reserving it for applications more important that inflating childrens' balloons. The U.S. has subsequently sold most of its helium reserve for relatively little money though of course downstream marketers have done well with profits on the gas. You can look it up, or just check this article for a synopsis: Helium shortage hampers research and industry I don't think it's axiomatic that we absolutely must burn enormous quantities of natural gas in order to extract helium, there are undoubtedly more optimum arrangements that could be engineered. -
Ned at 03:02 AM on 11 June 2010Glaciers are growing
Dave D: Unfortunately there's not a "real-time" glacier observing system, so we'll have to wait for 2009-2010 data to be made available. But the WGMS website does have updated information on glacier mass balance through 2007-2008:
Overall, mass balance of the observed glaciers continues to be negative, but the loss of mass in 2007 and 2008 was less than in 2003 or 2006.
I'm not sure what you mean by "The Arctic [Ice] has certainly recovered in area and thickness since 2007, but it is not talked about?"
Are you referring to sea ice? The 2008 and 2009 minumum Arctic sea ice extent was above 2007, but still below the long-term downward trend (and far below the levels of the 1980s). I wouldn't call that a "recovery" unless it continues long enough that late-summer sea ice extent actually returns to normal.
As for Arctic sea ice thickness, it clearly has not shown any sign of recovery; instead, it continues its downward trend:
-
Doug Bostrom at 02:49 AM on 11 June 2010Glaciers are growing
Dave, I've not read of the sort of broad glacier recovery you're speaking of. There are in fact a few glaciers currently in a state of growth thanks apparently to variations in snowfall but the vast majority continue to retreat. Perhaps you could cite where you read of regional increases? As to the Arctic, if you look at the record you'll see many instances where an observer focused on a 2 or 3 year span might think a recovery was beginning, but those little bumps are overwhelmed by a steady downward trend. -
Dave D at 02:18 AM on 11 June 2010Glaciers are growing
I have seen this graph you posted abopve, but the data you reference cuts off in 2006. I have seen researching the web that the Western Himilyas, Argentine Mountains and most of N America Glaciers have shown growth and stopped what amounts to a 250 year trend in the last 3-4 years, can you verify? I don't want to trustingly believe everything that I read elsewhere, but your information does not deal with 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. The Arctic Ive has certainly recovered in area and thickness since 2007, but it is not talked about? -
chudiburg at 01:51 AM on 11 June 2010We're heading into an ice age
Erin, We know because of the measurements. The Earth is retaining more energy than it is radiating back to space despite the decreased insolation. I recommend reading up on the net forcing. Likewise, if decreased insolation outweighed the forcing of CO2, then we would see a cooling trend as opposed to a warming trend. Look no further than our temperature records. As a high school teacher, I commend the level at which you are approaching this topic. Keep it up. -
chris at 01:42 AM on 11 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Berényi Péter at 00:52 AM on 11 June, 2010 Peter, much of the biological detritus is at a high chemical potential (highly electron rich hydrocarbon content in biological membrane lipids, triacylglycerols and to a lesser extent carbohydrate) [***]. These molecules, molecules derived from these during the processes of sedimentation, and other molecules like phenols can spontaneously polymerize further under rather straightforward chemical reactions. A major part of the process by which kerogen converts to oils and shales involves the high temperature breakdown of longer polymers into shorter ones. These can involve both straightforward reductive elimination of oxygen (as H2O or CO2), and radical forming/mediated C-C bond cleavage. There's a similarity with industrial "cracking" I believe, whereby the highish temperatures result it dominant entropic contributions to the overall free energy. So these processes occur spontaneously. The review by Vandenbroucke and Largeau cited in my post just above, is likely a very good source of information on this. [***] If you have ever walked through very peaty areas like the Western Highlands of Scotland, you can obtain a rather vivid insight into the high chemical potential of vegetable matter that has transformed even during very short (100's to few 1000's of years) into a highly combustible fuel. All that is required (in Scotland anyhow) is an acidic and partly anaerobic conditions. In fact you often see a rather oily sheen on the surface of ponds and puddles as you squelch through a peaty landscape... You can dig peat up, dry it and use it as a rather smelly fuel. Underground peat fires can last for months and years. It's very easy to imagine how peat might undergo further transformation by heat and pressure to form lignite which isn't very far from coal, compositionally-speaking. I don't really see any problems in considering related scenarios in marine and lake sediments to yield oils, tars and shales. -
