Recent Comments

Prev  409  410  411  412  413  414  415  416  417  418  419  420  421  422  423  424  Next

Comments 20801 to 20850:

20801. MA Rodger at 23:16 PM on 11 March 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       coyote @25 is actually a cut&paste of part of a web-page from the commenter's website. What he doesn't bring here is the start of this web-page. In it he is suggesting that the climate forcing since pre-industrial is incompitable with the temperature record given IPCC ECS values. As well as some seriously trivial stuff, he presents two graphics to demonstrate how models cannot be (entirely) trusted. Thus the commenter tells his flock with emphasis "There are good reasons to distrust models. ... There are also good reasons to distrust climate models and forecasts" and less-forcefully "These forecast failures are not meant as proof the theory is wrong, merely that there is good reason to be skeptical of computer model output as somehow the last word in a debate."

       The first graphic shown compares the trends from Hansen (1988) Scenario A & B (but not Scenario C) with HadCRUT4 & UAH TLTv6.0. The second is the second-order-draft AR5 Fig1.4 (below), a graphic oft annotated by denialists and so it could perhaps do with some sensible annotating for once - pehaps with a plot of the temperature record 2012-16. Suitably adjusting GISS & NOAA for a 1961-90 anomaly, by 2015 they and HadCRUT are showing respectively anomalies of +0.76ºC, +0.78ºC, +0.76ºC, which are smack the centre of the AR4 projection. Of course 2016 was warmer still, but that was an El Nino year.

20802. michael sweet at 22:24 PM on 11 March 2017
       CO2 effect is saturated
       

       Bogfetto,

       When you make posts with many questions if in impossible to answer them all in detail.  Please ask one question at a time so that they can be answered.  After the first misconception is cleared up we can then move on to the next misconception.

       I will take a single example form your post to Tom Curtis.  You claim:

       "The only way to increase temperature of a radiating body, is to increase the temperature of the heat source heating it. And an increase in temperature always have to be initiated by a rising temperature of the radiating body, never by a decreasing temperature (and decreasing intensity) in a colder body heated by the hotter radiating body."

       When I got out of bed this morning it was cold.  I put on a cold shirt.  My surface temeprature increased even though my rate of heat production remained the same.  This is experimental evidence that your clain that " an increase in temperature always have to be initiated by a rising temperature of the radiating body" is incorrect.  

       It appears that you have a basic misunderstanding of how heat is transferred.  I suggest you reread the posts you have questioned, and the OP, and ask questions about what seems off to you.  Ask about one or two imortant items first.  As those misconceptions are cleared up you will start to understand the basics.  When you have the basics incorrect it is impossible to understand how the atosphere works.

20803. John Mason at 19:33 PM on 11 March 2017
       To tweet or not to tweet at Donald Trump? That was the question!
       

       I agree it's confusing, Rob!
       
       As a geologist I view the whole thing as a pathway between weathering and precipitation. Importantly, as shown by the following weathering equations:
       
       Silicate weathering:

       2CO₂ + 3H₂O + CaSiO₃ = Ca²⁺+ 2HCO₃^– + H₄SiO₄

       Carbonate weathering:

       CO₂ + H₂O + CaCO₃ = Ca²⁺+ 2HCO₃–

       the weathering of limestone only involves one mole of atmospheric CO2 whereas silicate weathering involves two. In both cases though, when it comes to the reprecipitation part, a mole of carbon goes into the reservoir and a mole of CO2 is released. So only in silicate weathering is there a net removal of atmospheric CO2; limestone weathering is net neutral.

20804. Rob Painting at 19:02 PM on 11 March 2017
       To tweet or not to tweet at Donald Trump? That was the question!
       

       As far as the IPCC definition is concerned, and it's been there for a while, the formation of limestone adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. So it cannot be considered a sink.

       On the other hand, weathering, the dissolution of limestone, does remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This process satisfies the IPCC definition of a sink.

       It's confusing as hell to non-experts given that the ultimate fate of much of that carbon, over geological timescales, is to end up in limestone sediments, but we shouldn't attempt to reinterpret what constitutes a sink.     

20805. Jim Eager at 14:09 PM on 11 March 2017
       How Green is My EV?
       

       David, yes, Ontario now generates zero of its electricity from coal. The last coal fired generating plants in the Province (Naticoke and Thunder Bay) were closed in 2013 and 2014, and several new peaking power gas plants eliminated the import of coal generated power from the US Midwest during seasonal periods of peak demand (e.g. summer air conditioning season). Quebec, British Columbia and most of the smaller provinces also produce zero from coal power, but Alberta stil burns coal and a few provinces burn oil. Combined it means well over 63% of Canada’s population is able to make very robust CO2 reductions by using EVs.

20806. Tom Curtis at 12:44 PM on 11 March 2017
       To tweet or not to tweet at Donald Trump? That was the question!
       

       Rob Honeycutt @12, at a quick perusal, 7 of the 49 tweets include all caps (8,11,14,26,35,36, and 49).  That, however, is irrelevant.  The tweets are not comments at SkS, so the moderation policy at SkS does not apply.  Further, it is not apparent to me that you can use any textual method to increase emphasis on twitter other than by all caps (but I don't tweet and may be entirely wrong about that).

