Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 Next
Comments 3301 to 3350:
-
scvblwxq1 at 10:11 AM on 30 October 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
The Earth has feedback systems like clouds and rain and storage system like the deep ocean that can maintain the temperature of the Earth when Solar input increases for a time but Solar irradiance increases it will eventually increase the temperature. The Sun is by far the major source of heat to the Earth, radioactivity contributes a small amount but CO2 at best is only moving the heat around.
Here in Cleveland we have had 161 days colder than average and 136 days warmer than average, using the Weather Underground average daily temperatures, which suggests cooling supporting Dr. Zharkova Grand Solar Minimum.
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/oh/cleveland/KCLE
Solar irradiance has increased greatly since 2020, warming the Earth even more than the 50 years of high irradiance reported by Dr. Penza. https://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/data/tsis_tsi_24hr/
We have 4.5 million people dying each year from moderately cold weather-related causes, mainly from strokes and heart attacks caused by the cold, while only about 500,000 are dying from heat-related causes and most of them were also from moderate heat.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltextHalf the energy we produce goes to heating. We live in heated houses, work in heated buildings, drive around in heated cars, wear lots of warm clothes and shoes much of the time so we probably don't appreciate how cold it is. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/08/we-need-to-rethink-the-way-we-heat-ourselves-heres-why/
Moderator Response:[BL] Your assertions about CO2 are false.
Your statements about Cleveland temperatures do not mean what you claim them to mean,and you have stated them before.
The link you provide for solar irradiance shows a change of about 1 W/m2 in the past 4 years. After accounting for earth's albedo (0.3) and the 1:4 ratio between the area of the terrestrial disk and the spherical area of earth, this amounts to less that 0.2 W/m2 of radiative forcing. This is minor compared to the forcing by CO2 over the past 50 years. The data does not mean what you think it means. The variation you see in your own graph is simply part of the 11-year solar cycle, which last peaked in 2015 and is currently rising from the recent minimum. Look at figure 3 in the following paper.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-87108-y
Your repetition of the Lancet study still does not mean that your interpretation is correct. You have had responses to your first mention of that study that you have not responded to.
We live in houses with air conditioning, work in buildings with A/C, drive around in cars with A/C. We probably don't appreciate how hot it is. {See how easy it is to turn your words around and use them against you?]
Unless you change your posting style to follow the Comments Policy, expect to see increased deletions of your posts and eventual removal of your posting privileges.
-
scvblwxq1 at 09:02 AM on 30 October 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
The Solar Irridiance data shows that the Sun has been emitting more energy in the last 50 years than at anytime in the last 500 years. That is where the warming is coming from, the Sun.
The robot CO2 measurement experiments that circled Antartica and the southern oceans clearly showed that the oceans were both emitting and adsorbing CO2.
Moderator Response:[BL] You made these assertions in the exact same words less than 48 hours ago. It was moderated because you did not provide any link to any information to support your assertions.
You have been pointed to threads where information is available that demonstrates your assertions to be wrong. If you know of measurements, you need to point to a source of those measurements. You need to discuss how those measurements support the argument you are making. You do not get to simply assert a conclusion.
Note that the Comments Policy includes the following statements:
- Comments should avoid excessive repetition. Discussions which circle back on themselves and involve endless repetition of points already discussed do not help clarify relevant points. They are merely tiresome to participants and a barrier to readers. If moderators believe you are being excessively repetitive, they will advise you as such, and any further repetition will be treated as being off topic.
- No sloganeering. Comments consisting of simple assertion of a myth already debunked by one of the main articles, and which contain no relevant counter argument or evidence from the peer reviewed literature constitutes trolling rather than genuine discussion. As such they will be deleted. If you think our debunking of one of those myths is in error, you are welcome to discuss that on the relevant thread, provided you give substantial reasons for believing the debunking is in error. It is asked that you do not clutter up threads by responding to comments that consist just of slogans.
You are violating the "excessive repetition" clause of the policy.. You are violating the "simple assertion of a myth" policy.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.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.
-
nigelj at 11:04 AM on 29 October 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
scvblwxq1.
Your solar theory of the recent warming period since the 1970's is wrong. There is only a very poor correlation between surface warming and solar irradiance over the last 50 years. Solar irradiance increased early last century until about 1960, then levelled off or fell slightly for about 30 years, then fell sharply from about 30 years ago to presently, but warming steadily increasing over that same total 50 year time frame. So you have a poor level of correlation.
skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
If global warming over the last 50 years was being caused by fluctuations in solar activity, you would expect a near perfect correlation between solar activity and warming over that 50 years, because the effects of solar irradiance on surface temperatures are reasonably instantaneous. Instead we see a very low level of correlation if any.
Fluctuations in solar irradiance over the last 50 years have also been quite small in terms of WM2, and not enough to account for the quantity of warming measured. So nothing in the way of causation.
With the climate issue the devil is in the detail like this. The fact that solar irradiance is generally a bit higher than 100 years ago doesn't explain the recent warming trend when you look into the details. Thats why we have climate scientists to look at the details.
The grand solar minimum during the little ice age is suspected of contributing to that cool period, but the little ice age only affected part of the northern hemisphere, temperatures dropped only about a degree c and over hundreds of years. So a similar thing now would clearly do very little if anything to offset the predicted 3 - 5 degrees of warming this century and 8 degrees of warming over 2 - 3 centuries. A grand solar minimum, If it actually happens, is clearly not going to save use.
-
scvblwxq1 at 02:24 AM on 29 October 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
I apologize, the site I have been posting on does not allow links so I got in the habit of not including them.
The error in the Zharkova article was a small error in the calculation of the Earth-Sun distance which was n0t a part of the main point of the paper. The error was fixed and did not effect the main point of the paper and a new version is available.
The article 'modern Grand Solar Minimum will lead to terrestrial cooling' wasn't retracted and is still in effect.
I know the the 2.588 million year ice age called the Quaternary Glaciation is the climate of the Earth as a whole and is in effect until all natural ice melts. The warm interglacial period where the Earth's orbit is more circular that we are in will come to an end sooner rater than later. The interglacial periods usually last about 10,000 years and this one has lasted 11,700 years. Then the Earth's orbit will get more elliptical under the influence primarily of Jupiter and we will get 90,000 years of a cold glacial period and the cycle will repeat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
Here in Cleveland, Ohio, we have had 136 days warmer than average and 160 days cooler than average so far this year using the weather underground figures.