Berényi Péter at 00:52 AM on 11 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Chris, you could still explain how spontaneous transformation is possible from low chemical potential biological detritus to high chemical potential hydrocarbons with no external free energy source and/or carefully controlled coupling between entropy increasing/decreasing processes. -
chris at 00:01 AM on 11 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Berényi Péter at 20:24 PM on 10 June, 2010 "Any widely held public misperception has its own marketing value…." There's no question that's true [*]. "One would like to think truth prevails in the long run, but that may be a misperception on its own right." Yes, I suspect truth does, Peter. Historic precedent lends us to that conclusion. Ultimately the weight of evidence combined with access to knowledge (education) is the key. And of course this pertains to small scale efforts at promoting misperceptions too. One could look at just this thread and notice that a single person has attempted to promote a series of misperceptions (that might be taken to constitute a “mini-conspiracy theory”) including: (i) An extraordinarily detailed attempt to insinuate that a poorly drawn graph in a report constitutes an attempt at fraud. (ii) An attempt to insinuate that the pattern of 20th century warming is inconsistent with scientific understanding of enhanced greenhouse contributions to Earth surface temperature. (iii) An attempt to pursue the rather astonishing deceit that oil cannot have a biogenic origin. (iv) An attempt to pursue the deceit that there is little scientific understanding of (a) the formation of kerogen from denuded biological material, and (b) the origin of organic material in meteorites. On these scientific issues and on this very small scale (a single blog thread!) “truth does prevail in the end”. This requires an effort from those that have a degree of relevant expertise and a willingness to counter misconceptions with the basic level of investigation that those “seeding” misconceptions prefer not to do. Science and its evidence base is a terribly powerful means towards proximal truths. In many cases these proximal truths (lead residues from petrol and paints can induce neurological damage; aspirin-taking in children can causes Reyes syndrome; ciggie smoking greatly increases the risk of lung cancer and circulatory and respiratory disease; man-made chlorofluorocarbons cause catalytic destruction of stratospheric ozone; enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations causes global warming etc. etc. etc.) have negative implications for powerful economic and corporate interests, and so it’s not surprising that considerable efforts are made in generating misconceptions on issues of science [*]. It’s more difficult (but also very interesting) to understand why individuals engage in this on a much smaller scale! [*] see for example : D. Michaels and C. Monforton (2005) Manufacturing Uncertainty: Contested Science and the Protection of the Public’s Health and Environment American Journal of Public Health Supplement 1, 2005, Vol 95, S39-S48. -
John Russell at 23:33 PM on 10 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part III – Acid Reflux?
Monbiot's latest comment on Monckton can be found here. John Abraham; I think you've achieved everything you set out to achieve and Monckton is thoroughly debunked. Well done! -
Ken Lambert at 23:26 PM on 10 June 2010Robust warming of the global upper ocean
BP #72 Interesting Graph of geothermal heat flow from the global ocean bottom BP. If I could extrapolate your numbers: Heat energy to heat all the oceans by 1.0 degK: Mass of global ocean water 1.435E21 kG x Specific Heat 4.18 kJ/kG/degK = 6.0E21 kJ = 6.0E24 Joules. If this 1 degK rise takes 5000 years then the geothermal heat energy added per year is: 6.0E24/5000 = 1.2E21 Joules/year. Willis finds the equivalent of 0.1 W/sq.m of energy sequestered in the deep oceans (below 700m) which equals 1.61E21 Joules. (Remember Trenberth's 0.9W/sq.m TOA = 145E20 Joules/year = 14.5E21 Joules/year) Average ocean depth is 3700m so the proportion of geothermal heat energy added below 700m is 3000/3700 x 1.2E21 = 0.97E21 Joules/year. We seem to have found 0.97E21 of Willis' 1.61E21 Joules/year from BP's oceanic crust geothermal heat; which is just over 60%. I don't know if this crustal heat includes undersea volcanoes - perhaps BP could answer that. Either way, if BP's numbers are right, the prospect of heat emanating from the ocean bottom (immersion heating) certainly is of the right order of magnitude and a feasible transfer mechanism to explain a large chunk of Willis' 0.1 W/sq.m deep ocean warming. -
chris at 21:29 PM on 10 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Berényi Péter at 16:41 PM on 10 June, 2010The root mystery, not explained in those books is twofold. 1. How biological debris is transformed to kerogen in the first place? (chemical pathways instead of handwaving please) 2. How does it get into carbonaceous chondrites?
