Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 Next
Comments 16601 to 16650:
-
nigelj at 06:51 AM on 26 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #50
In all this discussion we are forgetting a difficult issue. More beef and dairy cattle equals more methane production.
-
ubrew12 at 05:40 AM on 26 December 2017Some curious things about Svensmark et al. reference list
Q. How do cosmic rays cool the stratosphere?
A. It's cosmic. You wouldn't understand.
-
nigelj at 05:19 AM on 26 December 2017Some curious things about Svensmark et al. reference list
It's not just Svensmarks research paper that has an apparently unbalanced or unusual list of source material. The telegraph in the UK has similar issues, and so do other similar media. It ran an article on this latest Svensmark 'research' as below.
www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/12/19/exploding-stars-influencing-weather-scientists-find/
Notice how the article presents the research in a way that says 'scientists' have made a strong connection between comsmic rays and global temperatures. This leaves the impression this is breakthrough proven research, when this is just not the case.
At no point in the article do the journalists say Svensamarks ideas have already been refuted by most climate scientists. At no point do they give an alternative view to Svensmark, or quote other research papers. They may eventually do an article critical of Svensmarks research, but my experience is it doesn't happen often or is so much later nobody reads both or connects them.
This is partly how climate denialism spreads. People read this material and gain a clear impression cosmic rays are absolutely proven to be a huge factor in climate, when they aren't. The general media create these unbalanced impressions repeatedly. IMO It's just pure journalistc incompetence, bias, laziness, and attention seeking hubris.
In addition, cosmic rays have been at record levels over approximately the last decade, and so should have been causing a cooling effect. Instead warming has been especially strong, so if cosmic rays have an effect it looks very weak. Again nothing on this from the media.
-
Aaron Davis at 01:53 AM on 26 December 2017CO2 limits won't cool the planet
Yes, and water vapor and cloud cover are controlable on an hourly time frame using airborne weather modification methods, as demonstrated during the Beijing Olympic Games. http://www.businessinsider.com/china-sets-aside-millions-to-control-the-rain-2016-7
Let's step back and consider global warming as just another rate process and use a water tank as an analogy. Rate is proportional to the driving force - pressure in the tank, and temperature in heat flow. It also is proportional to the cross section of the conduit - valve in the tank and emissivity in radiant heat flow. Rate is inversely proportional to the path - tube length in the tank and slant path through the atmosphere for global warming. The tank fills on a cosine profile during the day through a valve controlled principly by cloud cover, and water vapor valves. In comparison the CO2 and ozone are tiny valve, but useful on a decade or century scale, while the main players effect is felt immediatly causing changes in temperature - water level - in 10s of degrees, as much as 50 W m-2, while CO2, which changes every season in the Arctic by 15 ppm, hardly registers when compared to the same Antarctic latitudes where CO2 concentration changes from summer to winter is much less.
The output of the tank is also controlled principly by the moisture and cloud cover factors as well. Human energy consumption from non-renewable nuclear and fossil fuels acts like a burner under the tank. Moving heavy industry to thin, dry desert environment can provide them their own wider output valve. Moving sea ice off the Polar Winter sea increases the driving force - temperature difference - increasing the rate.
What we're shooting for is a Global Active Thermal Control System. I'm not saying the Passive Thermal Control (CO2) - analogous to the shell of the spacecraft is not important, just that it's insufficient to maintain a stable climate.
Moderator Response:[TD] It appears you are not reading any of the material I've pointed you to, not even attempting to understand it, because you are not even arguing specifically against any of that material. Instead you are merely repeating your wildly incorrect claims. That is called "sloganeering" and is prohibited on this site. If you'd like to engage in commenting on this site, address the specific topics on the specific threads addressing them. You might start with your incorrect belief that CO2 blocks as much energy coming from the Sun as it blocks leaving the Earth; discuss that on the "Nutshell" post I gave you. Then address your incorrect understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, on that thread. Then actually read the publication linked in the Waste Heat thread (preferably the one I linked for you, not the secondary one you commented on). Then make your claim about the ability to control global humidity on the water vapor thread I pointed you to; for that one you must demonstrate that the dependence of humidity on temperature can be overcome on a global scale. Finally, if you want to make claims specifically about geoengineering, find an appropriate thread for that, such as Scientists Debate Geoengineering.
-
chriskoz at 20:11 PM on 25 December 2017From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 1: The Basics
bozzza@16,
Indeed, @15, I should have said that bozzza@14 post is "of topic" and not "troll". I appologize for using the wrong term and the implied offensive language.
-
bozzza at 16:25 PM on 25 December 2017From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 1: The Basics
ChrisK: are you sure you know what a troll is?
How many times have you caught me promoting fossil fuels buddy??
You don't own the internet.. or are you such a huge troll that you actually do?
-
NorrisM at 16:16 PM on 25 December 2017Analysis: How developing nations are driving record growth in solar power
Dugga12 @ 12
Hang in there and provide comments. Sometimes you will get somewhat negative reactions from some posters but I think it is valuable to this website to have some commenters who accept the fact of AGW but are not completely sold on wind and solar as solutions given their intermittency.
