Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2356 2357 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 2369 2370 2371 Next
Comments 118151 to 118200:
-
Ian Forrester at 12:13 PM on 4 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
Thingadonta said:Also, I think papers 2 and 3 above contradict each other, despite one referring to sunspots and the other to solar variation
There is no contradiction. If you had read the papers you would have seen that one paper compared sunspot numbers to climate (temperature) and the other compared solar irradiance to climate (temperature). The two parameters are not directly connected so it is not surprising to see that they do not correlate with either temperature or each other over long periods of time. The reason temperature disconnects from solar irradiance is due to anthropogenic influences (CO2 increase from burning fossil fuels). -
Philippe Chantreau at 12:02 PM on 4 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
"Aren't they in denial?" No, they worked the numbers and that's their conclusion. -
Daved Green at 12:00 PM on 4 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
Thanks for the good work again John A , but the problem I see is that most of the people at the conference will go away with the understanding that the scientist and organistions quoted by monckton have made these statement as presented by monckton And they will not seek to qualified those statement becuase it sets their world right and they can keep their lifestyles . also agree with MattJ legal action needs to be taken maybe a class action by all the reseachers miss quoted/represented that way he would have to pulicly defend himself . MattJ same here in Australia science way down on the list of students aims first seems to be taken by being discovered as the next singing sensation on X-factor (least it sounds scientific lol ) -
thingadonta at 11:56 AM on 4 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
It is interesting to see a flurry of papers which show solar activity increasing from about 1700, but the authors all denying that it makes much or any difference. Aren't they in denial? Ever been outside when the morning clouds clear, the sun rises to the top of the sky, and seen the warming continue through to late afternoon? Also, I think papers 2 and 3 above contradict each other, despite one referring to sunspots and the other to solar variation: "After reviewing more than 100 papers, I came to the conclusion that … little convincing evidence…for real correlations between sunspot cycles and the climate…" "“Changes from 1861 to 1975 show an unexpected remarkable correlation"Response: Noone is denying that changes in solar output have an impact on climate. What these many papers find is that solar output has shown little to no trend over the last 60 years - if anything, a slight cooling trend.
Sunspots are a proxy for solar activity. -
BillWalker at 11:56 AM on 4 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
John, here's an example of the kind of willful ignorance we're up against. I sent your link to Monbiot's story to a denier friend of mine (he's otherwise a wonderful guy, but I knew he'd never look at a link from here). Here are his responses (excuse the typos, he was sending from his phone):Please stop.... Your being minipulated. If I sent you a link to every video debunking AGW you won't be able to do anything else. your guys have exposed as the frauds they are. There was an Ice Age.
and later he sent:I will send ya Monckton's response in a few days after he stops laughing and gets around to it.
He may as well have said "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up." -
Rogerthesurf at 10:27 AM on 4 June 2010Climate's changed before
Support, Thanks for your answer. My response is rather lengthy so I have posted it at http://globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com/ You are welcome to comment there further, as is anyone provided they can keep to the point and avoid ad hominem remarks etc. Cheers Roger -
Jim Meador at 10:24 AM on 4 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
John, Great work to go through all of Monkton's data and put together a rebuttal. However, I think that what you have done needs to be put together in a way that is more succinct and snappier. This will make it accessible to a much wider audience, one that "has better things to do with their time" as you correctly intone in your last slide.Response: Perhaps the YouTube videos are this succinct, snappy version. We have the full presentation video, the shorter YouTube videos and now separate blog posts. Not sure how many more ways we can repackage the rebuttals. -
Doug Bostrom at 10:20 AM on 4 June 2010Latest GRACE data on Greenland ice mass
Philipm, that's really well written article, accessible by your use of analogies but with lots of data. Nice job. The matter you mention of folks taking comfort from upticks since 2007 truly baffles me; the briefest scrutiny of past years' data reveals a monotonous succession of similar dips and rises, overwhelmed by an equally monotonous but much large ongoing slump. Blind men groping an elephant comes to mind. -
