Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 Next
Comments 18051 to 18100:
-
michael sweet at 02:58 AM on 9 September 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #35
Tom13
For those who cannot do math, 6% of $2 billion is $120 million. That is for New York only and only for Sandy. When worldwide damage for all storms, drought and floods is calculated it will be much, much greater.
I am currently on the Chesapeake bay in Maryland. The houses nearby where I am have lost 50% of their value because of sea level rise. Will land in Miami be worth anything after Irma? This is the cost of Global Warming.
-
NorrisM at 02:56 AM on 9 September 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
scaddenp and MA Rodger
Thanks. I think "exergy" is really what I remember from science classes as "kinetic energy".
My sense is that the EROI is just one thing to consider when analyzing alternatives to fossil fuels or the "cost" of moving to wind and solar. The "buffer" issue is obviously massively important. Seems EMROI is a more economic term. I see what you mean that nuclear power would require buffering for the same reason as wind and solar but for different reasons. I would like to know how France dealt with this issue. I assume that the nuclear power provided the "base load" and left "peak load" to be supplied from other sources.
My reading of the Summary for Policy Makers of the IPCC WG3 2014 report did not provide a lot of information that policy makers could actually use to implement any policy. My plan is to read the full IPCC WG 3 2014 report which I assume will have a lot more detail on costs of infrastructure.
Does anyone have any references to what fairly immediate changes will have to be made to the power grids in large cities of the US to accommodate the increase in EV sales?
Now that the US has over a 100 years supply of cheap natural gas which puts up about 50% of the pollutants into the air (and no sulphur), it seemed to me that the most logical first step (even if interim) should have been for the US to immediately move from coal to natural gas for electricity power generation. I appreciate that is what Obama was doing. Then these power plants could be used as the buffer source for wind and solar if that is where the US public wants to go (as opposed to nuclear).
The Pew Research Report referenced earlier clearly shows US public support for wind turbines. Not my favourite choice but looks like Americans do not have the same aesthetic concerns that I do. I guess my numerous times driving the Interstate 10 from LA to Palm Springs (which goes right through a wind mill farm) has impacted me. We had a family friend with a place in PS but spring breaks with the kids always required the necessary first stop in Disneyland in LA. It actually would be interesting to have the results of the Pew Research Report for LA alone where the public actually have experienced a wind farm close to them.
Perhaps SKS should consider adding this topic of "renewable energy costs" to its website rather than having to "key" off of the "Trump country" blog. Perhaps the "myth" could be that "the costs of change will be massive".
It seems to me that getting the American public onside with taking action means convincing them that the costs will not be massive compared to those continuing with fossil fuels (leaving aside the other benefits of renewable energy).
-
michael sweet at 02:44 AM on 9 September 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #35
Tom13
I have provided a link to a peer reviewed study (the authors of the OP-Ed I cited link to their peer reviewed study) that found that the last foot of sea level rise caused $2 billion in damage. You respond with "I doubt it" and a seat of the pants obbservation. You generally do not cite anything to support your wild speculations. Are you claiming that the scientists who did the peer reviewed study do not konw the tidal range of New York? Your argument is absurd.
This is a scientific blog. If you cannot cite peer reviewed data to support your claims you should go somewhere else. "I doubt it" is not an argument.
-
MA Rodger at 01:26 AM on 9 September 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
NorrisM @78,
Concerning the definition of Primary Energy, it isn't impossible to consider it to be "the potential energy at the top of the waterfall" or "the calorific value of the coal" but, as scaddemp@79 & Philippe Chantreau@80 well illustrates with the geothermal example, the concept of Primary Energy has to be applied with care when you start using it in ways it wasn't originally intended. Weißbach et al (2013) are in many ways using concepts outside their usual use but as for as using care, that is something Weißbach et al entirely fail to demonstrate. I describe their work up-thread as "in so many ways extremely silly" because of their poor bounding of such concepts as Primary Energy.
I should say that when I introduced the text of Weißbach et al up thread, I did not expect it to be studied line-by-line. To unpick all their errors and thus grasp fully the task they undertake may not be as intractable as some situations, (☺ they do delve into Schleswig-Holstein, but that is purely for data-gathering ☺) but it is not a task for the faint-hearted. Indeed, it is a challenge even to identify which is the most useful example of their hubris as illustration of the sort of problems there are within Weißbach et al (2013).
Perhaps it is best to demonstrate how foolish is their main finding, that renewables are rubbish (Wind (E-66) cannot even manage an EROI(buffered) of 4) while traditional power-plants are wonderful (Nuclear (PWR) manages a a splendid EROI of 75 ). In their words "The results show that nuclear, hydro, coal, and natural gas power systems (in this order) are one order of magnitude more effective than photovoltaics and wind power." Does such a finding bear scrutiny?
I cannot see that it can. Their calculation of EROI only make sense if all your electricity is supplied from a single source 24/7. That is not realistic. So in terms of a real-world electricity supply, the EROI numbers presented are meaningless.
Even if it were useful considering a single source supply, nuclear would surely need some form of discounted (buffered) value as while wind is highly intermittent at a single-windfarm scale, nuclear is the exact opposite - nuclear is on at full-power 24/365 (and that is pretty-much across all nuclear plant) while demand peaks daily and annually. (We should also note that a load-factors of 23% for 'wind' and 91% for nuclear is seriously taking the mickey.)
And as the alleged goal is to have an EROI>7 (thus nuclear is not in any way superior to coal simply because it has double the EROI), surely the finding of such a study would not be as in Weißbach et al (2013) that certain technologies were below the "economical limit" (and in saying that you would expect such a limit had been at least roughly established which is not the case), the finding would be what is required to ensure those 'certain' technologies can be established above the limit and what is required to prevent other technologies falling below.My advise then would be not to waste your time scrutinising Weißbach et al (2013).