I similarly have thought that nuclear power was being neglected as a non-polluting alternative source of energy. I have to admit that reading the two Abbott papers (a professor in Australia) certainly has "cooled me" (excuse the pun) on the potential of nuclear power to supplant fossil fuels. I think it was michael sweet who first directed me to the Abbott papers. The real issue raised in my mind by the Abbott papers is the question of whether we really have enough uranium left in the world to supplant fossil fuels (leaving aside thorium and reprocessing). But another point made by Abbott relates to the actual number of nuclear plants that would have to be built in the US. I cannot remember the number but it was fairly staggering.
If you would like some up to date information on the "history" of why the US turned away from nuclear power in the 1970's, you may want to look at the Climate Etc website which has a recent posting on this. It also delves into why the costs of nuclear power rose so dramatically as a result of the increased regulation. There is another article on various alternative energy choices for Texas which makes for interesting reading.
I have to admit that Abbott convinced me of the logic of focussing on thermal solar power rather than PV solar power but this Sks website is not dedicated to considering alternatives to fossil fuels but only convincing people that AGW is a serious problem. I still think that we need natural gas electrical generation as the "back up" to any wind or solar solution because of the additional costs of storage (today the only proven one is pumped hydro from what I can see).
-
Aaron Davis at 14:33 PM on 25 December 2017CO2 limits won't cool the planet
Is it true that GHG delays energy flow from sun to earth proportional to solar intensity during the day, and delays energy flow from earth to space at night? If so, I don't understand your claim "no special leverage from reducing insulation at night rather than in day." In fact this leverage is exquistly controlable and substantially more effective than reducing GHG both at night and day.
Moderator Response:[TD] The wavelengths of radiation that greenhouse gases absorb are only a small portion of the radiation from the Sun, but a large portion of the radiation emitted by the Earth. Please read Global Warming in a Nutshell.
-
Aaron Davis at 10:26 AM on 25 December 2017Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
http://www.treehugger.com/fossil-fuels/world-energy-use-over-last-200-years-graphs.html
This figure shows energy consumption increasing linearly to 100 exaJoule per year from 1820 to 1950. The sum is 1/2 100 (1950-1820) = 6.5 ZJ.
From 1950 to 2010 it went from 100 to 550 exajoules. The sum is (450/2)(60)+100*60 = 19.5 ZJ.
Assuming a 50% efficiency, that leaves 13 ZJ went to waste heat from 1820 to 2010.
It takes 4.179 Joules to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water 1 oC
The volume of oceans (70% of earth, 510e14 m^2) down to 200 meters is 7.14e22 grams
If none of the human energy consumption over the last 190 years was rejected to space the surface temperature of the ocean would be 23 degrees C warmer.
Clearly, a lot of that energy was rejected to space and some was used to melt ice.
Equally clear is the fact that an increase 1.5 oC in surface temperature could easily be the result of accumulated waste heat from human consumption over this interval.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-surface-temperature
Ignoring human energy consumption as a forcing factor, almost all from fossil fuels, by the IPCC is easily challenged.
Moderator Response:[TD] An important aside: Your use of the term “rejected” is unusual. If you mean “reflected” you need to use that term. If you mean “emitted” you need to use that term.
-
chriskoz at 09:28 AM on 25 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #51
David@2,
A thought very similar to yours was first conceived by James Lovelock, the author of Gaia theory in 1960s. It's interesting how Lovelock's book The Revenge of Gaia, in his apocalyptic vision of humans' destruction by the Mother-Earth Godness, parallels similar stories conceived by other world religions: e.g. biblical Deluge.
The science have progressed really fast since Lovelock's prime time, and rockweathering thermostat theory conceived just 20years later in 1980, explained well why Earth climate has been stable and why coal ahs been sequestered. We don't need religious believes ala Gaia anymore to understand it. But interestingly, Lovelock, still with us, denies rock weathering thermostat theory and stands by his apocalyptic vision of humankind destruction within 20years. A harmless vision (or even would be useful if it sparked an according mitigation action), but a ridiculusly set in an atlernative reality.
-
chriskoz at 08:37 AM on 25 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #51
Islanders don't have last names. "Jakobsdóttir" means "Jakob's daughter", rather obvious for english speakers. You should call Island's PM by her first name Katrin, and you can omit her father's name if there is no ambiguity. I think (although I'm not an expert in Nordik culture) such omission is definitely not denigrating in any way even in some formal situations, while calling her just "Jakob's daughter" (as this article does) is likely insulting.
No surprise, they don't need last names as there are only 300 000 of them (2/3 in Reykjavik) so in small communities there is rarely a need to disambiguate names. And the names, I suspect may have many more forms and flavours than e.g. English given names.
Moderator Response:[TD] Fixed per request: Removed "only."
-
David Kirtley at 08:22 AM on 25 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #51
Indeed, Nigel. Maybe God created coal as a form of carbon sequestration to make Earth more habitable for humans. Just a thought.
-
Aaron Davis at 08:11 AM on 25 December 2017CO2 limits won't cool the planet
I was able to find the Waste Heat Article. I will comment there. thanks
-
Aaron Davis at 07:50 AM on 25 December 2017CO2 limits won't cool the planet
https://skepticalscience.com/Second-law-of-thermodynamics-greenhouse-theory.htmhttp://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.htmlThank you for the quick response. Please repeat the link to "Waste Heat"
Regarding insulating layers during the day. Your comment messes with my understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. My understanding is that heat flows from hot to cold, not the other way, so unless the incomming radiation from the sun (5000+ oC) is less than the surface (maybe a lava flow would be an example) then I dont see how reducing insulating layers during the day rejects more heat to space. In general 9am to 3pm the earth absorbes radiant energy. The other 15 hours the earth rejects energy. More energy would be rejected if water vapor and cloud cover were removed at night. More energy would be absorbed if they were removed during the day.
