Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 Next
Comments 25701 to 25750:
-
Sharon Krushel at 19:06 PM on 9 February 2016The Quest for CCS
#75. Michael,
Thank you for referring me to the Jacobson paper post! I left a comment at #81.
In regard to windmills, I think of them as symbols of green energy, so I don't think they look bad at all, when I see them in someone else's back yard.
Sending windmills out to sea seems like a perfect solution to me. But how do we get the energy to all the places it needs to be? (I have more reading to do.)
I get what you're saying about CCS and the true cost of fossil fuels. CCS costs may come down as technology progresses.
But maybe dirt would work better (#42). I grew up on a farm, so I'm inclined to like that as a contributing solution.
-
Tom Curtis at 18:35 PM on 9 February 2016Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
For what it is worth, the tabular concentration data for the three scenarios and all included greenhouse gases as used in Hansen 88, and supplied by Gavin Schmidt shows a CO2 concentration for 2015 of 403 ppmv. Again, this is more than has actually occurred.
This denier talking point is based entirely on:
Ignoring four of the five greenhouse gases;
Ignoring Hansens explicit specification of the scenarios in Appendix B;
Ignoring the tabular data as supplied by Gavin Schmidt;
Ignoring that 1982 (not 1989) is the first year of projection; and
Loudly bewailing the fact that annual emissions have grown 1.62% per annum for CO2 when Hansen only specified emissions growth averaged across all GHGs of "about" 1.5%.
If they shut their eyes any tighter against the facts of the case they would go permanently blind. -
Tom Curtis at 18:18 PM on 9 February 2016Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
planet8788 @37, Hansen describes Scenario A in Appendix B of his paper, saying with regard to CO2:
"CO2 increases as observed by Keeling [at Mauna Loa] for the interval 1958-1981, and subsequently with 1.5% yr-1 growth of the annual increment."
For somebody lecturing us on needing to "...be clear about Emissions and Concentrations", it is astonishing that you have not noticed that the scenario is specified with respect to the concentrations as measured at Mauna Loa, not according to emissions data. You may think it was specified according to emissions because Hansen wrote in the main body of the paper:
"Scenario A assumes that growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the 1970s and 1980s will continue indefinitely; the assumed annual growth averages about 1.5% of current emissions, so the net greenhouse forcing increases exponentially."
That statement, however, gives the average growth across all greenhouse gases specified - not just of CO2. Therefore it cannot be interpreted as specifying the growth rate of CO2 uniquely. Further, it only gives an approximate value (about), and is no basis for claiming any growth rate more exact than somewhere between 1.25 and 1.75%. In any event, the detailed statement above takes precedence.
Based on the detailed statement in appendix B, it is trivial to get the Mauna Loa data from 1958-1981 (actually 1959 forward for annual averages), and project from 1981 forward. It is not clear if the increment is expressed as an absolute value, or as a percentage. Taking the former possibility, Hansen's specified CO2 growth compared to actual values is as follows:
The final value in the Hansen projection represents 410 ppmv in 2015 (compared to an actual 401 ppmv). Incrementing on the absolute value gives a lower increase of 407 ppmv in 207. In either case, Hansen's projected CO2 increase for scenario A is comfortably larger than the actual increase.
This is far more the case for CH4 and chlorofluoro carbons.
-
Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
planet8788 - See this comment above. If you include all emissions, including in particular differences in CFC emissions due to the Montreal Protocols and in methane levels, the actual forcings are far closer to Hansen Scenario C than A or B.
Note that Hansen did use a larger than currently estimated direct CO2 forcing (largely due to early radiative mis-estimates of that direct CO2 forcing, corrected by ongoing research in 1998), but when you account for that issue his model was indeed quite good.
Your claim that "The EPA and the IPCC both conclude emissions have increased more than the 1.5% That than Hansen classified as business as usual" [i.e. Scenario A?] is only close for CO2, not all emissions of GHGs that were incorporated into his model. And is hence quite incorrect.
-
planet8788 at 12:36 PM on 9 February 2016Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
Sorry folks, but you guys discredit yourselves by acting like a bunch of radicals defending your prophet. TallDave is absolutely right. You guys need to be clear about Emissions and Concentrations... Emissions are what are emitted. The EPA and the IPCC both conclude emissions have increased more than the 1.5% That Hansen classified as business as usual.
Now, if concentrations are lower than Hansen expected based on those emission scenarios... than you should clearly state that and admit, yes, the ocean (most probably) absorbed much more CO2 than Hansen expected and therefore CO2 concentrations are more in line with Scenario blah blah blah. ...
That is a calm, coherent argument. But claiming Hansen wasn't wrong... Hansen can't be wrong... that's just irrational and makes you look anything but scientific.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:58 AM on 9 February 2016No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
WebHubTelescope @3, the pattern of unusal warmth in SST in the 1940s is matched by warmth measured by land stations in adjecent regions. While it would be astonishing if so abrupt a change in relative proportions of SST measuring practise as happened over the period of WW2 left no artifact in the data, the concurrent warming in land areas suggest a significant part of the unusual warmth in the 1940s was real.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:48 AM on 9 February 2016No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
nigelj @4, this bears repeating, "Other media are not asking the tough questions of contrarians, and are letting the whole of humanity down very badly."