       I will go further.  I have a serious objection to twitter in that the short character count per message makes any serious discussion impossible.  Even the creative method of using a 49 tweet sequence leaves you using short sentences that do not convey any reasonable level of subtlety.  Doug Mackie in his responses here appears to be treating this comments section as a twitter account.  His responses have been too short to make a reasonable assessment of his objections beyond the mere fact that he objects.  They have been rude, and inflammatory to boot.

       On top of that, I struggle to see his objection to the content of the tweets.  Atmospheric CO2 would be astronomically higher if the carbon locked up in carbonates were free to bond with oxygen in the atmosphere.  That is what the tweet he objects to says.  It seems incontrovertible.  Even on the narrower point of whether adding calcium carbonate to the the ocean by weathering will draw down CO2, he appears to be arguing against the science.  Where I discussing this with a denier, I would probably attribute the nature of his posts (as long on bombast as they are short in length) to that fact.  As it is, I remain perplexed both as to the nature of his objections, and they way he has argued his point, including his final denunciation. 

20807. Rob Honeycutt at 11:56 AM on 11 March 2017
       To tweet or not to tweet at Donald Trump? That was the question!
       

       Doug... Please read the comments policy. This has been a long standing policy here on the website, going back as far as I can remember. And a quick look and I don't see anywhere all caps is used for SkS tweets.

20808. Doug Mackie at 11:48 AM on 11 March 2017
       To tweet or not to tweet at Donald Trump? That was the question!
       

       You are jerks to use CAPS in tweets but not allow in comments. I no longer wish to be assoc with sks. Please remove OA not OK series by me

       Moderator Response:

       [GT]
       
       Doug. The policy on SkS restricts ALLCAPS as shouting. However you have the option of using bold as an alternative method which says 'this is a bit more important than usual but I don't want to yell at you'
       
       Seemingly Twitter hasn't caught up yet.

20809. Rob Honeycutt at 09:54 AM on 11 March 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       I'll add here... Warren, the frustrating part of what you (and many other skeptics) are doing is, you're asking people to accept your small minority position as absolute. You're asking people to not consider the low probability high end potential, while at the same time you say we must accept your very low probability low end potential.

       That is a recipe for disaster.

       What the scientific community is saying is, given the balance of all the available research, here is the low end probability, here is the high end probability, and in the middle are our best estimates where thing likely are.

       That's not taking an absolute position on any side. It's an act of constraining the probability to a range within which we can take appropriate action. 

       As I stated in my original article here, you can't just pick and choose the answers you like and exclude those you don't. You must look at the full body of evidence and act within the limitations of our knowledge. That is what risk assessment is.

       Based on that, there are no two ways about this. The entire likely range of climate sensitivity is an argument for strong action.

20810. Tom Curtis at 08:14 AM on 11 March 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       coyote @25:

       1)   "... most of the prominent climate skeptics ..."

       I am uncertain how you quantified that "most".  Certainly the folks at Principia Scientific do not.  Nor do those behind the arrogantly named Galileo Movement in Australia.  Even among those who do accept the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect, many accept a distorted version of the theory in which the only relevant component is the back radiation at the surface, whereas in the actual theory the most important component is the effect on the Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR), and consequently on Earth's overall energy balance.

       Incidentally, the theory as regards to the OLR is sufficiently stunningly confirmed, and follows so directly from basic and well confirmed laws of physics that it is, for all intents and purposes, settled science.  Further, the 1 - 1.2 C direct impact of a CO2 doubling from that follows directly from that very well confirmed part of the theory.

       2)  "What we are skeptical of is the very net high positive feedbacks..."

       I am skeptical on what basis you consider the feedbacks to be very high.  In AR5 Chapter 9, feedbacks are treated as feedbacks on the radiative forcing.  As a result they are dominated by the planck feedback of -3.2 +/- 0.1 (units of W m^{-2 o}C^-1, 90% confidence interval).  Compared to that the 1.6 +/- 0.3 water vapour feedback, or the 1.6 +/- 0.9 total feedback excluding the Planck feedback are not "very high".  Figures from IPCC AR5 Chapt 9, table 9.5; figure for total excluding Planck feedback determined by adding the values and summing the uncertainty in quadrature.)  Nor are they at significant risk (despite the large uncertainty from the cloud feedback) of making the total feedback (including the Planck feedback)  net positive, the precondition of a runaway greenhouse effect.

       

       You may be more familiar with the feedback presented as a response to an initial temperature increase, but in that case the response necessary for a runaway effect is in infinite positive feedback, so again, the approximate doubling to quadrupling of the initial temperature response is not "very high".

       3)  "... isn't this education of the public about the basic theory useful ..."

       Educating the public with a string of "false facts" is never useful.  Even getting one basic fact right is unhelpful when it is introduced out of context and surrounded by a cloud of untruths.

       In this instance, the consensus surveys do not use questions that delve into feedbacks and planck responses, but can be resolved at a purely emprical level.  Further, that the temperature response to a doubling of CO2 is in the order 1.5-4.5 ^oC (66% confidence interval) can be determined solely on an empirical basis.  That it is also predicted on a theoretical basis (ie, by the Global Circulation Models) is just icing on the cake.  When historical records since 1850 (including ice core records) show a linear response by temperature to CO2 forcing gives a linear response of 0.58 +/- 0.02 C/(W/m^2) (r^2:0.811), then an effective climate response of 2.15 +/- 0.7 C per doubling of atmospheric CO2 is a matter of empirical observation.  When the energy imbalance at the TOA remains unclosed with that temperature responce, that the equilibrium response to a doubling of CO2 will be larger than that is again a matter of empirical observation.  (Note, those uncertainties are for the calculations alone, uncertainties from the data will significantly increase the uncertainty range, but not change the observed sensitivity.) 

