Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 Next
Comments 28701 to 28750:
-
michael sweet at 22:02 PM on 27 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
Superposition,
Here is a list of over 100 articles that referenced Budichak et al. 2103 (linked above). Many of them will contain the information you claim you want. The first one is Elliston et al 2013 , also linked above, which provides all the information you have asked for. Since I have posted this information before and you have not read or responded to the information contained in them, why should I expect you to read them now?
Since you have linked nothing but an outdated Wikipedia article from 2010 and a Der Speigel rag, why do you require me to provide peer reviewed data? If you have nothing peer reviewed to contribute to the discusssion you need to stop wasting everyone elses time.
Since you are obviously just a troll I will no longer post any responses to you.
Moderator Response:[RH] Let's try to keep the tone in check. Thx.
-
SuperPosition at 20:28 PM on 27 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
Any attempt to turn this thread into a discussion of nuclear options instead RE issues will be deleted. Posts must be on topic or they will be removed.
Can we agree that we are discussing the myth that largescale Variable RE sources by themselves are compatable with baseload requirements?
If so then pursuant to this, comparisons with genuine baseload suppliers such as low carbon CCS- CCGT/OCGT gas, nuclear, hydro or biofuels are inevitable and have been made elsewhere on this thread without comment from any moderator.
Even fusion has been discussed at length - not a peep. So I don't mean to pester, but is one rule for all really too much to expect?
Back to the subject, has anyone got any citations that back up the contention that variable RE generators are baseload supplies?
Accepting that they would require the addittion of grid storage and grid restructuring, is anyone aware of any costs applied to this - I cannot find a single country with that plan in the pipeline.
If that is the case then surely it should be revisited as an idea, no?
Moderator Response:[DB] Moderation complaints and off-topic snipped.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:25 AM on 27 June 2015Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
Oh, and you're right. It was three years ago, not two! Amazing.
-
KR at 06:14 AM on 27 June 2015Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
Rob Honeycutt - An excellent, and very amusing, point.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:12 AM on 27 June 2015Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
MA Rogers... A tad ironic being that one of the latest conspiracy theories about Cook13 is that Environmental Research Letters was created for the purpose of publishing the 97% Consensus paper.
-
michael sweet at 04:23 AM on 27 June 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #25B
Knaugle,
I think that you have a point. However, I do not think that real scientists can do anything about Spencer and Christy misleading the public. The people in congress who invited them to testify got what they wanted.
Surveys indicate that most people now think that warming is real and a little more than half of people realize that humans are at fault for the increasing temperature. As Alaska burns, California drys up, Pakistan and India drop dead and a new temperature record is set this year more people will realize that AGW really is a problem. Hopefully they will identify the problem and ask for solutions sonner rather than later.
I teach High School. Over the past 8 years I have seen a dramatic decrease in skeptics in my classes. Hopefully we will soon see a dramatic increase in those who insist on action.
-
MA Rodger at 03:40 AM on 27 June 2015Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
Rob Honeycutt @68.
The appearance of an ebullient Evan Jones to claim (in the present tense) credit for (actually) an almost three-year-old comment may be down to a new outlet appearing for the publication of atmospheric science. It is called The Open Atmospheric Society and according to this web-page the founder is a chap called Anthony Willard Watts which should make papers written by Anthony Willard Watts a lot easier to get published.
http://theoas.org/
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/19/skeptics-found-scientific-society-to-escape-journals-that-keep-out-dissenters/
-
Tom Curtis at 03:31 AM on 27 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Christiana Figueres
Evidently Micawber @3 does not know the meaning of the word "rant".
Nor does he know the role of peer review in science. Peer review is a means whereby published papers are screened by a panel of people with relevant expertise to see that they do not contain any obvious fraud, unphysical assumptions or blunders of analysis. Normally peer reviewers are helpful, and will try to point out ways in which the paper can be improved, but the fact that a paper has been peer reviewed is only an imprimature of those three basic criteria. That means of course, that peer reviewed papers can contain fraud, unphysical assumptions or blunders of analysis but they will not be obvious frauds, unphysical assumptions or blunders. At least, they will not be obvious if the peer reviewed process worked.
Given this low standard of the imprimature of peer review, you have to wonder what it says about a paper when they seek to avoid proper peer review, either by publication in a low impact journal with no history of publication in the field, or as in this case by publication in a "journal" whose business model requires not properly peer reviewing papers as doing so will reduce the number of publication fees recieved. The reasonable assumption is that if a paper is not published with proper peer review, in the author's estimate it would not pass peer review, and hence (at least subconsiously) in the author's estimate it contains fraud or unphysical assumptions or outright blunders of analysis.
And Matthew's 2015 includes blunders applenty. Blunder's such as treating a warming trend dating back only to Oct 2013 as being somehow representative of climate change (ie of change in long term statistical averages), or of treating purely regional temperature anomalies as being indicative of crossing global target temperature levels. Or blunders (at best) such as saying climate models "confuse heat with temperature", or do not include "density temperature-salinity function[s]", "Clausius-Clapeyron evaporation", "vertical tropical cells" or "wind-driven surface currents". Even more astounding as a blunder is the claim that climate studies do not include the "infra-red GHG heat trap", ie, the greenhouse effect.