-
Tom13 at 00:50 AM on 9 September 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #35
#19 Michael Sweet -
During Sandy in New York City alone, over $2 billion dollars of damage was caused by higher sea level.
Sandy came ashore in the funnel of NY , at high tide, at the high lunar tide. Those three factors drawfted any affect of the the additional 12-13inches of higher sea level since circa 1850. The difference in high & low tide in NYC is approx 6 ft,. Add in the high tide and high lunar tide factors, and the difference is approx 7 feet. This means the 12 inches is a minute difference.
www.weatherforyou.com/reports/index.php?forecast=tides&place=New+York&state=NY
Assuming the 6% attribution to XOM Chevron, and BP is correct, - that equates to less than one inch - How much additional damage would be a reasonable estimate for the 1 inch vs the 6+ feet for the tide.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 23:28 PM on 8 September 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
Scaddenp, that applies to conventional geothermal. Enhanced geothermal is different.
-
RedBaron at 21:31 PM on 8 September 201730 Climate Lessons I Learned in 30 Years
Apparently a broken link above.
-
RedBaron at 21:19 PM on 8 September 201730 Climate Lessons I Learned in 30 Years
Overpopulation occurs when a species' population exceeds the carrying capacity of its ecological niche. It can result from an increase in births (fertility rate), a decline in the mortality rate, an increase in immigration, or an unsustainable biome and depletion of resources.[1]
So we have two choices for a solution of overpopulation:
- Reduce our population. We can do that like China did with 1 child per family laws, or like India did with forced sterilizations, or unfortunately the more typical strategy is like the NAZIs, Soviets, Turks, Mongols and Aztecs etc… did with mass murder of entire populations. War is another way. Almost universally these are all considered unethical, even downright evil. Or we can ignore it and let nature take its course with plagues, famines etc… in a sort of Malthusian catastrophe which most people agree is almost as bad.
- Improve the carrying capacity of the planet. In the past we did that to avoid a Malthusian catastrophe by simply breeding better crops and increasing agricultural ground. Early on we figured how to rotate land to reduce the inevitable soil degradation caused by agriculture. Every major cradle of civilization developed higher yielding domesticated crops.
The problem is this:The carrying capacity of a biological species in an environment is the maximum population size of the species that the environment can sustain indefinitely, given the food, habitat, water, and other necessities available in the environment.
And there is the rub. Once Industrial ag became the dominant new improved “green revolution” production model it did increase yields, but actually at the same time increased soil degradation and habitat loss. In short it was a temporary fix that is unsustainable. Thus it really didn’t increase carrying capacity, but did allow population growth.
Farming Claims Almost Half Earth's Land, New Maps Show
Only 60 Years of Farming Left If Soil Degradation Continues
We will soon reach a crisis where we once again must chose between the unethical population reductions of the past involving mass destruction, war, mass murder, forced sterilizations etc…. Or a new way to do agriculture that retains the higher yields similar to the green revolution, but without degrading habitat.
Meet regenerative organic agriculture or permaculture:
"Organic agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony." USDA
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labor; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
“Yes, agriculture done improperly can definitely be a problem, but agriculture done in a proper way is an important solution to environmental issues including climate change, water issues, and biodiversity.”-Rattan Lal
In short using biomimicry to make agricultural systems sustainable and even regenerative.
Is organic farming more sustainable than regular farming?
More importantly, this solution instead of creating more problems actually solves more.
"If all farmland was a net sink rather than a net source for CO2, atmospheric CO2 levels would fall at the same time as farm productivity and watershed function improved. This would solve the vast majority of our food production, environmental and human health ‘problems’." Dr. Christine Jones
Overpopulation is here now, however, that need not necessarily be true. Humans are a clever tool making species. What matters for human populations is how we use those tools. We actually have the technology to support a far larger population almost indefinitely. But we simply must convert our energy systems to renewable energy like solar, wind, geothermal and hydro etc…, and we must change our agricultural systems to regenerative organic systems.
So will your child help accomplish these goals? If so then have 10 children if you want. We desperately need them and soon. Will your child instead be a drain on resources and/or destructive to the land? Then please, don’t even bother having children. It’s suicidal.
Bottom line is teach your children well and raise them to understand the seriousness of the situation and we can live in paradise on Earth.
-
Wol at 21:01 PM on 8 September 201730 Climate Lessons I Learned in 30 Years
nigelj @ 9: I can't agree with you: if there were no humans using technology to be able to exponentially increase their numbers then obviously the natural carbon cycle would be stable - as it was, effectively, until the industrial revolution.
And this of-quoted "stabilisation" of population at 10Bn (and recently I've seenestimates of 12Bn) rather begs the question - what would be a sustainable population? Certainly even 7+ Bn isn't, starting from where we are now.
Human ingenuity has enabled us - or, certainly in the Western societies - to superficially ignore Malthus but time ran out decades ago and whichever way you look at it - food, land, raw materials, energy, CO2 etc - the future to me looks very bleak. You can feel the pressure of population everywhere, from the streets of New York or London to Nairobi and Bangkok and to surmise that it will stabilise at any figure above what it was when I was at school - some 2.5Bn - just ignores how unsustainable it is.
-
nigelj at 13:34 PM on 8 September 201730 Climate Lessons I Learned in 30 Years
Wol @8
I dont think numbers of people is the fundamental cause of climate change. Our energy choices are the fundamental cause. But numbers of people is right in the mix.