"the 2nd law of thermodynamics - heat flows spontaneously from a hot to a cold body" http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html
Moderator Response:[TD] Sorry, I fixed the waste heat link now. You can also use the Search box at the top left of every page to find relevant pages on many topics.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that net flow of energy between two bodies is in the direction of the higher energy body to the lower energy body. (The word "heat" is used loosely both by the lay public and physicists, so it's better to talk about "energy" when getting technical.) See the Skeptical Science post; read the Basic tabbed pane, then the Intermediate one. Then watch this video by izen. Then read The Green Plate Effect by Eli Rabbett, which prompted Izen to make his video.
-
Aaron Davis at 07:20 AM on 25 December 2017CO2 limits won't cool the planet
errata -
Recall that the shady regions of the poles on Mercury maintains solid water ice.
-
Aaron Davis at 06:51 AM on 25 December 2017CO2 limits won't cool the planet
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/08/sensible-questions-on-climate-sensitivity/https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htmPhilippe,
Thank you for your patience. I believe you and I are both serious about finding a solution to achieving a stable climate in time to make a difference.
First a comment on the super computer models: I do not have access to an array of super computers and all the configurations of climate models out there. However, I can see from Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity calculations that the variations in results are higher than the effect that it intends to discern. As the variability fails to converge with increasing trials this suggests they are not efficient estimators and may be being pushed in resolution far beyond their capacity. It is comforting that the Swinbank model has been confirmed, but for broad conclusions Swinbank may be as accurate as we need. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity.
The last 15 years shows the total annual accumulated energy of about 12.5 ZJ/year and accelerating, (mostly in the oceans and cryosphere, not the atmosphere). This is about 20x the human consumption of energy (nearly all from fossil fuels). It appears this factor of 5% factor could be stable. Therefore, before arguing about CO2 why don't Climate Scientists first try to factor-in the heat loading caused by heating from human's non-renewable energy consumption. As non-renewable human energy consumption is mostly from fossil fuels it would correlate well with CO2 accumulation. However, looking to CO2 first may be confounding the conclusion that CO2 as a principle source.
We know that nuclear energy is associated with harmful thermal pollution. So the notion that simply switching to non GHG nuclear would fix global warming is as preposterous as the notion that CO2 is big knob it's made out to be.
Can we agree therefore that to achieve thermal control while humans continue to add to the heat load we could improve nighttime radiant cooling?
You don't need an array of super computers to be convinced that only decreasing the downward flux of nighttime insulting layers, (clouds, humidity, and sea ice) will radiate enough energy to space to stabilize the climate. The near absolute zero temperature of space should be sufficient to stabilize earth's climate regardless of what happens with the sun, or the currents or CO2 concentrations. Recall that the shady regions of the poles on Mars maintains solid water ice.
If we agree with this, then perhaps we can move on to implementing a solution.
To be honest, I understand your mocking tone, Alfred Wegner's ideas about plate tectonics were mocked by fellow geologist for 45 years (from 1915 to 1960) before finally being accepted. Unfortunately, we don't have that much time to solve the global warming problem. I contend that CO2 is an unnecessary distraction and opens the community up to unnecessary charges of bias and ulterior motivations.
Here is additional information on the partial pressure of CO2 on Mars that supports the premise that reducing CO2 concentrations is irrelevant to achieving global thermal control:
The 4% of gases that are not CO2 include 1.9% argon, 1.9% nitrogen, and traces of oxygen, carbon monoxide, water, and methane. The partial pressure of CO2 on Mars is about 6 millibars, which corresponds to 6,000 ppm were it all transported to Earth.
Thinking about Mars: 3. Air | LinkedIn
http://www.answers.com/.../What_is_the_partial_pressure...Moderator Response:[TD] You wrote "Therefore, before arguing about CO2 why don't Climate Scientists first try to factor-in the heat loading caused by heating from human's non-renewable energy consumption." That has been done. Waste heat is insignificant compared to heating from greenhouse gas increases. Please read the post devoted to that topic, and put further comments on that topic there, not here.
You wrote "only decreasing the downward flux of nighttime insulting layers, (clouds, humidity, and sea ice) will radiate enough energy to space to stabilize the climate." All insulating layers operate not just at night but during the day. There is no special leverage from reducing insulation at night rather than in day. Greenhouse gases are part of that insulation, and human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are forcings. Humidity (water vapor) is a feedback not a forcing. Likewise clouds. Sea ice, too.
Please read the post about Mars.
There are plenty of opportunities for you to learn about climate sensitivity. Here is one on SkepticalScience. And Then There's Physics has a recent post that links to others you should read for background. RealClimate has a similarly useful recent post.
-
nigelj at 06:22 AM on 25 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #51
Merry christmas to skepticalscience.com.