The whole model of news reporting as necessary to democracy, and which thereby justifies certain privileges for those news organizations (protection of sources, privileged access to government officials) is shown to be badly flawed by the global warming debate. News organizations in general have modelled their activities as primarilly commercial - and in consequence attrociously fail the trust placed in them. Increasingly they report not, what is consequential, but only what is controversial (because that sells newspapers). That the AGW contrarians are repeatedly, comedically and tragically wrong is no surprise. It is a "dog bites man" story. As a result, any error by the IPCC, or any challenge to IPCC science is reported - but the massive errors by the challengers to IPCC science are passed by without comment.
To that, unfortunately, is added the pattern by some media to try to influence politics, and to shape the news they report accordingly. This was an acceptable practise (just) when media was widely diversified, and multiple independent newspapers served each town. With the modern levels of concentration in media ownership, it is as pernicious as the propaganda in monopolistic state controlled media, such as in the former Soviet Union.
-
swampfoxh at 08:36 AM on 9 February 2016Fox News Republican debate moderators asked a climate question!
As a life long Conservative Republican, I've had enough of the Republican Party bosses and candidates this time around. Their behavior borders on the moronic. Anybody who can't see what is happening in the climate realm is asleep, ignorant, or has a monetary motive for denying the facts. So much for that. I never thought I'd ever vote for a democratic socialist but Bernie Sanders is my guy this time around. After all, the climate problem is more important than any other problem we think we have...
-
Tom Curtis at 08:35 AM on 9 February 2016No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
suckfish @2, WebHubTelescope answered your question indirectly. Durring WW2 there was a large introduction of new, military ships that measured SST in the intakes to the engine room rather than by the traditional bucket method. At the end of WW2, a lot of those ships were decomissioned. The result is a large artificial spike in the raw SST data:
Kevin C discusses this in greater detail here.
-
nigelj at 06:20 AM on 9 February 2016No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
I agree with Rocketeer. The graphical data for the strong warming phase after 1970 show no significant difference between adjusted and unadjusted data, so the issue should end there. The climate contrarians simply have no case.
But only this website and one or two others holds the contrarians to account. Other media are not asking the tough questions of contrarians, and are letting the whole of humanity down very badly.
-
Paul Pukite at 06:13 AM on 9 February 2016No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
The years between 1940 and 1945 are IMO not well-calibrated. The group responsible for taking measurements shifted from civilian to military resonsibility, and there was also a transition in the approach to measurements, from trailing canvas buckets to engine intake compartments.
I personally don't think it will ever get resolved. Is that global hot temperature spike centered at 1942 real, or is it a miscalibration?
-
suckfish at 05:29 AM on 9 February 2016No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
Is there a particular cause to the step in the adjustment around 1940? It looks as if there was some specific artifact in the measurements around then?
-
Sharon Krushel at 04:13 AM on 9 February 2016New paper shows that renewables can supply 100% of all energy (not just electricity)
Hello Michael,
Thank you for the research and thought you put into this article. This is what I have been looking for - an overall plan that addresses at least some of the logistics of replacing fossil fuels with renewables to supply our energy needs. Certainly, there are many details to be worked out, but this plan offers hope and a path forward.
I am preparing a presentation and would like to be ready for questions and comments. There are two questions that come to mind in regard to "using wind to generate 50% of energy."
I am wondering about the CO2 emissions from the production of steel, etc. for the building of the initial wind turbines. I assume that the emissions for manufacturing wind turbines is more than offset by the savings of CO2 emissions compared to using fossil fuels for providing future energy. During the transition period, if the steel and manufacture of a wind turbine depends on current methods using fossil fuels, do you know how long it takes for a wind turbine to "pay for itself" in terms of CO2 emissions? (As a sub question, it would also be interesting to know how long it takes to pay for itself economically.)
My second question is, "What about the birds and bats?" It seems their learning curve in regard to the dangers of wind turbines is pretty much vertical. I found an article indicating that wind turbines kill relatively few birds, at least compared with other man-made structures. And improvements in design and location have greatly reduced bird mortality. However, the number of wind turbines recommended by Jacobson must surely be bad news for birds.
Has anyone done a study to determine the effect on our ecosystem from such an increase in bird mortality. And could this bring about extinction of some species?
I don't expect you to "have all the answers", but you do seem to have a good handle on what information is available.
Thank you for the way in which you care for the earth and all who live here. Yours is truly a noble career.
-
rocketeer at 03:14 AM on 9 February 2016No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
The first graph (and similar figures published in the Karl 2015 paper) really tell the story. Looking at the difference in raw vs. adjusted data after 1945, it is hard to imagine someone arguing that they would draw a different conclusion based on use of one vs. the other. Deniers don't want the public to see these graphs because they destroy the mental image of massive data manipulation (fraud) that they are trying to sell to the casual reader.
-
scttharding5 at 01:44 AM on 9 February 2016A striking resemblance between testimony for Peabody Coal and for Ted Cruz
This blog provides a very valuable service to people interested in climate change. I would however, like to see a minor expansion of the list of climate myths to include something like "A Technological Miracle Will Save Us." My first objection to this myth is that it implies that we don't currently have the technology necessary to end most greenhouse gas emissions. Clean energy sources combined with new electric grid infrastructure and some battery storage can reliably provide all of our power needs without any significant technological advancements. Carbon capture and storage methods are currently insufficient, but may require only a change in farming methods.