KR at 10:16 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
A comment or two on storms - by KR Thermal convection from the surface (estimated at 20-24 W/m^2) and latent heat/evaporation (est. 78 W/m^2, primarily by calculating evaporation energy versus precipitation) are both elements of storms/weather. As a personal anecdote (why, oh WHY are personal anecdotes more acceptable on blogs than actual data???), I fly (extremely) light airplanes. On a hot summer afternoon, in the peak of convective/thermal activity from ground temperatures, I can get bounced around by updrafts and downdrafts - to the tune of ~200 meters per minute in some cases. In a thunderstorm initiation, a thermal brings wet air up through the lapse rate (averaging 6.5 °C per kilometer temperature drop with altitude) to the point where it condenses - the bottom of a cumulus cloud. If the excess energy released by condensation warms the air sufficient to bring more wet air up, the updraft increases, more air comes in, the updraft increases some more, and so on - limited only by the transport of wet air up into the convection cell. At this point the initial thermal becomes irrelevant - the energy of condensation is much larger than the initial thermal transferring ground heat. In a thunderstorm the limit is the transport of wet air under and up into the convection cells. In a hurricane the warm ocean continues to evaporate as wet air moves up, supplying more energy, and feeding the storm as long as it is over warm ocean. The top of the cell is where the lapse rate reverses, and the temperature is no longer dropping with altitude. The initial thermal is the pull-starter on the storm - the condensation and latent heat provides the 'gas'. Hail also contributes - if the temperature drop in the storm is sufficient to freeze water, it gains the energy of liquid-ice transition as well. Approximately 5×10^8 kg of water vapor are lifted by an average thunderstorm, condense, and add energy to the storm. The storm ends when insufficient water vapor is available. Back to the personal - normal convection cells are enough to bounce me around. Thunderstorms have enough energy to reduce me and my plane to tasty bite sized chunks, with thousands of mpm up/down drafts... when a thunderstorm comes by I had better be hiding in a very secure hangar! Thermals can't do that. Latent heat provides most of the energy for storms - thermal convection from the surface just kick-starts the process. -
Berényi Péter at 10:15 AM on 4 June 2010On temperature and CO2 in the past
I'm trying to understand what is said. It turns out Fig. 1 in the post has nothing to do with climate sensitivity, much less with climate sensitivity increasing with temperature. The true message of Dome C is something entirely different. To see this, let's look at it the other way around.
That is, CO2 concentration is considered as a function of temperature anomaly (relative to current global average). There is obviously some noise added to the function, but long term equilibrium values can be estimated by a trend line using least square fit.
The temperature-CO2 distribution can be approximated by the quadratic
C = 266.6 + 5.89×Δt - 0.333×Δt2 (ppmv CO2)
It can be translated to atmospheric partial pressure of carbon dioxide as a function of temperature anomaly.
As density of CO2 is about 1.52 times greater than that of air, at standard atmospheric pressure of 1 atm (101.325 kPa) with CO2 concentration of 266.6 ppmv, partial pressure of carbon dioxide is 405 μatm (41 Pa).
p = 405.1 + 8.95×Δt - 0.506×Δt2 (μatm CO2)
The trend line above represents the equilibrium pressure. This is a long term equilibrium value for each temperature after taking into account the temperature dependent transfer between different reservoirs and all the possible CO2 (short & long term) feedbacks to temperature, because the time interval covered is extremely long (several hundred thousand years), much longer than relaxation time of any feedback.
The largest reservoir of carbon dioxide by far is seawater. It contains about 1.215×1017 kg of dissolved CO2. All the other reservoirs (soil, vegetation, atmosphere) taken together contain only several percent of this amount, so they are negligible on this timescale. Ocean turnaround time (including deep waters) is several thousand years, much shorter than the timescale considered, therefore atmospheric CO2 partial pressure fluctuates around the equilibrium value determined by average temperature of seawater.
Solubility of carbon dioxide in seawater decreases with increasing temperature. It means increasing partial pressure, for realistic temperatures a doubling for an increase of about 16 K.
If temperatures recovered from Dome C core would mirror average ocean temperature, one would expect an exponential increase of CO2 partial pressure, that is, a convex function, not a concave one as seen in the figure.
The only way out of this mess is to suppose average ocean temperature anomaly is a nonlinear function of Dome C anomaly. From the data above even the form of this dependence can be guessed:
ΔT = 23.1×log(p/p0)
where p0 is the equilibrium pressure of 405 μatm at 0 K anomaly and ΔT is ocean temperature.