These examples are just from the abstract alone. I pointed out that Matthew's claims about what was and was not included in climate studies were false without specifically enumerating them. Indeed, while I have expanded on that, I have still not enumerated them as there are plenty more in the body of the paper, some as astonishing as the claim that "Climate studies ... do not include ...[the] infra-red GHG heat trap". But once a paper starts claiming that climate studies ignore the greenhouse effect, do we really need to take it seriously anymore?
Micawber evidently thinks so but the world is too full of crackpot ideas to trouble ourselve wading through them in hopes of finding a gem of wisdom. I don't have enough time to read peer reviewed science as it is. Nobody does! So I am not going to lose that time in the hopes that somebody who accuses climate scientists of ignoring the greenhouse effect may also have said something sensible.
So, when Micawber asks me "What are your qualifications for being so dismissive?", the answer is very simple. I have a brain, and I use it! It would be nice if he did likewise.
Moderator Response:[JH] Please keep it civil!
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:12 AM on 27 June 2015Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
Evan @67... That suggestion for a discussion was made almost two years ago (and made by a commenter, not the original authors of the article). It seems prudent to wait until the paper is actually published and then SkS authors will review the paper again.
-
RickG at 02:01 AM on 27 June 2015Cracking the mystery of the corrosive ocean
With respect to the increase in temperature, would the doubling effect of CO2 be more important than the starting concentration?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:56 AM on 27 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Christiana Figueres
Micawber... One small point here on this comment: "After all, the north Pacific is already widely reported to be +3C which is 50% more than the supposed target limit of +2C. Do you dispute this?"
The 2C limit is a reference to global average temperature. A rise of 2C in the global average would be inclusive of less than 2C near the equator and much more than 2C in the Arctic. Saying that the north Pacific is already +3C has no bearning on the 2C limit (other than its relative contribution to the global average).
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:46 AM on 27 June 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #25B
You could also take a peek at what Dr Carl Mears at RSS says about the differences between surface temps and satellite data.
As a data scientist, I am among the first to acknowledge that all climate datasets likely contain some errors. However, I have a hard time believing that both the satellite and the surface temperature datasets have errors large enough to account for the model/observation differences. For example, the global trend uncertainty (2-sigma) for the global TLT trend is around 0.03 K/decade (Mears et al. 2011). Even if 0.03 K/decade were added to the best-estimate trend value of 0.123 K/decade, it would still be at the extreme low end of the model trends. A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!). So I don’t think the problem can be explained fully by measurement errors.
[emphasis added]
-
KR at 01:39 AM on 27 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Christiana Figueres
Micawber - I was a little more perturbed by these quite unprofessional statements in the abstract:
"Corporate governance degraded physics teaching in only 60 years. Individual discovery and data collection was lost. [...] Skeptics, politicians, statisticians, those with stakes in the status quo, and established research censors obstructing scientific progress squabble in ignorance while the globe burns."
Seriously? This is a rant. And the questionable physics involved in statements like the following certainly doesn't help:
"All ocean near-surface gyre currents harmonize with sunspot cycles. Net cooling by polar icemelt masks catastrophic exponential ocean warming and icemelt. [...] We use only experimental groundtruth from high quality coastal ocean timeseries data without the imposition of statistical or model re-processing" (emphasis added)
"...double-exponential..." (???)
No, gyres are not harmonized with sunspots, no, coastal only data is insufficient, and no, you cannot avoid statistical evaluation of your data. Double-exponential functions [ A^(bx) ] grow faster than factorials - but there is absolutely no evidence of such rates of growth in climate systems. Nor any physical justification thereof.
This is clearly a heartfelt paper, but given even a quick perusal it fails to meet my personal criteria for statistically meaningful data, for avoidance of scientific howlers, for actual peer review, and overall histrionics.
Beware confirmation bias - even if a paper's conclusions and message resonate with your own, you need to apply appropriate skepticism to the work.
-
knaugle at 00:54 AM on 27 June 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #25B
@Dunkerson and Hunneycutt
I agree with both of you. I am of the opinion that were I to live on the top of Pike's Peak, say 14,000 feet above sea level, I might rely much more on satellite data for my climate opinions, since that is about the mid-point of the lower troposphere. However I live in Virginia, and more like 800 feet altitude. Still, I think you cannot make a "reconstructive surgery" claim because satellite data isn't showing the warming you want, any more than others can make the "urban heat island and filling in the blank spots" claim because surface data is showing more warming than they want to see. In the same sense that the scientific truism that "all models are inaccurate, but many models are useful" is correct, both surface temperature data and satellite data is useful when used properly and with the political bias filtered out. What I have trouble finding is a credible discussion of the limitations of the various data. I can find a LOT of politically biased claims attacking each respective set. That said, I have more respect for what NOAA and NASA say than I do what Spencer and Christy say.
-
knaugle at 00:31 AM on 27 June 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #25B
@Moderator
These are not my assertions. I think you misread what I was saying. Rather I get frustrated at other people claiming these things. I need only read about Dr. Christy's testimony to Sen. Inhofe's committee a while back to suspect he plays fast and loose with the facts when it suits him. I am not wrong in stating there are a lot of people claiming we aren't warming, because satellite data is "relible" and shows no warming for nearly 20 years, and that surface data isn't worth much. I rather doubt that is a bogus assertion on my part. -
Micawber at 00:12 AM on 27 June 2015The Carbon Brief Interview: Christiana Figueres
I see absolutely no physics in the rant of Tom Curtis. He attacks the messenger (the journal) not the message. Could he please enlighten us as to which of the quoted physics is wrong?