On #1. The sedimentation and transformation of biological debris into kerogen is understood in some detail including the nature of the reductive processes and chemical transformations. A good starting point is the mind-numbingly detailed and extensive review published by Vandenbroucke and Largeau a couple of years ago: M. Vandenbroucke, C. Largeau (2007) Kerogen origin, evolution and structure Organic Geochemistry 38, 719-833. On #2. This isn't very difficult to source either Peter. A very good starting point is a study published earlier this year on the characterization and origins of organic material in the Murchison meteorite [*]. P. Schmitt-Kopplin et al. (2010) High molecular diversity of extraterrestrial organic matter in Murchison meteorite revealed 40 years after its fall Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107, 2763-2768. ----------------------------------------------------- [*] The section of this paper entitled Links toward the origin of Murchison organic matter gives considerable insight into the origins of organic material in the Murchison meteorite. It’s worth remembering that many of the simple molecules identified spectroscopically in protoplanetary discs (e.g. CO, CN, CS, H3COH) and with some of the more reactive molecules like H2CO and HCN, the possibilities for extensive series of molecules based on generic CHO, CHN, and CHNO series are very well characterized. Aromatic nitrogen heterocycles and other hydrogen-deficient molecules characteristic of kerogen-like precursors, are known to be produced under very low temperature conditions and high irradiation regimes in reducing atmospheres (CH4, NH3) characteristic of likely primordial nebulae chemistry. -
Berényi Péter at 20:24 PM on 10 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
#99 doug_bostrom at 17:09 PM on 10 June, 2010 There's not enough helium Should natural gas production be suppressed to decrease carbon dioxide emissions, we'll have even less of the byproduct in the future. This perception is enough to drive prices up, no actual shortage is needed. Any widely held public misperception has its own marketing value. There are always ways to exploit it, generating marvelous revenue streams for a while. You just have to figure out how. Of course these are negative sum games more often than not, nonetheless they happen. They also tend to form metastable phases for extended periods, because huge interest groups gather behind issues like that with plenty of money to fund maintaining the particular misperception their business depends on. One would like to think truth prevails in the long run, but that may be a misperception on its own right. -
Riccardo at 19:45 PM on 10 June 2010Request for mainstream articles on climate
Pretty much like anything in english, this is an international site focused on a global problem. I don't think it's worth to expand the database endlessly including other languages; afterall we're all supposed to understand english and for sure there's no lack of media coverage in english. Other people willing to do something similar in different languages are welcome and we all could contribute there too. Putting everything together here is a mess. -
Marcel Bökstedt at 18:53 PM on 10 June 2010Request for mainstream articles on climate
What about articles in other languages than English?Response: You're not the first to ask about this. I could add another field to the submission form allowing you to select language. Upside, broaden the database. Downside, complicate the submission form which is already bloating a little and also complicate the directory. The deciding factor would be whether enough people think there's a need for a multi-lingual database of global warming links so I'm open to comments on this. -
Doug Bostrom at 18:41 PM on 10 June 2010Collective Intelligence and climate change
Thank you for calling attention to my analogy, batsvensson. Indeed, as with all analogies it is an imperfect mapping of one subject on another. I'm glad you found it thought-provoking. -
batsvensson at 17:11 PM on 10 June 2010Collective Intelligence and climate change
@doug_bostrom at 10:36 AM on 26 May, 2010 There is of course a trivial fallacy in this analogy which, deliberate or not, doug_bostrom carefully ignore to make his point to ridicule any with an opinion that diverts from his own. That's the way demonetizing of any unwanted opinions works. -
Doug Bostrom at 17:09 PM on 10 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
BP, scaddenp, I can go even more off-topic. There's not enough helium, turns out. Or that is to say, the pricing of helium was messed up to the point that we can afford to fill toy balloons with helium but many important science experiments depending on helium are now being jeopardized by the high price of the second most simple element. A complicated story leading to an even more off-topic discussion of politics and scarce resources. Maybe better not go there. -
Berényi Péter at 16:41 PM on 10 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
#96 scaddenp at 09:42 AM on 10 June, 2010 This is textbook stuff Yes, this is a problem with textbooks. The root mystery, not explained in those books is twofold.- How biological debris is transformed to kerogen in the first place? (chemical pathways instead of handwaving please)
- How does it get into carbonaceous chondrites?