20811. william5331 at 06:41 AM on 11 March 2017
       How Green is My EV?
       

       For the sake of the argument, let's assume, as stated above that EV's are responsible for more carbon emissions into the atmosphere in their manufacture.  This is only so if the source of the power to run the factories is from coal fired powere stations.  If the factroies have their own solar power (Tesla for instance) or if the grid transfers over to renewable generation then this disadvantage falls away.

20812. Rob Honeycutt at 06:28 AM on 11 March 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       Hello Warren. Thanks for dropping by.

       There is nothing remotely "totalitarian" about this article. All I'm doing is pointing out how you've grossly misinterpretted the science.

       Even with your points put forth in this comment you're contradicting your original article. In your article you argue net negative feedbacks which would bring climate sensitivity below 1°C. But now you're arguing that human contribution makes up a "good chunk" of warming? These two statements are incompatible.

       I'm very happy to hear that you argue for a carbon tax. I completely agree that is the most appropriate and politically viable approach to this issue.

       Regarding your "disagreement" with the magnitude, you're really not in a position to agree or disagree. The data and research tell us what the relative likelihood of the climate sensitivity range. You are randomly selecting a climate sensitivity that fits your own ideological bent. That's not a rationally supportable position any more than someone selecting 6°C for climate sensitivity. And, understand, these two wildly different points (1°C and 6°C) hold an almost identical likelihood of being correct!

       This is not a with-us-or-agin-us situation. It is purely a risk management issue. 

20813. coyote at 06:09 AM on 11 March 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       Warren Meyer herea again.  Thinking about it more, at some level I find this article weirdly totalitarian, particularly the last paragraph where I am described as doing nothing but polluting the climate discussion.  This seems an oddly extreme response to someone who:

       - agrees in the linked article that the world has warmed over the last century

       - agrees in the linked article that a good chunk of that warming is due to manmade CO2

       - agrees in the linked article that CO2 acting as a greenhouse gas will increase temperatures, acting alone, by about 1-1.2C per doubling

       - argues for a form of carbon tax (in a different article:  http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2016/03/coyotes-bi-partisan-climate-plan-a-climate-skeptic-calls-for-a-carbon-tax-2.html)

       - but disagrees on the magnitude of added warming from net feedback effects.

       It seems that we have moved beyond "you are either with us or against us" and entered the realm of "you are either entirely with us on every single detail or you are against us".   

20814. nigelj at 05:56 AM on 11 March 2017
       How Green is My EV?
       

       Nomorewoo @13,

       You need to provide some proof of dramatic depreciation os electric vehicles.

       However if you are right, it could be due to a couple of things. Firstly uncertainty about electric cars, and how they perform when old. This is foolish, as electric motors are very durable and also easy enough to replace. Secondly it could be worries about how much life is left in the battery.

       The maths on the exact carbon content going into making electric vehicles etc etc, and how they compare with petrol will always be hard to analyse exactly. However a couple of things are obvious to me about electric cars:

       1. Electric motors are more efficient than petrol by a big margin, and so are cheaper to run.
       2. Emissions are definitely significantly lower. I'm not going to agonise over exactly how much.
       3. Electric motors also tend to be very reliable and quiet.

       This is enough to convince me of the merits of electric cars.

20815. coyote at 05:47 AM on 11 March 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       Warren Meyer here.  I am happy to argue about details of temperature measurement systems another time (or you can see my full response here:  http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2017/03/so-skeptical-science-is-correcting-me.html

        

       However, it strikes me that the basic purpose of the article from oh so many years ago was lost here.  I wrote this article based on my extreme frustration in the climate debate. I have no problem with folks disagreeing with me.  But I was frustrated that the skeptic argument was being mis-portrayed and folks were arguing about the wrong things. Specifically, I was frustrated with both of these two arguments that were frequently thrown in my face:

       • "Climate deniers are anti-science morons and liars because they deny the obvious truth of warming from greenhouse gasses like CO2"

       In fact, if you read the article, most of the prominent climate skeptics (plus me, as a non-prominent one) totally accept greenhouse gas theory and that CO2, acting alone, would warm the Earth by 1-1.2C. What we are skeptical of is the very net high positive feedbacks assumed to multiply this initial warming many-fold (and believe me, for those of you not familiar with dynamic systems analysis, these numbers are very large for stable natural systems) . Of all the groups I have spoken to in the past, perhaps less than 1% were familiar with the fact that warming forecasts were a chain of not one but two theories, both greenhouse gas theory and the theory that the Earth's atmosphere is dominated by strong net positive feedbacks. And, that the majority of warming in most projections actually comes from this second, lesser-dsicussed theory.  Even if the audience does not choose to agree with my skepticism over feedback levels, isn't this education of the public about the basic theory useful?  

       I actually can't tell if the author agrees with my framing of the theory in these two parts or not.  Wikipedia seems to agree (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity) for what that's worth.  