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/oh/cleveland/KCLE
Moderator Response:[BL] Links activated.
The web software here does not automatically create links. You can do this when posting a comment by selecting the "insert" tab, selecting the text you want to use for the link, and clicking on the icon that looks like a chain link. Add the URL in the dialog box.Your opinion that the Zharkova paper had a "small error" that "does not effect [sic] the main point" is not shared by the editors of the journal that made the decision to retract it. In their retraction notice, they state (emphasis added):
The analyses presented in the section entitled “Effects of SIM on a temperature in the terrestrial hemispheres” are based on the assumption that the orbits of the Earth and the Sun about the Solar System barycenter are uncorrelated, so that the Earth-Sun distance changes by an amount comparable to the Sun-barycenter distance. Post-publication peer review has shown that this assumption is inaccurate because the motions of the Earth and the Sun are primarily due to Jupiter and the other giant planets, which accelerate the Earth and the Sun in nearly the same direction, and thereby generate highly-correlated motions in the Earth and Sun. Current ephemeris calculations [1,2] show that the Earth-Sun distance varies over a timescale of a few centuries by substantially less than the amount reported in this article. As a result the Editors no longer have confidence in the conclusions presented.
In the And Then There's Physics blog post (the author of which is a Professor of Computational Astrophysics), it is stated (emphasis added):
However, in the case of the Zharkova et al. paper, the error is completely elementary. It’s something we teach our first-year students.
Papers do not get retracted for small errors that do not affect the main point of the paper. That Zharkova et al published a paper containing errors that a first-year student would fail on tells us that Zharkova basically has no idea what she is doing in this subject area.
The second Zharkova paper you mention may not have been retracted, but it is just as useless as the first.
As for the Grand Solar minimum, you should place your comments on this thread - after reading it first.
https://skepticalscience.com/grand-solar-minimum-mini-ice-age.htm
As for what is happening in Cleveland - Cleveland is not the globe, and this year is not climate. Over large areas, and many years, hot records are being broken much more often than cold records - exactly what you would expect in a warming climate. You can read about it more on this page (basic and intermediate versions):
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-cold-weather-basic.htm
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-cold-weather-intermediate.htm
...and counting the number of days above or below average does not tell you if this year is warmer or colder than average. You actually have to, well, average the daily values. It depends on how much the days are above or below the long-term average. A simple count of days throws out a lot of important information. You have made an error that a first-year student would lose marks on.
-
scvblwxq1 at 13:54 PM on 28 October 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
The Solar Irridiance data shows that the Sun has been emitting more energy in the last 50 years than at anytime in the last 500 years. That is where the warming is coming from, the Sun.
The robot CO2 measurement experiments that circled Antartica and the southern oceans clearly showed that the oceans were both emitting and adsorbing CO2.
Moderator Response:[BL} You continue with incorrect assertions containing vague "references" to information of unknown origin.
If you wish to continue to post in this forum, you need to provide explicit links to your sources of information. You have shown no indication that you actually read any of the references provided to you, and you show no inclination to actually engage in constructive discussion.
If you continue with this pattern, expect to see more and more of your postings edited or deleted, and eventually your posting rights will be rescinded.
Up your game. Provide proper references. Engage in discussion, not assertion. This is a place for dialog, not monologue.
And read the Comments Policy.
-
Doug Bostrom at 13:32 PM on 28 October 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Population might be termed the elephant in the room that is also a third rail, in terms of open, frank discussion in connection with public policy. Punters like us can talk about it here down in the weeds, but there's not much headroom for this topic in the world of government.
Not least because of China's clumsy, inhumane, failed experiment and now unfolding aftermath (better hurry up with the elder care robots, mechanized adult diaper-changing etc.). Especially as that policy as if not bad enough was freighted as well with all the optical baggage of China's other circumstances. The history so created is like a highly conductive chain to throw across the live wires of political discussion.
Erlich's predictions might be said to have failed in the sense that his modeling was too simple, uncoupled to other models which might well have better informed the speed of his model of population growth.
Meanwhile, does anybody sincerely believe we're having a truly easier time supporting 7.8 billion than we were with 3.7 billion? Everybody's fed, clothed, housed, educated? No? How about with our projected peak of 10.4 billion? We're assured of providing all of the basics before getting there? If not and we agree that it would be best to avoid adding more before catching up with present needs, our population is effectively out of control. Perhaps we could it a low-order detonation as opposed to a high-order explosion.
What would be helpful would be a reliable, well-constituted global misery factor, to apply to population figures. For instance, by some measures per capita improvements our quality of life are visible. Odds of death by violence is one such. But what's the net absolute total misery, given our expansion of population? That's where a global misery factor would be a helpful indicator of progress, or not. We can after all lower the global misery factor yet because it's multiplied by population end up with more total misery despite per capita improvements. Even as we reduce the per capita amount of misery, total misery can still increase, with a bulging population.
What's the point of making more misery? Maybe it would be better not to do that? Could we just nicely but consistently suggest and remind that 2 kids per parental pair is a good parking spot for steering our total population, until we get things better sorted?
Nope.
In any case, the article cited by the three nannies is unresponsive to the claim it's supposed to support.
-
nigelj at 11:24 AM on 28 October 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
"Overemphasized apocalyptic futures can be used to support despotism and rashness. For example, catastrophic and ultimately inaccurate overpopulation scenarios in the 1960s and 1970s contributed to several countries adopting forced sterilization and abortion programs, including China’s one-child policy, which caused up to 100 million coerced abortions (7), disproportionately of girls."
I dont accept that the apocalyptic population scenario was over emphasised. The potential was there for exponential growth and complete disaster. Large families were common back then everywhere with not much sign of this changing. Family size in the USA only barely started changing slighly in the early 1960s, so there was no firmly established trend towards smaller families you could assume would continue.
This was particularly the case In China which already had a huge population. Chinas inhumane response was unfortunate but those sorts of policies were mostly limited to China.
The population problem turned out to be less than anticipated (but still pretty bad imo) because the demographic transition was faster than anticipated, and the contraceptive pill discovered in about 1960, became widely adopted and food production improved more than anticipated especially in asia. Nobody could have predicted that or assumed that those things would happen.
You dont downplay a problem because it might possibly be solved at some point in the future. You would need to be certain it would be solved. If anything you highlight the problem to motivate people, but stopping short of exaggeration.
And one of the reasons the population problem was less than anticipated was Chinas one child policy, something that seems lost on the authors of the study.