Yes your "what if" scenario makes sense. Except natural sinks wouldn't absorb the carbon any quicker, its just the atmospheric concentrations would not be so high.
Global population is currently approx. 7.5 billion. Plenty of experts believe it will stabilise around 10 billion around 2100, as more countriies go through a demographic transition. Although rates of population growth have been exponential over the least few centuries the trend has declined slightly since the 1950s, mainly as birth rates have dropped in western countries. They are also dropping in latin america.
The current problem is mainly Africa and parts of asia with strong population growth and only significantly increased incomes will give people the confidence, and the lower infant mortality, to have smaller families.
But the point is population is at least moderately likely to stabilise around 2100, so that means its worth tackling climate change. If that was the point you were making?
And even a growing population can use alternative forms of energy, and may have to anyway as oil will not last forever. So population growth does not automatically lock in climate change.
-
Wol at 13:08 PM on 8 September 201730 Climate Lessons I Learned in 30 Years
>>Yes the number of people is a cause of climate change<<
Actually, it IS the fundamental cause.
If the planet's human population had never gone above, say, 1Bn, then in all likelihood even if all had a Western standard of living (which would admittedly be unlikely since there wouldn't be the consumer population to support the manufacturing segments) there would not be an overabundance of CO2 to warm the atmosphere. Natural carbon cycle would probably absorb it.
Since neither I nor anyone else has an answer to population control (except the Chinese and that's now in the past) I really can't see any solution that's going to work.
-
nigelj at 11:52 AM on 8 September 2017Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
NorrsM @29
And yes as pointed out by others the IPCC doesn't do research, it figures out where the research is pointing.
Every chapter has a bibliography of hundreds and hundreds of science papers they have reviewed. Quite how a red blue team can do a similar in depth review with a couple of people over a couple of months eludes me. And the trouble is its hard isolating the critical research, climate science is something where you just have to review everything.
It was only after I read several popular books and followed up on several things in more detail on the physical laws, and climate data, that I was able to sort things out and see the sceptical myths for what they are, clever twisted rhetoric: Sophistry, and you would fully understand that word given your academic training.
-
nigelj at 11:31 AM on 8 September 2017Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
NorrisM @29
" My understanding of the purpose of this website was to inform those who had questions. “
Yes it is, but you often ignore the answers in the past.
“You seem to suggest that the IPCC has done some research to show that the intensity of hurricanes will increase. I will take your word on that in “
Well the contents page will get you to the right chapter. The IPCC say theres no clear evidence of whether hurricanes have got worse so far, but the problem is hurricanes are not that common and records of intensity are rough. However theres evidence levels of associated rainfall have increased.
The IPCC predict more intensity of hurricane wind forces and general energy content and rainfall content in the future, but probably not more frequency of hurricanes. They present reasons for both.
“I have to admit that I wondered whether I should have made the comment about Michael Mann because I knew it would not go over well. But that is certainly what I would think the "man on the street" would think about Michael Mann and his area of expertise.”
Yes I see your point the man in the street might react like that, but if you had just noted after your comment that he was in fact more widely qualified it wouldn’t have got my back up, and possibly others. Michael Mann has had death threats, and Im a guy interested in science so I get defensive when he's criticised unfairly or missrepresented on his qualifications.
“Let me know when someone comes up with an answer on how to move forward in the face of a Republican administration if it is not to embrace the Red Team Blue Team.”
I undertand where you are going with that and you mean well, but the problem is the red blue team has too much chance of moving things backwards, so is not worth the risk.
“I would like to stay on the blog relating to costs of changing from a fossil fuel based economy to a renewable energy economy because this is much more related to numbers rather than predictions.”
Yes I see where you are coming from people are generally more receptive to renewable energy than squabbles over model predictions, but this website is mostly a science website and only touches on renewable energy in passing. Maybe it should include it more.
-
nigelj at 11:03 AM on 8 September 201730 Climate Lessons I Learned in 30 Years
Wol @6
Yes the number of people is a cause of climate change.
What do you propose doing about the number of people on the planet? Engage in a China one child only policy? Make giving birth illegal? Kill off half the population? These things arent really desirable, ethical or possible.
Other than promoting contraception its got me beaten. Population growth falls as countries become wealthier and go through the demographic transition, but this is a slow process.
Because its so difficult to reduce numbers of people we need to reduce consumption of fossil fuels. Am I missing something with that logic?
-
nigelj at 10:54 AM on 8 September 2017I was an Exxon-funded climate scientist
DrivingBy @2
Yes my computer contains plenty of plastic, so sends a demand signal to fossil fuel companies.
However I'm not sure of your point as follows:
1) All computers contain plenty of plastic even expensive ones, so I have no choice but to buy them if I want a computer.
2) Oils used to formulate plastic are not actually causing climate change , so we will always have a need for some oil for things like this. The more important demand driven feedback would be buying petrol.
3) Not sure how your comment follows from what I said.
The practical ways to deal with climate change are carbon taxes, or cap and trade, building renewable energy, buying electric cars, etc.
Maybe I have missed your point.
-
scaddenp at 10:32 AM on 8 September 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
Yes. Or the calorific value of the coal. One of the places where "primary energy" is pretty useless is geothermal. The primary energy (at least in common reporting terms) is high but the extractable work is low.
-
DrivingBy at 10:10 AM on 8 September 2017I was an Exxon-funded climate scientist
@nigelj
Do device(s) you posted the comment from contain plastics? If so, you are sending a demand signal via the oil and gas industries, which are fulfilling your request by producing more feedstock.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:09 AM on 8 September 2017Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
NorrisM: "You seem to suggest that the IPCC has done some research..."