       The author accuses me of purposeful obfuscation, but for those of us who are skeptical, it is odd that alarmists seem to resist discussing the second part of the theory. Could it be that the evidence for strong positive feedbacks dominating the Earth's long-term-stable greenhouse gas theory is not as strong as that for greenhouse gas theory? Evidence for high atmospheric positive feedbacks simply HAS to be weaker than that for greenhouse gas theory, not only because they have been studied less time but more importantly because it is orders of magnitude harder to parse out values of feedbacks in a complex system than it is to measure the absorption and emission spectrum of a gas in a laboratory.

       • "Climate deniers are anti-science morons and liars because there is a 97% consensus behind global warming theory.

       Well, studies have shown a 97% agreement on .. something. If one is sloppy about the proposition being tested, then it is easier to get widespread agreement. The original study that arrived at the 97% number asked two questions — "do you think the world has warmed in the last century" and "do you think a significant part of this warming has been due to man". 97% of scientists said yes to both. But me, called a climate denier, would have said yes to both as well. Alarmists attempt to shut off debate with skeptics by citing 97% agreement with propositions that have little or nothing to do with skeptics' arguments. Try asking a large group of scientists if they think that the world will warm 3C per doubling of CO2 levels, the proposition with which I disagree, and I guarantee you are not going to get anywhere near 97%. This is simply a bait and switch.

       By the way, I would advise the author to work on his reading comprehension scores. It is clear from the text he quotes near the end form me that I called the media scientifically illiterate, not the IPCC and researchers. The basic framework of greenhouse gas incremental warming multiplied many times by assumed positive net feedbacks is in the scientific literature and the IPCC — my frustration is that the feedback theory seldom enters the public debate and media articles, despite the fact that the feedback theory is the source of the majority of projected warming and is the heart of many climate skeptic's criticisms of the theory.

20816. greg_laden at 03:54 AM on 11 March 2017
       How Green is My EV?
       

       Here are my comments on the issue: 

        

       http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2017/03/10/should-you-buy-an-electric-car-if-you-live-in-a-coal-state/

        

       Pluvial, I think the answer to your question is actualy very simple: Electric motors are a gazillion times more efficient than combustion based motors.  

       Regarding depreciation: That is pretty much a hippie-punching arguments. EVs have no known depreciation function.  They are a new technology, and the market hasn't come close to making up its mind.

        

20817. nomorewoo at 03:36 AM on 11 March 2017
       How Green is My EV?
       

       Another thing that is missing from this analysis is the depreciation costs on EVs compared to those on ICEs. Based on my own research in looking for an EV or Hybrid, the EVs have drammatically higher depreciation costs (except for Tesla, but who can afford those anyway).  I would really like to purchase an EV for the fuel cost savings and emission reductions , but on my budget I cannot afford it, considering how badly I would get hurt on the depreciation. A comparison of the depreciation costs of EV vs Hybrid vs ICE would be great.

20818. PluviAL at 03:28 AM on 11 March 2017
       How Green is My EV?
       

       PluviAl at 11: That is spelled "Carbon Tax, or Tariff" and a much harder sell, but it needs to happen.  

20819. PluviAL at 03:25 AM on 11 March 2017
       How Green is My EV?
       

       I did not see a compensation for electrical transmission costs. Perhaps there is a mechanism in there to allow for it, which did not register with me. If not, this is an important part of the function. You would have to devide your electrical outcome by the delivery function. If line losses are say 20%, then your 286 must be devided by 0.8 giving you 357 CO2 emission lbs. That's still better than ICE, but not a viable solution for the planet, where another 75% of 9 billion people can drive cars.

       We kid ourselves a lot about how the automotive urban structure is workable. It is luxurious, but it is not viable. I still feel the best solution for CO2, and overall environmental load on the planet per person, is to redesign urban profiles so as to reduce auto miles. That's a much harder thing to achieve, but that's where we should be aiming.

20820. greg_laden at 02:58 AM on 11 March 2017
       How Green is My EV?
       

       This is a very nicely done and important article, thank's for doing all this work.

20821. David Kirtley at 23:27 PM on 10 March 2017
       How Green is My EV?
       

       Ogemaniac @5 - YMMV (heh!). The Leaf's range is about 80-100 miles on a full charge so that is a bit limiting, but it depends on one's needs. We live in St Louis, MO, a smallish, big-city where most everything is close-by. My commute is 12.5 miles one-way, my wife's is about 10 miles one-way (although she often has to drive around to meetings on some days). So the Leaf is a perfect vehicle for about 90-95% of our needs.

       Jim @6 - Yes, in areas powered by fewer fossil fuels EVs would have an even smaller carbon footprint than mine.  Which is why I thought my situation would make a good "test-case" to see if EVs are worth it. You have NO coal in your energy mix?! Amazing!

       BBHY and ubrew @ 7 & 8 - I hadn't considered that there may be even more emissions involved in gasoline production. But, I wanted to be as "generous" to the ICE condition of my comparison as possible...I didn't want to be accused of tipping the scale towards my EV. ;)

20822. Tom Curtis at 22:13 PM on 10 March 2017
       To tweet or not to tweet at Donald Trump? That was the question!
       

       Doug Mackie, chemistry tends to be a mystery to me, so I am asking for you to clarrify some points.  To begin with, according to David Archer, after the initial uptake of a pulse of CO2 by the ocean, there is a period of about 5000 years in which the "reaction with CaCO3", which significantly draws down the atmspheric CO2:

        

       While 5000 years is a long time in historical terms, it is still a relevant human time scale.