And what are we left with anyway? A massive global population using up the earths resources at a prodigious and unsustainable rate according to UN studies. Some of this is very high per capita consumption in developed countries, but even lower consuming people in poor countries have a huge environmental footprint, because of the sheer size of their populations.
IMO the authors of the study are deluded, and writing with a lot of benefit of hindsight.
-
Long Knoll at 10:18 AM on 28 October 2022Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Thanks all! Will have a look as soon as I have the time!
-
MA Rodger at 05:34 AM on 28 October 2022Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Long Knoll @437,
There are papers that repeat the spectal comparison for a period of a decade or so as per Harries et al (2001), such as Chen et al (2007), Bantges et al (2016), Rentsch (2020). But measuring outgoing IR is difficult enough without the spectral aspect to the analysis so yearly data would be likely lost in the error bars. Feldman et al (2015), a paper I haven't read, do say they have managed to show a statistically significant result using downwelling surface IR.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:16 AM on 28 October 2022Battling heat waves: The silent killer
scvblwxq1,
I will start by pointing out that the second Report you refer to is not called what you call it. The actual title (linked) is: Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a multicountry observational study.
I will conclude by quoting the entire "Interpretation" presented in the first report you refer to (Estimating the cause-specific relative risks of non-optimal temperature on daily mortality: a two-part modelling approach applied to the Global Burden of Disease Study)
"Acute heat and cold exposure can increase or decrease the risk of mortality for a diverse set of causes of death. Although in most regions cold effects dominate, locations with high prevailing temperatures can exhibit substantial heat effects far exceeding cold-attributable burden. Particularly, a high burden of external causes of death contributed to strong heat impacts, but cardiorespiratory diseases and metabolic diseases could also be substantial contributors. Changes in both exposures and the composition of causes of death drove changes in risk over time. Steady increases in exposure to the risk of high temperature are of increasing concern for health."
There is a little more to be said on this matter.
Some people continue to learn. Everyone can learn through their entire life. But some people develop preferences for understandably harmful beliefs and related harmful pursuits of personal benefit. The developed harmful beliefs and the benefits that can be obtained from related harmful actions interferes with their ability to learn to be less harmful and more helpful.
-
Bob Loblaw at 12:41 PM on 27 October 2022Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Long Knoll:
Google Scholar lists 233 citations of the source for figure 2 (Harries 2001). You could try looking through those to see if they provide additional data that meets your concerns.
-
Long Knoll at 11:52 AM on 27 October 2022Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Is there more continuous data available than the individual year comparisons of change in brightness temperature shown?
-
scvblwxq1 at 04:23 AM on 27 October 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
An article in the Astrophysical Journal, 937:84 2022 October 1 'Total Solar Irradiance during the Last Five Centuries' shows that the enerigy the Earth receives from the Sun has been at its highest level for the last 50 years over the last 500 years. This is where the global heating is coming from and the warming oceans, which have 70 times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, are releasing their CO2, like a warmed bottle of soda.
The Sun has entered a Grand Solar Minimum that will last from 2020-2053 and will result in significant global cooling that may threaten global farmland crop production.
'Modern Grand Solar Minimum will lead to terrestrial cooling" by Valentina Zharkova, Temperature (Austin) 2020;7(3): 217-222
from the article:
In this editorial I will demonstrate with newly discovered solar activity proxy-magnetic field that the Sun has entered into the modern Grand Solar Minimum (2020-2053) that will lead to a significant reduction of solar magnetic field and activity like during the Maunder minimum leading to noticeable reduction of terrestrial temperature...more
Moderator Response:[BL] Repeating a bogus claim on more than one thread does not make it any more correct. Oceans are currently warming, and they are absorbing CO2, not releasing it.
And your "Grand Solar Minimum" myth has also been covered here.
Any paper by Zharkova is one of the worst sources on this matter. One paper was retracted due to its serious errors, as discussed here. (Follow the links on that blog to other articles, too.) The paper you reference has no useful new information. It was already discussed here (briefly) at SkS in one of our New Research posts.
...and you were previously told about the problems with that Zharkova paper here.
-
scvblwxq1 at 03:56 AM on 27 October 2022Battling heat waves: The silent killer
A recent analysis of 64.9 million deaths showed that deaths caused by cold exceeded deaths caused by heat in all 9 countries studied. The deaths cause by cold mainly present themselves as increased deaths from heart attack and stroke during the colder months. 25% more in some cases
Estimating the cause-specific relative risks of non-optimal temperature on daily mortality: a two-part modelling approach applied to the Global Burden of Disease Study. Katrin G Burkart, et. al. The Lancet 2021;398:685-97 August 21 Gates Foundation funding
Another earlier analysis of deaths caused by weather temperature:
"Cold Weather kill far more people that hot weather" May 20, 2015, The Lancet.
Summary: Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. The findings also reveal that deaths due to moderately hot or cold weather substatially exceed those resulting forom extreme heat waves or cold spells.
-
scvblwxq1 at 03:34 AM on 27 October 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
The Quaternary Glaciation has two main phases. There is the phase when the Earth's orbit is almost circular like today and it is warmer and there is the phase where the Earth's orbit is more elliptical and it gets less sunlight and is colder. When it is warmer the oceans release more CO2, like today, and when it is colder the oceans absorb more CO2. The colder phase lasts about 90,000 year and the warmer phase lasts about 90,000 years for a total of about 100,000 years for each complete cycle. The Earth's orbit varies like this because of the gravational pull of Jupiter, although the other planets have some effect. This is from Wikipedia, mainly.
Moderator Response:[BL} See the moderator's note on your previous comment. You are very, very wrong on the links between CO2 uptake and ocean temperature, and vastly overestimate the effect of orbital ellipticity on the earth's receipt of solar radiation.
-
scvblwxq1 at 03:28 AM on 27 October 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
The CO2 levels dropped because the Eath receives less sunlight when it is in the more elliptical phase of its orbit. It got 25% less sunlight that made it colder and colder water can absorb more CO2 so the CO2 levels dropped.
Moderator Response:[BL] You have returned to continue your trip through the various climate myths. You are continuing to get things wrong.
Yo have previously been pointed to the SkS page on Milankovitch cycles. Your 25% number is way off, when looking at global annual values. For global annual values, variations in eccentricity only cause from +0.014% to -0.17% compared to today’s average. Your 25% figure is something you must have obtained from a source that only looked at 65N on the summer solstice. Climate lasts more than one day, and the globe covers more than one line of latitude.
