Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 Next
Comments 22701 to 22750:
-
Lionel A at 20:43 PM on 20 October 2016No longer taken seriously, we're seeing the last gasp of climate denial groups
nigelj and others may be interested in a review by Jerry Coyne of what is at guess the Ridley book indicated above:
My review of Matt Ridley’s new book, “The Evolution of Everything”
-
denisaf at 14:23 PM on 20 October 2016Insight into the scientific credibility of The Guardian climate coverage
This confusing discussion in a selected press contributes little to the debate amongst authorities about measures to cope with the impact of climate change. The action being instigated in New York, London and the Netherlands to cope as much as possible with sea level rise and storm surges are examples of what should be given more publicity.
-
nigelj at 11:37 AM on 20 October 2016No longer taken seriously, we're seeing the last gasp of climate denial groups
Good article. I recently bought Ridley’s book on evolution on impulse, never having heard of the guy. The back cover looked interesting and appeared to be about evolution as applied to organisations.
The theory of evolution applied to organisations was actually rather weakly developed, but many of the chapters were nothing to do with evolution, and totally about climate change denialism and quite extreme neoliberal theories about the virtues of private education, deregulation, and neoliberal economics.There was nothing about this on the back cover, so the title and back cover was misleading.
His ideas on climate make very selective use of evidence, and so do his ideas on economics and social issues. I know because I'm reasonably familar with some of these issues. So Ridley is true to form I guess.
Most of what the book said on economics and social issues was utter nonsense. I put the book in the rubbish after a few chapters.
-
scaddenp at 09:59 AM on 20 October 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
Good point Tom. Maybe a way to have an equitable climate and still be able to fly.
-
Jamie at 09:50 AM on 20 October 2016Climate's changed before
I really enjoyed that this article had scientific information to back up some of its claims even if some of the links were not the most concrete sources. I agree with the article saying that the climate has changed before; there is too much scientific evidence for anyone to claim that it has not. One example I can think of is ice cores. I believe this article could have gone more in depth when explaining its points. However, I also believe humans have some impact on increasing the rate of climate change. The anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are increasing at such a rapid rate, I have no choice but to believe they will influence. I have posted a paper that I think will help sway some people to believe that humans do have an effect on climate change.
Zhang XB (2007) "Detection of human influence on twentieth-century precipitation trends" Nature 448, 461-465.
Abstract: "Human influence on climate has been detected in surface air temperature(1-5), sea level pressure(6), free atmospheric temperature(7),tropopause height(8) and ocean heat content(9). Human-induced changes have not, however, previously been detected in precipitation at the global scale(10-12), partly because changes in precipitation in different regions cancel each other out and thereby reduce the strength of the global average signal(13-19). Models suggest that anthropogenic forcing should have caused a small increase in global mean precipitation and a latitudinal redistribution of precipitation, increasing precipitation at high latitudes, decreasing precipitation at sub-tropical latitudes(15,18,19), and possibly changing the distribution of precipitation within the tropics by shifting the position of the Intertropical Convergence Zone(20). Here we compare observed changes in land precipitation during the twentieth century averaged over latitudinal bands with changes simulated by fourteen climate models. We show that anthropogenic forcing has had a detectable influence on observed changes in average precipitation within latitudinal bands, and that these changes cannot be explained by internal climate variability or natural forcing. We estimate that anthropogenic forcing contributed significantly to observed increases in precipitation in the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, drying in the Northern Hemisphere subtropics and tropics, and moistening in the Southern Hemisphere subtropics and deep tropics. The observed changes, which are larger than estimated from model simulations, may have already had significant effects on ecosystems, agriculture and human health in regions that are sensitive to changes in precipitation, such as the Sahel."
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 09:40 AM on 20 October 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
Tom
Sounds like there is still a way to go, but promising.
"We report an electrocatalyst which operates at room temperature and in water for the electroreduction of dissolved CO2 with high selectivity for ethanol. The overpotential (which might be lowered with the proper electrolyte, and by separating the hydrogen production to another catalyst) probably precludes economic viability for this catalyst, but the high selectivity for a 12-electron reaction suggests that nanostructured surfaces with multiple reactive sites in close proximity can yield novel reaction mechanisms. This suggests that the synergistic effect from interactions between Cu and CNS presents a novel strategy for designing highly selective electrocatalysts. While the entire reaction mechanism has not yet been elucidated, further details would be revealed from conversion of potential intermediates (e. g. CO, formic acid and acetaldehyde) in future work." -
Tom Curtis at 08:49 AM on 20 October 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
scaddenp @3, you are correct that no sequestration is involved, and I doubt pumping ethanol into subterainean caverns would be a suitable method of sequestration.
The importance of this process is that it produces a liquid fuel. Liquid fuels have the advantages of easy storage, and high energy intensity relative to renewables which make them very suitable for vehicles in a way that hydrogen (because of storage issues) and electricity (due to limited storage capacity in vehicles) are not. Ease of storage is also a factor in back up generators.
Further, in a way the energy efficiency has limited relevance. If we are to build an all renewable system, then we will need to build a significant overcapacity so that when the renewable sources are not operating at full capacity (most of the time), they can still provide 100% of standing energy needs. That means for much of the time excess energy will be generated with no standard use. That energy is essentially free, and can be applied to any process that can operate intermittently to good effect; ie, generating hydrogen from water, and now ethanol from water. Because the energy is essentially free, convenience of storage may be the determining factor as to which of the two fuels is best to use (and certainly is for transport).
-
scaddenp at 07:55 AM on 20 October 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
Sorry Tom but I dont get it. There is no sequestration of CO2 - it gets released again the moment it is burnt. You have to use Carnot cycle to get useful work back so it doesnt seem to be even a particular efficient way to store energy. You lose 35% of the energy converting electricity to ethanol, and then will lose at least 35% more as waste heat converting the ethanol to work. Batteries are more like 90% efficient, pumped hydro around 70%.
-
Tom Curtis at 07:44 AM on 20 October 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
Popular Mechanics: Scientists Accidentally Discover Efficient Process to Turn CO2 Into Ethanol
The title almost says it all. The key points are that the process takes CO2 and H2O from the atmosphere, and coverts it to Ethanol at a claimed 65% energy efficiency. The ethanol can then be used as a fuel for power plants and vehicles. It is further claimed the process is cheap and scalable, which if true should mean large scale prototypes should be available in approx 5 years, and commercial variants in 10 or so.
If this pans out, it is the best news I have seen for quite some time.
The scientific paper discussing the discovery is also available.
-
dana1981 at 00:16 AM on 20 October 2016Insight into the scientific credibility of The Guardian climate coverage
Thanks chriskoz. Climate Feedback hasn't looked at any of ours yet.