Regarding the hilarious Santa cartoon, lots of people probably say god created coal, so it must be ok to use coal. But maybe they take the wrong message. The bible also has clauses that require us to look after the environment, and think for ourselves as follows:
www.patheos.com/blogs/christiancrier/2015/06/23/top-7-bible-verses-about-taking-care-of-the-earth/
Does anyone actually read Breitbart? It looks like demented, one sided conspiracy theory piffle to me.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 05:40 AM on 25 December 2017How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice
Alchemyst, you're getting this backward. S.C.'s "pedigree" was misrepresented in the first place by pseudo-skeptics, who then used the misrepresentation as the basis of an argument from authority. Although that argument is a logical fallacy in its own right, it was also useful to examine the claim on the pedigree itself, which, as it turns out, is not all that impressive. Nonetheless, arguments from authority are still wrong. If Niels Bohr had started ranting nonsense, he would have been called on it, regardless of his previous achievements. Said achievements did not contitute a 100% guarantee on anything coming afterwards.
S.C. does not have a large body of orginal research work on polar bears. That does not invalidate by itself any claim she would make, but certainly withdraws from her being presented as an authority. I don't see anyone here "attacking" her pedigree. That's kind of impossible to do anyway. That's like attacking the sky. Her pedigree, the sum of her publications and contributions, is really a matter of public record; it is what it is. What contributors have done was to attack the idea that said pedigree granted her status as such an authoritative figure that what she said should be regarded with more respect than what any/all others say, and constitute the end all/be all on the subject. It was shown that there was no factual basis for it, and it is a logical fallacy.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 05:09 AM on 25 December 2017Analysis: How developing nations are driving record growth in solar power
I fail to see how government subsidies that support sustenable energy are ridiculous. The subisidies going to fossil fuel industries seem to me much more deserving of such adjective, considering that these industries have been established for over 100 years and been able to generate gigantic net profits in a very consistent way. I have no doubt that Westinghouse presents their products in a very favorable way. They do have a pretty serious incentive to do so, as they do in these products finding a market. If I was to buy every product presented in a favorable way by its maker, I would have gone bankrupt at age 18.
-
Eclectic at 14:38 PM on 24 December 2017How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice
Alchemyst @2 , please note that there is no meaningful comparison between the ordinariness of Susan Crockford and the outstandingness of Neils Bohr. It is a logical non-sequitur to suggest that Bohr's brilliance somehow adds lustre to Crockford. Nor is she a Galileo !!
Please look at the faulty/unscientific nature of her assertions — assertions which are also strongly outlier to the views held by the generality of polar bear experts.
Although the white polar bears are specialized in diet and are of fairly recent evolutionary divergence from the "colored" bears, yet they managed to survive through the recent (Eemian) interglacial period — a period which was distinctly warmer than the present Holocene interglacial. How so? It seems that the Arctic region during the Eemian had disproportionately cooler temperatures, owing to "a reduced intensity of Atlantic Ocean heat transfer to the Arctic" [ Bauch et al., 2012 ]
The big picture presently is that: (A) despite wishful thinking, we have a very incomplete idea of polar bear numbers & population dynamics,
... and (B) the polar bears [as mega-fauna carnivores with a highly-specialized diet/lifestyle ] are facing almost 100% loss of their habitat during the next century or two. Crockford as well as anyone, should know that habitat loss is the biggest threat to endangered species. Yet she still makes soothing noises to the denialists.
-
nigelj at 08:35 AM on 24 December 2017How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice
Alchemyst @2
"Could we have an article regarding the polar bear counts etc"
As you can see from this study some populations of polar bears are currently declining, and a couple are increasing, and for many we don't have good data. The decline of polar bears is associated with climate change, particularly due to declining food resources like declining seal populations.
Projections are that all populations of polar bears will eventually decline.
"The deniers seem to point out that during other times the bears survived through warmer times with less snow"
The bears survived through warm temperatures after the end of the last ice age. We are heading to much higher temperatures, and less sea ice than this, by 2100.
Susan Crockford hasn't published any science on polar bears related to climate change, and very little research on any aspect of polar bears. Perhaps you should bear that in mind when you read research and opinion. Who has more basic credibility, the expert or non expert?
Of course people like Crockford might be onto something, but given she is a non expert I suggest look at every single thing she says carefully and double check it against what the research and what others are saying. Check her source dara carefully, to see if its reliable and properly relevent and not cherry picked. Her various claims do not stand up to even the most superficial scrutiny IMO.
-
Dugga12 at 07:32 AM on 24 December 2017Analysis: How developing nations are driving record growth in solar power
Okay, I give up, and will unsubscribe myself from commenting on articles of interest to me, but I will continue to read them. I am no climate change denier, rather I readily accept that AGW is real and the issue needs to be addressed urgently. I am after all a grandfather concerned for the future of my grandchildren and the world in which they live.
I have installed pv panels on my roof, and because of ridiculous government subsidies, courtesy of the poor taxpayer, I no longer pay an electricity bill. I am indeed fortunate that I have the financial resources to have been able to pay for the capital cost of my system, but there are many others unable to do so. In the end, everything comes down to money, whether mine or the taxpayers.
I am no economic or financial genius, so I have to rely on experts for my advice. I have taken an interest in the arguments over cost of renewables, but have come to rely on recent reports put out by Lazard, with their two most recent ones - Levelised Cost of Energy LCOE 11 and Levelised cost of storage LCOS 3 - which attempt to strip out the cost of energy and storage sources without any subsidies.
The latest opinion from Lazard is -
“Although alternative energy is increasingly cost-competitive and storage technology holds great promise, alternative energy systems alone will not be capable of meeting the base-load generation needs of a developed economy for the foreseeable future. Therefore, the optimal solution for many regions of the world is to use complementary conventional and alternative energy resources in a diversified generation fleet.”
