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:
-
knaugle at 02:57 AM on 25 August 2017Harvard scientists took Exxon’s challenge; found it using the tobacco playbook
This seems a rehash of old news. A couple of years ago, there were reports that Exxon had both admitted climate change was real, and that they had as early as ( and since) 1981 engaged in disinformation on the topic. Right?
Only recently have they changed their stance on the science.
-
RedBaron at 02:05 AM on 25 August 2017Harvard scientists took Exxon’s challenge; found it using the tobacco playbook
Ironically I called Exxon up quite a long time ago. I explained how them supporting my research as part of Oklahoma's Carbon Project would be cost effective. How it has the potential of avoiding these huge legal and public trust problems before they even become an issue. The cheapest investment they ever thought about making. Very similar to when the big insurance agencies invested in timberland years back to hedge their bets, except Exxon wouldn't need to buy those millions of acres of farmland, just support in the training of new farmers to help mitigate AGW. Total cost to them basically less than their petty cash funds. Probably less than their advertising campaign for a day. Certainly a gazillion times cheaper than their law firm retaining fees to fend off lawsuites for being financially, socially and ecologically irresponcible. ie bad citizens
...
The arrogance and ignorance I found from their so called "citizenship" division was incredible. Starting with that as an example and considering any company would put their best foot forward in a "citizenship" division ... No wonder they continually make such blunders. It's like they are purposely trying to do the worst possible thing.
-
michael sweet at 21:02 PM on 24 August 2017Harvard scientists took Exxon’s challenge; found it using the tobacco playbook
Nigelj:
A primary difference with Exxon lying about Cimate Change to their stock holders is that it is against the law. AGW will reduce the future profits of oil companies (and therefor reduce the stock proce) and it is fraud for them to hide problems like that from the market. Already coal company investors have lost their shirts.
Cigarette company lies only resulted in consumers deaths, not monetary losses for stockholders (in fact stockholders benefited from the fraud). The law strictly protects stockholders from fraud, consumers have to protect themselves.
-
nigelj at 18:06 PM on 24 August 2017Harvard scientists took Exxon’s challenge; found it using the tobacco playbook
The behaviour of Exxon has been appalling, but the sad reality is not everyone cares. Some people think companies should be free to do and say what they like. Plenty of climate denialists I have come across have this attitude either out of self punishing stupidity or extreme self interest, and these opposites happily cohabit the denialosphere.
The five laws of human stupidity
www.realclearscience.com/blog/2016/09/the_basic_laws_of_human_stupidity.html
-
Riduna at 09:12 AM on 24 August 2017Problems For Oil
China leads the world with sale of 507,000 EV’s, compared to 222,000 EV’s sold in Europe in 2016. In the USA, 157,000 EV’s were purchased, up 36% on 2015. All major vehicle builders now include or will soon launch an EV alternative.
-
nigelj at 07:20 AM on 24 August 2017It's Skeptical Science's 10th Birthday!
Swayseeker @5
"and people complained about fuel being burned from airplane travel (however the airplane prevents solar enery from entering the sea or ground by casting a shadow - quite a few kWh)."
Aircraft emit approx. 1% of global CO2 emissions (plus other greenhouse gases) so are responsible for a small but measurable and significant quantity of warming.
There are typically 9,000 aircraft in the air globally at any one time. The area of total shadow cast is approximately 1 part in 30 million of global surface area. Therefore the shadow effect on surface temperatures is totally insignificant.
-
nabashalam at 03:19 AM on 24 August 2017It's Skeptical Science's 10th Birthday!
Third time is the charm? I apologize for my blunderings. Lets try one more time... Our site: www.joboneforhumanity.org/ and our free e-book: "Climageddon: The Global Warming Emergency and how to Survive It"
Happy Birthday To SkS! Your Weelky Round Up is the Best on the Web!!!
Moderator Response:[PS] Thanks for taking the time to learn. I have deleted earlier attempts.
-
ajki at 22:40 PM on 23 August 2017It's Skeptical Science's 10th Birthday!
The enormous amount of work that has gone into this site is still breathtaking every time I visit. I can't find a way to express my thanks to all the contributors throughout the years in an appropriate wording. But I hope you'll get the gist...