-
chriskoz at 11:27 AM on 19 October 2016Insight into the scientific credibility of The Guardian climate coverage
I'm happy to find out that both articles found to be unscientific in this review:
False alarmism by Wadhams and Denialism by Lovelock were not written by our SkS authors dana1981 nor John Abraham. I don't know if their writing have been scrutiniesd here but for my part, I praise them because I always find them accurate and informative. Thank you Dana & John for your contribution to both TheGardian and SkS.
-
rocketeer at 08:05 AM on 19 October 2016Insight into the scientific credibility of The Guardian climate coverage
I should mention the Callendar prediction was made in 1938.
-
rocketeer at 08:03 AM on 19 October 2016Insight into the scientific credibility of The Guardian climate coverage
"[Lovelock] argues that “CO2 is going up, but nowhere near as fast as they thought it would. The computer models just weren’t reliable.”
This is silly. The CO2 increase is entirely a function of how much fuel we burn. You can certainly construct a model to predict it, but it is only going to be as good as the fuel consumption forecast which is not a scientific question. Whether the projections are high, low or precisely correct has no bearing on the science of climatology. G.S. Callendar didn't think we would get to 400 ppm before the 23rd Century, but he predicted that the Earth would be about 1.0 C warmer than preindustrial times at that point. So he was off by 200 years on the timeline, but within a tenth of a degree C on the effect. So was that a reliable prediction or not?
-
PluviAL at 02:36 AM on 19 October 2016Finance for deep-rooted prosperity is coming
This is the most positive story I have seen all year, and ever on this Sk S. These are solution oriented considerations. Although I am a UC MBA, I had not given sufficient weight to macroeconomic measures, even though this is really what has made Wind and PV advance so well. The generality that this is what will advance societies, rich and poor, is understated. Beyond knowledge and freedom to innovate, the biggest driver of economic progress is energy, which has meant CO2. By planning to reach beyond CO2 for energy as we advance all societies, a truly wonderful era is arriving. We can do it if we want to.
Thanks for the positive news.
-
kevanhashemi at 00:15 AM on 19 October 2016Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
Dear Tom, Thank you very much. For some reason I was worried about that calculation. Looking at the diagram: of order 40,000 Pg carbon interacting with the atmosphere, I agree that's close enough. I think I assumed that the carbon-14 concentration was parts per trillion atomic, not parts per trillion by mass. I will have to check, but if it's by mass, then thank you for pointing out the correction. Yours, Kevan
-
BBHY at 22:19 PM on 18 October 2016Hillary Clinton and Al Gore talk climate and energy in Miami
We need to make progress on the climate problem as quickly as possible. We cannot afford to wait for the perfect politician, the perfect political climate, or the perfect technology breakthrough. We have to push forward right now, with the best that we have available right now.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:49 PM on 18 October 2016Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
kevanhasemi @69, using the figures provided by this wikipedia article, I calculate the range of the Mass of C14 atoms created annually and globaly to be 6.14-7.04 (median 6.59) Kgs. However, C14 has an atomic mass of 14, compared to the atomic mass of 12 for atmospheric Carbon on average. To calculate the rate of transfer of carbon atoms generally from those of C14, you would need to do it on a per particle basis, or apply an adjustment to bring the weighted C14 mass in line to that of C12. By my calculation, that reduces the C14 weighted mass to 5.65 Kg. Therefore, at equilibrium, and ignoring radioactive decay, 5.65 Petagrams of Carbon leave the atmosphere, which tells us nothing about the net flux.
That amount compares to the combined gross flux of 203.3 PgC/annum shown in the IPCC AR5 carbon cycle illustration, or a net flux (excluding that from fossil fuels and volcanoes), of 4.9 PgC/annum:
That is close enough to the expected figure that there is no evident problem for the figures shown. The discrepancy can be more than made up for by dillution of atmospheric C14 abundance by the exchange with the ocean, and by volcanic outgassing.
-
raindog at 14:23 PM on 18 October 2016Explainer: Paris Agreement on climate change to ‘enter into force’
Tom Curtis #10 I am a bit concerned about the interpretation of "very serious and dangerous threat to humanity". It appears to me that the phrase could mean many things and different things to different people. The survey is indeterminate in this respect. As it stands, it is not clear to me that it excludes the possibility of extinction. Does this phrase have some more or less standard meaning in science?
-
raindog at 14:03 PM on 18 October 2016Explainer: Paris Agreement on climate change to ‘enter into force’
scaddenp #11 Yes, I can see why Gavin might be exasperated.
I understand the "committment"; I think there are reasons to doubt that it will/can be carried out (as I indicated above #9). And, if not, then :
Many aspects of climate change and associated impacts will continue for centuries, even if anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are stopped. The risks of abrupt or irreversible changes increase as the magnitude of the warming increases. {2.4}
[Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report, IPCC http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf]
-
raindog at 13:39 PM on 18 October 2016Explainer: Paris Agreement on climate change to ‘enter into force’
Tom Curtis #10 Thank you very much for the clarification/correction. I see that it is very easy for someone new to this discussion to go astray.
I would only add that this situation is already somewhat of a catastrophe for some of us ( as I watch the current king tide bring the sea to within 10' of my back door and see corals dead or dying everywhere ...).
-
kevanhashemi at 11:34 AM on 18 October 2016Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
Also, I would greatly appreciate someone checking observations (1) through (7) above. For example, I had to multiply 2.0 carbon-14 atoms per second per centimeter squared by a bunch of numbers to get 7.5 kg/yr for the entire Earth, which I am rounding to 8 kg/yr. What if I'm off by a factor of ten? I have checked and checked, by I could be making the same mistake over and over again. Yours, Kevan
-
scaddenp at 08:21 AM on 18 October 2016Explainer: Paris Agreement on climate change to ‘enter into force’
Raindog - Gavin gets pretty exaseperated by misrepresentation of his point of view. See his response at Realclimate on similar point.
"I understand the "irreversible", in this context, to mean something similar to "cannot be controlled by human efforts" (e.g., geo-engineering)."
I think that the papers I pointed to earlier would suggest that we are committed to 2degree warming. However, I dont see evidence let alone consensus for any warming that is not reversible by simply stopping emitting CO2. I dont think that is even geoengineering.
-
Marina Kingston at 07:21 AM on 18 October 2016Hillary Clinton and Al Gore talk climate and energy in Miami
What do you think about Hillary's program about student loans (5 Student Loan Promises From Hillary Clinton - Forbes)? Sometimes I begin to doubt her competence!
Moderator Response:[PS] Totally offtopic. Plenty of other sites where people are happy to talk politics. On this topic, only comments on climate policy pertinent to the above article may be discussed.
-
kevanhashemi at 01:14 AM on 18 October 2016Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
Dear Glenn,
Thank you for your answer. I'm not sure why my site refused your comment, but I apologise for the inconvenience that must have caused you. I will check the comment settings.