-
OPatrick at 15:22 PM on 10 June 2010Request for mainstream articles on climate
Are you interested in 'opinion' pieces or just those articles that make at least some pretence at delving into the science? I feel there's some benefit from just building up a picture of where the balance of opinion in the media lies (hmmm, 'the media lies' - there's a phrase that trips off the finger tips), but perhaps this is not the place to do it?Response: Both. Opinion pieces may not be grounded in science but published in mainstream media reach a broad audience and have wide influence. Good to keep track of these. -
weliqwk at 14:54 PM on 10 June 2010Abraham reply to Monckton
Marketing rule #1 is that perception is reality, regardless of facts! Monckton is apparently quite skilled in the art. -
scaddenp at 09:57 AM on 10 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Just a reference with experimental method described etc. Thermal cracking of kerogen in open and closed systems: determination of kinetic parameters and stoichiometric coefficients for oil and gas generation -
scaddenp at 09:42 AM on 10 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
"Hydrocarbons other than methane just do not form spontaneously from biological debris under moderate pressure and conditions close to thermodynamic equilibrium prevalent in the crust." Huh? this is news to hydrocarbon chemists! We are extremely interested in the reaction rates for conversion of source rock material to hydrocarbons.(It feeds into basin models for guessing when and how much oil/gas is produced). To do this, experiments put the rock under pressure/temperature and we measure the production rates of product. We also use a variety biomarker/isotope markers to match oil to possible source rocks. None of this makes any sense against your statement. It appears you are linked to either bogus information or extremely old information. This is textbook stuff and the analyses are more or less routine. -
Berényi Péter at 09:37 AM on 10 June 2010Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?
#71 Riccardo at 16:55 PM on 9 June, 2010 Far from the central frequency it may be approximated by a lorentzian Right. That's what I figured based on my rather old and dusty QM. Just one never knows for sure with these jumpy-bumpy molecules. -
Berényi Péter at 09:18 AM on 10 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
#90 doug_bostrom at 03:58 AM on 10 June, 2010 plants! Yes, something like that. The difference is that plants were not optimized for energy efficiency but to produce more plants like themselves. We can hack into the system, but there are limits. The same problem plagues biotechnology in general. The engineering principles behind the system simply do not allow for easy designability. Basically they are best for food production because of our design, not theirs. However, they can serve as a proof-of-concept example to the feasibility of molecular engines to be built with the ultimate precision, where each atom has its prescribed place in the structure and is held there by strong covalent bonds resistant to thermal damage. Enzymes are examples of machines like that along with DNA, microtubules and a plethora of other structures. There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom An Invitation to Enter a New Field of Physics by Richard P. Feynman, December 29th 1959 #91 doug_bostrom at 04:07 AM on 10 June, 2010 fossil fuels are inadvertently the end product of a process roughly analogous to what he describes I am not sure about that. At least the theory behind the biogenic origin of crude oil seems to be bogus. Hydrocarbons other than methane just do not form spontaneously from biological debris under moderate pressure and conditions close to thermodynamic equilibrium prevalent in the crust. The pressure and temperature needed is more like those at a depth of 150 km, the same as preconditions for diamond formation. Also, there are tiny diamondoid structures in crude oil as there are diamonds with microscopic oil inclusions. On the other hand, it is enough to subject a mixture of limestone, water and iron(II) oxide (FeO) to those pressures and temperatures to get oil (demonstrated in lab). The oil seeping to the crust may well be primordial. Hydrocarbons, next to water, are among the most abundant chemicals in the universe. However, theory of Earth formation has to be rewritten slightly to accommodate to a reductive interior of the globe. I am getting off-topic, sorry. -
scaddenp at 08:46 AM on 10 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Yes, averaged over year. Biofuel is also after conversion to diesel. Still photosynthesis is 2% energy conversion versus solar thermal of around 20% -
Doug Bostrom at 08:08 AM on 10 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
scaddenp, I'm guessing that power density for "solar" is total net considered w/average actual available insolation, taking into account climate, diurnal cycle etc.? -