What we see here is just the opposite of the claim expressed in the article above. Global climate is clearly driven by ocean temperature, not by polar one. And rate of change in ocean temperature anomaly, as it is shown by history, is not magnified, but diminished by increasing polar temperature.
-
MattJ at 10:09 AM on 4 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
Alexandre- Ever since Sputnik, the American education system has labored mightily to teach good science, believing it was necessary to keep the Russkies from gaining missile superiority. But we had only limited success. The failure can be seen everyday with the number of people who fall for the absurd commonplace you mention. What is worse, once the Cold War ended, Americans as a whole stopped seeing even that limited value in a science education. We saw salesmen, managers and other professional liars get all the high paying jobs, while scientists and engineers got shafted, now even being replaced with overseas piecemeal workers at a fraction of the price -- workers who often only provide a fraction of the value as well. So now the state of our science education is even worse, especially in states like California which have been forced to cut education budgets so drastically. So if, as you say, "a good [science] education" is the only antidote, then we are doomed. Why, even if we could proceed with a reform of the education at breakneck pace, we could not see the effects in public policy until decades later, and by then it would be too late to prevent a 4C rise in global average temperature. But we are not even heading in the right direction. So rather than pin our hopes on the Herculean task of reforming science education for the masses, we should instead pin our hopes on getting scientists -- whose career successes already shows a great ability for learning -- to learn the basics of political science, and in particular public relations. Then scientists will have a chance at learning how the tack taken so far is so misguided, and what needs to change to undo the immense damage done by the PR from the other side. Now I know even that sounds Herculean! But since scientists really are better at learning than the average voter, we have a chance. -
MattJ at 09:57 AM on 4 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
Can the IAU take legal action against Monckton for using their name fraudulently in support of Monckton's position? -
yocta at 09:53 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
RE#261 johnd I have been busy marking my first year's papers so I can't help it... You say: ...and as can be seen with the IPCC tracked models there is quite a divergence... Please quantify this statement just the opinion of the forecasters as to which one was most likely to eventuate. Can you provide evidence of the forecaster's opinion? all the models should begin converging until about 24 hours out they all should be fairly well aligned. why 24 hours? What physical basis do you have for this? However there is another scenario that can and does occur, they are all proved wrong. It is obviously impossible for them all to be proved right. This statement is too vague. johnd, these statements could be taken and applied in all areas of science and still be given the same bad marks I am giving it now. Watch this video that was linked here before. In order to really criticise the scientific process you need to have a good foundation of how it works. The loose fitting language and assertions you provide do not reflect this.Moderator Response: Looks like I posted my remark on johnd's comment at the same time you were posting yours. Let's take the discussion of model accuracy to the thread Models are unreliable. -
scaddenp at 09:45 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
My point about TOA, is that if you measure energy imbalance at TOA, then the system underneath it must heat up. -
scaddenp at 09:42 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Put all the oil (minimal refining) through gas turbine combined cycle at around 60% and you do even better efficiency. Internal combustion doesn't compete with that. -
Rob Honeycutt at 09:40 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Okay, that settles it. I want my Tesla Model S right now. -
JMurphy at 09:37 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Argus, your beliefs with regard to Al Gore are confused. I think you will find that he was rich and famous before his movie and the number of its 'errors' (as they were expressly described, with those quotation marks, because they were more a matter of interpretation rather than substance) added up to nine - 'many' to you. As for rumours about him, why do you believe what you read about him and where did you read them ? -
Marcus at 09:36 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
theendisfar. Who was being sarcastic? I was merely pointing out the simple fact that, without *evidence* to back it up, your little hypothesis doesn't really bear up very well-yet you seem loathe to provide that evidence. Indeed, the evidence of Stratospheric Cooling seems to kill your Evaporation/Convection hypothesis stone dead. Evaporation definitely explains the movement of heat from the surface of the earth to the troposphere layer but-given the short-lived nature of a single water vapor molecule in the low to mid troposphere-compared to the long-lived nature of CO2, NO2 & Methane-it is extremely hard to picture evaporating water molecules as a major source of heat transmission out to space. Even if you significantly increase the rate of evaporation, this will only change the rate at which the heat gets transferred to the lower atmosphere. It is the then the rate at which these atmospheric gases (greenhouse gases) then transfer that heat out into space which dictates the overall warmth of the planet. The greater the concentration of these greenhouse gases, the slower that rate of heat transfer to space will become-a view backed up by the cooling of the stratosphere, the reduction in outgoing long wave IR-emissions in the spectrum absorbed by CO2 & methane (but not water) & the simple fact that concentrations of CO2 & methane have been rising rapidly for several decades. When you can provide a similar level of empirical evidence to back your hypothesis-starting with *how* & *why* we're getting increased evaporation-then maybe your view about CO2 being a "red herring" will have merit. Until then, you just sound incredibly silly! -