"Climate studies confuse heat with temperature, do not include basal icemelt, density temperature-salinity function, Clausius-Clapeyron evaporation exponential skin temperature function, asymmetric brineheat sequestration, solar and tidal pumping, infra-red GHG heat trap, vertical tropical cells, freshwater warm pools; or wind-driven surface currents at 3 percent of windspeed."
The author claims that pan evaporation over land is used instead of the correct Clausius-Clapeyron evaporation at the air-sea interface. He claims that a recent paper using the wrong evaporation shows uniform evaporation night and day at the equator. Is he wrong?
What are your qualifications for being so dismissive? Are you qualified to make such as a sweeping dismissal?
As I understand it, the author used what you call the vanity press because the journals in which he formerly published now charge him to see his own papers That includes Nature, Journal of Geophysical Research and the Quartley Journal of The Royal Meteorologicial Society. Doesn't that make them the predatory press?
I think the point he makes is that this predatory press is not open to people like him with over 50 years experience and a very wide and deep physics background. Richard Smith of Imperial College is referenced as establishing the damage done by unethical predatory science publishing business. As I understand it, ResearchGate was founded to give free open access for genuine researchers without paywalls.
I'm puzzled as to why the claim that the author did not publish after 30 years should have any relevance. Perhaps he retired. Does it mean he forgot all he knew? Just what is the meaning of this rant? It is certainly not scientific discussion.
Scientific method depends on verification of theories by experimental evidence. The paper uses centuries of daily data. Where is your evidence to the contrary?
Please would you post which physics is wrong in the above quote together with the experimental verification field data.SkepticalScience has always attacked people who make claims but cannot substantiate them. There are far too many armchair critics and far too few who actually go into the field and get real data. If you cannot do that then take it seriously. What have you to lose?
After all, the north Pacific is already widely reported to be +3C which is 50% more than the supposed target limit of +2C. Do you dispute this?
Please let readers look into the claims in the paper. The author says that well-founded trends suggest it will be +4C by 2016.
What if he is right and you are wrong? You'll soon find out who was fiddling while Rome burns as the author suggests.
It would be better if it were sooner rather than later. Please let us know the secure physical basis for dismissing the findings of this paper. I hope you can do this. If not we really do have a serious crisis.Moderator Response:[JH] The angry and argumentative tone of your comment is not welcome here. Please do not use it into your future posts.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
knaugle at 00:10 AM on 27 June 2015Cracking the mystery of the corrosive ocean
What is missing here is both the starting CO2 concentration and how much it increased in the <10,000 year time frame. I suppose I can look it up in other sources, but still....
-
John Hartz at 00:01 AM on 27 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
@SuperPosition:
Your most recent comemnt was deleted becuase it constituted a moderation complant which is forbidden by the SkS Comments Policy.
Given your repeated violations of SkS Comments Policy, you are on the cusp of relinquishing your privilege of posting comments on SkS.
-
ranyl at 23:00 PM on 26 June 2015Cracking the mystery of the corrosive ocean
Thank Alvin interesting and worrying clearly.
Some thoughts,
There was no ice on the planet in the PETM before the CO2 injection, having no ice will ~half the equilibirium climate sensitivity compared to today; as we have ice melting.
GEOLOGIC CONSTRAINTS ON THE GLACIAL AMPLIFICATION OF PHANEROZOIC CLIMATE SENSITIVITY
JEFFREY PARK* and DANA L. ROYER**
[American Journal of Science, Vol. 311, January, 2011, P. 1–26, DOI 10.2475/01.2011.01],
The PETM also had a mucher higher starting CO2 ppm, therefore in terms of actual change in heating forcing the addition of CO2 then has much less of an effective than now. We are starting at a very low CO2 level in comparison to then and thereforein terms of doubling a 7000-10,000Gt means alot more, and therefore much larger effective heating forcing will result for the same addition of a specific CO2 amount.
Therefore to compare in terms heating disturbance rate therefore, although a 10x faster actual CO2 injection than nature has ever managed is concerning, the above factors will influence things in a way to make it even faster than the 10x, al least 20x due to the ice albedo effect and more again due to lower starting CO2.
Food for thought.
However also possible reassuring that the 5C CO2 induced temperature rise didn't produce the deep sea die off without the addition of the corrosive water, which shouldn't occur this time...is that right?
-
Evan Jones at 20:55 PM on 26 June 2015Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
I'd posit that someone here, who may have some conection to Anthony, invite him to *politely* discuss Dana and Kevin's analysis, in the SkS spirit.
That'll be me. Fire away.
-
chriskoz at 13:42 PM on 26 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
Xulonn@81,
number of people - even in the U.S. - who are killed in floods [These are] people in their cars trying to drive on flooded streets and roads [...] If they cannot see such obvious dangers, how do we expect them to see the much less apparent dangers of AGW/CC
That's a very good observation. Concerning AGW/CC, it applies to politicians who usually look no further than next election cycle, whereas AGW mitigation they need to legislate requires much longer inter-generational timescale. Humans in general are incredibly short-sighted, even blatantly silly when not vividely threatened but rather inconvenienced by invisible threat. Like real boiling frogs. But that anecdote is not true. Hopefully, it also turns out not true for boiling humans and something like this encyclical or next more dire warnings prompt them to jump out while they can.