If some conventional energy sources contribute to global warming and other conventional sources contribute less, surely the latter sources ought to receive more consideration in providing base-load generation. Comparisons between conventional sources then come down to costings, which the Lazard papers provide.
I try to keep an open mind on most issues, which does become somewhat harder at 75 years of age. However, I’ve always kept in mind a little piece of advice given to me by the high school inspector, after I had attended a workshop given by an older science teacher colleague on grinding lenses for telescopes. I was obviously over enthusiastic about getting students involved in this project, when the inspector drily remarked “Remember, the only difference between a groove and a grave is one of depth”. In other words, read widely, and keep up to date, which was advice I passed on to my students.
For those who might want to find out what the latest development in nuclear power generation might include, consult the Westinghouse web site for the eVinci mini generator.
Over and out, goodbye and good luck.
-
Alchemyst at 07:26 AM on 24 December 2017How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice
I am interested in whether polar bears are declining. This is an opinion poll and not scientific fact. Could we have an article regarding the polar bear counts etc and the relative merits of the various arguments? At the moment I seem to be inclined to think that polar bears will always need ice, but how much do they actually need? The deniers seem to point out that during other times the bears survived through warmer times with less snow. Could we have a comparisom of the data?
The dig at Susan C again was not merited. Someone coming in fresh to a subject does not invalidate their work. I seem to recall reading in his biography thatNiels Bohr moved from Cambridge as his ideas were not well recieved by Thomson and moved to Manchester, that was at the time regarded as an upstart university and became part of a group that made history.
Criticise her work and results but not her pedegree.
-
chriskoz at 06:50 AM on 24 December 2017From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 1: The Basics
Everyone's obviously ignored the irrelevant, alternative reality troll bozzza@14 above. I suggest mods to enforce comments policy and delete the troll (and this message) in their passing. Thanks.
-
sgbotsford at 06:36 AM on 24 December 2017It's not bad
Additional reference:
http://biodiversityandclimate.abmi.ca/
This is a mixed group of scientists trying to figure out the impact of climate change on Alberta. As part of this, they have constructured sets of maps corresponding to cool, medium and hot scenarios and have plotted changes in rainfall (not much different), temperature (scary difference, and ecozone shifts (really scarry difference) for the 2050's and 2080's. Note that each of these maps you can choose between the cool, medium and hot scenarios. The third link is with the hot scenario shows southern Alberta's desert regions (much like central Montana or Wyoming) will in places be up to the northern border.
I live an hour from Edmonton, pretty much in the center of the province. We're looking at a 6 C temperature rise in the next 70 years.
-
sgbotsford at 06:15 AM on 24 December 2017A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
I have followed this discussion with some interest.
My thanks to the author for the fine overview. After I re-read it a few more times I may start to understand it. At present I understand each chunk separately, but trying to see it all together still escapes me. Keep it up.
My thanks also to the moderator for valiant efforts to minimimize the throwing of brickbats, and keep discussion on a civil plane.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:47 AM on 24 December 2017Analysis: How developing nations are driving record growth in solar power
Dugga12,
Fundamentally, nuclear power would not pass a 'Sustainable Development' evaluation (refer to the Sustainable Development Goals for details). The Affordable and Clean Energy Goals require renewable/sustainable energy generation and nuclear generaton consumes non-renewable resources and produces wastes that are not currently able to be safely completely neutralized.
A related problem of nuclear power is potential for the related production of nuclear weapons, something that is clearly contrary to a Sustainable future for humanity.
Those evaluations must be the first screening of what is acceptable. Then there can be economic comparisons of the options that have been 'determined to be Susainable Development'.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:34 AM on 24 December 2017Analysis: How developing nations are driving record growth in solar power
nigelj@1,
In addition to assisting all poorer populations develop improved ways of living, it is important that the help to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals is maximized. Thta would include maximizing the development of local business and industrty to produce, install, and maintain any new facilities.
And you are correct about the fatal flaw of pushing 'major infrastructure' like centralized large power generation facilities and the required high capacity distribution networks.
Decentralized power generation with low capacity interconnection as back-up to provide any short-term regional power assistance is likely to be a more sustainable way to assist the poorer people in Africa (and many other regions - even well developed areas).
The desire of major multi-national corporations to 'profit from building major infrastructure' needs to be pushed aside no matter how much more 'profitable for the nation providing the supposed assistance' it is to have a corporation the 'assisting nation benefits from benefit from 'supposedly providing development assistance'. In many cases that push to build major infrastructure with loans from entities like the IMF and World Bank has put many nations into financial slavery, being controlled by external pressure to do what external pursuers of Private Interests that are contrary to Sustainable Development want done (including imposing austerity measures to reduce funding for education, health care and other assistance to the less fortunate that is essential to Sustainable Development).
-
bozzza at 19:44 PM on 23 December 2017From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 1: The Basics
“Lost in the weeds” is a great saying because it perfectly explain the irrationality of groups.
Education is one thing,.. but individuals undertake such concepts- not random groups of voting consumers!
-
citizenschallenge at 13:09 PM on 23 December 2017It's cosmic rays
https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/cosmic-ray-theory-of-global-warming-gets-cold-response
Danish theorist’s latest paper overstates the effects of solar activity in climate change, critics say.