johnd at 09:33 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
The best way to test just how much is known and understood and how much is assumed is to test it all, and the best way to test it is to use what is known or assumed to develop models that will predict or forecast the future. With weather and climate forecasting numerous models are used by the various agencies, the IPCC alone track I think 21 different models, and exclude an unknown number, presumably flawed models. All models differ according to the combination of assumptions that are plugged in. Now the important thing to remember is that each model on it's own should be completely valid. There should be no inherent flaws or assumptions that can be proven to be incorrect, otherwise they model itself would have to be considered invalid. Because each model is a valid model it has as much chance as any other model as producing an accurate prediction, and as can be seen with the IPCC tracked models there is quite a divergence. The same happens with weather forecasting modelling, only here we are able to witness whether or not the assumptions prove to be correct or not. In the beginning of the outlook period, typically, based on current data inputted, each model with produce it's own forecast. At times these can be as far apart as it is possible to get. It does happen when different agencies will produce totally different outlooks, 100% opposed. Nothing inherently wrong with the models, just the opinion of the forecasters as to which one was most likely to eventuate. As the outlook period shortens, all the models should begin converging until about 24 hours out they all should be fairly well aligned. At the beginning of the outlook period each had an equal chance of being right, assuming no known flaws were inherent in the assumptions, and with a range of different outcomes, if one happens to be proved right, all the others will have been proven to be wrong. However there is another scenario that can and does occur, they are all proved wrong. It is obviously impossible for them all to be proved right. As mentioned there is nothing wrong with any of the models within themselves. The problem lies in the limited collective knowledge about, in this case natural forces, and how that limits the veracity of all assumptions being made. I consider that this evidence, the relatively poor strike rate in producing accurate forecasts, as an indicator of just how limited the collective knowledge is amongst the professionals involved about all relevant factors in the natural world despite those who claim otherwise. If there is a large degree of uncertainty in the measuring of one aspect of the forces involved in the climate, it is completely illogical to claim that there greater certainty in the measuring of any other aspects, because at the end of the day, as in surveying, the loop must be closed, and it cannot close if there is uncertainty in any one leg, and certainty in the other legs then become hostage to the same doubts.Moderator Response: Further discussion of the accuracy of models should be done on the thread Models are unreliable. -
yocta at 09:31 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
RE#246 theendisfar Can you please quote at least one reference for your claims? Just one,or are you the only scientist in the world with this theory? I need a primer of data, curves, equations, or anything I can use as a reference before any of your assertions can be taken seriously. As a Peer review I am saying, get some references! A good literature review is probably the most important thing ever when doing research! -
Marcus at 09:18 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
OK, if we assume that *all* the electricity comes from coal then this is the comparison: 1kw-h of coal-fired electricity generates 0.9kg of CO2. Assuming T&D losses of 10%, then this amounts to a flat 1kg of CO2 per kw-h of electricity. The average electric car gets about 12kw-h/100km traveled, which means the electric car generates 12kg of CO2 for every 100km of travel. By contrast, the average car consumes 10L petrol per 100km traveled (assuming highway travel) & every litre of petrol burned generates 2.3kg of CO2. So the IC-engine car generates about 23kg of CO2 for every 100km traveled. So even assuming the dirtiest electricity grid, the *average* electric car generates half the emissions of a conventional IC-engine vehicle. Once you through in petrol consumption during peak-time idling, the numbers come out even more in favor of the electric vehicle. Of course electricity grids like the US, Canada & much of Western Europe have a mix of electricity sources-resulting in an average CO2/kw-h of electricity of closer to 0.6 to 0.8 kg-which again tips the balance even further in favor of electric cars. Lastly, whatever ones view of AGW, switching to electric cars also *eliminates* source emissions of particulate emissions, benzene (which causes cancer), & the various components of photochemical smog. So from any standpoint (even life-time cost) the electric car wins hands down! -
philipm at 09:18 AM on 4 June 2010Latest GRACE data on Greenland ice mass
Here's an article that I wrote at a popular Australian opinion site, covering some of this ground (with a pointer to this article). It includes a picture you may recognise:
Comments there welcome.