-
John Hartz at 11:59 AM on 26 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
Moderation Comment:
Despite repeated warnings about engaging in excessive repitition, SuperPosition continues to drone on. His/her most recent comment was therefore deleted.
Please do not respond to his comments. Doing so just gives him/her an excuse to regurtitate his prior statements.
Thank you.
-
SuperPosition at 11:04 AM on 26 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
[RH] Can we assume your reference to "denialists" is not in reference to those who deny AGW? Your meaning is not exactly clear in this comment.
I'm sorry Rob I don't know what the current colective noun for AGW deniers is, but yes.
It is a sort of stubborn ignorance and pseudo science where belief and consparacy theories trumps rational thought. Do we only see this in AGW denial? No.
Rob, you and I have discussed this at length and you already know my thoughts on the lobbyists from WWF, GreenPeace, FoE,Sierra Club, green Party (all 70 of them internationally and the 55 Green MEPs in the European parliament being against CCS and/or Nuclear.
If SkS is prepared to fight pseudoscience and misguided belief whenn it affects the future of the planet then how can it not attack the irrationalism and anti-science of the other argument as well?
par exemplar
Moderator Response:[PS] This is a site devoted to debunking climate myths. There are other places more appropriate to discussing other anti-science issues. What next? evolution, AIDS, antivaxxers? This is not the place for another round pro/anti nuclear debates. Take it to Brave New Climate.
Any attempt to turn this thread into a discussion of nuclear options instead RE issues will be deleted. Posts must be on topic or they will be removed.
Further note: This thread is about a specific myth. It is not a place to discuss RE or alternatives in general. Enough.
-
baeb at 10:36 AM on 26 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
Of course, population needs to be curbed and the Pope's willful blindness to the issue makes huge amounts of trouble across the globe. But if, as seems likely, 20% of world population are presently consuming 80% of the resources and most likely causing the warming--not to mention past pollution that is still up there--, they are the ones that are truley over-populated. Resource control (which is the opposite of consumerism)--not exactly population control is the main need. The disconnect between the labor of production--the sweat if you will--and consumption by the planet's priviledged is what needs to end quickly.
-
Evan Jones at 09:44 AM on 26 June 2015Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
You'll be seeing the real thing soon enough. It has been a long hard slog with many corrections.
Here we offer preliminary constructive criticism, noting some issues we have identified with the paper in its current form, which we suggest the authors address prior to submittal to a journal.
We appreiate the criticisms here. Some of them are quite valid. We will be providing answers on the homogenization issue. TOBS, station moves, and MMTS conversion are now fully addressed. Data is fully anomalized (though we show both sets).
We will, of course, provide documentation showing all comparison. For example, you can compare Class 1\2 stations raw (+MMTS adjustment) with fully adjusted Class 1\2 data (or with any other set or subset, either raw+MMTS or fully adjusted.
If anyone has any questions at this point, i will be happy to answer them. -
MA Rodger at 08:22 AM on 26 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
SuperPosition @170.
You seem to be repeating your comment @139. I don't consider it in any way "ingenious" to do this, but I have to ask you what the devil you mean by:-
"The fact is that alternative technologies (ie alternative to variable RE like solar and wind) exist now that do the job faster, not require grid restructuring or storage and do the job just as well."
Moderator Response:[PS] This discussion is rapidly veering offtopic. Please stick to the topic of the thread.
-
SuperPosition at 07:36 AM on 26 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
Michael Sweet 165:: When you are hostile to RE and make repeated false, unsupported claims you should expect others to be hostile to your pet solution.
I'm certainly not hostile to RE and I'm sorry if you actually thought that ...
Variable RE has its place - but do I think it is pancea? No. It has it's place in the mix which at risk of being lambasted for repetition, is something outlined in the DDPP already linked to you with others.
The thing I'm hostile to Micheal, is the bias, inflexibility, antiscientific scaremonguering and boorishness that you see most commonly, but not exclusively, amongst denialists.
I'm pro a solution to AGW - which I hope you agree with me is the actual issue. If you can also agree that the best solution to AGW/ACC is the one that is most efficient in purpose, time and cost (and therefore the one most likely to work) then I don't see a problem.
As it stands today, I see a danger that with so many people emotionally invested in variable RE (to the exclusion of other technologies) backed by powerful lobbying groups then we are at risk of demanding that the policy makers act ineffectually, ignore the science and only do what the focus groupsm say to keep on being elected.... whilst the planet loses all its ice.
I genuinely believe that is a risk.
I strongly urge you to read the DDPP link plus the links to IPCC and all the links on cost, safety and CO2 which I put up earlier.
Moderator Response:[RH] Can we assume your reference to "denialists" is not in reference to those who deny AGW? Your meaning is not exactly clear in this comment.
-
SuperPosition at 06:48 AM on 26 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
"I suspect it comes down to the following:
>Amount of variable/non variable RE
>Grid interlinks to other networks
>Access to pumped storage"
Tom Curtic 162:: That sounds about right except that there is good reason to think that Pumped Heat Energy Storage (PHES) can substitute for pumped hydro storage, with approximately the same round trip efficiencies and no geographical limitation. It does have the disadvantage that it will degrade over time so that long term storage is not viable, but that is likely to be an infrequent problem (particularly with some pumped hydro available).