-
Swayseeker at 22:30 PM on 23 August 2017It's Skeptical Science's 10th Birthday!
Well I have learned a bit of the more sophisticated information from Skeptical Science posts. I must say that some of the scientists (not necessarily from Skeptical Science) have come up with ideas that have problems. People found that cool roofs reflected solar energy onto other buildings and increased air pollution and decreased rain because of lack of convection. Cows were accused of grand methane production and harm (however if the cows do not eat vegetation it can rot anyway, causing carbon dioxide and methane). and people complained about fuel being burned from airplane travel (however the airplane prevents solar enery from entering the sea or ground by casting a shadow - quite a few kWh). Scientists have proposed bright clouds, but with evaporative fine mist cooling, temperatures of clouds could fall to near wet bulb temperatures and descend (or have they got a method to make them rise?). Putting aerosols into the air will also (I am almost certain) reduce solar energy to the ground and reduce convectional rain, causing droughts. So it seems to me that some solutions proposed to cure the situation will cause problems. But huge headway has been made with solar energy (solar panels), wind energy, etc. Used solar panels have now become a huge problem - where to put them. My proposal is this: Make mirrors (mirrors can be made with plastic) of old solar panels and use them for concentrated solar power.
-
MA Rodger at 19:50 PM on 23 August 2017Solar eclipse: Why the sun is not responsible for recent climate change
chrisd3 @3,
The RealClimate problem post on stratospheric cooling was actually one of the launch posts for the site back in 2004 and was edited more than once before being replaced and declared "obsolete and wrong in many respects." There is a SkS post explaining why increased GHGs result in stratospheric cooling (a post which I see also underwent post-publication revisions). The reason why stratospheric cooling is being mentioned here because there are other factors affecting stratospheric temperature including TSI. This added complication allows the denialist message to create a fair amount of garbled nonsense on the subject, a process which actually itself causes increasing heat within the the deniosphere. Mind, while the deniosphere may relish the occasion of the likes of RealClimate or SkS admitting a message is wrong, their position is really one of the mucky old pot calling the smirror-finish electric kettle black.
As for attributing the cooling of the stratosphere, you need to set out the reference from which the cooling is measured (and we become off-topic). Over decades, the CO2 cooling effect (or 'effects' - it is not a simple process) has been larger than the CFC/ozone cooling effects (McLandress et al 2014) but more recently it appears the reduced CFC/ozone cooling is apparently pretty-much matching the CO2 cooling (Ferraro et al 2015- [full text]).
-
nigelj at 19:19 PM on 23 August 2017It's Skeptical Science's 10th Birthday!
Well done and thank's. Very useful website. Lots of well organised material in one place.
-
andreas_s at 18:41 PM on 23 August 2017It's Skeptical Science's 10th Birthday!
Congratulations and Happy Birthday :)
Thank you for all you've done!!!
-
Same Ordinary Fool at 18:24 PM on 23 August 2017It's Skeptical Science's 10th Birthday!
Only 10 years?
My first interest in global warming was from print media, before 2006's An Inconvenient Truth.
My first efforts in correcting skeptics/deniers at WUWT must've started about 2008. When, finding something suspicious on WUWT, I'd look it up at SkepticalScience, and compose a correction. This was early enough that I got away with mentioning SkepticalScience as my source.
This had to have been before mid-2009. When I spent a weekend composing a summary comment on a backwater Argument. Which is still there.
Congratulations on all you've done!
-
Zoli at 09:37 AM on 23 August 2017It's Skeptical Science's 10th Birthday!
You did a good job! Thanks! Happy birthday!
-
nigelj at 06:15 AM on 23 August 2017Solar eclipse: Why the sun is not responsible for recent climate change
Swayseeker
"People are becoming more concerned about where to put old solar panels. If you put them in greenhouses (to absorb solar energy) in the deserts and pump seawater into the greenhouses"
Old solar panels won't power pumps because they are worn out and inefficient. They are better for the rubbish dump or recycling.
Why do greenhouses need sea water? Seawater kills most plants. Are you thinking solar distillation or something?