Response: Phillip, that's a cracker of an article, well done.
BTW, I can always tell when someone grabs pics from my site by the telltale bolded, Arial heading added above the graph :-) -
Riccardo at 08:49 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
"If surface temperature increases so will the whole atmosphere." I mean troposphere. -
Riccardo at 08:47 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
Small scale analogy are off the taget because there's no significant pressure gradient. In the real atmosphere it is convection that determines (to a large extent) the lapse rate. The lapse rate, in a first aproximation, is constant and independent on temperature. It depends on accelaration of gravity and specific heat. On the contrary, surface temperature is determined by radiative balance. If surface temperature increases so will the whole atmosphere. More sofisticated models predict that the lapse rate may vary with global warming, in particular in the tropical regions. This effects is what should cause the intesification and expansion of the Hadley cell with the consequent expansions of deserts northward. Convection is essential for the redistribution of heat, not for the overall energy balance of the planet. -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:37 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Philippe... But you also have to account for the fact that most areas have a mix of power generation, not just fossil fuel. As stated before, here in California we only use about 20% coal so the carbon generated per unit of energy for an EV is likely to be far less than a standard IC engine. -
Philippe Chantreau at 08:26 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
In the US, the "big governent/small government" debate is mostly electoral talk. One party is supposedly that of smaller government. Yet when that party had long stretches of time with a good handle on several branches of government, neither the size nor the spending decreased. Deficits raged as badly as with the other party. Reagan's TEFRA was a historically high tax increase. People's peceptions about this are quite separate from reality. The reality is that the economics of the moment largely dictate what the government's actions (or reactions, most of the time) will be, not the professed ideology. Re scaddenp: Without actually working the numbers, I believe that MacKay is likely right. What matters is the carbon per kW and an efficient plant, like combined cycle or better, will probably fare better than a corresponding sum of I.C. engines for the same amount of watts (the unit, no pun intended). If you factor in everything (transport, refining etc), it might be even better. -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:15 AM on 4 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
Alexandre... Exactly right. Many many times I have referred people to a really great Youtube video made by Potholer54 titled The Scientific Method Made Easy. His video does a really good job of explaining to people what scientists actually do and how they come to their conclusions. -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:07 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
The Ville... I don't know how accurate this is but a quick google search turned up (for me) that fossil fuel power stations are about 35-40% efficient. IC automobile engines are about 30% efficient. And electric motors are about 95% efficient. Now, I'm not sure how that plays with peak and off peak generation, or drive/idle time in automobiles. -
Alexandre at 08:04 AM on 4 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
JMurphy #2 That´s absolutely commonplace. Absurd, yes, but somehow commonplace and not likely to stop soon. Many people get to know their first notions about climate science - or science in general - through these guys and all of a sudden their convinced that all scientific institutions in the world are colluded to counterfeit a "lie". IMHO, the only antidote to this is good education. Teach people good ol´science. The basics that lead to what is known today. -
Paul D at 07:53 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
@85 Efficiency of a power station is better than a IC engine? Depends of the power station! There is a good reason why CHP is considered better than a 'standard' coal fired power station and there is a good reason why the PRIMARY energy output of a CHP plant is heat energy, not electricity. That reason is because fossil fuel 'thermal' power plants waste over half the energy as heat. Yes indeed electric motors are very efficient, but a standard power station is not efficient. -
scaddenp at 07:27 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Just on energy source for electric - David MacKay made case for electric car EVEN if all the electricity came from burning fossil fuel. This is because the efficiency of a power station + electric moter is so much higher than that of internal combustion engine. -
GFW at 06:58 AM on 4 June 2010Websites to monitor the Arctic Sea Ice
Well, we're now on our third day of record low extent-for-that-date per IJIS (JAXA). Bremen says it's been a week. Presumably NSIDC will put out a monthly update in the next couple of days. The trajectory around the end of this month may set the tone for the remainder of the melt season. -