Please get this straight: the IPCC does not do research. They review it. They report on research that has been done indepently by others and published by others. Yes, the participants in the IPCC are researchers and have done some of the research being cited - but they do that research outside the function of the IPCC.
Do you understnad why this is important? Please acknowledge that you understand, or ask for clarification if you do not.
...and as a suggestion for reading, do not go to the later IPCC reports first. I suggest that you start with the first IPCC report, from 1990:
Why? Because the first report covers a lot more of the basics of climatology. It is less technical. It serves as a better reader for the student, rather than the expert.The later reports assume a pre-existing knlowedge of much of the material covered in earlier reports.
And you will also realize that an awful lot was already known over 25 years ago.
Moderator Response:[RH] Shortened link.
-
Bob Loblaw at 09:59 AM on 8 September 2017Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
And once again, Tom13 pretends that lack of conclusive evidence is the same as no evidence at all.
Do you really seriously believe that, Tom, or are you just hoping nobody notices? I can keep pointing it out as fast as you keep making this mistake. If you want to discuss this properly, feel free to engage.
-
NorrisM at 09:58 AM on 8 September 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
scaddenp @ 77
Thanks. So is "primary energy" the potential energy at the top of the waterfall?
-
Wol at 09:49 AM on 8 September 201730 Climate Lessons I Learned in 30 Years
>>The single most significant thing that convinced me we are altering the climate was a list of greenhouse fingerprints. Unfortunatly the popular books on climate change either dont include these<<
100% correct! Since the single most critical factor in climate change is the number of people on the planet it is unbelievable that the figures are so difficult to find, and why there's such a taboo on discussing it - let alone doing anything about it.
-
NorrisM at 09:31 AM on 8 September 2017Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
nigelj @ 20
No, I am not a closest "lobbyist". My understanding of the purpose of this website was to inform those who had questions. If you have to have all of your information thoroughly researched so that you have covered all angles then that is another matter.
I agree that my language was not correct relating to "extreme weather events" because it is logical that if the termperature goes up there will be more droughts and I am fully aware that the IPCC has also predicted more rainfall. I should have limited my comments to hurricanes. You seem to suggest that the IPCC has done some research to show that the intensity of hurricanes will increase. I will take your word on that in that I do not have the time to read the full 2013 Assessment.
I have to admit that I wondered whether I should have made the comment about Michael Mann because I knew it would not go over well. But that is certainly what I would think the "man on the street" would think about Michael Mann and his area of expertise. This was not some repetition from some other website.
In any event, I suspect that I have worn out my welcome. I will from time to time check in to see if everyone agrees with everyone else which seems to be what is preferred on this website.
Let me know when someone comes up with an answer on how to move forward in the face of a Republican administration if it is not to embrace the Red Team Blue Team.
I would like to stay on the blog relating to costs of changing from a fossil fuel based economy to a renewable energy economy because this is much more related to numbers rather than predictions. I have read the IPCC 2014 Summary but I have to read the underlying report.
Having said that, I did not think this website was prepared to extend its reach into that area but for its one blog re the costs to Trump country. Perhaps the moderator can comment on whether it is appropriate to continue the discussion of costs on that blog.
-
John Hartz at 09:30 AM on 8 September 2017Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
Recommended supplemental reading:
The science behind the U.S.’s strange hurricane ‘drought’ — and its sudden end by Chris Mooney, Energy & Environment, Washington Post, Sep 7, 2017
6 Questions About Hurricane Irma, Harvey and Climate Change by Sabrina Shankman, InsideClimate News, Sep 6, 2017
-
John Hartz at 09:18 AM on 8 September 2017Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
Tom 13: The NOAA article that you have extracted quotes from is:
Global Warming and Hurricanes: An Overview of Current Research Results posted on the website of NOAA's Geophysical Fluids Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL). It was last revised on Aug 30, 2017.
The article has been repeatedly cited and linked to by more than one mainstream climate scientist who has been interviewed by the media about the climate change-hurricane* connection in recent articles about Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Jose, and Katia.
*In this context hurricane means a tropical cyclone occuring in the North Atlantic basin only. Hurricanes also occur in the Northwest Pacific Ocean. Tropical cyclones occuring in the Pacific Ocean of the southern hemisphere are called Typhoons.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 09:05 AM on 8 September 2017Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
Of course, and yet hurricane scientists have never seen a picture like the current one: Irma, the largest hurricane known to form in the Atlantic basin, Katia, which formed in the Gulf, and Jose. Meanwhile, the Northwest is seeing a horrendous fire season, with the largest fire in Southwest Oregon at around 176000 acres. My own neighborhood is covered in ash from the nearby Eagle Creek fire. Of course, there is also the drought in Europe, which has compromised the wine harvest in France and destroyed corn further to the east. All happening in the samne year. But, it's all good, no statistically significant trend, we're cool.
I note that NorrisM has not answered my proposal. Such a deal was imposed to us before, albeit its only reason to exist were the disgusting fees gobbled by the finance barons who caused it. The last time that the World blew 15 trillions was in 2008 and we have nothing to show for it. Interestingly, it was not a disaster like the 1929 crisis, which goes to show that such an investment, if it had been directed to do some good, would have been possible to absorb with relatively little damage. But no, doing anything serious about energy transition will ruin the economy. What a joke.
Capitalism is likely the best way to run societies. It can work only if well regulated, by laws that aim at the public good. Unfettered capitalism is a loosing ideology that has already been slapped in the face multiple times by reality, yet its advocates are in complete denial and continue to try to beat the world into submitting to their madness.