Your assumption that cooling causes decreases in atmospheric CO2 is also wrong - and is also covered in other posts here at SkS. With our current warming oceans, ocean absorption of atmospheric CO2 is fighting against the rise caused by burning fossil fuels.
-
michael sweet at 09:12 AM on 26 October 2022Permitting: America’s next big climate conundrum
David-acct,
An anonymous blogger on Curries' web site carries very little weight in a scientific discussion.
Your claim that the authors of scientific papers on future electric systems have no systems engineering experience is completely false. There are hundreds of authors that have written papers on future renewable electric systems. Many of them have systems engineering experience. How much experience does "planning engineer" have? We do not know.
Your claim that Jacobson overestimates the elecrical production of future systems is false. His paper has been reviewed by at least three experienced systems engineers. In addition, his publication has been read by hundreds of outside engineers. People like Clack et al read Jacobson's papers carefully. If Jacobson overestimated supplu as you claim, Clack would publish a critical paper. The fact that Clack et al have not published a critical paper tells me that your claim is false. In any case, many other research groups reach the same conclusions as Jacobson. Your claim that they are all wrong is completely unsupported. I note that you have provided no peer reviewed links to support your arguments.
Your claims that renewable energy will destabilize the grid were answered in practice 5 years ago. They were made 10 years ago by fossil proponents. Big batteries provide better and faster grid stabilization than thermal generators and even hydro. Your claims have no merit. It is a waste of time to bring them up. Try to catch up with current knowledge. I note that you have provided no links to support your wild claims, not even to blog posts.
-
David Hawk at 21:19 PM on 25 October 2022Climate change made 2022’s northern-hemisphere droughts ‘at least 20 times’ more likely
Thank you for putting numbers on the future of the present. Your proposed situation for the very likely 2.0 degree C temp increase is pretty disheartening. Also, it looks realistic.
The next study might expand to include the actual yields from the same locations where moisture and temperature were collected. I run a 1,500 acre farm in Iowa where the harvest looks pretty bad. Many fields are running at a 50% yield. One field normally getting 200 bushels/acre produced only 11 this year via two month drought. Such looks bad for food availability.
Perhaps we need to rise above the Newtonian model of relying on cause-effect thinking about climate change consequences? I've been trying to develop a more systemic way to describe our future via the "effects of effects" instead of the usual cause-effect model applied to climate change. The public, including farmers, somehow relates more closely to such. Time is short; cause-effect studies are untimely and then unhelpful to change.
A new publication in Europe goes deeper into the effects from effects thinking. Titled, "Short-term Gain, Long-term Pain:Climate Change as a Faustian Tragedy" it responds to the question raised in a book "Too Early, Too Late, Now what?" It came from my 1975-77 research project done at the Stockholm School of Economics and Sweden's EPA. It was on environmental deterioration becoming climate change, with results from work with twenty major international firms and six governments trying to regulate them. Titled: "Environmental Deterioration: Analytic Solutions in Search of Synthetic Problems, " its results were heavily criticized, even by the then Head of the US version of EPA. He claimed climate change was an "ad hominem" issue to be avoided in serious research. His training was from a law school education.
Clearly, what we are now doing to manage climate change is insufficent.
Moderator Response:[BL] Portions snipped. Even if you have forgotten, we remember that we have warned you about repeatedly peddling your own book.
-
stranger1548 at 22:33 PM on 23 October 2022Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
Thank you very much. I'll take a look at what you've posted.
I've read you posts here and at Real Climate for years and I've gained a fair amount of climate science information from them.
-
MA Rodger at 20:04 PM on 23 October 2022Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
stranger1548 @76,
The climate system is a complex beast and because of this it is possible to have issues like the Arctic climate change where there are not just contradictory findings yet-to-be-resolved, but also apparently contradictory findings but which, when examined in detail, are not actually contradictory but looking at slightly different aspects of the same thing.
Thus the 'Intermediate' OP here quotes Notz & Marotzke (2012) 'Observations reveal external driver for Arctic sea-ice retreat' which says there is no correlation between PDO & Arctic SIE while, for instance, this 2016 CarbonBrief post by Screen & Francis says the PDO does impact the Arctic warming.
But digging into the research, Notz & Marotzke are looking at long-term trends in summer Arctic SIE while Screen & Francis (2016) 'Contribution of sea-ice loss to Arctic amplification is regulated by Pacific Ocean decadal variability' are looking at oscillations (so not long-term trends) and winter Arctic climate (so not summer) and are interested in the winter Arctic temperatures and how the PDO impacts temperature at differening SIE levels.That is not to say that there are contradictory findings in the literature, but if there are such findings they need to be addressed on a paper-by-paper basis.
-
stranger1548 at 08:03 AM on 23 October 2022Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
'This is my first SKS post but I've beem a luker for many years.
How has the PDO added to the massive ice loss? I've been researching it but I find articles from reputable sources that it has caused increasing ice loss while others claim that the effects of natural variablity have been insignifcant. Any help?
-
BaerbelW at 01:14 AM on 23 October 2022CO2 is just a trace gas
A new footnote was added to this rebuttal with a Myth Deconstruction as an animated GIF which is potentially helpful to quickly debunk this claim on social media.
-
nigelj at 06:33 AM on 21 October 2022Permitting: America’s next big climate conundrum
OPOF @20
I agree overall. I'm a retired achitect (bachelors degee) and as such my job is structured a bit like yours, including the project management phase, and I worked with numerous engineers. I've never come across any planning engineers. I suspect planning engineers are a relatively new thing and might get involved in very large projects, and I have mainly been involved in smaller to medium scale projects. Or perhaps planning engineers are a thing in just some countries.
But I found this on their background:
"To be a planning engineer, you must hold a bachelor's degree in civil engineering, mechanical engineering, or electrical engineering. An average planning engineer earns at least $76,539 in a year."
www.zippia.com/planning-engineer-jobs/
So "planning engineer" writing the articles might have some clues about renewable energy if he has an electrical engineering degree, but who would know because he doesn't even give his precise qualifications or real name. I find it astounding and a rarity that someone who writes actual articles doesnt give their name, so we can check their actual qualifications. It all lacks credibility and sounds suspicious.While obviously articles stand on their content and merits, not the writers degree, Im not going to waste my time on something written by a non expert in that area if its a long article. There are only so many hours in the day.