actually thoughtful at 06:32 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
CBDunkerson at 81 I did some more math, both with the 40 year average of 6%, then with what actually happened from one decade to the next. A smooth 6%/year means that every 30 years, prices will be 541% higher. In other words take the base price and multiply it by 5! (rounding down to be conservative). So the data is not so nice as to be a smooth 6%. For every 30 year average available from 1967 (two of them 67-97 and 1977-2007) the fuel multiple is over 7! Not ever wanting to overstate the case, I went back and took the multiple for each decade (Divided 1977 avg fuel price by 1967 avg fuel price and repeated for 1987, 1997, 2007) 1977/67: 2.26 1987/77: 2.50 1997/87: 1.26 2007/97: 1.91 average multiplier per 10 years: 1.98 So you can count on natural gas prices doubling every 10 years, and be right more often than not. Note that 2007 is just before the current extreme price volatility began. I note that electricity has only gone up 20% since 1997, and that coal has a multiplier of 7 over 40 years (not 30). So useful data, but using natural gas as a stand in for all fuel is probably painting with too coarse a brush. -
KR at 06:19 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
A (very) side comment on storms, weather, and uncertainty: Weather is a chaotic system, composed of a number of non-linear interactions and stochastic behavior. Like any non-linear system, it is difficult to predict where it will go next along its strange attractor. Weather prediction, in fact, started much of the recent research in chaotic systems with the discovery of the Lorenz attractor! However, like other non-linear systems, the bounds on its attractor, the limits on where it can go, are well established. We don't know what the weather will be two weeks from now - but we know how much average energy is involved, and what the range of changes can be; Arizona won't suddenly freeze for a month in the middle of summer, the Arctic won't boil. And of central importance - the chaotic dance of weather around the average temperature still centers around the energy available for that dance, regardless of how impressive the storm. -
KR at 06:05 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
Actually, most of the energy in hurricanes and other storms is latent heat, released when water vapor condenses into clouds. The spectrograph data for surface thermal radiation, atmospheric back-radiation, and solar irradiance energy values are extremely accurate, robust, and have been repeated over and over again by multiple researchers. Evaporative energy transfer calculated from total precipitation and the energy required for evaporation are solid as well. Total uncertainty in these measures are on the order of +/- 10 W/m^2, out of 492 input and 468 output. Convective transfer is admittedly harder to measure, with over-ocean measures of 10-11 W/m^2, higher over land with averages of 18-19 W/m^2, +/-5 W/m^2. Note that this totals only twice the uncertainty of the other pathways! There are NO convective estimates within an order of magnitude of the radiative energy transfer, no matter who you talk to. And there's only so much room left over between the radiative and evaporative transfers! Weather scale convection? Sure, lots of chaos, lots of uncertainty, really hard to predict next week's weather. But the total energy involved over the long haul (decades) is well known. If you don't have a measurement, you're left with an opinion. And as I said before, opinions contradicted by solid evidence aren't worth much. -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:54 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
The Ville... I think you are probably correct about coal, CO2 and electric vehicles in the US in general. The mix is different here in California where natural gas is 37%, coal only 20%, hydro is 17% and nuclear 14%. -
Doug Bostrom at 05:53 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
I can't see how anyone can claim one mechanism is dominant over the other, when at least one is so far from being understood, let alone measured accurately. Another way of saying it: My argument has no evidence to support it, so yours must be wrong. That does not seem very persuasive. -
johnd at 05:46 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
KR at 05:16 AM, convection is not simply a factor in weather, it is the weather. Accurate measurements are still in the process of being gathered, and are likely to be for some considerable time. If accurate measurements were available, then accurate forecasts could be made, but the limitations of both measuring and understanding the processes means we are still very limited in what we know. If you strip all the assumptions and calculations out of your data, what real measurements are you left with, and what errors or range of uncertainty are they subject to, really. I can't see how anyone can claim one mechanism is dominant over the other, when at least one is so far from being understood, let alone measured accurately. -
KR at 05:39 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