My second problem with this myth is that new technology will still require implementation. There may well be someone out there that will or even has invented a new, much more efficient solar panel, or a new battery that costs far less than those currently available, or some device capable of cheaply removing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it as a solid. Such inventions would of course be welcome, but whatever technological solutions are available will still require massive investments of money, labor, and political will to implement. We would still need to stop subsidising fossil fuel use, use public funds to create the necessary infrastructure to accomadate the new technologies, and ensure that any new technologies are implemented in a safe and responsible manner.
-
denisaf at 17:19 PM on 8 February 2016The science for climate change only feeds the denial: how do you beat that?
I am a physical scientist with decades of experience in weighing up evidence and arguents. I believe that irreversible, rapid climate change and ocean acidification and warming is under way, primarily because industrial technical systems have emitted greenhouse gases. It is interesting to read here about assessments of what denialists are doing.
However, the arguments being put forward in a number of forums about measures that should be adapted to reduce the rate of emissions convey a misleading impression. The most a practical global reduction of the rate of emissions can do is slow down what is happening. A rational approach would focus on policies and practical measures to adapt to the unintended consequences, such as sea level rise. The Netherlands, New York and London are examples of where responsible adaption measures are under way. On the other hand, there are many examples of where societies are adopting such measures as solar panels and wind farms that may be financially sound but can not contribute significantly to the holistic predicament.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:16 AM on 8 February 2016Global Warming: Trend and Variation
Neil De Grasse-Tyson borrows an example from Teddy TV:
-
Dcrickett at 06:46 AM on 8 February 20162016 SkS Weekly Digest #6
I have never seen a better Climate cartoon than this "NO REFUGEES OR CLIMATE CHANGE ALLOWED"
Congratulations, and thanks
Moderator Response:[JH] You're welcome and thank you for the positive feedback.
-
Tom Dayton at 04:24 AM on 8 February 2016Temp record is unreliable
Empirical demonstration that adjusted historic temperature station measurements are correct, because they match the pristine reference network: Evaluating the Impact of Historical Climate Network Homogenization Using the Climate Reference Network, 2016, Hausfather, Cowtan, Menne, and Williams.
-
Tom Dayton at 02:45 AM on 8 February 2016Surface Temperature or Satellite Brightness?
I've never seen an adequate explanation from Christy or Spencer, of exactly which balloon indices are shown in that graph they keep showing. The graph says "NOAA," but NOAA's web site presents NOAA's RATPAC-A as NOAA's radiosonde index that is appropriate for looking at global trends. And RATPAC-A well matches surface trends and not RSS or UAH. The graph says it uses the "UKMet" balloon data from about 1978, but the UKMet's web site says its global index contains data only from 1997 forward, so Christy's graph must be using only the European index. RAOBCORE goes up to only 2011, its authors warn that its homogenization can be biased by satellites and I don't know if it's global. RICH uses only other radiosondes for homogenization, but I believe has the same time span and geographic span as RAOBCORE.
-
Tom Dayton at 01:56 AM on 8 February 2016Surface Temperature or Satellite Brightness?
Olof reports at Moyhu:
Olof February 7, 2016 at 9:55 PM
The latest Ratpac A data is out now. The troposphere temperature 850-300 mbar is skyrocketing, winter (2 months of 3) is up by 0.25 C from autumn.
At the peak of the 1998 el Nino (spring season), Ratpac and UAH v6 were quite similar in 1981-2010 anomalies. Now,in the present winter season Ratpac leads by 0.4 C... -
Rob Painting at 06:24 AM on 7 February 2016Analysis: How much did El Niño boost global temperature in 2015?
There is no way for heat in the deep ocean to resurface on such short time scales. The heat causing the problem is in the surface layers - most of it buried in the subsurface of the western tropical Pacific warm pool.
-
swampfoxh at 06:13 AM on 7 February 2016'If the world ends in 2100, we’re probably OK'
jmath & one planet only forever. I confess that your voluminous dissertations above are over my head. But, I would like to refer you both to Elizabeth Kolbert's "Sixth Extinction" and maybe David Archer's latest book on climate: "The Long Thaw". The devil is in the details that almost nobody is paying any attention to.... Like the day soon coming when the oceans move from a pH of 8.08 to 7.9 and drive shell forming organisms off to extinction, causing a catastrophic decline in the base of the ocean food chain...or maybe the methane currently stored in melting permafrost soon to be liberated into an atmosphere already too rich in CO2 and industrial pollutants. It is unfortunate that humans are an outlaw species living outside the rules of nature...the only living creature on the planet to so behave. One cannot really believe that too many of the very creatures that have messed up the planet are now going to turn around and fix it? Elizabeth Kolbert said : A thousand years from now, ..."Rats will dominate the planet. They will live in caves and wear the skins of animals they have killed and eaten" I add, ...they will dig up the bones and "stuff" of humans and then, in admiration for our massive craniums and all our "stuff", seek to be like us.