-
scaddenp at 06:28 AM on 21 October 2022Permitting: America’s next big climate conundrum
"The have been several responses to renewables do not increase the instability of the grid."
I think it would be more accurate to say that people challenge the idea that renewable volatility cannot be managed using a combination of existing technologies.
"Planning engineer' makes many claims about his/her experience but while choosing to remain anomymous, none of these can be checked. The management of renewables without instability in countries with high renewable penetration would seem to contradict some of the broad assertions.
Eg
I would note that Germany also makes good job of handling high levels of wind and solar while running one of the most reliable grids in the world.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:33 AM on 21 October 2022Permitting: America’s next big climate conundrum
David-acct,
I agree that, when it comes to the presentation of increased awareness and improved understanding, the Title a person uses or the Biography of the person presenting the information does not determine the validity of the presented evidence and related understanding. Claiming that the title used or a person’s apparent history of experience validates (or invalidates) their presentation of information ‘by default’ is incorrect.
The most prominent information presentation you appear to have to support your belief is an anonymous presentation posted on the website of an individual with undeniably questionable motives.
Accepting all the other points I made, only hanging on to this one remaining minor thread, is an expected result of pursuing as much personal benefit as soon as possible as easily as possible. That type of harmful selfish pursuit is the reason the marketplace competition for superiority based on popularity and profit has developed such ‘amazing’ but unsustainable and harmful electrical system. And it is why there can be such passionate persistence defending and excusing the harmful unsustainable developments of the marketplace.
If the developed activities/systems that helpful people are pursuing improvement of were harmless then the marketplace could be relied on to eventually transition to better harmless alternatives. Fossil fuels are non-renewable. So future generations have to transition to living without benefiting from them. But fossil fuel use is undeniably harmful in many ways. The need to limit the harm done is undeniable. That requires the most rapid correction/transition possible. The marketplace will not do that without significant external governing. And the resistance to that external governing correction of harmful popular and profitable activity is to be expected, but not justified.
There are thousands of people involved in the activity your chosen ‘expert’ appears to have a history of activity in. Yet your chosen ‘expert’ appears to stand outside the consensus understanding of that group, just like J. Curry is outside the climate science consensus group. The consensus understanding is that renewable electricity generation systems are feasible, and could have been implemented with the technology that was developed and proven decades ago. The main thing keeping the less harmful and more sustainable ways of doing things from being implemented is ‘the popularity and profitability of the already implemented systems’. It may be harder to do, less profitable, and more expensive. But those are poor excuses to not correct the harmfully unsustainable activity and systems that have developed as quickly as possible even if the quicker implementation is harder to do, more expensive, less profitable, or less popular.
So, you still haven’t answered michael sweet’s request for you to provide a rigorously justified criticism of specific aspects of Jacobson’s presentation. And the reason you are not doing that may be because the fatally flawed system is motivating you to resist learning that you should change your mind.
Always keep in mind the need to limit harm done by most rapidly transitioning away from unjustified beliefs poorly excusing developed popular or profitable harmful unsustainable activities (the marketplace is undeniably biased against that).
-
David-acct at 21:39 PM on 20 October 2022Permitting: America’s next big climate conundrum
The have been several responses to renewables do not increase the instability of the grid. I will note that renewables are asynchronous electric generation with is both intermitent and with high volitility in timing with wide swings in generation .
A good understanding of the volitity can be obtained by viewing the "electric generation by source" chart at the EIA . gov website ( previously linked). The MISO grid shows massive hourly swings in electric generation for wind, often 30-40% changes in a single hour. Does any serious engineer believe that will not cause grid reliability issues.
-
David-acct at 21:32 PM on 20 October 2022Permitting: America’s next big climate conundrum
As previously mentioned multiple times, the EIA . gov website has a wealth of information.
For those responding, please take the time to review Electric generation by source. Once you familiar with the seasonal nature of solar and wind electric generation, it will become rather obvious how electric generation is poorly addressed in those renewable studies.
For example, Jacobson's study forcasts approx 12-15% generation of name plate capacity for solar when the real number is approx 9% and much less north of 42-43rd parallel during the winter months. Similar overestimate of electric generation from wind during the winter months. There is very little electric generation from wind or solar during the those winter months between the hours of 4am and 9am. which during the winter is the peak daily demand period. Jacobson generally relies 4 hours of back up power, though their is insufficient electric generation in his model to cover the daily demand.
-
David-acct at 21:21 PM on 20 October 2022Permitting: America’s next big climate conundrum
In response to criticism of "planning engineer" . - Try reading his articles.
You will find he has considerable experience maintaining, operating and designing grids including intergration of asynchronous renewables electric generation into a synchronous grid and the issues associated with the intermitentcy and volitility of the asynchronous renewables.
You will also find that the authors of those renewable studies do not have any actual experience in maintaining , operating or designing a grid. So who should you rely on for information? the indiividual with no actual experience and expertise or the individual with 30+ years of actual experience.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 15:07 PM on 20 October 2022Permitting: America’s next big climate conundrum
nigelj @19,
That job description seems too generalized.
As an experienced engineer of many design projects I am aware of planners as Schedulers and Cost Estimators. The scheduleres need to understand the inter-linking and phasing of work activities. And the cost estimators understand the ways of forecasting the costs of the project. The design development team interacts with the scheduleres and the planners to develop the project plan (I guess that entire team coudl be called the planners).
Management of the project involves all the participants to monitor the actual project development against the schedule and cost plans, identifying departures from the plan as early as possible so that appropraite action can be taken sooner rather than later (accept the revised plan or try to get closer to either the budget or schedule, but you can't have both if things are not happening as planned, or if the plan was flawed).
But none of that changes the fact that a 'planning engineer' does not sound like an expert on renewable electric system development and operation.
-
nigelj at 12:36 PM on 20 October 2022Permitting: America’s next big climate conundrum
Planning enginer does appear to be a thing. I hadn't heard the term so I looked it up:
"Planning engineers determine and develop the most suitable and economically viable construction and engineering methods for projects. They are involved throughout the development stages, and are present on site during the build to oversee procedures. It is the responsibility of the planning engineer to estimate a timescale for a project and to ensure that the outlined deadlines are met. They work closely with site managers and other engineers to ensure a project runs on schedule and that material supplies are sufficient."
However that sort of backgrond doesn't really include expertise on how to evaluate renewables in the ways he is attempting to do. And we dont know his / her actual name and extent of experience, so its all not very credible.