Measurement, noun:ˈme-zhər-mənt Numbers can be confusing at times, but they don't lie, and don't have an agenda. If you want to say that convection is dominant over radiation in terms of surface energy transfer, you will have to show that the existing measurements are wrong, with measurements that support your assertion. Storms are 'weather', not climate - short term variations can be and are MUCH larger than long term changes in the average value, but they average out in the long run. And the long run climate changes shift where the average is located. To mis-quote Jerry Maguire, "Show me the measure!" -
Doug Bostrom at 05:26 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
The Ville, looking at the report you mentioned caused me to be struck with the thought that electric vehicles are an excellent fit w/sometimes fickle (at least on small geographic scales) sources of energy such as wind and solar capture. Dissipation of energy stored in automobile batteries is rather decoupled from the demand they impose as they are charged; a sufficient mass of vehicle batteries will act as a sponge for electricity, wrung out asynchronously with generation. Related but slightly different to the notion of using motive power batteries to backfeed the grid; the net effect is similar but the mechanism is different. Obviously I'm not the first to notice that but it was all the same a striking realization for me. I've been intrigued by the concept of using idle vehicles as a capacity leveling system but even as more simple sponges they'd be useful. -
johnd at 05:26 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
Just adding to my post on the role of weather, cold fronts moving across a region can change conditions far faster and to a greater degree than what occurs if heat only dissipates due to being radiated off on a clear night. Granted if the night is long enough, any heat accumulated during the day will be lost, and at times more, but the rate of change does not match that of a fast moving cold front. -
muoncounter at 05:22 AM on 4 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
That graph with the straight lines and the "grand maximum" is stunning ... in its absurdity. Those lines seem to connect absolutely nothing. The sunspot number data file available here presents a monthly average SSN from Jan, 1749 - May, 2010. With a bit of repetitive work, Excel can turn into an annual average SSN: the maximum annual average SSN I found is 190 in 1957. Second highest (in a different cycle) is 158 in 1989 and third highest is a tie with 1778 and 1980 at 155 (these peaks are visible in the graph shown). In short, there is no long-term meaning to "Grand Maximum." Its just one data point among 261 years. I did read with interest this 2005 paper on Fourier Analysis of sunspot cycles, which is probably not news to this community. The authors found a number of different periodicities in excess of 180 years. That translates into a classic Fourier signal analysis problem: a short period signal (11 yrs) modulated by the sum of longer term signals. There will be what look like random maxima whenever these extremely non-random cycles produce constructive interference. So not only do those straight lines connect nothing, they mean nothing as well. -
KR at 05:16 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
johnd, convection is definitely a factor in weather, although the data show that latent heat (heat carried by evaporation) is ~3X the convective transfer. Storms have a lot of energy. But if you add up the energy of the entire surface of the planet, as measured, convection isn't the dominant mechanism for energy transfer. Where are your measurements??? -
johnd at 05:12 AM on 4 June 2010CO2 is not the only driver of climate
KR at 04:37 AM, if convection is not the primary form of energy transfer, then what role does weather play which is primarily all about the redistribution of uneven heat energy. Storms are the mechanism that moves large amounts of heat in a hurry when the system has become unbalanced, some so violent they punch straight through injecting water straight into the stratosphere. -
CBDunkerson at 05:06 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
actually thoughtfull #69, thanks for the corroborating data. I think this really drives home the point about the relative costs of renewables vs fossil fuels. If fossil fuel costs are rising (conservatively) at 6% per year then the average fossil fuel cost over a 30 year period (a conservative estimate of the 'lifespan' of wind and solar plants) is going to be about 287% of the current cost. So we shouldn't really be comparing current renewable costs to current fossil fuel costs... we should be comparing them to 287% or more of current fossil fuel costs. And by that standard wind goes from costing a little more than coal to substantially less. Solar is more expensive than wind, but even that comes in below coal with rising prices factored in. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:53 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