-
Christopher Gyles at 05:44 AM on 7 February 2016Analysis: How much did El Niño boost global temperature in 2015?
My layman's impression of the processes is that we may be about to get "schlonged," as Donald Trump might put it, this year by a good portion of the heat that's been accumulating in the deep ocean during the slowdown in surface temperature warming of the last 18 or so years. Is 2016 likely to be another record shattering year as 1998 was, or am I wildly off the mark in that?
-
PhilippeChantreau at 00:01 AM on 7 February 2016The Quest for CCS
"All fossil fuels become uneconomic when they have to pay for the environmental damage they cause."
That, indeed, is the problem.
-
michael sweet at 23:42 PM on 6 February 2016The Quest for CCS
Sharon,
This post reviews a paper (Jacobson et al 2015) that proposes using renewable energy to supply 100% of all power for the economy. They do not propose much new hydro because people object to flooding so much and most of the best spots are already built. For the entire USA they propose 3 new dams in Alaska, but they are not required for the proposal. They do propose adding hydro to existing dams and a little run of river but that does not flood any land. I have not heard of any plan that proposes extensive hydro.
If you read Jacobson's paper they have a section on land use. They feel that land use is acceptable. Some people object to the appearance of windmills on a lot of land. I don't think windmills look too bad, especially compared to the problems with AGW. What do you think?
The big problem I see with CCS is that there are no demonstration projects for CCS that are economic. If we set up the immense CCS plants required to address AGW, how will they be paid for? If a coal plant adds CCS it will not generate electricity at a reasonable price. All fossil fuels become uneconomic when they have to pay for the environmental damage they cause.
-
bozzza at 17:42 PM on 6 February 2016Industrial-era ocean heat uptake has doubled since 1997
@1, possibly not until all the ice has melted!
-
Eclectic at 11:50 AM on 6 February 2016The Quest for CCS
Sharon, thank you for your information. It sounds like you are "doing good" with your house ~ and also finding that, like the international space station, a completely "airtight house" has a moisture problem. Hmm. Clockwork dehumidifier?
You are very right about the often-unacceptable disadvantages of extensive land-flooding for hydro power. (Nor are tide & wave-based generators doing well, either).
Even outside Canada, most of the settled world is under increasing shortage of water, and "wasting" it on power-generation is not a practical choice.
-
Andy Skuce at 11:03 AM on 6 February 2016The Quest for CCS
Sharon, you might like to check out this post on cattle and GHGs and the long and sometimes rancorous discussion that follows. I'm not completely sure what to believe about the potential to store carbon in the soil, but I think it could help a little, while not being enough to make a big difference to the climate in the timeframe we have left.
It sounds as if you also might enjoy reading the free e-book Sustainable Energy-without the hot air, which would answer some of your questions, while probably raising many more. It was written by British physicist David MacKay and is really just a whole bunch of easy-to-follow back-of-the-envelope calculations to see what it will take to decarbonize Britain's energy supply. It's very useful for bringing some of the more speculative and optimistic projections about renewables down to earth.
As BC resident (and a big consumer of hydroelectricity for my home heating) I'm torn on the question of Site C and the destruction it will cause. A pet peeve of mine is that there is little talk of using the excess electricity to supply Alberta with power to aid with Alberta's shift to intermittent renewables. Instead, I think the power might get used for LNG liquefaction plants, which is rather self-defeating.
I really should be planning to install air-source heat pumps, but have been putting it off because of the capital cost. A few neighbours have installed them, but ironically I think their main motivation was not so much to have more efficient winter heating, but to provide air conditioning in our often hot summer weather. So yes, I'm aware of the capital costs involved with a switch to more efficiency and the trade-offs involved.
I wish it were more straightforward!
-
Sharon Krushel at 10:07 AM on 6 February 2016The Quest for CCS
Andy,
LAND USE
Has anyone addressed the issue of land use in regard to replacing all of our fossil fuels with renewables?
Just as one example, switching to hydro affects agriculture.
If we look beyond climate change, is flooding farmland and wildlife habitat environmentally preferable to improving oil sands with CCS technology?
And if we all switched to hydro for heating, what would it cost to replace all of our natural gas furnaces? Would this not produce collosal waste? I guess if we replaced them as they got to be 30 years and older it wouldn't be as wasteful. Can we wait that long?
"A canola farming family in the Peace River valley won top prize in a yield contest with last year's harvest—on land rented from BC Hydro that will be lost to the Site C dam reservoir.
"I came back to work on the family farm from the oil patch because I realized that I'll never be able to eat oil, drink liquefied natural gas or breath electricity, but... I can help feed the world and clean the air with the food I grow."This is why I'm wondering if a combination of technologies like CCS and other innovations might help us juggle all the issues. We can't just focus on lowering CO2 emissions; at the end of the day, we still have to deal with the logistics of producing and delivering food and keeping people from freezing (while we transition to renewables), and paying for it all.
-
Sharon Krushel at 09:45 AM on 6 February 2016The Quest for CCS
#69 Eclectic
So you're not just on the opposite side of the thermometer, but on the opposite side of the earth! I have a cousin down under. And one of Australia's great musicians, Tom Richardson, has performed in my daughter's cafe numerous times because he fell in love with a Peace Country girl while performing at the North Country Fair.