Which of the following facts to you dispute?
(1) Carbon-14 is produced in the upper atmosphere at roughly 8 kg/yr.
(2) 1 in 8000 carbon-14 atoms decays every year. Therefore, for equilibrium, there must be roughly 64,000 kg of carbon-14 on Earth.
(3) There are only 800 kg of carbon-14 in the atmosphere. (800x10^12 kg of carbon in the atmosphere, 1 ppt is carbon-14)
(4) Somewhere on Earth, other than the atmosphere, there is 63,200 kg of carbon-14.
(5) Every year, 8 kg of carbon-14 migrate from the atmosphere to wherever the rest of it is.
(6) Whatever atmospheric carbon-14 does, it does in the company of one trillion atmospheric carbon-12 atoms, because carbon-14 and carbon-12 are chemically identical.
(6) The concentration of carbon-14 in the deep ocean is 80% of the concentration in the atmosphere. The concentration in the Earth's biomass is 99% of the concentration in the deep ocean.
If you accept the above observations, I suggest you ask yourself how can 8 kg of carbon-14 move out of the atmosphere every year?
As to your suggestion that multiple reservoirs change the picture in a significant way: you are incorrect. Two- and three-reservoir systems are easiy to simulate in an Excel spreadsheet, so if you disagree, please prove me wrong. Or you can consult the Arnold et al. paper linked to below for their proof that the complexity of the reservoir makes not difference to the fundamental behavior of the combination.
http://www.hashemifamily.com/Kevan/Climate/Dist_C14_Nature.pdf
Where does the 8 kg of carbon-14 go? By what chemical process does it get to wherever it goes? Please answer these specific questions.
Yours, Kevan
Moderator Response:Link updated[GT]
-
Dikran Marsupial at 17:40 PM on 17 October 2016Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
Here is the comment I posted on Kevan's earlier blog post (where it seemed more relevant), which concludes:
"But the doubling of the carbon-14 concentration by bomb tests amounts to a gigantic experiment upon the atmosphere, and this experiment turns out to be profoundly revealing when it comes to estimating the effect of human CO2 emissions upon the climate."
Unfortunately carbon-14 from bomb tests tells you almost nothing about the effect of human CO2 emissions upon the climate. This is because the decay of bomb carbon-14 can only tell you about the residence time of carbon in the atmosphere (the average time a particular molecule of CO2 remains in the atmosphere before being transferred to another reservoir) but not the adjustment time (the time taken for atmospheric CO2 to respond to changes in the sources and sinks - essentially the characteristic timescale of the decay of atmospheric CO2 should we cease all anthropogenic emissions today). The residence time for CO2 is not equal to the adjustment time because of the vast exchange fluxes that constantly exchange CO2 between reservoirs, but this is a straight swap, so it doesn't change atmospheric concentrations. 14C has a short residence time, but mostly because it is just being exchanged with 12C and 13C from the oceans and terrestrial biota. This is a somewhat counterintuitive idea that is often misunderstood, which is why I wrote a paper about it,
Gavin C. Cawley, On the atmospheric residence time of anthropogenically sourced carbon dioxide, Energy & Fuels, volume 25, number 11, pages 5503–5513, September 2011.
which you can find here:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef200914u
preprint here:
http://theoval.cmp.uea.ac.uk/publications/pdf/ef2011a.pdf
I wrote a blog article about it for SkS, which you can find here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/essenhigh_rebuttal.html
The residence time is not controversial, and estimates range from about 4 years to about 20. The adjustment time is much longer 50-200 years for the initial phase, but the decay has a long tail.
-
Tom Curtis at 16:19 PM on 17 October 2016Explainer: Paris Agreement on climate change to ‘enter into force’
raindog, in March, 2009 Michael Tobis sketched a schematic graph of the distribution of scientific opinion on the consequences of Business As Usual emissions. In January, 2010, he published this cleaned up version:
The important point for your discussion @5 and @8 is that the official consensus position, ie, that of the IPCC is for "substantial cost" and that views of iminent catastrophe are to be found among a minority of climate scientists. Views of imminent extinction are so rare among climate scientists as to not even make it on the chart. Since 2010, evidence has tended to show the long tail of climate sensitivity (and hence the probability of extreme upper range temperature predictions) have reduced, which would if anything, compress the right hand side of the above distribution.
For more exact information on the distribution of scientific opinion, we must turn to von Storch and Bray's series of surveys of climate scientists (which despite what I identify as biases from the authors being reflected in the wording of some of the questions, remains the best available). Their most recent survey includes among many others, the following question:
Figure 88. (v043) How convinced are you that climate change poses a very serious and
dangerous threat to humanity?Possible responses were on a scale, showing "not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very much". The responses, in order and reported as a percentage, were 2.194, 3.108, 3.291, 5.667, 13.53, 26.14, and 46.07. That indicates the majority scientific opinion is that climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat, but that falls far short of an exinction level threat (which unfortunately it was not possible to indicate). That less than 50% are "very much" convinced of the possibility of a "very serious and dangerous threat", however, shows it to be very unlikely that many (if any) are convinced it is an extinction level threat.
More specifically to your points, the consensus on Arctic Sea Ice is that it has no tipping point, so that even if completely removed, it would rapidly return of Arctic SSTs were Arctic tempertures dropped to normal values (ie, 1960s values). On methane, the majority opinion among relevant scientists is that there is no "clathrate bomb". And so on. There are some credible "runaway processes" but they will, as yet, have minimal overall impact.
With regard to your specific quote @8, the threat of "runaway climate change", contrary to appearences, was raised neither by Gavin Schmidt nor the "recent research". It is introduced without basis by the author, and passed of as being on the authority of Schmidt and/or the research in a dishonest fashion. The article proves mostly that there is now a niche in more left leaning media, and on some blogs, for authors who want to feed a diet of pure catastrophism which is unjustified by the scientific consensus.
-
raindog at 12:06 PM on 17 October 2016Explainer: Paris Agreement on climate change to ‘enter into force’
RedBaron #7 I agree with you, and with the combination of your 3 approaches.
What I see is a lack of will to actually take the actions necessary, on the scale and within the time required, among the folks who would make the difference (roughly those earmarked by Anderson).
no-dapl ... leave it in the ground
-
raindog at 11:50 AM on 17 October 2016Explainer: Paris Agreement on climate change to ‘enter into force’
scaddenp#6 I think that there is significant consensis among researchers (and, perhaps, even policy makers — "By all accounts, countries have acted with remarkable haste in ratifying the Paris Agreement") that, even if we are able to limit warming to 2°C (which seems unlikely), we have already triggered significant "positive feedback" conditions (such as Arctic melting, releases of methane, acidification of the ocean, extinction of other species, etc.) that will contribute to climate change in a sort of snowball effect that cannot be controlled or reversed.