-
Tom13 at 08:29 AM on 8 September 2017Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
www.hurricanescience.org/history/storms/pre1900s/1780/
Good article on the monster hurricane of 1780
perhaps the strongest in recorded history
Interesting statment from the NOAA www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).
The NOAA (via the vecchi study 2008) go on to state :
However, the density of reporting ship traffic over the Atlantic was relatively sparse during the early decades of this record, such that if storms from the modern era (post 1965) had hypothetically occurred during those earlier decades, a substantial number would likely not have been directly observed by the ship-based “observing network of opportunity.” We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, there is a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006. But statistical tests reveal that this trend is so small, relative to the variability in the series, that it is not significantly distinguishable from zero (Figure 2).
In summary - over the course of 150+ years, all during a period of warming, the level of hurricane activity is statistically indistiquisable from over those years.
-
scaddenp at 07:52 AM on 8 September 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
The word I think is "exergy" not "exenergy". In North America, I believe it is more common to call this term "available work". And no, it is not net exergy out. You can think of it as the "quality" of the energy. My favourite picture for understanding it, is think of waterfall. At top of the waterfall you have a lot of potential energy which you could usefully convert into electricity etc. At the bottom of the waterfall, you have same about of energy manifested in heating the pool slightly and a bit sound wave energy. Your ability to get useful work from this however is sharply diminished. You can express this in terms of loss of exergy. Exergy is a 2nd law tool, bound to the change in entropy.
Because exergy is not conserved, it provides a much better way to study energy efficiency than 1st law method. I use it in thermal power station analysis. The overall efficiency consideration in say a coal station is the "heat rate" - the ratio of power out to fuel in . However, this is no simple relationship between overall efficiency and efficiency of individual components. Another way to do the calculation however is to calculate the exergetic loss from fuel into electricity out. The beauty of this analysis is that sum of exergetic losses of each component (boiler, heaters, turbine etc) is the total exergetic loss. If efficiency drops, you can quickly see which component has had an increase in exergy losses and diagnose the problem.
And yes, pumped hydro is pumping water back up to the hydro. Note that in systems with a large amount of hydro, (eg NZ), you can use hydro as "battery", without the pumping. When other forms of generation are cheap (wind blowing strong or lots of sun), then hydros stop generating and reservoirs fill. Come night or calm, then hydros switch in.
-
nigelj at 07:23 AM on 8 September 2017Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
Philippe Chantreau @22
I agree the legal process is different from science. The legal process is more based around appearance and rhetoric and a good deal of subtle intimidation. Lawyers are hard working people, but you cant really transfer their world onto science.
I have also been involved in various court cases, all civil. I have employed several lawyers, and know the process intimately. I have no legal training, and have also represented myself several times in court and won every time. (wouldnt do it again, too stressful and risky). The legal process while evidence based, pushes various limits that have abolutely no place in the world of science, and would cause massive confusion and lead us down the wrong path.
The free market is a powerful and useful tool, but isn't good with dealing with environmental externalities. Only the law can deal with those. Once people are personally accountable for problems the best choices will be made.
-
RickG at 07:18 AM on 8 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
Basically, Congress already has a red/blue team debate and has had for years. The blue team invites the most experienced and knowledgeable climate scientists, while the red team invites only AGW skeptics, some of which have no science background at all. Its called the Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
-
nigelj at 06:54 AM on 8 September 2017Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
One Planet @21, I think you are probably taking the term warmist too seriously or earnestly. It's just a label and people do fall into various groups.
I think you have raised a good point to emphasise that climate science is a large body of carefully considered evidence, and no robust reason has been presented to question the IPCC process. We base human progress on trust in institutions, and its a sign of panic and desperation when people want alternative procedures like a red blue team, and this defeats the whole purpose and value of one global body with a consistent clear message for everyone one way or the other.
NorrisM is suffering from a lot of confirmation bias. Its ironic because the IPCC reports go to almost extreme lengths to evaluate and list all the research and carefully state which things they are sure of and which they arent. The whole IPCC mechanism has done a good job of avoiding confirmation bias in its own work.
-
nigelj at 06:24 AM on 8 September 2017I was an Exxon-funded climate scientist
The very idea that fossil fuel money funds climate research is abhorrent to me. Its a PR stunt by fossil fuel companies, and wont create a good impression with the public, and it could subconsciously bias some researchers towards a sceptical point of view. Bad idea.
-
NorrisM at 04:58 AM on 8 September 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
One further term I am not clear on is "pump storage". Does this refer to storage of renewable power by pumping water vertically into a reservoir to be used when needed effectively converting it to hydro power?
-
michael sweet at 03:43 AM on 8 September 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #35
This Guardian op-ed discusses attribution of global warming problems (like sea level rise) to individual companies and whether those companies should have to pay for the proportion of the damage they cause.
For example, they say ExxonMobile, Chevron and BP by themselves are responsible for 6% of sea level rise because of their CO2 emissions. During Sandy in New York City alone, over $2 billion dollars of damage was caused by higher sea level. Should these companies have to pay for the damage they are known to have caused?
-
Philippe Chantreau at 03:32 AM on 8 September 2017Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
NorrisM was not impressed by Michael Mann's testimony and thereby reveals why the red/blue team idea is complete horse puckey. The powers that stand from financially benefitting from energy status quo know this very well and will make sure that they will have the best public face to line up, facts and weight of the evidence be dammed. This red team/blue team approach is a complete perversion of reason. It is not surprising that it came from lawyers, as this represents their modus operandi, and reality often takes a back seat in the courtroom. It's about winning, not about reality. I know that from first hand experience, I've been there.