At first, I thought, "33-40 cents/kWh"! Yikes, no wonder you wear sweaters inside on cold days. (We do too, and sheepskin shearling slippers). Then I realized that, with distribution charges, even if our rates are as low as 8.4 cents/kWh, we pay 24 cents/kWh. Still not as high as you.
When we built our home in 1983, the Alberta government offered a free "energy-efficient house design" course. So we built our home with 6" thick fibreglass-insulated walls with an air tight vapour barrier inside, and a 1" blanket of styrofoam on the outside, air-to-air heat exchanger (needs to be replaced), R40 insulation in the attic, a wooden insulated basement, with our biggest windows on the south side and a 6' roof overhang to let the low angle sunshine in in the winter and give us shade in the summer (only one small sealed window on the north side). We planted diciduous trees on the west side to give us shade in the summer, but not winter. We had good, dual pane wooden windows but the wood was affected by mildew from condensation, and some seals were broken, so we recently spent $15,000 on new windows and doors (dual pane, low-e glass, filled with argon gas, multi-chamber uPVC frames). Still our carbon footprint for electricity and heat for our house is 15.4 metric tons of CO2e for the two of us (kids moved out). We do have a small shop with only 4" walls and a separate small natural gas furnace. That increases our GJ total.
The solar heating blues... The trees that shade your house from heat (reducing your need for air conditioning) would also shade the solar panels that could provide you with power for air conditioning. And where we live, when we would need the solar power the most to heat our homes, the sun arrives late for work and leaves early.
I think solar (and other) projects might make more sense in the context of community.
There is an event coming up here in April, planned by a lady in our church - Solar PV and Biomass information for Northern Communities. Paul Cabaj will take attendees through the process of a community solar project, and how they can build on the model of a community owned solar farm being developed near Drumheller. And Mark Porta, from International Clean Energy Consulting Inc., will give details on 1 MW biogas digester plants that run on waste wood and/or municipal solid waste.
And the innovation goes on... Thanks for the info and sharing of ideas.
-
sidd at 07:30 AM on 6 February 2016Industrial-era ocean heat uptake has doubled since 1997
I should have stated that the Rietbroek paper covered the period 2002-2014 -
sidd at 07:29 AM on 6 February 2016Industrial-era ocean heat uptake has doubled since 1997
Rietbroek(2016) DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1519132113 estimates much larger steric SLR than other estimates over roughly the same period. Could there be a connection ? -
PhilippeChantreau at 03:33 AM on 6 February 2016The Quest for CCS
That is indeed what my understanding was Sharon. However, I disagree that it would be a wise use of resources. CCS would have to be deployed on an immense scale to offset even only the emissions of Alberta's tar sands. Furthermore, capturing and storing carbon will be an energy consuming enterprise, energy that would have to be carbon free if the whole thing is to make any sense. So the CCS solution will have to absorb its own carbon and then some. I think it would be better to employ resources in developing new energy sources and infrastructure and offer opportunities in these fields in priority to the workers whose jobs may be suppressed by the abandonment of the tar sand exploitation.
-
Eclectic at 01:06 AM on 6 February 2016The Quest for CCS
Sharon @ #68 , for your interest for comparisons, my details are :-
House: single storey, sort of bungalow, with old stone walls plus at rear a portion with "brick veneer" ( = single layer outer brick wall, timber load-bearing inner wall, with plasterboard innermost facing, and fibreglass insulation inbetween ). Roof : corrugated iron. Fibreglass insulation resting on top of ceilings. Windows : laminated glass (single layer).
Residents: 3.5 adults [ you guessed it ~ 1.5 adult children ].
Heating: rarely used [ yes, I can hear your sigh, even at this distance ]. Basically used only a few days a year, in winter [ and yes . . . Not Winter As We Know It, Captain ] ~ when we use a reverse-cycle air-conditioner (heat-pump) for maybe 6 hours a day on the "coldest" days only. Woollen pullover & jacket worn in the house.
Cooling: refrigerant air-conditioner, up to 6 Kw draw. This really sucks up the electricity . . . but is used for 12 hours per day, mostly only during heatwaves of more than 2 days duration ( 48 hours being the house's thermal inertia "rise time" from its previously-tolerable natural coolness ). For moderately hot conditions, plain electric fans (about 50 watts) are adequate. For the actual air-conditioning, the thermostat is usually set at 28 degrees C . . . though if North American visitors complain about the swelteringly-hot house, then we lower the Set Temp down to 24 degrees.
Costings: I have expressed in Australian dollars ~ usually roughly equal to Canadian dollars. And rounded to nearest $10. Costs/bills include "GST" = Goods and Services Tax [federal government]. I have excluded "service charges / connection fees" which are essentially an additional impost by the supply company, and largely unrelated to actual power consumption.
~ Full year to approx June 30th 2015 : Electricity $2210, from a consumption of 6160 Kw-hours ( billed at various levels from 33 to 40 cents per Kwh ). This is for all power consumption in the house ~ with the exception of a ( 12-month ) bill of $140, for gas heating of water for hot showers [and a tad for the washing machine].