[Gavin Schmidt, director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies]... is the highest-profile scientist to effectively write-off the 1.5C target, which was adopted at December’s UN summit after heavy lobbying from island nations that risk being inundated by rising seas if temperatures exceed this level. Recent research found that just five more years of carbon dioxide emissions at current levels will virtually wipe out any chance of restraining temperatures to a 1.5C increase and avoid runaway climate change. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/30/nasa-climate-change-warning-earth-temperature-warming)
It seems that even a commitment to 2°C may be too little, too late (as it appears is already the case for some small island & low-lying nations already suffering effects of sea-level rise, for example).
I understand the "irreversible", in this context, to mean something similar to "cannot be controlled by human efforts" (e.g., geo-engineering).
Perhaps we should just talk about it for another 5 years and see what happens ... ?
~~~
no dapl
-
2016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
The first link on the methane spike doesn't work correctly for me.
Thanks for compiling this list - I always scan through it and find lots of interesting reading.
Someone commented last week about missing the monthly article that shows a plot of the global temperature 'Tracking the 2 degree limit'. I miss it too
Moderator Response:[BW] Thanks for the heads-up, BC! I fixed the link.
-
RedBaron at 10:46 AM on 17 October 2016Explainer: Paris Agreement on climate change to ‘enter into force’
@raindog,
There is a lot of potential for McPherson to be right. However, having watched several of his lectures, the one glaring gap that he certainly overlooks is humanity's ability to affect stabilizing feedbacks. He is correct in so much as right now almost all those human influenced stabilizing feedbacks are degraded as a continuing result of our influence.
However we do have an equally large potential for positively affecting them. In other words, humans have equal ability to restore ecosystem function as degrade ecosystem function. Humans are just as capable of planting a forest as slash and burning a forest. We are just as capable of creating a wetland as draining one. We can as easily restore a savana or prairie as plow it and plant corn. We just don't happen to be by and large doing it at the moment. In fact we have to spend lots more effort, money and energy keeping those ecosystems non-functional as we would have to spend to restore those ecosystem functions.
"We try to grow things that want to die, and kill things that want to live. That is pretty much how (industrial) agriculture functions." Colin Seis
In my honest opinion McPherson could be right, but it is not necessarily a given. There is no requirement that humans interact with the biosphere the way we ciurrently do now. But I also believe he is correct, conditional to if we don't radically and fundamentally change that interaction.
That would include a 3 way approach, reducing fossil fuels, Biological Carbon Capture and Storage (BCCS) in agriculture, and large scale ecosystem recovery projects. The more I study it, the more I am convinced it can work, but would require all 3. I am almost certain that focusing only on fossil fuel emissions will ultimately fail due to exactly what McPherson talks about in his lectures. Too much much CO2 in the atmosphere already, and too much heating already stored in the system, taking too long to get rid of without humanity making a concious and real effort to help instead of hinder recovery.
-
scaddenp at 07:09 AM on 17 October 2016Explainer: Paris Agreement on climate change to ‘enter into force’
I don't think McPherson's claims are based on published science. There have been studies of this, and you might like to look at this post on climate commitments though I suspect there may be more recent work.
-
raindog at 06:21 AM on 17 October 2016Explainer: Paris Agreement on climate change to ‘enter into force’
RE: #3: scaddenp, there are some, like Guy McPherson, who believe we have already passed "a point of no return" and face extinction. Others, like Kevin Anderson, think we are very late in the game here, but, perhaps, still can avert the most dire consequences of climate change if we take immediate and appropriate action. In videos and papers, he does make suggestions.
I am not a scientist, but there does seem to be some validity to the idea that climate change may, at this time, be irreversible.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
-
nigelj at 06:22 AM on 16 October 2016Climate scientists published a paper debunking Ted Cruz
William @2, politicians are notorious for dishonesty, and also having different stories for different audiences. They do this so often they probably end up not even realising they are doing, it or knowing what they really believe themselves.
-
Bob Loblaw at 05:00 AM on 16 October 2016It's the sun
BillN:
I expect that your latter paragraphs, if not your whole post, will be deleted by the moderators. For someone who complains about others' tone, you seem to not hold yourself to the same standards. What you consider to be "reasonable" in your own posts is not considered reasonable by others here.
In your post #1180, the full sentence is:
Even though the FOV (Field of View) of the instrument picks up only a small fraction of the solar disk, so that the solar light intensity at the cone is only a small fraction of the full TSI, the instrument has to stay on for a while in order to come to thermal equilibrium when making a measurement (thermal equilibrium under loading is the basis for making the measurement).
You may not have specifically stated that an adjustment is needed, but you did say (incorrectly) that the instrument does not measure the full disk, which certainly implies that something needs to be done about it. How would you get a proper reading of the full TSI from a partial measurement if you do not account for the partial measurement? Or were you just (incorrectly) implying that an assumption had been made that thought was unwarranted?
Your use of the word "optical" implies much more than it should to the casual reader. I pointed out the very limited limited scope in which that term applied to the Eppley HF. If what I said was (to quote you) "exactly" what you meant, then that is what you should have said to begin with. I have not accused you of intentionally misleading anyone, but I have clarified the very limited scope in which your statement applies, so that casual readers will not take the wrong impression from what you have said.
When you walk in here and start proclaiming your expertise, and acting as if we should only take your word on things, then you are making an argument from your own authority. I provided links to the group (PMOD) responsible for the surface-based pyrheliometer comparisons and the World Radiation Reference. I provided a link to a peer-reviewed journal paper describing the stability of the Eppley HF after space exposure. Tom Curtis has provided you with other links. You have not (as far as I can see) provided a single link to support any of your assertions - instead expecting us to believe you solely on the basis of your claimed expertise. Since you claim to have knowledge in these areas, surely you can back up your claims with some references?
You are correct that SkS is a web site where individuals that can provide nothing more than a viewpoint are subject to critical reaction. People are expected to provide independent support of those opinions.
-
RedBaron at 04:39 AM on 16 October 2016Climate scientists published a paper debunking Ted Cruz
@2 William,
You said, "Go figure. I wonder how many politicians are equally crassly dishonest."
All of them? It's a job requirement!
-
william5331 at 03:56 AM on 16 October 2016Climate scientists published a paper debunking Ted Cruz
Seems somehow beneath our dignity to answer every ning nong that denies the evidence of his own eyes. I suppose it has to be done. I was talking to a climate change scientist a month or so ago in England. He related an interesting story. He was at a conference, not on climate change, in which one of the politicians (who shall remain nameless) was giving vent to the usual denyer story. Purly be coincidence, this chap was seated beside the politician on the plane on the way back home. They got talking about climate change. The politician expressed the opinion that it was our most serious problem today. Go figure. I wonder how many politicians are equally crassly dishonest.