scaddenp at 07:32 AM on 10 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Not to mention that plant conversion of solar energy to something we can use is rather inefficient compared direct means (about 2%). So power density for plants is around 0.5-1 W/m2 cf 10W/m2 for solar. (Sustainable energy without the hot air -
Doug Bostrom at 07:29 AM on 10 June 2010Collective Intelligence and climate change
"ClimateGate" Fail. The nut of the article Phillipe cited: But a closer look at these polls and a new survey by my Political Psychology Research Group show just the opposite: huge majorities of Americans still believe the earth has been gradually warming as the result of human activity and want the government to institute regulations to stop it. In our survey, which was financed by a grant to Stanford from the National Science Foundation, 1,000 randomly selected American adults were interviewed by phone between June 1 and Monday. When respondents were asked if they thought that the earth’s temperature probably had been heating up over the last 100 years, 74 percent answered affirmatively. And 75 percent of respondents said that human behavior was substantially responsible for any warming that has occurred. For many issues, any such consensus about the existence of a problem quickly falls apart when the conversation turns to carrying out specific solutions that will be costly. But not so here. Fully 86 percent of our respondents said they wanted the federal government to limit the amount of air pollution that businesses emit, and 76 percent favored government limiting business’s emissions of greenhouse gases in particular. Not a majority of 55 or 60 percent — but 76 percent. Large majorities opposed taxes on electricity (78 percent) and gasoline (72 percent) to reduce consumption. But 84 percent favored the federal government offering tax breaks to encourage utilities to make more electricity from water, wind and solar power. And huge majorities favored government requiring, or offering tax breaks to encourage, each of the following: manufacturing cars that use less gasoline (81 percent); manufacturing appliances that use less electricity (80 percent); and building homes and office buildings that require less energy to heat and cool (80 percent). Thus, there is plenty of agreement about what people do and do not want government to do. Our poll also indicated that some of the principal arguments against remedial efforts have been failing to take hold. Only 18 percent of respondents said they thought that policies to reduce global warming would increase unemployment and only 20 percent said they thought such initiatives would hurt the nation’s economy. Furthermore, just 14 percent said the United States should not take action to combat global warming unless other major industrial countries like China and India do so as well. So the takeaway is that we see the usual incoherence about wanting to fix the problem but not personally wanting to pay for so doing, yet encouragingly most people seem to comprehend the fundamentals. Here's another recent survey: A U.S. national survey released Tuesday finds that public concern about global warming is increasing, with public belief that it is occurring rising to 61 per cent, up from 57 per cent since January. And 50 per cent of Americans believe the phenomenon is caused by people — an increase of three points. Fifty-three per cent of respondents now worry about the impact global warming will have (an increase of three points) and 63 per cent believe it will affect them personally (an increase of five points). Researchers believe that with a pickup in the economy and renewed consumer confidence, Americans' thoughts are returning to environmental issues. "The BP oil disaster is also reminding the public of the dark side of dependence on fossil fuels, which may be increasing support for clean energy policies," said Anthony Leisorowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, in a release. The survey was conducted by researchers at Yale and George Mason Universities. The survey also found that 77 per cent of respondents support the regulation of carbon dioxide as a pollutant; 87 per cent want more funding for research into renewable energy sources and 83 per cent support tax rebates for consumers who purchase fuel-efficient vehicles and solar panels. The survey was conducted using an online panel of 1,024 American adults aged 18 and older between May 14 and June 1, 2010. The margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points. Global warming concerns rising in U.S. -
Philippe Chantreau at 07:16 AM on 10 June 2010Collective Intelligence and climate change
Not exactly on topic but close, there is an interesting discussion of opinion surveys in the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/opinion/09krosnick.html?pagewanted=1 -
Riccardo at 06:00 AM on 10 June 2010On temperature and CO2 in the past