"you would do better than having a sand bottom in the greenhouse because sand reflects energy back out (is light coloured) of greenhouses."
The idea of greenhoses is to maximise heat gain, so why would you want to reflect the heat back out? Am I missing something?
"With other solar panels, coat them to make mirrors out of them and reflect solar energy into the greenhouses."
It would be much easier and cheaper to just use new mirrors.
"Of put dark solar panels in shallow pools of seawater and reflect solar energy into the pools with the mirror solar panels to cause evaporation and more clouds and rain."
Negligible effect. Rain is also not caused by evaporation as such.
There is a proposal for massive solar electricity production in the deserts of north africa due to the phenomenal sunlight hours. Google Desertec. Its not without some challenges!
-
airscottdenning at 02:36 AM on 23 August 2017Solar eclipse: Why the sun is not responsible for recent climate change
Regarding #3: Sorry, here's the link to the classic paper on tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling from 1967.
-
airscottdenning at 02:34 AM on 23 August 2017Solar eclipse: Why the sun is not responsible for recent climate change
Regarding #3, the reason the stratosphere cools with increasing greenhouse gas concentrations is simply that it emits more IR radiation. Since there's little overlying gas to radiate back down, the result is a net cooling. This is extremely well understood, and was predicted by Manabe and Weatherald 50 years ago: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281967%29024%3C0241%3ATEOTAW%3E2.0.CO%3B2
-
chrisd3 at 23:17 PM on 22 August 2017Solar eclipse: Why the sun is not responsible for recent climate change
the upper atmosphere would cool as greenhouse gases trapped heat and prevented it from escaping the troposphere
Is this correct? It makes intuituitve sense, but it's been my understanding that the full explanation is far more complex, and that this is not the primary contributor to the cooling of the stratosphere. If I recall correctly, Gavin Schmidt got caught by this many years ago in RealClimate, and had to rewrite big chunks of a post.
-
Swayseeker at 22:20 PM on 22 August 2017Solar eclipse: Why the sun is not responsible for recent climate change
Well if there are more pollutants it seems TSI is going to be less (more solar energy blocking). If greenhouse gases are greater then the atmosphere would warm more, so "relatively cooler ground and warmer air" would sound reasonable although all of it is heating up. As always, if one can form low clouds in low latitudes it helps. Idea: People are becoming more concerned about where to put old solar panels. If you put them in greenhouses (to absorb solar energy) in the deserts and pump seawater into the greenhouses you would do better than having a sand bottom in the greenhouse because sand reflects energy back out (is light coloured) of greenhouses. With other solar panels, coat them to make mirrors out of them and reflect solar energy into the greenhouses. Of put dark solar panels in shallow pools of seawater and reflect solar energy into the pools with the mirror solar panels to cause evaporation and more clouds and rain.
-
MA Rodger at 22:10 PM on 22 August 2017CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming
Mick Stupp @19,
That graph appears here having been "adapted by Dr. Tim Patterson.from: Friis-Christensen, E., and K. Lassen, Science, 254, 698-700, 1991." Thus the original is Fig 2 of that paper. The level of nonsense and error engendered by that particular exercise in curve-fitting is set out in this SkS post.
-
BBHY at 17:34 PM on 22 August 2017Solar eclipse: Why the sun is not responsible for recent climate change
Good info! Also:
Nighttime termperatures have risen faster than daytime temperatures. The sun doesn't shine at night, so that is not consistent with the sun being the cause. It is consistent with excess atmospheric CO2 being the cause.
Winter temperatures have risen faster that summertime temperatures. The sun shines less in winter, so that is not consistent with the sun being the cause. It is consistent with excess atmospheric CO2 being the cause.
Temperatures at the poles have risen faster than temperatures in temperate regions. The poles receive less sun, so that is not consistent with the sun being the cause. It is consistent with excess atmospheric CO2 being the cause.
If the sun were causing the increase in temperature, the amount of energy the Earth radiates into space would go up as the planet warms. Satellites in space have measured a reduction in the energy the Earth radiates into space. The reduction is at the wavelength that is absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere, and tracks the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. This would not occur if the sun was causing the temperature increase, and can only be explained by increased CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels causing the Earth to warm by trapping heat energy before it can be reradiated into space, a process known as the "greenhouse effect".