Harvey's costs is projected to be in the order of 180 billions. I'm sure the free market fanatics who reign over the area would have scoffed at the idea of spending that much over 20 years for renewable energy development and flood resilience. Simply because this was not going to be directly money in their pockets. The World is governed by ogres who do not give a damn about the future. The more time goes by, the more I agree with OPOF.
Say, NorrisM, if I told you that there is a possible fix to this whole climate thing, but it will cost about 15 trillion worldwide and they will have to be forked over during a period of just 2-3 years, would you agree to try?
Then if I told you that it may not work out and there is a chance we could have nothing to show for the try, would you go for it? Of course, the operators spending that money will be held free of any harm if it goes belly up. What do you think? Deal?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:37 AM on 8 September 2017Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
NorrisM,
It appears that you have not properly understood my comments.
Scientific Concensus is a proper term. I use it. "Warmist" is a term I state should not be used since those people are actually Denier/Delayers. "Warmist" has actually be used to describe people who admit there may be some impact from CO2 increases but far less than the scientific concensus undersranding.
I have re-read your post that promoted my replies and confirmed my understanding of your unacceptable use of te temr 'rather than scientific concensus'. Your use of the term "Warmist" for the scientific concensus undertsanding is an attempt to denigrate the concensus understanding.
The following are direct quotes from my previous comments you are undeniably aware of and referring to:
"'People who are more fully aware of the existing observations and experience related to climate science and the currently developed and constantly improving best explanation for all of that information'" (Look inrto the context of that quote)
"... climate science is a very robustly developed field of investigation/observation and establishment of a Good Explanations for all of the avaliable information (even though there is more investigation and understanding to be added), the currently developed and presented concensus explanations/understanding regarding the matter should be considered to be "The Objective Understanding/Explanation/Truth of the matter for everyone to understand and accept unless/until some new 'justified and robustly defendable information' is presented that results in Good Reason to revise a part of that developed understanding"."
Reread my posts, and all the other information you have read, setting aside yor personal preferrences for what you want to believe. Otherwise you will continue to misinterpret/misunderstand what you have read and continue to make-up false statements based on your lack of 'proper' understanding (maybe OK for a lawyer, but absolutely not what a Prefessional Engineer, or Professional Lawyer (or any other pursuer of a Profession), would consider Reasonable or Acceptable or Ethical).
Scientific Concensus is a valid term as is Denier/Delayer. Warmist is a term that attempts to put a Good Light onto a Denier/Delayer, an attempt to create a false or misleading impression (and is a terrible 'replacement' for the term 'scientific concensus' regarding the climate science issue you were refrring to - how much warmer will the surface be due to added CO2).
And attempting to claim that a Denier/Delayer is a Skeptic is equally a "false and deliberately misleading claim" (a "lie" if it is made by someone who actually knows better" rather than when made by someone whose personal bias - which they are blind to - has resulted in them not properly understanding something).
-
nigelj at 17:08 PM on 7 September 2017Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
NorrisM @19
"My understanding was that the IPCC 2013 assessment made it clear that it did not have empirical evidence tying extreme weather events to climate change. If I am incorrect, then, again, my apologies. I will search for my reference for support for what I understood to be their position at that time."
Yes you are quite wrong. The report has empirical evidence that in recent decades heatwaves and heavy rainfall events have already increased. It does not have empirical evidence that hurricanes have changed. It has evidence of many other things as well.
The same report predicts futher increases in heavy rainfall events and that hurricane intensity will increase and droughts will increase.
I have noticed the following. You often quote things without sources and say you will give sources, but just as often don't.
You fill pages with as many denialist myths and slogans you can fit in, over and over even when its not really on topic. Yet you claim you are not a climate science sceptic.
You ask people for clarifications, then never read their sources, always making some excuse you are too busy. You have done it for months. You agree with things, then go back to your original position almost immediately.
You like to create the impression you are just an interested individual, but your rhetoric as I have listed indicates you are more likely some sort of lobbyist, and theres a lot of concern trolling as well.
The frog slowly being boiled alive is a good analogy to climate change. The changes are somewhat incremental and people react accordingly. Mind you some politicians are so dumb sea level could rise a metre in a week, and it would still all be a "chinese conspiracy".
-
NorrisM at 16:41 PM on 7 September 2017Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
Moderator. I would appreciate an explanation of what you mean by term "sloganeering" because I do not think I was just throwing out "slogans".
michael sweet @ 17
If Michael Mann has in the past published papers in areas other than in relation to past climates, then I do apologize. I have read his book on the Climate Wars and I have to admit I was quite impressed with his "balanced' approach. But from that book, which was quite autobiographical, it seemed to me that he had limited his research to attempting to determine what the temperature record had been in the past. I have to say I was not impressed with his testimony before one of the House committees in March of this year which I watched on YouTube. I do not think he is the best public face for the "scientific consensus" side. My apologies to one other contributor (Onr Planet Only Forever) for the use of this term but if someone has a better one, please advise.
nigelj @ 18
My understanding was that the IPCC 2013 assessment made it clear that it did not have empirical evidence tying extreme weather events to climate change. If I am incorrect, then, again, my apologies. I will search for my reference for support for what I understood to be their position at that time.
ubrew @ 12
I fully understand your point that it is difficult to get the public to focus on climate change if they look out the window and everything looks pretty good. I understand the temptation to point to extreme natural events to get their attention. I am not sure I agree with the "frog in the saucepan" argument but it is difficult to convince both the public and politicians to take note of things when the effects are so gradual.
Moderator Response:[JH] You have been repeatedly advised to read and adhere to this site's Comments Policy. Please do so now!