-
PluviAL at 03:28 AM on 16 October 2016Climate scientists published a paper debunking Ted Cruz
Scientifically, conservatives are grasping at straws, but politically they are wilding a sledge hammer: Americans (AND other car and high consupmtion people) don't want to hear the truth, if it means we have to work or sacrifice, and we are masters of self-deception. The question is can we be made to try harder than just a few more enlightened states carrying a backwards nation (world)? I say no, unless people can see solutions. We need to offer solutions before America can climb down from our delusions.
As some may know I work toward solutions in my books and papers. I wish more scientifically minded people would join me. There are solutions if we think on scale, and seriously. Wind and PV solar are solid starts, but I think we need minimally 10 times more potency than those tools can offer. We can get 100 times that potency, and really much more.
-
Bill N at 03:06 AM on 16 October 2016It's the sun
Bob,
You have mischaracterized what I have said on almost every count.
The only thing you have corrected me on is that the FOV for these instruments encompasses the entire solar disk, which only serves to strengthen my argument that the solar light hitting the cavity wall will degrade it and cook any outgassing contamination on it. I never said an adjustment must be made to account for what I thought was a limited FOV, so again you mischaracterize.
I never said that there were any other optics besides the open aperture and the optical cavity, so again you mischaracterize. You yourself said that the only room for optical change is the cavity reflectance (absorption ratio). But that's exactly what I have been talking about, nothing more, nothing less. It is the long term stability of this optical property under degrading environmental influences that is the question here.
I did not feel the need to explain what "active cavity radiometers" are beyond the optical components being evaluated, assuming that interested readers here can Google this in a split second and get a lot more detail on them than what I could provide in writing. So what's you beef here.
Again you BS when claiming that I said the instrument developers did not consider stability. I have stated here till I'm blue in the face that there is disagreement amongst the developers and users over what the stability is, even to the point that some think they can not be relied upon for long term TSI variability measurements. So obviously this is a hot topic for them, as I have said again and again.
Finally, I have made no claim whatsoever as to being an authority on space-based TSI measurements, so you last mischaracterization of me about this is a cheap shot. My only "authoritity" is my general experience as an optical engineer flying spaceborne instruments, with of course then radiometry part of that experience (some of this covered solar measurements).
So summarizing Bob, you're really a piece of work.
After recieving so much vitriol about reasonably poised questions and thoughts by me, I decided to Google what other folks think about what is going on at ScepticalScience. Wow! It seems the world opinion is that this site is populated by a bunch of alarmist trolls (kids mainly) who engage in dirty tactics to voraciously defend their pseudo-scientific viewpoints, so that anyone who comes here with a differing viewpoint, no matter how reasoned, will not be treated fairly. Well, that is certainly what I have experienced here (with a few exceptions). So good bye.
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:38 AM on 16 October 2016It's the sun
I will try to keep this short for the moment, as it look as if BillN may be leaving.
BillN has made several assertions about space-based measurements of TSI. I have not been involved in any space-based measurements, but I have a dozen year of experience in ground-based measurements of direct beam solar radiation using Eppley HIckey-Frieden (HF) cavity radiometers, of identical type to those that have been used in space. [All Eppley HF radiometers are built to the same space-rated specifications. I can't point to a peer-reviewed article that says so, so in a scientific paper I would have to reference this as "John Hickey, personal communication". He's the "Hickey" in "HF"...]
Anyway, BillN has made several questionable assertions. I will respond to a few:
- He refers to "optical stability". In the Eppley HF, the only "optics" are a black cavity that is fully-exposed to sunlight - no glass, no optics to focus sunlight, just an exposed cone-shaped receiver. The important "optical" characteristic of this receiver is its absorption ratio (or reflectivity, if you prefer). If that were to change, then stability would be affected, but all that cavity does is absorb solar radiation.
- The radiometer also has a tube and calibrated orifice arrangment to limit the field of view. You may also call this "optics", if you like, but it's not as if there is a telescope or anything like that. It's much like limiting your field of view by holding a paper towel tube in front of your eye. It's fancier than that - black interior, etc., to limit stray light reflections, and a controlled area aperture at the end so that you get an exact field of view, but that's it.The view of the sun is completely unobstructed.
- The field of view of the Eppley HF is slightly larger than the diameter of the sun, so BillN's assertion in comment #1180 that "Even though the FOV (Field of View) of the instrument picks up only a small fraction of the solar disk..." is simply wrong for the Eppley HF. For ground-based measurements, this means that the instrument also views a bit of scattered sunlight around the sun, but in space this will not happen. There is no adjustment for seeing a portion of the solar disk, as BillN has stated.
- BiilN correctly refers to "active cavity radiometers", without explaning what they are. The Eppley HF can be operated either in active or passive modes. The principle of operation is that the cavity that absorbs solar radiation will heat up, which introduces a temperature gradient measured by a thermopile. In active mode, this heating is offset by an electrical heater, and by measuring the electrical heating rate you will know the solar heating rate. In passive mode, you measure the thermopile output caused by solar heating (no electrical offset), but periodically shade the instrument (no sun) and substitute a short period of electrical heating to check the calibration. The calibration results is used to convert the solar-heating output to irradiance. Ground-based observations using the HF will usually use passive mode (e.g. at the International Pyrheliometer Comparisons held every five years in Davos, Switzerland, where the World Radiation Reference is maintained. These IPCs (which have been happening since the 1960s) are a primary indicator of instrument stability in ground-based measurements.
So, stability of an HF instrument depends on the absorption in the cavity remaining stable, and the electronics that measure the electrical heating remaining stable. There are no other "optics" involved.
Rather than taking my word on any of this, HIckey, Frieden, and Brinker have reported on the stability of the Eppley HF after six years in space:
Report on an H-F Type Cavity Radiometer after Six Years Exposure in Space Aboard the LDEF Satellite
This is a 1990 paper, unforunately paywalled, but the abstract reports a 0.1% stability, but with a 0.1% uncertainty on that value. 0.1% of 1368 W/m2works out to less than 1.5 W/m2. After accounting for global abedo (30%) and dividing by 4 (area of sphere vs. area of circle), this leads to an uncertainty of less than 0.25 W/m2 in global absorbed solar radiation. Much less than the CO2 forcing.
BillN is wrong in implying that the developers of such instruments have not considered stability. Tom Curtis' post above also explains how examiniation of multiple instruments and multiple sources of analysis increases confidience in the readings of TSI.
In short, BillN's implied position of infallible authority on matters of spaced-based TSI measurements is fallible.
-
RedBaron at 00:17 AM on 16 October 2016DOE charts show why climate doom and gloom isn't needed
Thanks Wyoming for refresing my memory. I think maybe I mistated it. Food production is actually much higher but we waste a lot of food worldwide. That's where we beat projections. However, we also lose about 100 tons of soil for 1 ton of food, and in my opinion that's what will cause it. Not the food per se, but the soil.