@Argus... I actually think you're over-simplifying. There is a BODY of science on climate change. Science is rarely, if ever perfectly consistent on all fronts. It's important to look at all the work being done by researchers and try to take a reading from there. Yes, Lindzen, Svensmark, Spencer and others have put forth real science. They are a considerable minority. They are outliers in a greater body of evidence. The greater body shows, TO DIFFERENT DEGREES, that climate is changing quite rapidly and that man-made CO2 is the primary driver of that change. What I'm trying to say is, that even within the circles that believe AGW is real there are differing opinions. It's not a religious "believe it or you're going to hell." I would also point out that those contrarian scientists who are putting forth well researched work are getting published. Their work is taken seriously. I just believe it's, for the most part, not agreeing with the greater body of evidence. So, you either throw out the greater body of evidence or find out why it doesn't fit. So, again, skepticism is an essential function of the scientific process. We, on the outside of that process, have to determine for ourselves if that process is operating correctly. I, for one, believe it is and therefore accept the greater body of evidence. If you do not believe it is operating correctly then you are in a position where you have to "deny" the greater body of evidence. -
Doug Bostrom at 04:52 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
But electric cars aren't much good unless you have a clean energy source. Name your poison, BP* or Massey Energy? :-) But as you suggested, the matter is not simple. Someone upthread mentioned the desirability of more efficient use of generating plant. Thank you for the link which I am now going to read. * Speaking of, the video shows the latest interception device being lowered to the floor of the ocean even now. If you pray, please put in a good word... -
CO2 is not the only driver of climate
theendisfar, When you add air to the chamber it is conduction that becomes the dominant source of heat transfer, not natural convenction. The scenario would work pretty much identically in a zero-gravity environment. Also measuring the rate of cooling in the vacuum scenario would not be a direct proxy for calculating the thermal radiation of the object. Remember that all objects emit thermal radiation, so the energy the object is losing to its own radiation is somewhat offset by the radiation emitted by the walls of the chamber. If you want to make the same comparison to the atmosphere's rate of heat exchange, you have to subtract the radiation reflecting back down from the atmosphere (324 Wm^-2). In any case, there is no rule of physics that says for any given system where natural convection applies, the energy transfer from convection will exceed that of radiation. I think you are getting thrown off by trying to visualize it as an engineering problem, where improved conduction and forced convection can often significantly increase the rate of heat transfer. This rule of thumb does not mean that any given system where convection exists must by necessity have more heat transfer from convection than thermal radiation. The comparison is further complicated by the fact that scenarios like the ones you've provided deal with objects much smaller than the atmosphere, whereas with climate science you're dealing with the dynamics of the atmosphere itself. This scale and complexity does not lend itself to simple visualizations. Also, do not confuse conduction with natural convection as you did with your vacuum chamber and Thermos examples. In order to actually visualize the contribution of natural convection, the appropriate scenario would be something like this: place an object at the bottom of a chamber filled with air, measure the rate of heat loss from the object. Repeat the test in a zero gravity environment and compare the rates. Since humans rarely deal with zero-gravity situations, trying to solve this via visualization of common scenarios is probably not a good approach. I suggest you take KR's advice and rely more on actual measured values. Photons hitting a detector will be much more reliable than grossly oversimplified thought experiments. johnd, You are confusing forced convection with natural convection. The earth's atmosphere doesn't have any mechanical fans, it relies mainly on the force of gravity and the earth's rotation to generate convection currents. These same forces exist in your fireplace whether the fans are turned on or not. -
Doug Bostrom at 04:46 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
Done, the last 4 pics link to larger versions. Thank you! Just noticed. -
Paul D at 04:44 AM on 4 June 2010Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
This has probably already been mentioned. But electric cars aren't much good unless you have a clean energy source. In the UK the grid mix of electricity generation sources gives a typical carbon footprint of between 500 and 600 grammes of CO2 per kWh. So that's what your pumping into an electric car when it's being recharged. Add on the losses of the battery and really the carbon footprint of an electric car is similar to an internal combustion engine car, when the CO2/passenger km is worked out. In the US your grid mix is dominated by coal, so I have doubts whether any electric car is currently going to make much difference, until you sort out the coal problem. The problem of electric vehicles and energy supply has recently been highlighted by a recent Royal Academy of Engineering report: http://www.newenergyfocus.com/do/ecco/view_item?listid=1&listcatid=32&listitemid=4001§ion=Electricity But they do indicate the way forward.
Prev 2356 2357 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 2369 2370 2371 Next