       My understanding is that the same process will return the ocean pH to approximately preindustrial levels.

       Further, as I understand it, the chemical reaction involved is:

       CO₂ + CaCO₃ + H₂O <-> 2HCO₃^- + Ca²⁺

       Looking at the equilibrium chart for carbon species in the ocean, it appears to me that the reaction draws down CO2 from the atmosphere be drawing down the pool of aqueous CO₂/H₂CO₃, with the additional effect of shifting the equilibrium balance towards reduced CO₂/H2CO₃ relative to HCO₃^- due to the shift in pH:

       

       While I am unsure that that is the precise mechanism, it appears this reaction is sufficiently useful at drawing down CO2 that it has been proposed as a method to reduce atmospheric CO2 artificially.

       As I said, chemistry tends to be a mystery to me, so I may well have got one or more points wrong on this.  Could you explain to me where I am in error, preferably in a comment longer than a tweet and without all caps.

20823. ubrew12 at 22:12 PM on 10 March 2017
       How Green is My EV?
       

       Per BBHY@7, one source I found has a DOE estimate that 6 kWhr of power is lost in refining one gallon of gasoline.  If from coal, that's 12 lbs of CO2.  Add in transportation and storage, and its likely the 18 lb CO2/gal used above should be doubled, to 36 lbs CO2/gal of gasoline.  In the pilot episode for Robert Llewelyn's TV series on EV vehicles, "Fully Charged" he made the same claim (that actual CO2 from gasoline is more than twice the CO2 from combustion alone.  Comparison at 6.5' into this episode).

20824. John Mason at 19:04 PM on 10 March 2017
       To tweet or not to tweet at Donald Trump? That was the question!
       

       Doug, fossil fuel combustion is a process that yanks gigatons of carbon out of the slow carbon cycle. I struggle to see why you view that as an irrelevance.

20825. John Mason at 19:02 PM on 10 March 2017
       To tweet or not to tweet at Donald Trump? That was the question!
       

       Chris - yes I think you'll find I've made that abundantly clear. LIPs and human combustion of fossil fuels are rare instances of very rapid perturbations of the slow carbon cycle. Even periods of vastly enhanced weathering of mafic rocks are slow compared to a) the Siberian Traps or b) anthropogenic fossil fuel combustion, although they can be significant nevertheless. Ref. the "weathering goes crazy" tweet and the ones giving figures for the Traps and manmade emissions. The point being that the slow carbon cycle goes along fine and dandy - unless it gets messed with by something of a dramatic nature.

20826. BBHY at 17:41 PM on 10 March 2017
       How Green is My EV?
       

       Good analysis!

       But... I've seen this often (almost always, actually) in EV comparisons. While you have a good start, you are missing something important.

       Using a figure of 18 lbs of CO2 for gasoline only takes into account the final end product.

       So basically this follows the electricity all the way back to the source, but then assumes that gasoline magically flows from the ground, fully refined, right at the local filling station. In reality there are CO2 emissions from the drilling, pumping, transport, and refining. To be really fair, even natural gas flaring, (burning off the un-wanted by-product of oil extraction) and oil spills should be accounted for. 

       Those emissions are not well documented, so they are difficult to include, but they are real. For instance, refining using about 3 KWh of electic power per gallon of gasoline, which would power the EV about 10 miles. If the oil came from tar sands then that figure is double or triple. If the electric power for the EV came from coal, you can also assume that the power for the refinery also came from coal.

20827. Doug Mackie at 16:14 PM on 10 March 2017
       To tweet or not to tweet at Donald Trump? That was the question!
       

       Slow carbon irrelevant to CC & OA. Deceptive to jiggle ‘sink’ definition & talk basalt, original tweet limestone. Why you DENIALIST TACTICS?

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] All-caps snipped. 

       Amended: Because the commenter is posting a mock tweet, they will be allowed.

20828. Jim Eager at 10:55 AM on 10 March 2017
       How Green is My EV?
       

       Great to know that even in a jurisdiction where 80-90% of electrical generation comes from burning coal the EV wins, but remember - and be sure to point out - that the CO2 savings will be much higher where nuclear, hydroelectric and even natural gas account for a higher proportion of generation. For example, here in Ontario 61% comes from nuclear, 24% from hydro, 9% from nat gas & oil, 6% from wind, less than 1% from solar and biofuel, and a big fat zero from coal. Buying and operating an EV here will obviously keep much more CO2 out of the atmosphere.

20829. Ogemaniac at 10:12 AM on 10 March 2017
       How Green is My EV?
       

       Are there any spillover effects, where having a range-limited Leaf forces you to use the Escape when, if you had a small hybrid ICE vehicle instead of the Leaf, you would use the latter instead? I know there would be for my family, and it is a major reason that I have no interest in an EV at this time. We use our Prius for a lot of our long trips, which while few in number make up a disproportionate share of our miles driven. If we had to use our big vehicle instead, emissions would obviously go up, and I would guestimate by an amount comparable to any savings the Leaf has over the Prius.

20830. scaddenp at 09:21 AM on 10 March 2017
       How Green is My EV?
       

       Interesting report David. According to the report, EV are 15% higher emissions to manufacture than corrosponding gasoline vehicle, but this is more than offset by the lower emissions over the lifetime of the vehicle.

20831. David Kirtley at 08:21 AM on 10 March 2017
       How Green is My EV?
       

       Mark @1 - Perhaps someday!