Would that it were. I agree it is an exciting technology but as you say, limited in capacity so you would still need back up generation - the main advantage is that you would know when your reserve was running low and start up your (CCS) gas plant instead of leaving it in spinning reserve. (Although an economist may say that if your CCS plants is efficient then why bother?) But yes, all things are technologically within our grasp - by 2050 we may have fusion.. Shell and BP may process and sell deuterium and H3 and my local plant sell waste helium for airships and party baloons - all so long as fusion is affordable -
The point is that 'can possibly', and 'will probably 'are fine statements for all of these technologies, but the point is that it is now that we should be acting.
Trials and papers and funding begging letter aside I am not aware of one national grid operator that is deploying grid level storage and if that is the case then we will soon reach the capacity of our grids to accept variable RE.
So whilst grid level storage is the logical answer for variable RE, the fact remains that RE is already extremely expensive - yes prices are dropping but then we do not know what the cost of storage and large scale grid restructuring will cost because no one is discussing it.
The elephant in the room is 'How much'extra would storage add to the cost of RE'? It could very easily double or tripple the cost once you factor in grid changes and even then there are many countries that could not afford to deploy it.
That's not being stingy or greedy, but the unnasailable logic is that a solution that is not affordable to most of the planet is not a solution.
I suspect people have forgotten that the issue is to address AGW/ACC by curtailing our impact as much as we can.
Variable RE like solar and wind is a fine adittion to the grid mix but is only A potential answer to the whole problem - So as prosaic a solution as it seems, logically speaking we shouldn't be emotionally attached to it.
The fact is that alternative technologies exist now that do the job faster, not require grid restructuring or storage and do the job just as well.
Further, you are ignoring the options make available through overbuild of renewable capacity with intermittent operations made possible by very cheap electricity supply when the generating network supplies in excess of demand.
Not at all, the issue of overbuild is central to the problem of storage. Storage is circa 75% efficient.
If we had 100% renewables replacing current capacity then there would be only cance surplus to charge the storage and the system would fail - we would need a surplus of variable RE to supply demand whilst simultaneously charging the storage,,, and even then you would need a lot of backup generators for those times when you've got low wind and 2 feet of snow on your solar plant for the last month.
-
Tristan at 05:33 AM on 26 June 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #25
If compassion and science were the ingredients of Bergoglio's "climate change encyclical", what ingredients went into the part of the encyclical about abortion and birth control, which he explicitly linked to our environmental struggles? Neither compassion nor science.
-
John Hartz at 03:05 AM on 26 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
Suggested supplemental reading:
Why the solar-plus-battery revolution may be closer than you think by Chris Mooney, Energy & Climate, Washington Post, June 23, 2015
-
Tom Curtis at 01:11 AM on 26 June 2015CO2 measurements are suspect
APT @78, Kohler et al reference Marcott et al 2014 as being a high resolution ice core CO2 concentration record. Marcott et al in turn say:
"The West Antarctic Ice Sheet Divide ice core (WDC) (79.467u S, 112.085u W, 1,766 m above sea level) was drilled to a depth of 3,405 m in 2011 and spans the past,68 kyr.At present, the site has amean annual snow accumulation of 22 cm ice equivalent per year and a surface temperature of 230 uC. Annual layer counting to 2,800 m depth (,30 kyr ago) provides a very accurate timescale for comparison with data from other archives11. The difference in age (Dage) between the ice and the gas trapped within it, which is critical for developing a gas-age chronology, is 205 6 10 yr at present and was 525 6 100 yr at the last glacial maximum (LGM) (Extended Data Fig. 1).Given the high accumulation at the site, minimal smoothing due to gas transport and gradual occlusion, and precise chronological constraints, WDC is the best Antarctic
analogue to central Greenlandic deep ice cores, with a substantially better-dated gas chronology during the glacial period, and is able to resolve atmospheric CO2 at sub-centennial resolution."(My emphasis)
What that means in practise is seen by considering Figure 3, where temporal resolution is indicated to be +/- 20 to 40 years at various time intervals:
Even at +/- 40 years, that is too good a time resolution to not have captured Steinthorsdottir's peak in CO2 at the Younger Dryas if it in fact existed. More importantly, the the +/- 1 ppm resolution of CO2 concentration at all ages shows the fluctuations in CO2 content to not be measurement error. They are fluctuations in the CO2 concentration in the ice. That is significant because the sharp variations in CO2 concentration shown are inconsistent with the record being more heavilly smoothed than shown. Smoothing through diffusion will reduces peaks, fill troughs, and turn "cliffs" into slopes. If the peaks, troughs and cliffs persist in the ice, the CO2 has not significantly diffused after the firn has closed.
In fact, it is definitely below par for Steinthorsdottir to simply wave her hand at possible high diffusion rates as an "explanation" of discrepancy between ice core and stomatal records. If diffusion is a problem, she ought to be able to (and ought to have) created a smoothed model of the stomatal record that reproduces the ice core record. Marcott et al did exactly that when comparing the higher reolution West Antarctic Divide data (WDC) with the lower resolution East Antarctic Divide data (EDC) in extended data figure 5:
"a, The red line is the Green’s function (smoothing function) produced by a firn model using an assumed EDC accumulation rate of 0.015 m yr−1 and a temperature of 209 K. b, CO2 data from WDC (dots) and EDC (dots) plotted against artificially smoothed CO2 data from WDC using the EDC firn smoothing function (red line in both plots). WDC data have been systematically lowered by 4 p.p.m. for direct comparison with EDC."