-
nigelj at 16:30 PM on 7 September 201730 Climate Lessons I Learned in 30 Years
The single most significant thing that convinced me we are altering the climate was a list of greenhouse fingerprints. Unfortunatly the popular books on climate change either dont include these, or gloss over them too briefly. It's like a murder mystery finding the incriminating evidence and how it mounts up.
-
NorrisM at 16:08 PM on 7 September 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
MA Rodger @ 73
I am working my way through the Weissbach paper. Using my Latin, I am pretty sure "exenergy" references net energy out. What I am having trouble understanding is the concept of "primary energy". I assume this is referencing an "input" energy measurement but I am not clear what it is referring to. I clearly get the sense that "primary energy" is something that Weissbach thinks is somehow a wrong measurement but I do not understand what he is referring to.
Could you help me out with this?
Thanks NM
-
nigelj at 16:03 PM on 7 September 201730 Climate Lessons I Learned in 30 Years
Bozza @2
"Hollywood has a lot to answer for: it promotes the fast lane lifestyle replete with endless fashionably seasonal changes to "individualised" clothing. Is Hollywood the troll of all trolls that in the end caused Climate Change when all is said and done."
I don't entirely get this, but I admit I'm not an American. I thought hollywood was behind movies and television sit coms. I think that entertainment culture would always have nicely dressed people. It's quite a big leap to say Holloywood are the biggest single factor behind over consuming lifestyles, clothing, cars etc. Hollywood would perhaps certainly be part of all this.
I do agree that our lifestyles include modes of consumption and endless status seeking and materialism, and waste that are a factor in climate change. Totally with you there. But the causes of this are quite complex, and to do with deeply seated drives of human status seeking and pecking orders, that is amplified by the capitalist dynamic, and associated intensive marketing and advertising that now uses finely tuned methods based on psychological research.
It's also related to economic systems like neoliberalism that legitimise greed, competition, and material acquisition, and individualism. Holloywood both symbolises, reinforces and glorifies these trends, but is hardly an originating factor.
I dont know how humanity gets off this treadmill, because its become like an engine, a widespread global system of values and mechanisms. But as my parents used to say, theres a lot to be said for balance and moderation, and they were right. Im still learning this lesson myself. One needs self awareness and restraint.
Nobody is forcing anyone to buy half these superfluous, wasteful products. I dont rush out and buy the latest products of everything, even though I can afford to. Having said that I'm no saint have my weak moments of retail therapy!
-
bozzza at 14:28 PM on 7 September 201730 Climate Lessons I Learned in 30 Years
The above link talks about writing more as a way to come up with less short term thinking.
To this end the author of the video should be congratulated for putting forward his considered thoughts which can ony lead to more considered thought in this world. Well done on that count.
-
bozzza at 14:21 PM on 7 September 201730 Climate Lessons I Learned in 30 Years
Sure, even the deniers know that CO2 is the culprit: the main task now is to convince the captains of Industry that the rate of change of Climate Change necessitates serious changes to their industry/s now.
But how seriously, and how seriously fast would they be expected to do such a detrimental thing to their privatised profits? They are going to argue very seriously in order to keep their Jevons-Paradox-induced-money-making-ventures going for aslong as possible. This argument making would include making the science look as vague and alarmist as possible in order to discredit it as much as possible ... that's the politics of making money.
Are the numbers in? What do they say about the rate of change of climate change? How can we be sure this isn't temporary natural variation? How do we know they don't employ more trolls than Putin to go about this work? How do we know it's not Putins troll army itself at work?
Hollywood has a lot to answer for: it promotes the fast lane lifestyle replete with endless fashionably seasonal changes to "individualised" clothing. Is Hollywood the troll of all trolls that in the end caused Climate Change when all is said and done.
To win this battle the populace at large has to start thinking together how to change this large-momentum-system we call the world or vested interests will always win.
Jevons Paradox is generally written so it can apply to any resource... including the populations intelligence and ability to come up with solutions together. Hollywood just dulls us into a trance of becoming ever more "individualistic" and better than our own neighbours so that the rich- read fossil fuled interests- can take advantage and take the cream of our hard earned wages via endlessly transported fashion statements, if not just pure over-indulgence on travel to advertised fashionable destinations- and over time that spells big big money.
In conclusion, the world turns but only at the rate it can keep up with.
(** The heart is ephemeral and looks to attach itself to things and only the sword of wisdom can cut the string of Mara.)
(** ..to put the above another way, I believe Hannibal Lecter once said... via the recall of Agent Starling: "We covet the things we see everyday." This explains Hollywoods roll in all of this. What about the endless morning programs and TV in general: are they not endlessly promoting fashion and perpetual fossil fuel use? We the people must wake up or stop complaining about bad habits that we obviously don't find important enough to give up! Do we really care about our kids? Well, let's get together and demand change and work out what the solution is!)
-
nigelj at 14:09 PM on 7 September 2017Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
NorrisM, instead of your many questions including affects of climate change on hurricanes etc, why dont you read The IPCC report 2013? You can download this from the IPCC website as below below on the "full report" link. This is the physical science basis, and it has three sections, the very brief summary for policy makers, the technical summary, and the full detail. Its only 1550 pages, nothing for a smart lawyer to read through, ha ha. I have read some parts of it.
This report predicts more intense hurricanes and more rainfall associated with them. Every degree adds about 7% more water vapour so over time climate change will quite substantially increase heavy rainfall events, and has already had a detectable effect. And it's non linear and can have a greater effect than this in localised instances. But theres much more to the effects of climate change on weather, and you need to start reading all of it, because a failure to get the full picture just trips you up over and over, like a simple assumption about M Manns qualifications without checking. This is the problem with reading a few carefully selected bits on denier websites, this once tripped me up.