Please note : the electricity supply is generated by very roughly one third wind turbine, one third gas-burning, one third coal-burning. The coal-burners are very slowly being phased out. The wind turbine percentage is sometimes a bit higher in fine cool weather . . . and sometimes much lower in mid-summer when a million air-conditioners are roaring. In other Aussie states, the wind turbine percentage is much lower. I have not included the now-increasing level of private roof-top solar-electric panels. The supply companies' output from solar-PE or solar-concentrated thermal turbines . . . is minuscule.
I my own case, I do not have rooftop solar-PE panels. The sunshine level does make solar panels possible for me ( although presently an unattractive 20-year break-even . . . rivalling the service life of panels & system. ) Nevertheless, as good policy, I am certainly prepared to "invest" in solar-PE . . . but I am hampered by having an old house with many part-shaded complex roofing-angles [ not quite Munster / Rocky-Horror mansion style! ], combined with shading from overhanging trees. I gather that standard large panels [250 - 300 watts each] are rendered ineffectual by partial shading falling on the panel surface ~ and that clear sunshine or evenly-clouded sky is what they require. There are rumours that in future, large panels made of many independent smaller sections will allow good power generation even when patchy moving shadows are falling on the surfaces.
I am sorry that so little of this is applicable to you, but I hope you have found some interest in "how the under half live".
-
Tom Curtis at 21:02 PM on 5 February 2016Medieval Warm Period was warmer
scarletrogue @237 refers to this map from the intermediate post:
He claims the period to have been cherry picked, even though it merely shows the most recent decade at the time of publication of the paper discussed above. Moreover, it shows a period that excludes the El Nino of 1997/98 and that of 2010, but includes the La Nina of 1999/2000, and that of 2008, thereby being biased cold relative to trend in that period. The claim that it was cherry picked is therefore just empty rhetoric.
Of course, 1999-2008 is no longer the last decade, so here is 2006-2015 (again chosen because it is the last decade):
scarletrogue goes on to say, "Some locales are warmer, and some locales colder, just like today." Well yes. Some places are warmer in the MWP than other places in the MWP; and some places today are warmer than other places today. But I think scarlet rogue is trying to imply that some places in the MWP are warmer than the same places today. Comparing to either 1999-2008 or 2006-2015, I can find no such place. If scarletrogue wishes to claim otherwise, let them specify approximate latitude and longitude of the location so we can compare.
-
eschwarzbach at 18:02 PM on 5 February 2016Industrial-era ocean heat uptake has doubled since 1997
Great analysis! Just a small correction in the last paragraph: not 93% of the Earth's climate system (i.e. the oceans) heat content has doubled since 1997 (the oceans would be boiling), but the industrial era heat uptake by oceans has doubled since 1997.
Moderator Response:[Rob P] Yes, the omission of a single word gives a very different complexion! Fixed thanks.
-
Sharon Krushel at 15:53 PM on 5 February 2016The Quest for CCS
#58 - Eclectic
I'd like to know how much you spend on air conditioning in a year, how many kWh at what price, etc. It would be interesting to compare requirements and expenditures from opposite sides of the thermometer!
#67 - Bob Loblaw
Thank you for your comments and insights. I didn't even think about the landscaping issue.
It looks like we'll be following in your footsteps. But our daughter and son-in-law may go with GSHP if the economy improves to the point where they can build a home. They'd like a self-sufficient country dwelling some day.
#63 - Glenn - A friend of mine brought up a question regarding GSHP in cities. If every house in the neighbourhood had GSHP installed in an attempt to get off fossil fuels for heating, would this diminish the heat available to each individual home?
#64 - Andy
I've learned so much from your post and the comments, not the least of which is how to pronounce Csikszentmihalyi!
Andy and #65 - Philippe -
I hope to speak to Lori Motherwell next week. I took some photography classes with her when she lived up north. Last I heard, she is the (I must say "brilliant") engineer in charge of the Quest CCS project in central Alberta. It would be interesting to get her perspective on the future of CCS technology.
Philippe, the reason I said I would identify with you regarding losing your job as a pilot is that we moved up north for my husband's first job as a pilot in '82. A recession hit that summer, and his job lasted only 4 months. This after spending four years and all of our spare cash on his flight training. You're right, people adapt. But maybe CCS can prevent the squashing of a few dreams at least by allowing the tar sands projects and related jobs to wind down gradually as we transition to renewables.
-
scarletrogue at 13:39 PM on 5 February 2016Medieval Warm Period was warmer
You"re kidding with the heat maps, right? Way to cherry pick a nine-year period and compare it with a 300 year period as evidence of increased global temperatures. The irony is, you can make the same argument at any time in history: Some locales are warmer, and some locales colder, just like today. While the western and southern U.S. can enjoy higher than normal temperatures, the northeast can be much colder and snowier. More than anything, it's a matter of time and location. Next thing you will tell me is, CO2 levels were not higher more than 30,000 years ago.
-
wili at 04:35 AM on 5 February 2016Industrial-era ocean heat uptake has doubled since 1997
So ocean heat content doubled in the last about 20 years, and eyeballing the graph, it looks like it's quadupled in the last about 40 years.