       Boost @2 - I haven't had a chance to look through this report from the UCS: Cleaner Cars from Cradle to Grave, but their blog post about it says: "We found that battery electric cars generate half the emissions of the average comparable gasoline car, even when pollution from battery manufacturing is accounted for."

20832. chriskoz at 08:10 AM on 10 March 2017
       To tweet or not to tweet at Donald Trump? That was the question!
       

       John Mason@4,

       You know better than me that Slow Carbon Cycle, no matter how far back we can look into the past has never had the sequestering rate (maily silicate weathering) nearly as fast as to make any difference in the current antropogenic release, the release comparable to largest LIPs on record.

       Therefore, there is no point talking about silicate weathering in th econtext of carbon cycle balancing we are facing in antropocene: it will never help us. All CC perturbtions in geo-history were fast releases (LIPs) and slow drawdown (increased weathering). Increased drawdowns (changes in weathering rates) never matched the changes in releases (LIPs), weathering were always slower by a factor of 100.

20833. Boost230 at 08:01 AM on 10 March 2017
       How Green is My EV?
       

       How about an article that reviews the carbon impact of building an EV compared to a regular gas or diesel vehicle to really determine whether it is truly green? That is something brought up a lot to discourage EVs And I don't know what the difference truly is. 

       Thanks

20834. PluviAL at 05:45 AM on 10 March 2017
       To tweet or not to tweet at Donald Trump? That was the question!
       

       I hang around Skeptical Science and learned a lot from the pill size tweets, so I think this is a really good idea, although I seldom use tweeter.

20835. Mark Schaffer at 03:14 AM on 10 March 2017
       How Green is My EV?
       

       Time for you to get a solar PV system and a Tesla Powerwall installed on your home.

20836. citizenschallenge at 23:58 PM on 9 March 2017
       Whistleblower: ‘I knew people would misuse this.’ They did - to attack climate science
       

       Speaking of communicating clearly - what responsiblity do scientists have in that regard?  Specifically I've spent a lot of time looking at Fyfe 2016 and it is about a poorly and counter-productively written as I can imagine - but better not call them on it.  All ya get is hurt feelings and slammed doors, no matter how carefully or constructively one constructs their arguments.

       Fyfe et al. 2016: stamp collecting vs informing and clarifying. Examining a failure to communicate
       ... and a question of perspective.
       Alternately, Behold Seepage in Action.

       (Skipping my introduction here)

       Fyfe 2016 introduction:
       It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming (b) slowdown or hiatus (a)(e), characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming (c), has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims (d).
       _______________________________________________________

       The problem >>>

       Why the labyrinthian phrasing? Simplify wording. Clarify meaning.

       (a) Creates a false equivalence between “slowdown” and “hiatus” - hiatus means STOPPED! But, Global Warming never stopped!

       (b) Creates a false equivalence between “global warming” and “global mean surface warming.”

       (c) Furthermore: “early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming” - implies “surface” warming slowdown (or faux hiatus) is a symptom of a “global” warming slowdown.

       (d) “Evidence presented here contradicts these claims.” Given the paragraph's convoluted wording one could easily conclude this is saying: the “hiatus” (that is global warming stopping) is not contradicted

       … which is exactly what the contrarian PR machine was hoping they could twist any science into. Why make it so easy?

       (e) Why even use the politically charged term “hiatus” beyond a footnote? What possible purpose does it serve other than to fatally wound clarity and invite gross misinterpretation?

       This paper seems a textbook example of “seepage” in action. Or as I would phrase it, unconsciously adapting the contrarian’s script. Please keep this in mind as you continue.
       _______________________________________________________________________
       Fyfe: ¶1 A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR5)1 — indicates that the so-called surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus,
       __________________________________________________________
       “sometimes referred to...” ? What purpose is there in reinforcing the faux “hiatus” meme?
       _______________________________________________________________________
       Fyfe: was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing (volcanic and solar) superimposed on human-caused warming2.
       __________________________________________________________

       “internal decadal variabilities” - that would be heat transport?

       Why not get explicit and point out that Atmospheric Physics are what's causing Global Warming - not Heat Transport between the oceans and the surface?
       _______________________________________________________________________

        

       But that's just the beginning highlights.  For the entire exercise in futility visit:  http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/03/fyfe2016-stampcollecting-vs-informing.html

20837. John Mason at 19:17 PM on 9 March 2017
       To tweet or not to tweet at Donald Trump? That was the question!
       

       Doug, the Slow Carbon Cycle is called just that for fairly obvious reasons. Yes it does mostly operate on geological timescales, but there is evidence for periods of highly enhanced weathering. These are considered to be preserved in the Sr isotope record e.g. in the run-up to the Hirnantian glaciation/extinction (ref below). The complex process of Ca-bearing silicate weathering by atmospheric CO2 dissolved in rainwater through to deposition of carbonate sediments is an overall remover of carbon, locking it up within  limestone. Since Ca-silicate weathering and limestone deposition are both ongoing processes worldwide, there is a continuous flux of carbon from the air into the lithosphere. The quantity of carbon thus stored away in limestones is phenomenal. You will note that I talk about carbon as opposed to carbon-bearing species, as regardless of your points it cannot be denied that the process begins with carbon in the form of CO2 and its interactions with water and calc-silicates:
       
       2CO₂ + 3H₂O + CaSiO₃ = 2HCO₃ ^– + Ca²⁺ + H₄SiO₄

       and ends with calcium carbonate deposition:

       2HCO₃ ^– + Ca²⁺ = CO₂ + H₂O + CaCO₃

       2 moles of carbon (as CO2) at the start; 1 mole returned as CO2 at the end, 1 mole locked away in calcium carbonate.  Overall, that whole bit of the Slow Carbon Cycle results in a net loss of atmospheric CO2.