You keep saying better technology saved lives from Hurricane Harvey, but it still caused massive property damage. Talk about not seeing the wood for the trees.
-
bozzza at 13:42 PM on 7 September 201730 Climate Lessons I Learned in 30 Years
I don't think I'd heard of Climate Change 20 years ago. I may have heard about the Greenhouse Effect but it was to do with CFCs although that would have been more like 25 years ago...
-
michael sweet at 12:13 PM on 7 September 2017Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
NorrisM,
If you are ignorant about the extensive contributions Michael Mann has made to various sections of climate science it is better to remain silent than to prove that you are ignorant. As the OP states, Dr. Mann has published on the topic of stationary summer weather patterns and is exactly the type of expert you need for attribution of this event.
Here is Dr. Mann's CV. A glance shows his degrees in Geology, Geophysics and Math, nothing on Palentology. it will take you a long time to read he has so many accomplishments. Dr, Mann is unusual because he contributes to so many different aspects of climate science (and other scientific disciplines).
No climate skeptic has a comparable CV to Dr Mann. You would understand more about AGW if you read more from Dr. Mann (at Realclimate) and wasted less time at denial sites. The science is not that difficult if you read it.
-
michael sweet at 11:35 AM on 7 September 2017Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
Swayseeker,
Your reference does not mention your geoengineering scheme, it appears that you made it up o your own. In addition to the problems others have pointed out, you would stop the rain over Florida during the rainy season and cause severe drought. That would wipe out Florida agriculture. It would also make the already extremely hot summers in Florida even hotter.
On a scientific blog like SkS you are expected to produce citations that support your claims.
-
scaddenp at 10:26 AM on 7 September 2017Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
"Thanks to our technological progress there were mercifully very few even when Mother Nature threw a big punch."
You keep bringing this up. Its relevance is what? That you need FF to have technological progress? That seemed to be Lomberg's false dichotomy.
Why the lack of flood insurance? Well it is only required if you are in “100-year floodplain” apparently. And since GOP doesnt believe in climate change, not seeing a lot of updating of those maps. That would be an example of red-tape hindering progress and driving up costs in the eyes of congress wouldnt it?
-
ubrew12 at 10:07 AM on 7 September 2017Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
NorrisM@13 said: "Is this 1% or 20%? If it is only 1% then this just looks like "piggybacking". And if there have been no studies perhaps that should be stated." I'm guessing 10% to 40% of the damage from Harvey can be attributed to climate change, but its too early for attribution studies to have been completed. And can I just point out: once those studies are completed, there is a billion-dollar-a-year industry dedicated to slandering the authors of such studies as 'liberal elitists', so I'm not sure what value in the public realm such studies will carry. The sad fact is that, thanks to that industry, those of us worried about the climate impacts of the future are left "piggybacking" onto overtly natural events. Face it, when its not hot outside, that industry can bring its 'relax-everything-is-fine' message right into the US Congress in the form of a snowball.
-
NorrisM at 09:31 AM on 7 September 2017Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering
Can someone explain to me how Michael Mann, known as a paleontologist measuring tree rings, et al, suddenly becomes an expert in jetstreams so he can opine on how climate change is exacerbating extreme natural events?
On another point, attempting to tie the first major hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico in 12 years to climate change is a bit of a stretch. So it does not "cause" them (no big ones for 12 years) but "exacerbates" them. Obviously any hurricane will be impacted slightly by small changes in sea level and slight increases in water vapour but are there any studies to say by how much? Is this 1% or 20%? If it is only 1% then this just looks like "piggybacking". And if there have been no studies perhaps that should be stated. This just seems to be another event to point to disaster pending thanks to climate change when we are really just dealing with a common occurrence in this area.
The biggest problem is the lack of preparedness for these kinds of storms (a point made by Lomberg in Cool It). That is what causes a great deal of the damage. But if people choose to live in areas where hurricanes are common, you have to expect to live with the consequences. Why are they allowing people to build in flood zones? If you do not want to build dikes to protect these areas (passing the cost on to those owning the properties protected by the dikes) then leave these areas to the birds. Probably best to leave them to the birds anyways. Good way to deal with encroaching sea levels. Give up the lands to the birds.
What I find astounding is that 85% of homeowners did not have insurance for flood damage. Do these homeowners not have mortgages? I find it incredible that lenders would not require proof of flood damage protection in the insurance policies. I bet they will in the future!
But another point made by Lomborg in his book relates to the number of deaths caused by natural disasters. If this storm had occurred here 100 years ago (even with a much smaller population), how many deaths would it have caused? Thanks to our technological progress there were mercifully very few even when Mother Nature threw a big punch. The loss of life could have been even less had the proper planning taken place.
Moderator Response:[JH] Sloganeering snipped.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
nigelj at 07:23 AM on 7 September 2017The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists
SDK @60, yeah good points.
From what I have read we use world views, instincts and politics as a lens to simplify complex issues. This can be very troublesome no matter how tempting it is.
In fact we just have to set politics aside, and not apply it with science. The science is telling us some things, even if some people dont like what it says.
World view has more application to how we fix the problem and what we do with carbon taxes and renewable energy. I would argue we need to be careful we are not unfairly dumping a huge problem on future generations, but I admit this is a value judgement. But it needs a global debate about sustainable management goals. Clearly some people dont buy into the idea of sustainablity and fairness.
Another thing going on. I think a lot of people look at the IPCC reports and the climate sceptics and conclude temperatures and sea level rise will probably be in the middle and no big issue, but they fail to realise the IPCC reports are quite conservative reports, understated especially on potential sea level rise, so peoples whole perception is flawed.
Prev 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 Next