-
Mick Stupp at 06:44 AM on 22 August 2017CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming
I keep coming across a graph showing correlation between sun spot cycle length and temperature, which purports to explain the cooling from 1940 to 1975. There's and example of it here: http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/sunspots-climate-friends-of-science.gif
I can't find a robust reference to this, does anyone know its origins? Also, has anyone seen this covering a longer period in history?
Assuming it is accurate it does suggest a good correlation, but this has to be a complex one. TSI alone does not explain it as this varies surprisingly little. CLOUD seem to have found strong evidence that extremely small amounts of aerosols have big effects on cloud formation, but the role of cosmic rays still seems inconclusive.
Again assuming the above mentioned graph is correct, are we still searching for an explanation for the apparently good correlation between sun spots and temperature? Anyone know what CLOUD's future agenda is in this regard.
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link. Please see "Solar Cycle Length proves its the sun" myth. Any replies, comment on that thread please, not here.
You might also note that gif from anti-science group "Friends of Science" is of the data without the arithmetic mistake corrected, despite this being known since 2000.
-
Daniel Bailey at 00:08 AM on 22 August 2017Problems For Oil
"who you are and what your qualifications are"
Why does that matter at all? The article cites sources.
-
AndyT at 18:25 PM on 21 August 2017Problems For Oil
Hi Riduna. Great article, thank you. Being a cautious type though, please tell me something about who you are and what your qualifications are. Thanks!
-
scaddenp at 10:52 AM on 21 August 2017Models are unreliable
RandyC - would you accept that if climate science is correct about CC control of water vapour, then Total Precipatible Water should then be highly correlated with surface temperature? Furthermore, you agree that if climate science has it wrong about CC, then climate sensitivity derived from paleotemperature archives would be lower than those derived from models?
-
Tom Curtis at 10:28 AM on 21 August 2017Models are unreliable
Randy C @1069, your assumptions about what climate scientists believe are in error. In particular, while the assumption of constant relative humidity is used as a first approximation of the water vapour feedback, it is not used as an assumption in detailed explorations of the issue. See Minschwaner an Dessler (2004) as an example of more detailed examinations.
I will further note that your assumption that if relative humidity is not maintained, the water vapour feedback is negligible is also not valid.
Moderator Response:[DB] Please note that RandyC is just the latest iteration of serial spammer cosmoswarrior and his iterative sock puppets coolearth / diehard / dieharder / moonrabbit / landdownunder / blackhole / WhiteDwarf / GreenThumb / HeatRay / RobJones / JamesMartin / banbrotam / JeffDylan / jcdylan. His compulsion to flood this venue with sock puppets is strong, bordering on pathological.
-
wili at 07:28 AM on 21 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #33
Thanks again for these, and especially for the troubling lead article. So shouldn't we have expected July of a non-El Nino year to be at least a bit cooler than the previous July of an El Nino year? Does this tie portend anything? Could we be seeiing the beginning of a 'step change,' where we are suddenly knocked directly into a warmer regime, never to cool below pre-2016 levels again (or only perhaps temporarily after a major volcano eruption or some such thing)?
-
ubrew12 at 01:10 AM on 21 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #33
The link to "Here's what Trump's team gets wrong about climate change so far" by the weather channel, isn't working properly. I found it here.
Moderator Response:[JH] Proper link inserted. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
-
Paul D at 19:54 PM on 20 August 2017Problems For Oil
Swayseeker@4
How is oil supposed to enhance tree growth?
The fact is trees are vulnerable to human activity as much as mammals, birds etc. That isn't going to change. Creating fake environments is just a further development of humans displaying their god like intentions (control and domination of everything), on top of many other existing human activities.
The basic and only way forward is for humans to fit in with the basic natural processes. As far as energy goes, that is solar energy, tidal energy and maybe geothermal. Wind and wave energy are effectively second and third hand solar energy.
-
RandyC at 17:14 PM on 20 August 2017Models are unreliable
I have an important challenge for all climate scientists who feel mathematically inclined.