       
       That's the process going one way. But perturbations of the Slow Carbon Cycle in the opposite sense can occasionally be much more rapid - the Siberian Traps magmas cooking a thick oil/coal-rich sedimentary basin sequence being one example. Mankind's burning of the fossil fuels is another. The point is that the Slow Carbon Cycle both stores and releases carbon continuously, but great big carbon burps can occasionally occur, for which the consequences tend not to be pretty!
       
       Ref: Young, S.A., Saltzman, M.R., Foland, K.A., Linder, J.S. and Kump, L.R. (2009): A major drop in seawater 87Sr/86Sr during the Middle Ordovician (Darriwilian): Links to volcanism and climate? Geology, October 2009, v. 37, p. 951-954.

20838. Glenn Tamblyn at 12:47 PM on 9 March 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #9
       

       OMFG :-(
       
       Nice catch Tom.

20839. Doug Mackie at 12:32 PM on 9 March 2017
       To tweet or not to tweet at Donald Trump? That was the question!
       

       Weathering basalt so slow it is OBFUSCATION to mention. Weathering limestone releases bicarbonate; insignificant to CC on human time scale

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] All-caps snipped.

       Amended: Because the commenter is posting a mock tweet, they will be allowed.

20840. Doug Mackie at 12:30 PM on 9 March 2017
       To tweet or not to tweet at Donald Trump? That was the question!
       

       Calcification (formation limestone) removes 2 bicarbonate & releases 1 CO2 in ocean. Not realistic to imply bicarbonate precursor to a GHG

20841. Doug Mackie at 12:27 PM on 9 March 2017
       To tweet or not to tweet at Donald Trump? That was the question!
       

       Dancing around a definition like this and introducing something not previously discussed (basalt) is EXACTLY what deniers do. SHAME!

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] The use of all-caps constitutes shouting and is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.

       Amended: Because the commenter is posting a mock tweet, they will be allowed.

20842. Tom Curtis at 11:16 AM on 9 March 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #9
       

       While not directly related to climate science, it is a fair indication of the quality of science reporting by The Australian Newspaper that they reported today that Isaac Newton discovered the laws of thermodynamics.  C.P.Snow would be rolling in his grave.

       This atrocity of fake facts should at least illustrate the quality of reporting in The Australian with regards to science in general, even when they find The Australian's reporting of climate science so genial to their prejudices. 

20843. nigelj at 06:49 AM on 9 March 2017
       Explainer: How much did climate change ‘cost’ in the 20th century?
       

       Much depends on where you live.

       I live in a temperate climate region, and face costs from sea level rise, more storms and floods, reflected in insurance policies and rates. I face lower heating costs in winter, but these would not be that much lower, and I would have to buy air conditioner in summer. I think on balance I will be significantly worse off due to climate change. The costs of climate change also seem to me to be insidious and hidden.

       Of course the billions in tropical and arid climate zones are even worse off. It would not be humane to ignore this.

       People in Canada and northern parts of Russia would maybe do ok. This probably partly explains their rather climate science sceptical attitude.

20844. barry1487 at 01:27 AM on 9 March 2017
       The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
       

       UAHv6 has finally been published. Kevin C has updated his temp trend app to include it. Could we have that updated at the SkS app, too?

20845. chriskoz at 20:34 PM on 8 March 2017
       Explainer: How much did climate change ‘cost’ in the 20th century?
       

       To further elaborate on Gavin's point about these models'simplistic approach, I must once again bring the article about Samson 2011:

       co2-limits-economy-advanced.htm

       If the models consider the impact on the emitting nations themselves, they are simply bogus because impacts disproportionately affects non-emitting (e.g. African) nations.

20846. sidd at 16:10 PM on 8 March 2017
       Explainer: How much did climate change ‘cost’ in the 20th century?
       One difficulty I have with integrated assessment models is that they seem to underestimate the unnerving possibility of sea level rise increasing by a factor of ten and remaining elevated for half a millennium. And Dr. Schmidt is quite correct about the self referential bit. Personally I find reading Tol exhausting. Given his history of erroneous results, I find myself compelled to check every claim, and too often the claims rest on previous work by Tol and so on.I am glad there are more competent people checking his work.sidd
20847. chriskoz at 12:12 PM on 8 March 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #9
       

       A big report from Australia. Climate Council (former gov Climate Commission now defunct thanks to current govs' denialist attitude):

       Angry summer is the new normal

       In it, the usual critique of "Clean Coal" nonsense put forward by Malcolm Turnbull. But one point worth quoting here is:

       Despite Australia's commitment to decrease its production of greenhouse gas emissions at the Paris international climate change talks in 2015, our emissions rose by 0.8 per cent last year.