-
Paul Pukite at 05:03 AM on 20 October 2022Permitting: America’s next big climate conundrum
I have never heard an engineer refer to themselves as a "planning engineer". At best it's redundant, as in "they engineered a plan". That's essentially why one hires an engineer. A project engineer would be the typical title used. Perhaps planning engineers are used to devise a plan to subvert useful new technologies such as renewable energy.
-
Eclectic at 09:54 AM on 19 October 2022Permitting: America’s next big climate conundrum
David-acct @15 ,
the article you linked at Dr Curry's "Climate Etc" blog was posted 14 days ago. Since then, the author has made a number of replies to the 150+ response comments. And my impression is that the author is an intelligent guy, experienced in electrical grid matters ~ and pleasantly civil, too.
David, I hope you read through the article very carefully ~ for it is an interesting example of Motivated Reasoning. Also interesting for what it omits, as well as for what it states.
The author emphasizes the complexity and difficulty in managing a large AC grid. And yet he (as Michael Sweet points out) skates over the modern role of lithium Big Batteries in providing economical & excellent load/frequency stabilization of an AC grid.
True, the present-day batteries have minimal storage ability (where high storage capacity would require a big jump into today's nascent technology of vanadium flow batteries or other types).
Nevertheless, as you see there - and especially toward the end of his article - the author has not only a "rear-view" mindset, but he is motivating himself to regard the introduction of renewable/green electricity as being a 100% or zero% proposition. That's not a logical position to take, regarding AGW. Clearly, he has an emotional bias in favor of only small "penetration" by renewables.
Overall, I would class the article as poor quality.
-
michael sweet at 08:32 AM on 19 October 2022Permitting: America’s next big climate conundrum
David-acct,
Linking to an anonymous blog post on Judith Curries' blog does not support your argument here. here, here and here are three summaries of peer reviewed papers that document that renewable energy will work. I note that you have linked the same blog post twice. The last link that I posted is the most recent. In that paper, the last group that supported using nuclear power in the future concluded that renewable energy was cheaper and the way to go. Nuclear is too expensive. The first two references are now old. Their conclusions have stood the test of time although the costs of renewable energy have declined much more rapidly than expected. That means it will be much cheaper than they estimate in these old papers. Jacobson now uses a lot of batteries for storage since the cost of batteries has declined so much. I note that Jacobson's papers on renewable energy have been cited thousands of times by other peer reviewed sources. Not really comparable to an anonympous blog post on a denier blog that no-one reads for content.
The first reason the anonymous poster at Curries' blog gives for not liking renewable energy is that "Wind and solar do not readily supply essential reliability services." The large battery installed in Australia several years ago has proven to deliver higher quality reliability services to the grid than conventional generation at a cheaper cost. All the storage batteries currently being built can provide these higher quality services at very low cost. The anonyumous complaint has no merit.
Once you see that "Planning Engineer"'s first issue has no merit it is a waste of time to discuss the rest of his anonymous post. What are his qualifications anyway? Almost all of his citations are to his own blog posts on Curries' blog. He also cited a 10 year old Forbes article!
Renewable energy is the way of the future. All the issues listed by "Planning Engineer" have been considered in the links I have cited and cost effective ways of resolving them have been found.
You have still not described the basic logical flaw you think Jacobson made.
-
David-acct at 22:45 PM on 18 October 2022Permitting: America’s next big climate conundrum
michael # 6
Your response is easily rebutted by simply understanding the raw data. I have previously linked to EIA which should dispel many of the misconceptions.
I have attached the link which shows the volitility of electric generation in the MISO grid. The claim that increased wind and solar penetration wont increase grid instability is made by renewable advocates who dont have an understanding of the volitility of renewables.
I have also attached a link to a chief engineer who has considerable years of experience and knowledge of actual experience,. Its a great column to help understand and dispel many myths.
Please take the time to read and understand
thanks
Replacing conventional synchronous generating resources, which have been the foundation of the power system, with asynchronous intermittent resources will degrade the reliability of the grid and contribute to blackout risk. The power system is the largest, most complicated wonderful machine ever made. At any given time, it must deal with multiple problems and remain stable. No resources are perfect; in a large system you will regularly find numerous problems occurring across the system. Generally, a power system can handle multiple problems and continue to provide reliable service. However, when a system lacks supportive generation sources, it becomes much more likely it will not be able function reliably when problems occur.
-
David-acct at 22:26 PM on 18 October 2022Permitting: America’s next big climate conundrum
michael #
you contradicted yourself "I note that the data you provide shows solar produces the most electricity during the peak consumption hours of 12-5 during the day. This leaves only 5-9 as high consumption hours that need to be supplied by other sources of power like batteries, hydro and wind. Solar covering the crucial times of peak power usage was why renewable energy saved Texas and California from blackouts this past summer."
An understanding of the source data shows your statement is factually incorrect. I have provided a link to EIA for your review for the CISO grid so that you can compare actual electric generation by source.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:46 AM on 16 October 2022Permitting: America’s next big climate conundrum
David-acct @9,
I, like many others, pursue increased awareness and improved understanding about what is harmful and how to be less harmful and more helpful. I do that because that is what is needed for the development of sustainable improvements for the future of humanity. Every critical thinker knows that, but everyone should share that common sense governing objective.
So I welcome good reasons to improve my understanding.
A key point is ‘good reason’. And the interests and beliefs developed in the marketplace of popularity and profit are not ‘by default good reasons’. In fact, there is ample evidence that the developments of that marketplace game can be expected to be as harmful as can be gotten away with. And, secrecy, misleading marketing, and other forms of deception are key tactics in that game.
So, thank you for accepting all the other points I made, especially the repeated one about the harmful misleading game-play in the marketplace of popularity and profit.
With that established I will now update my understanding based on your latest comments. I appreciate that you still have 2 minor points of contention. Michael sweet and nigelj have provided good reasons in response to the concerns about the variability of renewable power generation. So there is no adjustment to be made by me on that point. Therefore, I will focus my response to the minor concern you express regarding the building of parts of an integrated renewable energy system on or adjacent to existing fossil fuel generation facilities.
Any fossil fuel power generation facility that is surrounded by residential development is likely harming those neighbours, especially the older ones (applicable to the plants and the neighbours). There are so many legitimate reports on that topic that I won’t bother pointing to a ‘favourite one’. But thank you for appearing to accept and agree that all the other fossil fuel plants that are not surrounded by neighbourhoods could, and should, have renewable energy systems built adjacent to them as they are phased out of use (and thank you for appearing to accept that your concern about the cost to remove the existing facility was not a valid concern because that full cost should be fully paid for by the owners of the fossil fuel facility).