Given this, it appears to me that the stomata data Steinthorsdottir uses is an inaccurate proxy of CO2 concentrationin the Younger Dryas.
-
Xulonn at 01:06 AM on 26 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
Fascinating! I came here to read comments about the Pope's Encyclical on AGW/CC and instead found a dicsussion absolutely dominated by a focus on what Pope Francis did not address - overpopulation. Of course, it is indeed a valid subject about a crucial factor that is frequently ignored, and one that I see as the elephant in the room.
It is likely that a complex mixture of issues will lead to the demise of modern civilization. Many civilizations have perished in the past, and some were grand and high tech for their day. I believe that the analysis and models in Joseph Tainter's 1988 book, "The Collapse of Complex Societies," have merit. It seems logical that a complex combination of factors will lead to the collapse of our modern civilization. This will likely triggered by an increase in the severity and length of drought, floods, as well as and unrelenting sea level rise at ever increasing rates. There will also be ever more costly severe weather events and food production impacts that will impact societies and their economies.
If I have my numbers correct 500 million people live on river deltas including 250 million on the Pearl River Delta in China, will have to migrate and relocate. All of the worlds seaports and naval stations will have to be moved - repeatedly. This will break the world's economy if it survives that long. Sea level rise may be a serious long-term problem, even if the world follows the Pope's advice and takes action to mitigate AGW/CC.
Humans - overall as a species - just cannot seem to recognize and acknowledge future problems, much less effectively deal with them. Andvested interests like the FF incustries, feed that weakness. Like other animals, we often only react to serious danger if it is iminent - and obvious. Look at the number of people - even in the U.S. - who are killed in floods. This occurs mostly with people in their cars trying to drive on flooded streets and roads. If they cannot see such obvious dangers, how do we expect them to see the much less apparent dangers of AGW/CC, and support mitigation measures that will inconvenience them?
I applaud the Pope's efforts, even though he does not address the over-population issue, and hope that it will help tilt the balance in the direction of at least recognizing the seriousness of AGW/CC. Even though I amnow a retired U.S. expat living in a small tourist and farming town in the mountains of Western Panama, I am watching the ridiculously long American election campaign with great interest.
Will the younger generation step up and vote? Or will they allow the older genertions - who have failed them so miserably in the past - determe their future.
Will the Pope's Encyclical, and the possible El Niño-related severe weather and weather pattern changes have an effect? Or will most people yawn and go back to their old patterns and ignore the problems that civilization faces?
Only time will tell.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 00:11 AM on 26 June 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #25B
knaugle... That may be a short lived position they're taking with the current developing El Nino since the satellite data tend to respond strongly to El Nino events.
-
CBDunkerson at 23:44 PM on 25 June 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #25B
knaugle, if surface thermometer readings are "massaged" then satellite 'temperature' data is the result of reconstructive surgery. It is based on non-temperature readings far above the planet's surface which require extensive computations to turn into temperature estimates. Thus, not really 'hard to refute' at all.
-
CBDunkerson at 23:35 PM on 25 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
SuperPosition wrote: "I think that by definition they would have to have a large percentage of constant o/p (baseload) RE in the 50% such as hydro and geothermal, and you probably find very few countries with that mix available to them."
Very few? Not really. I listed half a dozen in my previous note. In all there are more than 50 countries which generate >50% of their electricity from renewables. Given that there are only about 200 countries in the world, majority renewable power is not at all rare. Indeed, the way things are going, it will almost certainly be the case for a majority of the world's countries within a couple decades.
"If RE were all baseload as stated in the OP..."
This will continue being an obvious misrepresentation of the OP no matter how many times you repeat it.
As to nuclear, as the technology has become less and less competitive many of its supporters have shifted to using less and less valid arguments. Yes, the safety issues with nuclear are overblown. Yes, it greatly reduces GHG emissions. However, nuclear is expensive and getting moreso. At this point I doubt there is anywhere on the planet where nuclear does not cost more than some form of renewable power. Thus, given that renewables cost less, deploy faster, have no fuel constraints, also vastly reduce GHG emissions, and are even safer... what exactly is the case for nuclear? You're going with the 'baseload problem'... but as has been shown, that is a myth. There are ways to supply baseload with RE and ways to implement RE where you don't need any baseload. Nuclear made sense 30 years ago. Had the nuclear industry been smart and stopped using old/unsafe plant designs they could have avoided Chernobyl and Fukushima and we might have majority nuclear power by now. Instead, they managed to keep public opposition high until the technology became economically obsolete. People observing this reality are not 'anti-nuclear' so much as 'pro-fact'. For example, I'd say that Germany and Japan would have been better served keeping most of their nuclear (after a thorough safety check)... with that and the huge RE buildout they've engaged in they'd be close to the >50% non-fossil electricity mark by now. Instead, they have basically replaced nuclear with RE and left their GHG emissions nearly unchanged. I'd say that view makes me 'pro-nuclear'... I support it to the extent it makes sense.
-
APT at 23:20 PM on 25 June 2015CO2 measurements are suspect
@MA Rodger
Do you mean the first 2 papers or the last 2 papers in post 76?