-
Bill N at 00:05 AM on 16 October 2016It's the sun
Hello Tom,
Thank you for the excellent post about the satellite instruments. It looks like you put a lot of work into it, which is greatly appreciated.
I especially took notice of the part about comparing 3 instruments at once to reduce errors. This of course significantly reduces all "drift errors" in which the drift mechanism has a equal likilyhood of moving in either direction. Unfortunately, optical radiometric changes are typically "one way," so that for instance all 3 compared instruments will have a reduced sensitivity over time due to the three error sources indentified previously: outgassing induced contamination, solar light induced degredation of the cone optical surface, and accumulation of spaceborn dust. All three sources will increase the diffuse reflectivity of the (designed) specular cone, thereby reducing the amount of light collected, yielding then a lower measured TSI over time for all instruments flown.
Of course, the degree of change for any particular source will vary between instruments. One of these error sources is likely to be predominant over the others (my guess would be either the outgassing contamination or the solar light induced degredation), and if its rate of change varied significantly from one instrument to the next, it would be detected as a relative change in the sensitivity of 3 instruments being compared. But IMHO, the variation between instruments for the rate of change of the predominant error source, is likely to be less than the average rate of change for the instruments combined, so as long as the average rate of change is not dramatic, the variation in the rate of change between instuments will not be significant enough to indicate the presence of the error. The TSI measurements themselves are "stable" enough to indicate that the optical error sources are not dramatic, so the predominant one is of course also not dramatic. Therefore, what ever the predominant optical error source is, it is reducing the sensitivity of all instruments together, but not so much as to indicate the variation in the rate of change from one instrument to the next. However, the average variation can still be large enough to significantly exceed the 0.01% stability requirement neccessary to rely on these instruments to show the TSI levels are not changing. Therefore, the issue still remains.
You are right in not taking my word on this issue with any more credence than what anyone else has to say, especially against the engineers/scientists building and using these instruments. However, in one respect, I am simply pointing out what any objective optical engineer will tell you, which is that an optical stability level of <0.01% for radiometric instrumentation is extremely difficult to obtain and prove, especially for "field instruments" such as ones flown in space. You should also be aware that there is disagreement amongst the instrument engineers and scientists as to whether they can be relied upon at all for measuring TSI changes (as opposed to absolute TSI measurements which everyone seems happy with). In particular, the claims of achieved stability made by PMOD are in dispute, as are their resultant measurements. I suggest you Google on this issue and take a look for yourself (I mentioned a starting point in my original post).
I believe I've "done my job here" in pointing out that the claimed stability of these instruments in order to successfully infer that the TSI is not changing (or even going down), is in question, even amongst the engineers and scientists that built and use these instruments. So I am now "signing off."
-
michael sweet at 23:52 PM on 15 October 2016It's the sun
Bill,
At this time you have provided no links to any "peer reviewed" studies that you used to form your opinions. I have only your unsupported claim that you are an expert on TSI (although you have apparently never been involved with the measure of TSI). I have provided links to peer reviewed studies that support my position. The Comments rules for Skeptical Science require peer reveiwed links to support your position.
Eclectic and I have shown that TSI is not required to determine that carbon pollution is the cause of warming and not an unmeasured increase in TSI. It is incumbent on you to answer these arguments. Since you have refused to even acknowledge them I presume that you have realized that you cannot respond and concede our position.
You have not " [shot] down a major cornerstone used by folks claiming that the observed warming must be due then to manmade greenhouse gas emissions", you have made unsupported assertions from unsubstantiated authority. Tom Curtis above has demsonstrated (using peer reviewed sources) that your argument is incorrect. That leaves you with only your unsupported opinion. Since I have shown that TSI measurements are unnecessarry to prove that warming is not due to the sun, you have shown nothing.
You are welcome to decide who you want to communicate with. If you want to argue by claiming expertise in a subject you clearly have not studied well (I look forward to your peer reviewed studies that answer Tom above) , claim you have proven a substantial part of AGW theory is incorrect when you have not, refuse to provide peer reviewed data and ignore arguments from other sources of analysis that show your argument fails, go for it. I think you will find that your unsupported opinions do not convince people at this web site.
A word to the wise: people who come here with bold assertions that they have overturned everything scientists have learned over the past 150 years are frequently recieved harshly. If you instead ask questions about what you do not understand people are happy to discuss these issues in great detail. If you say you do not understand the TSI measurements and how they relate to overall AGW theory you will be much better received. If you say you will not discuss how scientists know that the sun is not the cause of warming because you are an expert (at something you have never measured) you will not get friendly responses.
-
Wyoming at 23:17 PM on 15 October 2016DOE charts show why climate doom and gloom isn't needed
Re: #9 Red Baron
In fact the Limits to Growth projections on food production should we continue on a BAU path (as we have done) did not predict a collapse about now as you stated. The projection was for a food collapse to start mid-century (I looked this up in my copy beofre I wrote this message btw). The follow up works based upon LTG methods have also come to the same conclusion. We are tracking dead on the first projections of near 45 years ago.
-
chriskoz at 20:35 PM on 15 October 2016Caring for Creation makes the Christian case for climate action
Typo in my post above: I meant to recall "Resource curse" or "paradox of plenty" to invoke the suffering of people in Middle East as global civilisation is "energised" with their oil.
-
chriskoz at 20:29 PM on 15 October 2016Caring for Creation makes the Christian case for climate action
Dikran@26,
You obviously know that Samson 2011 has evidenced the FF burning benefit only those who do it (e.g. western world) while those who don't do it (e.g. Africa) suffer the consequences:
So the argument that FF burning could potentially be "reducing inequality" is not true. The NT etic of "love your neighbour as yourself" is clearly contradicted here, if the "neighbour" mean other countries.
The idea of buring FF to lift people out of poverty if a myth propagated by the FF interest groups. Ask people in those poor countries and they will say the opposite: they don't want that burning and that energy coming with it. Often, the "resource course" in oil rich countires of middle east (where AGW vulnerability is high as shown above) mean people over there get zero benefit of that dense energy consumption by the world, their return are just endless conflicts.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 20:10 PM on 15 October 2016Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
Kevan. Here is a comment I tried unsuccessfully to post on your blog
------------------------------------------------
Kevan.
I am new to your blog and I have just read through your series on the Carbon Cycle. Unfortunately your analysis misses some key issues and is quite wrong.
What you argue reflects the understanding of the oceans role in CO2 balance that stood during the 1st half of the 20th century. Even as late as the beginning of the 50's this was still the official view of the American Meteorological Society. However advances in oceanography and the understanding of ocean chemistry in the next few years overturned this. Your analysis does not reflect that.