Even if a fossil fuel plant is surrounded by neighbourhoods worth maintaining, unlike all the neighbourhoods that are now realizing that they have to consider relocation due to climate change threat, the site could have solar power generation maximized by installing solar panels on all of the homes and businesses adjacent to the plant. There could also be batteries in the homes and businesses. And there are many other ways to convert the site from its current harmful unsustainable developed state into a less harmful and more helpful (more sustainable) part of the system (making the system more sustainable).
Regarding back-up power supply for renewable energy generation, already addressed by michael sweet and nigelj, I will add the awareness of gravity battery systems ( that could also be installed on a site. They require very little footprint compared to a fossil fuel power plant. (Substantial amounts of easy to find reporting also exists for this, so I will not point to a ‘selected favourite’. Simply enter the term ‘gravity battery’ in an internet search)
That point raises an important understanding. Claiming that we need to wait for better battery technology to develop is a symptom of failing to critically and seriously investigate this issue. If ‘waiting for a better alternative to develop’ was to govern, then fossil fuel use never should have developed into the massive harmful activity that it has become. And the developing nations should never have been encouraged to start using fossil fuels.
I will close by summarizing that the minor points of contention you have raised are the result of misunderstanding developed in the system of competition for status based on popularity and profit. Don’t feel bad. The system made you do it. Only feel bad, because you would be, if you continued to resist changing your mind.
That system/game created the current massive problem(s) (it has developed many problems, not just harmful rapid global warming and resulting climate change). And it powerfully resists correction of the harmful developments that have incorrectly become so popular and profitable.
Popularity and Profitability do not, by default, mean that something is justified or correct. And failing prey to their temptations leads to the development of poor excuses for understandably incorrect beliefs and resulting harmful actions.
The corrections of the harmful unsustainable activity that had become so popular and profitable was technologically possible to implement decades ago. The only thing stopping the reduction of rate of harm done and limiting of total harm done is the resistance to correction in the system/games of popularity and profit that insidiously and harmfully encourage people to ‘want more without regard for limiting the potential harmful consequences’.
-
michael sweet at 01:23 AM on 16 October 2022Permitting: America’s next big climate conundrum
David acct,
You continue to refer to current renewable eletrical generation and say that shows that renewable sources can never supply all electricity. That is the same argument people used when they said that ICE cars would never be adopted since there were no gas stations. Eventually gas stations were built and most people drive cars. I remember 10 years ago when fossil supporters claimed it would be impossible to incorporate more than 20% renewable energy into the grid. That turned out to be complete BS. Recently California was 100% renewable energy (many other smaller markets have also been 100% renewable).
I note that the data you provide shows solar produces the most electricity during the peak consumption hours of 12-5 during the day. This leaves only 5-9 as high consumption hours that need to be supplied by other sources of power like batteries, hydro and wind. Solar covering the crucial times of peak power usage was why renewable energy saved Texas and California from blackouts this past summer.
This is the same situation that we currently see with fossil power generation. So called "baseload" plants like coal and nuclear cannot economically be turned off. That means that too much power is generated at night. Most of the pumped hydro currently in the USA was built in the 1970's to store excess nuclear power for use during peak loads during the day. (Nuclear supporters who say batteries for renewable energy will be too expensive never account for the large storage costs using nuclear power.) Many existing commercial air conditioning and heating systems have large cool (heat) storage built in so that they can run their air conditioners (heaters) at night with cheap power and then use the stored cold (heat) during expensive power during the day. The school that I worked at in Florida had a large energy storage system like that. Why do you think people will not be able to use renewable energy in the same way that they currently use excess fossil power?? They can use the currently existing systems to store power if needed. I note the people who criticise renewable energy never discuss energy storage systems currently used to store fossil power.
Several recent studies have found that with a renewable enegy system it will be cheaper to charge cars during the day since solar power is the cheapest energy. Currently it is cheapest to charge at night since nuclear and coal plants cannot be turned off. Why do you have a problem with that? Renewable power can be accurately forecast days in advance. If windy nights with cloudy days are forecast it will be cheaper to charge your car at night. If cool, sunny days are forecast than charge during the day.
People who study energy systems all agree that the variation of generation with renewable energy can be easily accomodated. They do not even model people adjusting the time that they use electricity to save money. (Like the example of people currently running air conditioners at night). Since the electricity cost will be forecast days in advance, people will obviously try to save money. My brother currently always charges his electric car during the cheapest times at night. If it were forecast that electricity would be expensive for two days he would simply not charge until the price of electricity went down. Since he lives in California soon it will be cheaper to charge during the day using solar power.
You have suggested several times that you think Jacobson has a basic logical flaw in his papers. You have never stated what you think the flaw is. If you state what you think the flaw is I can explain to you why you are wrong and Jacobson is correct.
-
nigelj at 15:30 PM on 15 October 2022Permitting: America’s next big climate conundrum
David-acct @10
"One of the biggest misconceptions results from not understanding the mismatch in timing of electric generation from renewables and the timing of the demand for electricity."
You are joking right? Everyone except a very small number of complete dummies would understand the mismatch of timing. Obviously solar panels dont work in the dark, and wind turbines have reduced output when the winds are light breezes. A child would appreciate that.
However there are known and proven technologies that can deal with these challenges that are easily googled. So whats your point?
-
David-acct at 12:33 PM on 15 October 2022Permitting: America’s next big climate conundrum
healthy-skeptic.com/2022/10/07/electricity-generation-in-the-midwest/
In response to Michael Sweet, there are a lot of misconceptions and misunderstandings on both sides of the renewable debate. One of the biggest misconceptions results from not understanding the mismatch in timing of electric generation from renewables and the timing of the demand for electricity.
To assist in the understanding, I am providing two links which provide significant detail of the supply side of electric generation and the demand side of the electric generation.
The first is the Energy Information Association - pay close attention to the grid
Electric generation by source
The second is a link to the published graphs for the MISO grid for the months October 2021-September 2022. The data is from the EIA website, the same link above.
three items will stand out
1) the very predictable electric generation from solar and the surprisingly very short period of time during daylight that solar produces electricity (basically only 6-10 hours depending on time of year)
2) the very wide volatile fluctuations in electric generation from wind on an hourly basis, daily basis,
3) the third item to notice is the mismatch in timing of the electric generation from wind and solar and the timing of the demand.
these links are great for understanding the basics of renewable electric generation, along with dispelling many of the myths that pervade both sides of the debate.
lets discuss further after you have had a chance to get up to speed on the subject.