Tim Wallace reports.__________________
https://gizmodo.com/no-supernovae-arent-changing-earths-climate-1821439511
No, Supernovae Aren’t Changing Earth’s Climate
Ryan F. Mandelbaum_________________
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/12/22/galactic-cosmic-rays/
Galactic cosmic rays
-
nigelj at 12:14 PM on 23 December 2017Analysis: How developing nations are driving record growth in solar power
The nuclear power idea looks dead and buried.
-
RedBaron at 09:29 AM on 23 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #50
@37
Exactly. In one respect it doesn't even matter who or what eats them. Excepting people do need to eat and farmers do need to sell food to make a living themselves. But ruminants are part of a artificial agricultural biome that when functioning fully can sequester 5-20 tonnes CO2/ha/yr + or more. It also restores the functionality of the water cycle replenishing critically desertified areas. It also is a net sink for methane.
Effect of grazing on soil-water content in semiarid rangelands of southeast Idaho
-
michael sweet at 09:16 AM on 23 December 2017Analysis: How developing nations are driving record growth in solar power
igel,
Your 5000 nuclear power plants would only be able to generate the electricity used, not all the heat and industrial power. You need 15,000 running nuclear plants to generate total world energy. Even then you would only generate the average power, not the peak power. You would need storage for peak power (just like with wind and solar). You would expect a major accident every month.
-
nigelj at 08:43 AM on 23 December 2017Analysis: How developing nations are driving record growth in solar power
If nuclear power was a great option, generating companies would build more plant. But they aren't, so that tells us something.
There are 449 nuclear power stations globally, according to the nuclear energy institute. This provides 11% of global nuclear energy production.
So crudely calculated we would need something like another 5000 nuclear power plants spread all around the world, over the next 50 years. This does not appear easy, given slow building and regulatory approval process and high capital costs. Such large numbers of reactors also puts pressure on prices of reserves of uranium. The risk factor from accidents would certainly become very 'significant'.
Nuclear power only makes sense to me if its the cheapest option in a few countries with limited other alternatives.
-
Eclectic at 08:31 AM on 23 December 2017Analysis: How developing nations are driving record growth in solar power
Dugga @2 , the Nuclear industry is dying. Like a critically-endangered species, its growth rate is tapering off toward zero. The number of planned new plants is small — plans are being cancelled or put on indefinite hold. Nuclear (fission) cannot meet world electricity demand in a timely manner — the commissioning/build timing is decades too long. The cost blow-outs too huge.
Already about half of the USA nuclear plants are not profitable. Not profitable, Dugga — and that situation will worsen as wind/solar grows cheaper by the year.
Dugga, you simply haven't noticed that nuclear (fission) generation has been extensively discussed on SkepticalScience threads. Dugga, your advocacy comes 25 years too late. "Nuclear" is a very bad choice — it is simply not economic; it is too slow to build (to counter the global warming) ; and it is not "distributive" enough for impoverished nations.
And there is another concern. Would you like to see many Third World [in its usual pejorative meaning] nations like Zimbabwe, Angola and Chad — in possession of breeder reactors? And who will pay for these massively costly reactor plants? We are already having enough difficulty getting First World nations to donate the small sums required for solar panel installations in Africa !
Dugga, your advocacy is hopeless, in the face of reality.
-
michael sweet at 08:29 AM on 23 December 2017Analysis: How developing nations are driving record growth in solar power
Dugga12,
There are a certain number of nuclear proponets that post at SkS. I have asked at least four of them to write a post supporting nuclear power Not one of them has felt that it was worth the effort to write something in support of nuclear power. Perhaps you can write such a post. If you provide links to peer reviewed literature it is likely to be put on the site. I await your subission. (If you only link industry propaganda it is much less likely that your article will be posted).
Most energy researchers do not consider nuclear any more. Jacobson (summary powerpoint) concluded that the very long build cycle for nuclear plants meant that more CO2 was emitted while the plants were under construction than if wind and solar were used. Abbott 2011 lists 15 reasons why it would be impossible to build enough nuclear power to generate a sigificant (>10%) amount of power using nuclear power.
There are currently about 2 nuclear power plants under construction in the USA, they are 5 years behind schedule (for a 3 year schedule), billions over budget and look most likely to be cancelled. 2 other plants were cancelled last year after billions were wasted. I know of two plants under construction in Europe, Both are enormously over budget and years behind schedule. Westinghouse, the primary builder in the USA, has declared bankruptcy and might take all of Toshiba with it. Nuclear is not economic.
You will have to address these primary issues in your article:
- Nuclear plants take so long to build that it will be too late by the time they are done
- They are too expensive and not economic.
- There are not enough rare elements like hafnium and berrilium to build out nuclear plants.
- There is not enough uranium.
- To power the entire world we would need nuclear plants in Syria, North Korea and Iran. That is generally considered unsafe.
If you send in an article I will bring up the remaining dozen items on Abbotts list.
The people at SkS are volunteers. If you do not think it is worth writing in support of nuclear why should they?
Good luck with your article. I look forward to reading it.