According to modern climate science theory, H2O vapor concentration is determined only by temperature. This is because H2O can exist on earth in all three phases (solid, liquid, or gas), and therefore the concentration of H2O vapor is determined by the Clausius-Claperyon (C.C.) equation at the given temperature. CO2, however, exists on earth only as a gas (except of course for man-made dry ice), and therefore is subject to no such constraints by the C.C. equation.
The fact that CO2 concentrations can freely vary whereas H2O vapor concentrations are determined by temperature makes CO2 a "control knob" for the greenhouse effect. The argument is that we can increase CO2 concentration without it condensing, which would then increase greenhouse heating causing a rise in temperature. This temperature rise then causes more H2O molecules to enter the vapor state which in turn causes more GH heating. The reverse, of course, holds true if CO2 concentrations decrease. Therefore, CO2 controls the GH heating even though H2O vapor is the stronger GHG, both spectrally and in quantity.
In examining the derivation of the C.C equation, we note that it assumes an isolated system in thermal equilibrium, which the earth and its atmosphere is not. They do, however, form a local thermal equilibrium (LTE) system where temperature and concentrations can be defined locally but not globally, a situation often occurring in fluid mechanics. To a climate scientist, LTE works the same as global equilibrium for use in the C.C. equation. I have some misgivings about that but I won't argue the point now.
Let's take a look at the C.C. equation. It states that for an isolated system consisting of a substance in the gas state in thermal equilibrium with the same substance in the liquid (or solid) state, the partial pressure P of the gas is related to temperature T according to
ln (P/P_ref) = (H_vap/R)((1/T_ref) - (1/T))
where P_ref and T_ref can be any known valid partial pressure / temperature pair, for example P_ref = 1 atm at T_ref = 373 deg K, H_vap = latent heat of vaporization, and R = universal gas constant. Notice that only one value of the partial pressure P and one value of the temperature T is inserted into this equation. So, how do we choose those values for a system consisting of many different partial pressures and temperatures? I believe most climate scientists would say that one merely replaces the values of P and T with their global mean values
and . But is this mathematically correct? This is the challenge I have for all climate scientists who feel mathematically inclined. Given that the above equation is true for all points on the globe (ie. LTE is assumed), prove or show a counter-example to this equation:
ln (
/P_ref) = (H_vap/R)((1/T_ref) - (1/))
Keep in mind, of course, that if this assertion is not true, then the entire CO2 "control knob" theory is in serious trouble.
Moderator Response:[DB] Sock puppet nonsense snipped.
-
Wol at 13:36 PM on 20 August 2017Problems For Oil
I mean, of course, "Fall" rather than "Rise".
Read before pressing "submit".......
-
Wol at 13:34 PM on 20 August 2017Problems For Oil
My guess is that there will be a sort of hockey stick line in the EV take-up numbers. (With apologies to Michael Mann)
As more and more cars are EVs the demand for gasoline will obviously fall and as a result there will be a rise in the number of filling stations able to remain profitable.
As it becomes more difficult to find gas stations and with greater accessibility to charging points I reckon there'l be a near vertical end to the EV hockey stick.
-
nigelj at 06:29 AM on 20 August 2017Problems For Oil
Swayseeker @4
I respect your technical knowledge, but these are dubious ideas not properly thought through, not likely to make a significant difference, not likely to be cost effective, not practical, and just circulates CO2 around the system when we are trying to actually reduce fossil fuel use. Not likely to be supported by climate denialist "President" Trump.
You have promoted similar stuff before, and it was explained why it doesn't make sense. Do you not listen to feedback?