       I note that the rise of emissions coincides with the carbon tax repeal by "CO2 is only a trace gas" & "Coal is good for humanity" Tony Abbott. In the couple previous years, following the carbon tax introduction by previous, lefty govs, the emissions were falling slightly. The so called "Direct Action" (paying the pulluters for their largely token promisses) introduced by Tony, and cherished by the "Clean Coal" Malcolm, does not generate any news, means as if it did not exist. The only implied news comes herein and confirms that "Direct Action" is not working, the expected outcome.

20848. michael sweet at 11:23 AM on 8 March 2017
       Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
       

       Chriskoz,

       I think that we are not very different in our thinking.  I look at the glass as half full now.  Perhaps since Australia has so much coal, and does not have as much renewable energy as the USA does, you are more skeptical than I am.  It is best to have skeptical opinions reviewed to keep enthusiasts in line.

       Without seeing any calculations, I doubt that cars can contribute more than a few percent of needed power at night.  On the other hand, if cars were charged during the solar maximum during the day it would dramatically lower night time need for electricity.  This graph from Thinkprogress

        

       Appears to show that the largest grid operator in California got about 9,000 Megwatt from utility solar power on March 3, 2017.  The top of the demand curve has been knocked way down by distributed solar.  Comparing demand at 19:00, after the sun goes down, to the graph I posted at 24, it appears that the peak demand at 14:00 was reduced by at least 4000 Megwatt by distributed solar.  Total peak demand was probably about 28000 Megwatt and solar provided half of that power for several hours.  Hydro and nuclear baseload would have provided much of the remaining power.  California will get several hours more direct sun in June than in March.

       It is still very early days installing solar.  Only a few years ago solar cost twice utility power.  Now you save money by installing solar on your roof.  With another few years of installing solar, during the solar peak there will be no demand for baseload power.  That is not even considering wind.  It will be very interesting  to see a similar graph on a windy day this summer.  Utilities will have to lower electricity cost during the solar peak to incentivise users to charge electric cars durig the day instead of at night. 

       It is discouraging to have electric cars running on coal power.  We have to take the long view.  Both the cart (electric cars) and the horse (WWS power) have to be built at the same time.

       Every method of storing electricity for windless nights reduces the final cost of the grid, even if it is a small contribution.  Car batteries will not do it all but they can reduce the final cost.

       Jacobson likes Hydrogen (manufactured by electrolysis during periods of high wind/solar) as the primary energy storage.  The hydrogen could be stored in current natural gas facilities.  Fuel cells (still in scale up from lab models) would be the most efficient method of generating the electricity.  Many other methods of energy storage are being considered.  Grid interconnections will allow transfer of excess wind or solar from one area to other areas.  It is difficult today to predict what methods will end up being the most economic.

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Adjusted image size.

20849. chriskoz at 09:24 AM on 8 March 2017
       Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
       

       michael sweet@24,

       ATM, I have only time to quickly acknowledge your response, thanks.

       This topic can be discussed at length. Briefly, I agree with all point you make. They confirm my opinion that, contrary to how this OP was written, EV batteries cannot be and will not be the main source of grid backing. They will play only a supplementary part, and a small one. The main part must be played by all the storage options you describe, that can be far more secure to start with.

       From the cother commenters I see that the way EV batteries are currently used, they are big source of energy drawdown at night while they are driving during the day: the opposite to what they should do. Consumers are absolutely opposed to exploiting their batteries the required way and don't want to discharge them to the benefit of the grid because it shortens their lifetime. So they stick to the stigma of "running EVs on coal", even though no doubt the majority of them don't like to be seen that way. It comes down to the economic insentives: if the price of the so called "off-peak" nightly tarrif (for energy generated mainly from coal in my state of NSW) was higher, much higher than the daytime energy, then those EV battery owners would do everything to charge it at day from their solars and sell the charge at night. This is the main, crucial incentive, a link to the renewable grid. A cheap, and most importantly, a secure coupled storage is another link. I don't see EV batteries to take that role as currently they are not cheap (and I don't see them becoming cheaper over time because their production require mining of rare minerals) and they are simply consumers rather than producers. We have short moments when people let them be producers when the price of energy spikes very high, like on Sandy aftermath: the energy prices went to essntially infinity. But we're not talking about disaster management here: rather about the main grid operation. I arguee once again, that for grid sustainability, we need fundamental shift of economic incentives for a large energy consumer like the EV battery fleet, to become energy producer in order to balance the grid. And that applies to other consumers cappable of energy storage, e.g. house solar batteries. In looks obvious to me, that house solar batteries (as opposed to EV batteries) have much much higher chance of becoming this "missing link" in zero energy grid in OP sense, because they can be far more reliable to start with. But I would still argue that the electric battery technology will be only a minor player in the big picture of balancing grid operations: a cheaper storage is required, and with a good energy density, although I doubt humanity ever be able to compress renewable energy on the required scale to the levels compressed in FF. But tha latter is not really required to achieve zero emissions.

20850. BILLHURLEY13951 at 05:50 AM on 8 March 2017
       Americans are confused on climate, but support cutting carbon pollution
       

       Also, I've had some luck by admitting I firmly beleive man has caused Global Warming - but if we differ on that, so what? It's still a problem! And it's exacerbated by more GHGs.

       Often the other side, pauses and rethinks their entire conclusion (which is what we want - right?)

       OK, I say: "If a tornado is heading my way, I won't sit there until I figure out how it started. "

       Is that maybe a good way to argue?

Prev  409  410  411  412  413  414  415  416  417  418  419  420  421  422  423  424  Next