-
chriskoz at 08:13 AM on 23 December 2017Analysis: How developing nations are driving record growth in solar power
Dugga12@2,
Please pay attention to your words. In last paragraph, you called those who accept climate science or renewable energy "climate change supporters". That is very misleading, even insulting term, against those who try to teach the truth about AGW and the urgent need of AGW mitigation. Any honest person in your shoes would issue an appology here. You sould have used a term "climate science supporter" if you have science teachers in mind or "climate action supporters" if you have activists in mind.
Sorry for my nitpick, if your error is, as I hope a genuine typo and not deliberate repeat of a misleading, insulting term. This term was coined by AGW deniers who not only don't understand science but also don't care about the meaning of their words.
As for the issue you raise, a lack of interest about nuclear energy on SkS, the reason for it is that that form of energy is in decline and more expensive than solar thermal or PV or wind, and even more expensive than gas, when all cost of setup, production and decommissioning taken into account. Numerous articles have been written on nuke economics and why it is on decline. Others may point the sources. If you have sources that point out otherwise (e.g. what your "levelised costs" means) plaese elaborate. Better if you do it on the appropriate thread, if mod points to you. Otherwise, your talk is an empty hand waiving.
-
Digby Scorgie at 08:10 AM on 23 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #50
RedBaron @ 32
Do I understand correctly? Properly farmed beef cattle result in an increased ability of the land to sequester carbon. Such farming can therefore be considered a method for sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. The fact that people can eat the meat is almost incidental.
-
Digby Scorgie at 07:54 AM on 23 December 2017Analysis: How developing nations are driving record growth in solar power
Dugga12 @2
I don't think anyone disputes that nuclear power is carbon-free — if you discount the mining, transportation and processing of its fuel — but it takes a helluva long time to plan and build a nuclear power station. By the time you have enough new stations up and running we have to be at zero carbon anyway. What do we do in the interim? We might as well just go full bore for solar and wind power. I've also seen indications that the latter is becoming comparable in cost to nuclear power.
I would argue that if you have a nuclear power station, keep it going, but for any replacements for fossil plants, go for solar and wind.
-
Dugga12 at 06:55 AM on 23 December 2017Analysis: How developing nations are driving record growth in solar power
As this is your first post, Skeptical Science respectfully reminds you to please follow our comments policy. Thank You!
Let us assume that AGW is accepted as a universal truth on the worldwide stage. Action then has to be taken to slow down, or even stop, the rate of CO2 production. Clearly with the significant impact of fossil fuel burning now accepted, surely we must turn attention to alternative forms of electricity generation. The sceptical science team seems to have its focus firmly fixed on wind and solar electricity generation systems, but little evidence is presented on the most obvious source of non-carbon generation, namely nuclear generation.
Why is this? Is there an ideological bias against even mentioning the word “nuclear”? Or is the discussion of nuclear power versus wind and/or solar power too embedded in economic arguments to be of limited interest to those commentators who are scientifically trained and inclined?
If the same level of scientific analytical rigour in climate change research was brought to bear on economic analysis of alternative energy versus nuclear energy generation, there might be surprising results emerge that confound the conventional “wisdom” that alternative green forms of energy are cheaper than nuclear power, when levelised costs of ‘firm’ energy, LCOFE, are taken into account. In the same way that climate change science points to a complex of factors that have to be considered, so perhaps it might be the case that full consideration has to be given to non-carbon energy generation.
Unless and until climate change supporters start to open up the discussion on alternative non-carbon energy sources, we will never find the answers to creating long term, sustainable, economical, reliable and non-polluting power generation.
Moderator Response:[PS] Can you support your implied assertion that "climate change supporters" are unreasonably opposed to nuclear power? Sks has struggled to find someone that discuss the peer-reviewed literature on nuclear power alternatives in the past. This is however a specialist topic over at Bravenewclimate and perhaps is better discussed there.
-
nigelj at 06:25 AM on 23 December 2017How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice
The climate denialism pie charts are very one sided or extreme, because if they admit any uncertainty in their own views, the whole denialist edifice collapses. The deniaist edifice can only survive if it takes an extreme position of conceding nothing, because it cannot withstand open discussion and application of logic.
The denialists also fail to look below the surface in terms of data. For example, the denialists claim numbers of polar bears are growing. However this is only in some areas, and is due to less hunting, etc. In areas where numbers of polar bears are falling, research has highlighted specific causative factors lined to climate change, so this is a better indication of what future trends are likely to look like for the arctic as a whole. So the denialists fail to look at the complete picture.
Anyway the denialists claim polar bears and seals will "adapt". They might adapt to some level of shrinking sea ice, but it will certainly reach a tipping point where it becomes much more difficult to adapt.
Someone said on some denialaist blog polar bears will just eat other foods like birds eggs. I doubt a few eggs will provide much nutrition, and other predators will be very well adapted to targeting those birds eggs. Yet the denialists seem immune to such obvious things.
-
nigelj at 05:35 AM on 23 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #50
OPOF @35, beef cattle grazing (and sheep) done in the free range way does appear to have very considerable potential in encouraging deep carbon rich soils, and this makes it very significant for climate change as a carbon sink. The last IPCC report stated this.
However IMO there are problems with devoting truly huge areas to cattle farming. Its unlikely to feed a population of 5 - 10 billion because its inefficient, and build up of carbon rich soils is a very slow process that cannot stop dangerous climate change process over the next 20 - 50 years, only renewable energy etc can do this. Soils can only mop up excess carbon on multiple century time scales.