Firstly, Oceanography understands ocean circulation quite well. The top 100 meters of so is very well and rapidly mixed through wave and wind actions. Below this the ocean is highly vertically stratified. Importantly this highly stratified ocean only allows extremely slow diffusion of any chemical, including dissolved CO2 for example, vertically. This has been confirmed by chemical tracer studies for example. By diffusion alone, major changes between the surface and the abyss would take millenia. However major vertical ocean currents in some regions mix the ocean more rapidly than this, but still on timescales of many centuries. It is said that a water molecule sinking to the sea floor in the North Atlantic wont return there for 1000 years. These two processes define a characteristic timescale for propagating changes from the surface to the depths. Changes on timescales of decades only impact the upper ocean.
So your simple model of 'a reservoir' is unphysical. The proportion of the ocean engaged with the surface is dependent on the timescale of the event. The 'size' of your reservoir is a time dependent value.
Secondly, most of your discussion portays the carbon in the ocean as all CO2. In one post you do mention it as being carbonate, but don't follow through with that concept.
The carbon content of the oceans, excluding biomass, is referred to as Dissolved Inorganic Carbon (DIC). It exists in an equilibrium between 4 states. Dissolved CO2 (CO2aqueous), Carbonic Acid (H2CO3), Bicarbonate ions (HCO3-) and Carbonate ions (CO3--). The balance between these four forms depends on the reaction kinematics of the respective reactions that convert between these forms.
CO2aqueous + H20 H2CO3 HCO3- + H- CO3— + 2H-
This link is a Bjerrum plot, showing the proportions of each form present depending on the ph of the water. CO2 & H2CO3 are grouped together. Note the vertical scale is logarithmic. [LINK]
Notice that most carbon is as Bicarbonate, with 10% Carbonate. CO2/H2CO3 is around than 0.5%. And note also the dependency of these concentration proportions on pH - this is the origin of the problem of Ocean Acidification.
This is actually more complex than this since ocean pH isn't just governed by the reactions above but other factors such as Boric acid concentrations. The detailed chemistry of this was first worked out in the 50's by Roger Revelle.
These chemical relations and the kinematics governing them constitute another partitioning of the 'reservoir' - different chemical reservoirs. Carbon as bicarbonate for example is only available to potentially be exchanged with the atmosphere as CO2 when the kinematics allow the reverse reactions to dominate.
So your hypothetical single reservoir needs to be considered as multiple separate sub-reservoirs separated spatially and temporally, and chemically. Only the surface/CO2 reservoir is engaged in gas exchange with the atmosphere
Your broader analysis may come to reasonable answers when applied to long enough timescales (multiple centuries) but still can be limited by the chemical constraints. So the long recovery times for a major CO2 increase presented in the scientific literature are based on these factors. Short term surface mixing processes, multi-centenial scale deep ocean mixing timescales and chemical reponses.
For instance, the truely long term response that recovers CO2 levels is chemical. After ocean mixing has done the maximum possible, there is still a remaining, slow chemical response that achieve the final draw down, on multi-millenial timescales.There is one final class of reactions that can occur in the ocean.
CO3— + Ca++ CaCO3.
Carbonate reacts with calcium ions and other minerals ions in the oceans to be deposited as things like Calcium Carbonate - Limestone. This is the final equilibration. The Carbon is deposited on the sea floor as rock.
The response to a major increase in atmospheric CO2 does give a very long timescale for recovery - centuries.
Moderator Response:[RH] Shortened link.
-
Tom Curtis at 17:36 PM on 15 October 2016It's the sun
Bill N @various, the IPCC AR12, Working Group 1, Chapter 8.4.1 says:
"Total solar irradiance (TSI) measured by the Total Irradiance Monitor(TIM) on the spaceborne Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment(SORCE) is 1360.8 ± 0.5 W m–2 during 2008 (Kopp and Lean, 2011) which is ~4.5 W m–2 lower than the Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos (PMOD) TSI composite during 2008 (Frohlich, 2009)."
The SORCE/TIM home page gives an accuracy to 1σ of 350 ppm, or 0.48 W/m^2 of 1360.8 W/m^2, so I take that accuracy to be represnt one standard deviation, giving a 2σ accuracy of 0.07%. The SORCE/TIM home page also gives a"long term repeatability" of 10 ppm per annum (1σ), or 0.002% per annum, where the former is the accuracy of the absolute estimate of TSI, and the later is the accuracy of estimates of relative change in TSI from year to year.
It also says:
"TSI variations of approximately 0.1% were observed between the maximum and minimum of the 11-year SC in the three composites mentioned above (Kopp and Lean, 2011). This variation is mainly due to an interplay between relatively dark sunspots, bright faculae and bright network elements (Foukal and Lean, 1988; see Section 5.2.1.2). A declining trend since 1986 in PMOD solar minima is evidenced in Figure 8.10. Considering the PMOD solar minima values of 1986 and 2008, the RF is –0.04 W m–2. Our assessment of the uncertainty range of changes in TSI between 1986 and 2008 is –0.08 to 0.0 W m–2 and thus very likely negative, and includes the uncertainty in the PMOD data (Frohlich, 2009; see Supplementary Material Section 8.SM.6) but is extended to also take into account the uncertainty of combining the satellite data."
(Emphasis in original)
The Guidance Note on Uncertainty indicates that something is "very likely" if it has a 90-100% probability (Table 1), so we can take that uncertainty range to be the 90% uncertainty range. The reduction in the PMOD composite over that period is 0.04 W/m^2, giving an estimated reduction, with 90% confidence intervals of 0.04 +/- 0.04 W/m^2, which represents an accuracy of 0.003% relative to the 1360.8 W/m^2 estimate of TSI from SORCE/TIM. Assuming a normal distribution, a 90% confidence interval of 0.04 W/m^2 is equivalent to a 2 standard deviation interval of 0.05 W/m^2. Even allowing that the error on the estimate the IPCC estimate represents an 80% range ( the minimum consistent with their expressed likelihood) yields a 2 standard deviation interval of 0.06 W/m^2.
The current version of the PMOD composite, with monthly values estimated by taking the mean of daily values, excluding missing values) shows an OLS trend of -0.014 +/- 0.008 W/m^2 per annum (2σ error margin). The absolute difference between the Months with the lowest Sunspot Number is the respective minimums (June 1986 and Aug 2008 respectively) is -0.255 W/m^2, while that between the average of the two years is -0.219 W/m^2. The trend difference is -0.3 +/- 0.18 W/m^2. Expressed as changes in forcing to two significant figures, these values are -0.04 W/m^2, -0.04 W/m^2 and -0.05 +/- 0.03 W/m^2 respectively. It appears, therefore (and is confirmed by the IPCC 8.SM.6), that the value expressed by the IPCC is the absolute difference between the relevant years expressed as a forcing rather than as TSI. Expressed as percentages of the 2008 TSI (SORCE/TIM), they all represent 0.02% of the value, rounded to two significant figures.