I mentioned in post 75 that the the first 2 were referenced by Steinthorsdottir, although I appreciate that without the full reference I didn't make it clear that it was from the "Response to: Comment..." paper and not from the original article.I can't see references to the second 2 papers in either of the Steinthorsdottir papers.
-
MA Rodger at 22:28 PM on 25 June 2015CO2 measurements are suspect
APT @75/76.
The two papers you link to are actually referenced by Steinthorsdottir et al., (2014) - 'Response to: Comment on “Synchronous records of pCO2 and D14C suggest rapid, ocean-derived pCO2 fluctuations at the onset of Younger Dryas”'
-
knaugle at 22:16 PM on 25 June 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #25B
With respect to "Weak Climate Plans"
I do think that as long as RSS and UAH show little to no warming, and Drs. Roy Spencer and John Christy are spreading the message that there really is no warming, because "Satellite data is more reliable than massaged surface data based on spread out urban heat island affected information" that the "Weak Climate Plans" will rule the day. I'm amazed how many people are hanging their hat on only what satellite data says, and particularly as it is presented in ways that minimize warming. It's a hard message to refute.
Moderator Response:[JH] Tilt! Your assertions are totally bogus. Insert "Spencer ad Christy" into the SkS search box, press enter, and start reading.
-
APT at 21:27 PM on 25 June 2015CO2 measurements are suspect
Thanks again for your help. These are the relevant links to the papers referenced above.
http://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2115/32477/1/P393-421.pdf
http://mail.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/CO2_diffusion_in_polar_ice_2008.pdf
It seems to me that these papers conclude that diffusion probably doesn't have a very significant effect on ice core CO2 measurements, at least over longer timescales, but I'd appreciate it if someone with deeper knowledge and understanding of the topic could confirm that.
I also found a couple more relevant papers which I hope will be useful if anyone comes across arguments about ice core reliability or stomata records disgreeing with ice core data:
The first is a discussion of uncertainties in ice core measurements and how to deal with them:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/ice-cores.pdf
The second is a reconstruction using stomata data which in fact agrees with the ice core data and suggests that climate sensitivity to CO2 concentration is greater than previously thought:
http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/Franks_et_al_2014_GRL_new_stomatal-CO2_proxy.pdf -
Larry E at 15:23 PM on 25 June 2015New study links global warming to Hurricane Sandy and other extreme weather events
Also of interest: Alaska wildfire seasons getting bigger and longer, report says (Alaksa Dispatch News, http://www.adn.com/article/20150624/alaska-wildfire-seasons-getting-bigger-and-longer-report-says), with link to a new report by Climate Central. A heat connection is made.
-
KR at 11:44 AM on 25 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
SuperPosition - This particular subject, baseload power from RE, has been discussed on this and other threads (much more visited threads on this very subject here and here) repeatedly. I would suggest reading some of the exchanges before flatly stating that RE cannot supply reliable baseload.
Keep in mind that in a large-scale interconnected grid single installations are not the limitiing factor due to variability. Rather, the entire grid and multiple sites are the factor, with even a moderate geographic spread of RE sites providing far more consistent power. Archer and Jacobson 2007 demonstrated that as few as 20 wind installations spread across the US MidWest could reliably provide a dependable baseload roughly 33% of average power, simply because the geographic spread was larger than the average weather system. More extensive geographic distribution combined with independent power mixes (wind plus solar, for example) raise that percentage considerably.
Secondly, as noted previously, excess generation appears to be rather more economic than storage, meaning arguments about availability of hydro storage or battery costs are currently rather pointless. If regional baseload percentages are, for example, 60% of average power (quite achievable), overbuilding by a bit more than 50% gives you near 100% baseload, with multi-day weather predictions allowing planned backups of only a few percent.
I'll conclude with a NREL link indicating that 80% renewable baseload for the US could be readily achieved by 2050. Clearly, people who have looked at the issue in depth conclude that significant renewable baseload power is, indeed, achievable, varioius arguments from incredulity notwithstanding.
-
APT at 11:41 AM on 25 June 2015CO2 measurements are suspect
@Rob Honeycutt - Thanks. That's a good answer, my favourite so far.
@scaddenp - As someone who's defended the science on public forums, I understand the frustration of dealing with pseudo-scientists and conspiracy theorists. In fact, that was the reason for my request. However, as friendly advice, I suggest you tone it down a bit, since such defensiveness is more likely to provoke suspicion than promote understanding.
I was able to deal with the other references I was given, since some weren't even peer-reviewed science and I was able to find strong rebuttals of those that were. The only one that seemed to cast any real doubt on the reliability of ice core data was the Steinthorsdottir (2013) paper. Incidentally, there was a response to Kohler's comment on the paper, which you can read here: LINKHaving briefly read through it all, I'd still conclude that the ice-core data is more reliable, but the issue of disagreement between ice-core data and these results doesn't seem to be fully resolved.
Steinthosdottir references two papers regarding intra-ice diffusion, Ikeda et al (2000) and Ahm et al (2008). It seems to me that these might reflect problems of identifying short term variability rather than concentration in general, but I'm no expert on such things. Is this a real issue with ice core data? Is it accounted for?
Moderator Response:[RH] Shortened link.
-
chriskoz at 11:33 AM on 25 June 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #25
smh.com.au made a new column "Climate For Change", prominently visible on their home page, above other columns, right under latest news.
Many of the articles therein reference myth debunking from SkS.