So I can't see a case for devoting truly vast areas of the planet to cattle farming, unless we fail to stop dangerous climate change and are in deep trouble as a result. I can see a case for keeping reasonable areas of cattle grazing, and farming them better.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:12 AM on 23 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #50
RedBaron,
The research I am aware of regarding meat consumption and health may change with new research into the changes that come about from corrections of unsustainable developed practices. I understand the health problem of the quicker cheaper and therefore more profitable way beef is fed just before being slaughtered, combined with the riskier quicker work done by cheaper workers in the slaugherhouse that often occurs (all because of the power of pursuit of profit to over-rule doing things more responsibly, less harmfully, less risk of a harmful consequence).
I am open to changing my mind based on any new learning that is consistent with, and supports, the acheivement of all of the Sustsinable Development Goals. Right now, my understanding is that reduction of Beef production, along with corrections of the way it is done, are required (as well as changes/reductions to other meat production/harvesting).
I also see no evidence that Beef production for meat consumption is a superior way to deliver food for humans. So there would need to be some pretty amazing changes regarding Beef from permaculture to make it a Winner from the perspective of efficiency of delivery of human nutrition.
However, I also do not see any harm in a responsibly limited amount of beef production. All things that 'are not harmful in moderation' are OK.
-
Tom Dayton at 01:17 AM on 23 December 2017It's cosmic rays
To his credit, Watts in his WTFUWT post about Svensmark's "new" claims solicited Leif Svalgaard's opinion. Here is what Watts posted as the reply from Svalgaard:
"TSI over a solar cycle causes a variation of 0.05-0.10 degrees C. If GCRs as per Svensmark has 5-7 times the effect of TSI, that would translate to a temperature variation of 0.35-0.50 C over a cycle, which is simply not observed, hence the paper can be dismissed out of hand." -
chriskoz at 16:42 PM on 22 December 2017From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 1: The Basics
David@12,
Maybe JohnBoy@10 would better grasp the meaning of the graph 3b if he had got the δ13C unit used in the graph explained. Perhaps I'm jumping ahead here because you promissed to explain the δ13C measurement process in the next part, but JohnBoy's question warrants such jump.
As a typical isotopic measure, δ13C is a measure or enrichment of 13C in a C sample, compared to the standard sample. A standard 13C/12C, as you mentioned above, is about 1%, or more precisely 0.0112372 as explained by Wiki.
Looking in that wiki link, the isotopic enrichment of 13C is defined as (13C/12C - STD) / STD, where STD is the standard value of ~1% above. From that simple formula, you can see that standard's δ13C value is 0 (not enriched nor depleted) as expected.
The value on the graph 3b changes (in per mil) from -7.6 (in 1980s) to -8.1 (in 200s). Which means δ13C in atmospheric CO2 is always depleted (negative) compared to hte standard. But it is becoming more depleted, in accordance with the teachings of the article. So there is no error in the red scale of the graph, it is intuitively correct.
-
nigelj at 11:13 AM on 22 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #50
Red Baron @32, in reality the best we are likely to see is to stop a huge global increase in beef production. If people eat less beef, remember population is still going to be increasing for some time, so the numbers of beef cattle might freeze, but are unlikely to drop sharply. So there will still be plenty of beef cattle. Relax.
I eat a mixture of beef, chicken, and fish. Moderation in all things. Sounds 'trite' but it makea lot of sense as Im sure you would realise. I have learned the lesson from bitter experience.
There's no doubt in my mind permaculture has multiple benefits and should be promoted. Good luck with your cause.
-
nigelj at 11:03 AM on 22 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #50
Digby @31, I'm not so sure. Get a few 'celebrities' like Kim Kardashian going vegetarian, or even just low meat consumption, and eventually the whole younger generation will follow like lemmings.
-
RedBaron at 10:56 AM on 22 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #50
And the point most of you are missing is that if the method changes to where the raising of beef (and other animals) is beneficial to the land instead of destructive, and they regenerate and increase resources rather than deplenish them, then everything you guys are saying about reducing beef production has the opposite effect there. Less production means less land gets healed, less water to replenish criticle aquafers and springs rivers etc..., less wildlife, less AGW mitigation. All because you blame the cow and not the manager of the cow...us humans. It is denialism every bit as much as AGW denialism.
As for health effects, same there too, but that is off topic. Just suffice to say that management of the cow has everything to do with ALL the negative impacts.
There is no down side to changing how we do agriculture to regenerative carbon farming...especially beef. No other technique for sequestering massive quantities of stable carbon deep in the soil profile at rates high enough to reverse AGW even comes close.
-
Digby Scorgie at 09:49 AM on 22 December 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #50
OPOF @30
Yes, so the conclusion is clear:
(1) Eating much less beef is very good for your health — and doing so reduces the demand for beef cattle, which reduces the impact on the planet.
(2) Farming beef cattle properly reduces the impact on the planet even further.
(3) It won't happen. Sigh!
-
Philippe Chantreau at 08:21 AM on 22 December 2017It's cosmic rays
First thing I noticed on the link: a "LIA" period that is now considered to have lasted from 1300 to 1900 AD. That's going to impair those medival warm periods that fell right in the middle of it...
Seems it's just more recycling of the same stuff but hard to tell from the sciencedaily because that's not the paper itself. More digging in order. AFAIK, CERN has not rescinded their take on their experimental results, which weren't very supportive of the hypothesis.
Prev 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 Next