The IPCC's (and PMODS's) stated accuracy is less than the relative accuracy of TIMS (by all accounts their most reliable single instrument) if expanded over the June 1986-Aug 2008 interval, which would have an accumulated error of 0.6 W/m^2 (or 0.11 W/m^2 expressed as a forcing; 2σ error margin). This is in part due to the fact that typically (and always from 1986 to 2008) at least three space borne instruments have observed TSI at any given time. This is important, both because the drift in satellite instruments is unlikely to be synchronous, and because multiple measurements reduce error (as errors are summed in quadrature).
More importantly, in developing PMOD, each satellite record of TSI was fit against the square root of the Sunspot Number (SSN), which then provided a framework to develop the composite TSI record. In that way, the superior accuracy of the SSM record is used to overcome the deficiencies of the satellite record. Because of this use of the SSN, and because of the use of multiple instruments observing simultaneously, no consideration of innate instrument accuracy alone can correctly characterize the error in TSI observations.
The use of SSNs by PMOD also indicates that belief in the decline in solar intensity is not based on satellite instruments alone. Indeed, the SSNs show a trend of -3.09 +/- 1.33 per annum (2σ range). Given that you accept the accuracy of the SSN record, and accept a high correlation between SSNs and solar intensity, that should mean you also agree that solar intensity has declined over the last four decades, although we may be in doubt as to just by how much.
In the mean time, and with respect, you retain effective anonymity so your authority on this or any topic (as is mine) is just that of "some random guy on the internet". Even if we take your claimed credentials and expertise on face value (as I am inclined to do), those credential and experience are no better than those of the teams of scientists working on individual TSI instruments, composites, and in reviewing the data for the IPCC. Given that, I see no reason to give your beliefs on this matter particular credence.
-
Eclectic at 15:06 PM on 15 October 2016It's the sun
Bill N , surely you are capable of conversing with 2 people, rather than only 1 .
I certainly don't wish for you to waste your time arguing with yourself about whether there has or has not been any ad-hominem attack on you - for as far as I can see, there has been nothing of any personal attack against you, of any sort.
You have been asked to supply a logical coherent reasoning, showing that the standard science (accepted by all climate scientists) is somehow wrong. You have failed to do so - thus far, anyway.
Therefore please put aside your deflections and diversions about ad-homs; put aside your rhetorical assertions and quibbles about satellite instrumentation - instrumentation which is a very small part of the total picture of climate science.
Whatever cogent ideas you have, I am sure our readers here would be delighted to see them. If they exist, of course. Likewise it would be gratifying to know something of these [your quote] "bonified scientists" (not bonified* in the cranium, surely ??! :-P ) and their contrarian ideas. Contrarian ideas which so far seem uncirculated in the scientific realm (or pehaps are simply not cited . . . which says something in itself) .
So, Bill N , please proceed rationally. For myself, I am keen to see anything useful you can provide.
* Bill N , please note that these comments columns have no SpellChecker . . . so you misspell at your peril. "Bona fide" humorous efforts are always welcome, though !
-
Bill N at 13:22 PM on 15 October 2016It's the sun
OK Micheal and Eclectic. Now I am going to have to ask the moderators to get involved for your "dog piling" and ad hominum attacks, which are clear rule violations at this sight. Your discussions have degenerated from bonified scientific debate to childish antics.
Michael, you have no idea what I do or do not know about this subject. My views are formed from refereed publications and books on this subject. Eclectic, I take personal afront of your claims that I just made my opinions up from thin air. If the both of you have a problem with the emerging views and findings of an ever growing number of bonified scientists showing that the observed global warming is solar induced, you should take it up with them. Don't shoot the messenger. I will not argue any further with you two.
My primary purpose here is to state that in my area of expertice, namely optical instruments, the claim that the satellite instruments have successfully measured that the solar TSI has not gone up since 1978 (even gone down a little), is completely bogus. That then shoots down a major cornerstone used by folks claiming that the observed warming must be due then to manmade greenhouse gas emissions.
-
ianw01 at 12:10 PM on 15 October 2016The future belongs to clean energy
Here is an attempt at a concise summary of what I have found so far, though I'm still concerned that intermittency of wind is a bigger problem than is generally thought.
nigelj: That article is a bit too optimistic relative to the analysis it provides for me (as you might expect!) but it did cite a link where it stated that "a highly renewable ... system ... could meet or exceed regional demand 99% of the time". That sounds nice until you follow the link and look at the chart and realize that those scenarios include coal, nuclear and plenty of CCCT (combined cycle combustion turbine) out to 2050. That chain of claims reminds me of amusing tales of how the truth gets modified as people report to their bosses, resulting in vastly differing stories between the shop floor and the CEO. Trust but verify. :-)
There is an excellent series of articles at scienceofdoom.com such as this one which covers grid stability with higher wind penetration. See the whole series there on renewables - well worth the read!
The best take-away from scienceofdoom.com regarding this thread of discussion is the following summary of the thorough JP Morgan report comparing decarbonization of Germany and California:
Basically, they reach their conclusions from the following critical elements:
- energy cannot be stored economically
- time-series data demonstrates that, even when wind power is sourced over a very wide area, there will always be multiple days where the wind/solar energy is “a lot lower” than usual
- spend a crazy amount on storage
- build out (average) supply to many times actual demand
- backup intermittent solar/wind with conventional
- build a lot of nuclear power
These are obvious conclusions after reading 100 papers. The alternatives are:
- ignore the time-series problem
- assume demand management will save the day
- assume “economical storage” will save the day
Many papers and a lot of blogs embrace these alternatives.
The comments in that article include a discussion of a "box-canyon scenario" where we go headlong down a wind + solar path that does not in the end provide a route to the desired CO2 reductions. It is worth thinking through those possibilities.
Finally, on the Ontario front you can see this year's generation costs quoted here (with a grain of salt given the source). In CAD cents/kWh solar is 48.1, wind 13.3, gas 14, hydro 5.7, nuclear 6.8. That makes for an interesting backdrop for (a) a recent refurb plan that would bring nuclear up to 16.6 cents/kWh over 10 years combined with (b) the recent cancellation of additional wind generation plans. My (biased?) hunch is that wind intermittency would have made for some difficult challenges to operate the system when wind output was minimal, although others do argue that the nuclear industry is well entrenched in Ontario and stands to benefit more from that investment. A combination of the two also seems likely.
Hopefully that draws some of the loose ends that I raised to a close here (although not definitively, I admit).
My remaining to-do item is to get deep enough into Jacobson's reports to get a handle on how intermittency was managed in a representative northern inland US state. Hopefully I can convince myself that the modeling was able to plausibly get past this intermittency issue.
Prev 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 Next