It's good that some mainstream press is doing correct, unbiased reporting of climate science. I only wish that others follow that example.
-
michael sweet at 10:25 AM on 25 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
Link for grid reliability of German grid
Link for Der Speigel reliability
-
michael sweet at 10:21 AM on 25 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
Superposition,
When you are hostile to RE and make repeated false, unsupported claims you should expect others to be hostile to your pet solution. You are incorrect when you claim that RE requires spinning reserve. I am not aware of any RE that requires spinning reserve for the entire amount of energy generated. I have asked you for a citation but you have not given one. Presumably you could not find a citation since you have not cited one. Nuclear requires constant, full spinning reserve because the plants shut down completely, instantly whenever they have an emergency. That type of emergency does not occur for RE, although the transmisson line might go out.
According to this article, Der Speigel is a right wing rag that only reports bad things about wind and solar. In addition, in 2011, just before your Der Speigel article from 2012, the German Grid reliability set a record for most reliable. Maybe the RE helped in the record reliability. Or perhaps it is because they shut down nuclear. Perhaps if you start to cite peer reviewed references on RE, which you have not yet done, you will start to make less factual errors.
I am agnostic about nuclear. I have become hostile to nuclear posters like you who come here and make repeated false claims about wind and solar. At the current time nuclear is uneconomic, demonstrated by the complete lack of investors willing to build a plant. -
michael sweet at 10:21 AM on 25 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
This article (Elliston et al) from March 2013 gives an analysis of the system required to provide 100% renewable energy for the Australian grid. From the abstract:
"Least cost options are presented for supplying the Australian National Electricity Market (NEM) with 100% renewable electricity using wind, photovoltaics, concentrating solar thermal (CST) with storage, hydroelectricity and biofuelled gas turbines. ...These scenarios maintain the NEM reliability standard, limit hydroelectricity generation to available rainfall, and limit bioenergy consumption. The lowest cost scenarios are dominated by wind power, with smaller contributions from photovoltaics and dispatchable generation: CST, hydro and gas turbines. The annual cost of a simplified transmission network to balance supply and demand across NEM regions is a small proportion of the annual cost of the generating system. Annual costs are compared with a scenario where fossil fuelled power stations in the NEM today are replaced with modern fossil substitutes at projected 2030 costs, and a carbon price is paid on all emissions. At moderate carbon prices, which appear required to address climate change, 100% renewable electricity would be cheaper on an annual basis than the replacement scenario." (my emphasis)
They estimate that with a carbon tax of as low as $A50 ($US38) per ton of carbon dioxide renewable energy will be the cheapest option. Australia has very cheap coal (!!) which requires a higher carbon fee to make RE the cheapest option.
When I checked the papers that had referenced Budischak 2013 there were many that give similar results (Elliston references many). They warn that costs of solar and wind are going down so fast that assessments quickly become overestimates. Claims that the costs of RE are not known are simply false. Claims that RE cannot supply cheap, reliable, baseload power to a grid are also simply false.
-
scaddenp at 08:53 AM on 25 June 2015CO2 measurements are suspect
APT - sorry if tone appeared hostile. We get a lot of pseudo-skeptics here with faux arguments, so knee-jerk reactions are hard to avoid. You said "used to suggest that current levels are not unusual in human history," from which I thought you were implying the "skeptic" corrollary "so no need to worry" despite YD being in our pre-civilization past. Genuine inquiry is actually very welcome so apologies.
What have read that casts doubt on ice-core measurements for CO2? A reference would be helpful.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:23 AM on 25 June 2015CO2 measurements are suspect
APT... "...how do we know ice core data for CO2 levels [are] more reliable?"
Perhaps because ice core data are actually measuring CO2 concentrations. It's a direct measurement of CO2 (or as direct as you can get before Keeling). Whereas, somata are clearly only a proxy for CO2.
-
APT at 07:58 AM on 25 June 2015CO2 measurements are suspect
@Daniel Bailey
Thank you for the link to the Zeigler et al. paper. That's interesting and useful.
Since you had misunderstood my previous request, I had assumed that the link to the NOAA paleoclimate data related to temperatures rather than CO2 levels, but I see know that there are data relating to other factors affecting climate. It would be useful to know which ones relate specifically to CO2 levels but I'll search through and find them.
The rest of your post is, unfortunately, unhelpful, since I wasn't putting forward an argument of any kind but simply seeking information to counter an argument put forward by someone else. As a response to a polite request for information it is, like saddenp's, rather hostile in tone.
Even if I had been trying to cast doubt on climate science, which I wasn't, this type of response is uncalled for and hardly conducive to promoting understanding. -
APT at 07:42 AM on 25 June 2015CO2 measurements are suspect
@Scaddenp
My apologies for not giving a full reference or link to the relevant paper. I will do so in future posts. The one you've linked to is indeed the one I was referring to, and I thank you for including the published comment on it, I had read the reply to that comment but not the comment itself, which looks like it contains the kind of information I was looking for.At no point did I say I was sure of the superiority of stomatal records. Far from it in fact. I simply requested information about them in order to be able to explain why ice core data was considered more reliable. I am also well aware that far from being an argument against AGW, that paper supports the consensus. I'm sorry to say that I find your response to my simple and polite request for information to be rather hostile in tone and not very encouraging for those seeking information.
Prev 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 Next