Moderator Response:[DB] Inflammatory snipped.
-
David-acct at 12:24 PM on 15 October 2022Permitting: America’s next big climate conundrum
One planet - in response to your question (#3) - there are several reasons that renewable electric generation is not often built on the old fossil fuel generation sites. The first logical reason is that there is not sufficient land available at many of the old sites . Back to understanding the basics, electric generation from solar takes 10x-15x more acreage to generate the same amount electricity as a fossil fuel electric generation plant. Many of the older plants have had industrial and residential development encroaching the area surrounding the plants so that it is no longer practical. In those cases, there is obvious restrictions on increasing the footprint. So it becomes impractical to replace a 200Mwh fossil fuel plant with at 20Mwh solar plant.
The second reason is the need to maintain the operation of those plants as backup until the point in time that sufficient battery back up is developed and/or installed to cover the frequent short comings of renewables. While battery storage is greatly expanded over the last 10 years, it remains a good 10 years in the future before battery back up becomes a significant component of the grid.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:25 AM on 14 October 2022Permitting: America’s next big climate conundrum
David-acct @4,
First - My question 3 is unanswered by your first repsonse. See my expansion of Question 3 in my comment @7.
Second - There is a cost of removing the plant - Period. So that is rather irrelevant.
Third - Answer michael sweet's good questions.
I have more to say in response, but I will await an updated response from you.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:19 AM on 14 October 2022Permitting: America’s next big climate conundrum
nigelj @2,
Thanks for pointing out the New York Times article.
For the benefit of others like me, who try to avoid on-line financial transactions, a similar presentation is available from the Footprint Coalition - Old coal plants are being resurrected as clean energy hubs
Indeed. Some action is happening to make use of some decommissioned fossil fuel sites. In some cases the use is limited to connection of off-shore renewable generation to the existing transmission infrastructure. But there are cases where the site was repurposed, or is planned to be, for renewable generation facilities on-site.
My question goes beyond the use of the site. It is about maximizing the use of existing transmission infrastructure for a location. That may require land adjacent to the fossil fuel power plant site to also be converted to renewable energy generation. And that adjacent development could have been brought into service in parallel with a phased reduction of operation of the fossil fuel facility.
Upon further reflection, Question 3 would include upgrading the existing transmission system and substations (potentially no major approval hurdles) to maximize renewable power transmission from an existing location.
-
nigelj at 06:32 AM on 14 October 2022No, a cherry-picked analysis doesn’t demonstrate that we’re not in a climate crisis
I'm not personally that into the collection of weather records as such, but I totally agree Bob Loblows posts were detailed, and in my view high quality. I was thinking myself that the excange between Bob and Eric was a model of how things should be done, with an emphasis on facts, and free of insults and crank science. So unlike a certain other largely unmoderated climate website. Sigh
-
michael sweet at 21:45 PM on 13 October 2022No, a cherry-picked analysis doesn’t demonstrate that we’re not in a climate crisis
Bob,
I like your detailed posts describing how weather data are collected, analized and corrected.
-
michael sweet at 21:43 PM on 13 October 2022Permitting: America’s next big climate conundrum
David-acct:
Your wild claim that more renewable penetration increases creates instability is completely false. Provide citations that support your claims. I note that the freeze in Texas and the ongoing crisis in Europe were both caused by fossil gas problems. Meanwhile, heat wave related crisis in California and Texas were resolved without blackouts because of strong renewable power production.
I like to cross check claims posted at SkS.
-
michael sweet at 21:34 PM on 13 October 2022Permitting: America’s next big climate conundrum
David-acct,
Everyone informed knows that no power plants ru all the time. In the USA the average capacity factor of coal plants was 40% in 2020. Nuclear plants in most countries have capacity factors less than 70%— and they don't count long term outages for major overhauls. Many fossil peaking power plants have capacity factors less than 20%.
Just not in for informational purposes. I like to cross check biased posts.
-
MA Rodger at 21:07 PM on 13 October 2022Temp record is unreliable
Wongfeihung1984 @527,
Proxy data of varying usefulness allows a global temperature record with reducing detail back 500 million years.
Widely known, the ice core data go back 100ky in the Arctic & 800k in the Antarctic while similar isotope dating methods in ocean sediments provide data back to, for instance in the graph above, the 65My of Zachos et al (2001), or the 5.3My of Lisiecki & Raymo (2005) which for most purposes can be converted into a global temperature record.
While generally 'reliable', such data-use is considered less than 'reliable' for some purposes so perhaps the 2,000ky record of Snyder (2016) which uses multiple proxies is likely the longest that could be properly termed 'reliable'. -
Jim Hunt at 19:08 PM on 13 October 2022Hurricane Ian: When the power grid goes out, could solar and batteries power your home?
Note that electric vehicle OEMs other than Ford have been offering production vehicle-to-home and vehicle-to-grid capable cars and vans for over a decade.
Nissan in Japan for example:
https://V2G.co.uk/2012/06/nissan-announce-leaf-to-home-power-supply-system/
Powerwalls on wheels! -
David-acct at 13:00 PM on 13 October 2022Permitting: America’s next big climate conundrum
Nigel and one planet - It would be logical to use the retired fossil fuel plants. However, there are logistical reasons why it is often impractical
first, the footprint per watts is substantially larger for solar (and wind), 10x-25x. So often there simply isnt enough available land for solar.
second, there is the cost of removing the existing plant. major reason why solar farms are build on raw land.
third, as renewable pentration increases, there problems of grid stability greatly increase.
-
David-acct at 12:54 PM on 13 October 2022Permitting: America’s next big climate conundrum
As I previously stated, I like to cross check the data presented.
The article notes that 85% of new installation was from clean sources. Included in that 85% is solar. The LBNL states that 12.5Gw (ac on annual basis) was solar. Note that the 12.5Gw is name plate capacity. Actual average capacity was 24.8%. (information confirmed with joachim seel and mark bollinger of LBNL)
Just noting for informational purposes and honest assessment, that the installed green capacity is over stated
from paragraph 2 of the lbnl report. "A record of nearly 12.5 GWAC of new utility-scale PV capacity came online in 2021, bringing cumulative installed capacity to more than 51.3 GWAC across 44 states"