When will this oceanic exponential rate of warming translate into similar paces of atmospheric warming?
Moderator Response:[Rob P] What do climate models project for the lower troposphere? I've had a brief look at the IPCC AR5 but have found anything yet. Interestingly, the accelerated warming of the ocean infers increased warming of the lower troposphere.
-
Tom Curtis at 23:26 PM on 4 February 201610 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
MA Rodger @98, The DTR data used by POJO is not from CRUTEM4, contrary to his frequent assertions. Rather it is from the CRU TS 3.23 gridded dataset, from which a timeline is produced by the KNMI Climate Explorer software. The CRU TS 3.10 dataset (updated to 2009) is described Harris, Jones, Osborne and Lister (2013). I am not aware of a paper explicitly describing version 3.23, but it is unlikely to differ significantly, except for the end date.
Harris et al write:
"The CRU TS dataset is not specifically homogeneous. Whilst many of the observations will have been homogenized (often by national meteorological agencies) prior to publication and use in the process, this is not a requirement for inclusion. With the use of climatological normals (and synthetic data in the case of secondary parameters) to supplement observations, it would be neither appropriate nor straightforward to assess homogeneity throughout the dataset. This dataset should only be used for climate trend analysis, therefore, if the results are treated cautiously, and we recommend that such analysis should be complemented by comparison with other datasets. For example, in Section 4 we compare longterm changes in CRU TS3.10 with CRUTEM3 and GPCC over world regions, and find good agreement at the chosen spatial scales. We also compare CRU TS3.10 mean temperature with CRUTEM4 at that dataset’s resolution, finding that long-term (∼50 year) and full-term trends are consistent, with only one or two exceptions where the trends are significantly different at the 95% level."
For what it is worth, here are the comparison between CRU TS3.10 and CRUTEM3. The three numbers in each category are in order, the TS3.10 trend, the CRUTEM3 trend, and the correlation of annual values in the timeseries.
Northern Hemisphere 0.10 0.09 0.97
Southern Hemisphere 0.05 0.08 0.94
Global 0.07 0.08 0.97 -
MA Rodger at 21:43 PM on 4 February 201610 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
POJO @97.
The use of every day terms within science is entirely acceptable if their meaning is scientifically precise. I do not believe the two terms you used @94 in any way provide such precision.
As for you consideration of Vose et al. (2005), I would agree that "the obvious stands out" but I don't think anything is gained by stating it. You are wrong saying that Vose et al. (2005) "is the same as the IPCC in TAR." I think the reason for that is "obvious."
As for CRUTEM4 Tmax and Tmin. You suggest these data have undergone "a rigourous homeginisation process." Do you think it is adequate for your purpose? (Note that maybe "one needs a paper" to answer that.) If CRUTEM4 is accurate enough, the dramatic change in DTR estimates between Vose et al. (2005) and that afforded by CRUTEM4 would be worthy of comment, assuming your graphing is also accurate.
-
David Lewis at 15:25 PM on 4 February 2016Measuring ocean heating is key to tracking global warming
This was the second sentence in the Von Schuckmann et.al. paper abstract:
"The absolute value of EEI [ Earth's Energy Imbalance ] represents the most fundamental metric defining the status of global climate change, and will be more useful than using global surface temperature. "
In debate with someone like Cruz for instance, who claims the planet is not heating up, a person could point to where physics says more than 92% of the heat would be going if the planet were heating up, the oceans, and ask him to explain, if the planet is not heating up, why are the oceans getting warmer?
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:21 AM on 4 February 2016The Quest for CCS
Sharon:
When I lived in Regina, Saskatchewan, we had to replace our furnace, and looked seriously an a ground source heat pump option. At the time (about 12 years ago?), it would have cost us about $20K to install a system to heat a 1600 sq.ft. bungalow. Half of that cost would have been for the drilling; the oher half for the heating/cooling system (using existing hot air ducts in the 20-year-old house).
We also ended up opting for a high efficiency gas furnace, for several reasons:
- Cost. I did detailed calculations on our past gas consumption and anticipated heating and cooling requirements, and the payback period was very long (20 years or so). Going high efficiency basically cut our gas usage in half, compared to the old furnace.
- Saskatchewan is also a place where most electricity comes from burning coal, so GHG implications were still high.
- All that drilling in an existing yard would have meant serious replacement landscaping (costs and efforts).
It would make more sense for a new house, and would surely make a lot more sense for places where people don't have access to natural gas and use electricity to heat directly.