Marcel Bökstedt, i'm not denying the existence of the carbon cycle. But whatever it is, in the end only the concentration in the atmosphere is relevant to the forcing. If I can measure it, that's it, the full and actual carbon cycle is there. Only if we do not have access to it or if we want to make projections, we need to consider the full carbon cycle as you say. -
Marcel Bökstedt at 05:29 AM on 10 June 2010On temperature and CO2 in the past
Riccardo> Yes, I agree with your analysis. Only the CO2 in the atmosphere should contribute to warming. But it is not true that the other CO2 is irrelevant to climate sensibility, because it will interact with the rest of the system. If we warm the planet and the sea, some of the dissolved CO2 will go into the atmosphere. What is happening today is that we are producing CO2, which is initially added to the atmosphere. This will initially add to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but as we know, some of it will go into the sea and do bad things there. But the CO2 will not stop moving. We are talking about long term effects here, not short time climate sensitivity, so we will have to wait and see what happens to our added CO2. Some of it will go into the deep sea beacause of slow overturning. Some of it will go back to the atmosphere as the sea warms. The CO2 we initially produced will probably eventually contribute an increase in the CO2 in the atmosphere, and probably also an increase in the CO2 in the sea etc. But as you say, only the amount that goes into the atmosphere will contribute to warming. The eventual warming produced by the amount of CO2 we added, will only depend on the amount of CO2 which ends up in the atmosphere. On the other hand, it does not seem so easy to compute how big this proportion is. And if we don't know this, we can't say how big the long time climate sensitivity is for burning a certain amount of coal. -
Riccardo at 05:03 AM on 10 June 2010On temperature and CO2 in the past
Marcel Bökstedt, not sure i understand what you mean by "add a certain quantity CO2 to the system". As far as climate sensitivity and climate are concerned what matters is how much is in the atmosphere contributing to the forcing. The latter is measured directly from the ice cores, whatever happens to the other CO2 reservoirs is irrelevant for the determination of climate sensitivity. -
Marcel Bökstedt at 04:34 AM on 10 June 2010On temperature and CO2 in the past
Riccardo> I can't see that Hansen et. al. discuss this problem in section 2, if they do maybe you can give a more precise refrence? They do consider the "Vostok ice core" and plot forcing and GHG forcing against time. They claim that this determines long term sensibility of about 6 degrees for doubling of atmospheric CO2. But what they don't say anything about is the following: Suppose that you add a certain quantity CO2 to the system. How much of this will eventually stay in the atmosphere and contribute to the warming, and how much will eventually stay in the ocean? One point is that "eventually" is a long time, so any quick answers are suspect. And Hansen does not discuss this point in that particular paper as far as I can see. My place does not have an electronic subscription to get Masson Delmotte. Maybe you could just tell if it approaches this question? -
Doug Bostrom at 04:07 AM on 10 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Thinking further about BP's concept, fossil fuels are inadvertently the end product of a process roughly analogous to what he describes, only the process was not engineered for the purpose of energy capture and storage, the concentration of chemically stored energy was pure happenstance and of course moving the energy from chemical form into a stream of free electrons is highly inefficient. The other issue is that by oxidizing fossil fuels at the rate we are we're de-sequestering a lot of carbon stuffed away over the course of eons and releasing it on a prodigious scale. So we have an example of how plants can accidentally do what we want, capture and store solar energy. Presumably we can do better if we attack the problem directly. -
Riccardo at 04:01 AM on 10 June 2010On temperature and CO2 in the past
Marcel Bökstedt, no doubt the problem is complicated and be sure no one will ever make any claim on the global climate sensitivity just from CO2 and T from an ice core. I didn't, indeed. But having said this, you can still have good informations on climate sensitivity as crudely shown before. For an undoubtely better and more detailed explanation I'd suggest a carefull read of both section 2 in Hansen et al. 2008 and section 4 in Masson-Delmotte et al. 2010 quoted in the post. -
Doug Bostrom at 03:58 AM on 10 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
BP, plants! Of course they're not as durable as pavement but in so many ways they resemble what you describe. Self-replication, photoelectric effect, mitochondria, etc. Plants with postive and negative terminals... :-)
Prev 2350 2351 2352 2353 2354 2355 2356 2357 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 Next