-
Swayseeker at 00:14 AM on 20 August 2017Problems For Oil
President Trump is saving jobs in the oil, gas, etc, sections, so it looks as if oil, etc is here to stay for a while. If one could get oil to enhance tree growing and offset some of the problems that might be the best in the short term. People have proposed the solar energy updraft tower as a mechanism for convectional rain formation (warm moist air from greenhouses at the base of the tower, etc) and one could grow trees in arid ares if rain would fall there. Although people have been advocating solar updraft towers, so far not much has been done. The present design has a greenhouse at the bottom providing hot air. My concern is that air does not come into intimate contact with hot surfaces with a greenhouse and if the hot air is not transferred quickly, there will be heat losses through the glass of a greenhouse and so on. Air is not heated much by radiation, but it is heated efficiently by direct contact with hot surfaces. I therefore propose that solar air heaters be used for the base of the solar updraft towers, rather than greenhouses. With greater efficiency one would not have to have such a large area (the greenhouse needs a huge area). Also, with solar air heaters, the heaters can be mounted vertically on poles saving huge space. Perhaps a smaller greenhouse at the base with seawater with the sole purpose of mistening air and solar air heaters mounted on poles would supply convectional rain and trees could be grown with the rain. Hot eserts are ideal places because there is space to grow trees and a lot of solar energy. Then oil and gas could possibly be phased out or used to heat water for the solar updraft towers.
-
Riduna at 16:15 PM on 19 August 2017Problems For Oil
Digby - Yes it should be. Thanks
-
Digby Scorgie at 15:42 PM on 19 August 2017Problems For Oil
In the second sentence of the Conclusions, shouldn't it be "increase charge density, descrease recharge time, and reduce costs"?
-
Larry E at 13:52 PM on 19 August 2017Analysis: Why US carbon emissions have fallen 14% since 2005
Nigelj, it would be a 46% cut from 2005 to 2050. But for a mere 66% chance of avoiding a 2oC temperature rise the latest budgeting approach calls for attaining zero emissions by 2050 globally. For the wealthy nations, given the need for north/south equity as acknowledged in the Paris agreement, this means those nations would need to attain zero emissions by 2035. See, e.g., charts in http://go.nature.com/2t1gwUD and http://bit.ly/2fT3kyr, also posts by @Peters_Glen and presentations/panels here: http://bit.ly/2wObfAt. We have delayed so long the task ahead is difficult, but due to the consequences we otherwise face, necessary.
-
nigelj at 08:48 AM on 19 August 2017Analysis: Why US carbon emissions have fallen 14% since 2005
If America kept up the 14% drop in emissions they would be 2900 by 2050, which is almost cut in half. This shows what can be done with even quite modest efforts.
So wheres the evidence reducing emissions destroys the economy that Trump claims? More fake news I say.
-
nigelj at 08:14 AM on 19 August 2017Problems For Oil
The best way to get more done to reduce emissions might be to put more emphasis on the advantages of electric cars and renewable energy. I don't mean in any way stop discussing the latest science or denialist myths, but just as a general strategy for anyone interested in the climate issue.
The following article is a formidable analysis of just how political climate denialism has become, and how rigid it is, and reasons why. Focussing on renewable energy and electric cars might effectively help side step political conflicts that are not going to go away too easily. Most people respond to lower running costs, quieter more reliable cars, etc.
However theres one sticking point. As prices of oil drop this may encourage petrol cars in the shorter term.
And better batteries are crucial. In fact range is already looking quite good, but Im thinking heating.
-
bozzza at 17:26 PM on 18 August 2017In defense of not being serious in climate communication
In the end is it funny? What do you really want to say?
-
bozzza at 17:24 PM on 18 August 2017In defense of not being serious in climate communication
Humour certainly can play a part: it's called writing in Aphoristic style... the truth still has to be grasped and that is the trick otherwise it's just empty humour that gets thrown away like all the other pieces of empty humour we hear everyday...
-
bozzza at 17:15 PM on 18 August 2017Citizens’ Climate Lobby - Pushing for a price on carbon globally
"Unfortunatley, the number of ways to do something wrong always exceeds the number of ways to do something right."
(Gary Kasparov)
-
newairly at 14:12 PM on 18 August 2017Analysis: Why US carbon emissions have fallen 14% since 2005
Meanwhile emissions in Australia continue to rise, 1.6% in the last quarter and 1% in the past year.
-
nigelj at 14:11 PM on 18 August 2017Analysis: Why US carbon emissions have fallen 14% since 2005
Singleton engineer
I agree use of Hydro has probably been constant recently, or more likely dropping. Still its strange that they left an obvious significant source of power out.