We also ended up opting for a wind-generated electricity supplement on our electricty bill ("green power"), to encourage SaskPower to pursue renewalbe options.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:11 AM on 4 February 2016They predicted an ice age in the 70's
Moderator inline @44, I do not think the 1972 comment by Schneider and Rasool to which you link is a retraction of the 1971 paper. It is certainly not the 1974 retraction mentioned in wikipedia. However, in 2009, Schneider wrote in an email to Peter Chylek:
"all good scientists are skeptics and should be challenging every aspect
of what we do that has plausible alternative hypotheses. I personally
published what was wrong (with) my own original 1971 cooling hypothesis
a few years later when more data and better models came along and
further analysis showed [anthropogenic global warming] as the much
more likely…In fact, for me that is a very proud event—to have discovered
with colleagues why our initial assumptions were unlikely and better
ones reversed the conclusions—an early example of scientific skepticism
in action in climatology."How early Schneider discovered his 1971 paper to be in error is unclear. Certainly by 1972 he was stating that the model was inadequate, while not precluding the possibility of the accuracy of the predictions. He wrote:
"Recent numerical models studying the effect of particles on climate are often based on multiple scattering radiative transfer calculations, and use global averages for particle concentrations and optical properties. By contrasting certain existing models, some major problems in modeling studies that attempt to answer the question of the effects of increased atmospheric particles on climate can be illustrated. It will also be apparent that another uncertainty in the results of such studies arises from a lack of adequate observed input data on the geographic and vertical distributions of particle concentrations and their optical properties. Furthermore, a model that could realistically simulate the impact of increasing atmospheric particle concentration on climate must eventually include the simultaneous coupled effects of all the important atmospheric processes, such as fluid motions and cloud microphysics, in addition to the radiative transfer effects."
And by 1978, he was convinced that the warming effect of CO2 was the dominant anthropogenic influence on climate.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:41 AM on 4 February 2016They predicted an ice age in the 70's
NicktopPC @41... Yup. And the references showing this have been offered up to you already.
-
Sharon Krushel at 08:13 AM on 4 February 2016The Quest for CCS
#63 - Hello Glenn,
I addressed GHSP possibilities for our area in #59, but have since done more research. Because of our current energy mix, switching from natural gas to GHSP would acutally increase our emissions. As Alberta replaces coal with solar, wind, etc., this option will begin to make sense for more Alberta homes.
Our friend, Dr. Jim Sandercock (NAIT) has made some interesting predictions regarding the future of our alternative energy. "Geothermal is probably going to maintain its quiet majority in the alternative energy space. There are a lot of installations in the Edmonton area already – over 1,000. They’re particularly effective when they’re part of commercial buildings..."
One factor is that commercial buildings often have air conditioning (which GHSP replaces), whereas most homes here don't, so the benefit for homes is not as great.
According the Calgary Geothermal Inc., installing GSHP for our existing 1226 sq. ft. home would cost about $30,000 plus $15,000 for our detached single-car "garage" shop. This does not include travel and hotel costs. (There may be a company in Edmonton; I just haven't found one.)
One of the obstacles they often meet is that they have to be able to get a drilling rig into your yard. Unfortunately, that would be impossible for us unless we bulldoze our neighbour's garage. :(
One thing I did discover in my research is that Albertans can choose a green energy plan for electricity. I'm sure you're familiar with the concept, but...
"If you're looking to support solar power in Alberta, you need to locate a solar energy company and purchase your supply from it...it's not as though you actually have wind or solar electricity pumped directly to your outlets. Instead, the supply you purchase from renewable energy companies is simply added to the giant pot that is the energy grid. Purchasing a green energy plan means your energy use will be offset in the grand scheme of things because an equivalent to your usage was produced by a renewable energy company."
Also, if you use natural gas for heating, you can determine your carbon footprint and offset your consumption by purchasing carbon offsets or renewable energy credits (investments in renewable energy projects).
And so, Glenn, I thank you for your kind suggestion and question. I have learned a great deal in the process of answering it.
-
They predicted an ice age in the 70's
NecktopPC - Wiki malfeasance? That's quite a claim, care to support it with some evidence? As a crowd-sourced reference site it's actually quite good about relying on peer-reviewed science, and the occasional mis-edit by ideologically driven or simply cranks tends to get corrected in short order.
And if you think the case for anthropologically driven global warming isn't supported, I'll point out that about 97% of the experts in the field would disagree.
You're more than welcome to rely upon a paper repudiated by one of the authors due to clear and documentable math errors, 'tho I personally would consider it completely invalidated. But I'll note that if you are reliant upon that weak a reference, one in conflict with the vast majority of work in the climate field, no one should or will take you in the least bit seriously.
Moderator Response:[PS] The published acknowledgement of the problems with the paper by the authors is here. Claiming fraud in response to information you do not like will not be tolerated here.
-
NecktopPC at 07:28 AM on 4 February 2016They predicted an ice age in the 70's
KR - But is the paper, in fact, null and void?
Wikipedia however, was caught in a rather coincidental case of malfeasance, in their support for global warming.
Moderator Response:[JH] Sloganeering is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. Please cease and desist. If you do not, you will forfeit your privelege of posting on this website.
-
They predicted an ice age in the 70's
NecktopPC - The paper wasn't retracted by the publisher (it didn't represent academic mafeasance, it was simply wrong), but from several sources:
...Schneider became aware that he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosols, and underestimated the warming effect of CO2 by a factor of about three. He had mistakenly assumed that measurements of air particles he had taken near the source of pollution applied worldwide. He also found that much of the effect was due to natural aerosols which would not be affected by human activities, so the cooling effect of changes in industrial pollution would be much less than he had calculated. Having found that recalculation showed that global warming was the more likely outcome, he published a retraction of his earlier findings in 1974. (emphasis added)
In short, the paper was repudiated by one of the authors due to some significant math errors. I would consider that sufficient to render that paper null and void.
Prev 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 Next