I wasnt speculating about the future except to note hydro as pumped storage is an interesting idea. This is storage not an energy source so would never be in the tables and graphs above.
-
SingletonEngineer at 11:45 AM on 18 August 2017Analysis: Why US carbon emissions have fallen 14% since 2005
@nigelj and JohnS:
This analysis is about the effects of things that have happened, not what might happen. It is also focuissed on change from the historical trend.
My guess is that hydro in USA has been pretty much constant during the study period, neither adding nor subtracting emissions from the BAU case. Discussion of whether or not additional dams are possible or even probable is not relevant - the fact is that the possibles and probables haven't happened and therefore have had no effect on emissions.
If the same analysis was done for China, the Three Gorges Dam would have an effect, thus would earn a coloured wedge.
The same applies to possible future tidal, wave, geothermal and other sources. Until their contribution is real and significant, it won't show up.
-
nigelj at 08:42 AM on 18 August 2017Analysis: Why US carbon emissions have fallen 14% since 2005
John S
Yes it's peculiar why they didn't include information on hydro power. Its certainly low emissions and cost competitive long term.
Perhaps they left it out because most rivers than can be easily used in america are probably already used. The growth areas seem to be wind and solar, as these have lower initial construction costs, and probably less difficulties getting consents. Large dams can be pretty contentious issues environmentally.
Still its not obvious why they left it out.
But pumped storage hydro power has potential.
-
John S at 06:43 AM on 18 August 2017Analysis: Why US carbon emissions have fallen 14% since 2005
what about hydroelectricity ..according to Wikipedia it accounted for 282 TWh in 2008?
-
Larry E at 18:42 PM on 17 August 2017Analysis: Why US carbon emissions have fallen 14% since 2005
This analysis considers only domestic emissions. Of course there are also embedded emissions in goods we import, and part of the reason for emissions reductions is that a lot of US manufacturing has been moved offshore (also entailing transport emissions for getting goods from there to here). Carbon Brief also published a study on that in July. "Mapped - The world’s largest CO2 importers and exporters," https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-largest-co2-importers-exporters.
-
Swayseeker at 22:43 PM on 16 August 2017In defense of not being serious in climate communication
I see the latest series is on persuading people to cut emissions. This reminded me of a recent "discovery" I made. With more emissions the sky is going to radiate more strongly and I wonder if the modified Swinbank model of night time downward thermal radiation to estimate sky temperature (Tsky) for a clear night sky is not going to have to be adjusted.
Here I would like an opinion on what I have discovered (it could alter perceptions on dew formation and drought in forests): The mechanism is this: Radiation to the sky on cold clear nights and thus radiative cooling of the ground, "dew machines", etc. When the ground, etc, is cooler (from radiating) than the dew point, dew forms. if the sky temperature is less than the temperature of the ground, then the net radiation is to the sky (objects lose heat and temperature declines). If the sky temperature is greater than the ground temperature, then objects heat up at ground level.
I used the modified Swinbank model of night time downward thermal radiation to estimate sky temperature (Tsky) for a clear night sky and also calculated dew point temperature. If Tsky is below dew point temperature (Tdew), then objects can cool below Tdew by radiating to the sky and dew can form. Now look at my graph drawn from my calculations. With air temperature (Tair) and ground below about 7 deg C, objects can radiate to the sky effectively until they have temperature below Tdew. If Tair is greater than about 7 deg C then it seems dew will not readily form because Tsky is greater than Tdew (usually). All the calculations were done for a relative humidity of 95%. The above might be complicated by having a warm cloud or warm rocks, etc, nearby. Now dew forms on clear nights (no cloud). From this site you can check my calculations, using the formula for a cloudless sky: http://www.asterism.org/tutorials/tut37%20Radiative%20Cooling.pdf I believe you will find what I found - at about 7 deg C net radiation from ground to sky becomes nearly zero. If temperatures increase with global warming, less dew will form in arid areas (if I am correct). The graph is on my Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/Swayseeker -
chriskoz at 09:08 AM on 16 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #32
As if by confirmation of my earlier post about super-warm southern winter:
NASA shocker: Last month was hottest July, and hottest month, on record
Prev 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 Next
