Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Comments 301 to 350:
-
Eclectic at 04:24 AM on 17 October 2024CO2 effect is saturated
Moderator Bob , thank you for the notification of sock-puppetry.
Passing strange, is it not, that whenever a certain anonymous author (under numerous pseudonyms) keeps arguing that 20+20=37 . . . he keeps assuming that the editor won't recognise the foolish mathematical error being repeated year after year.
One is reminded of Einstein's definition of insanity.
-
MA Rodger at 21:02 PM on 16 October 20244 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second
One Planet Only Forever @55,
The CO2 level in the atmosphere has been accelerating through the decades and indeed the resulting climate forcing has also been accelerating. The total GHG forcing is less 'acceleraty' due to the cuts in CFC emissions back in the 1990s. The table below shows the average annual increase in CO2 forcing and total GHG forcing (WM^-2) from the NOAA AGGI.1980s ... ... 0.026 ... ... 0.047
1990s ... ... 0.023 ... ... 0.033
2000s ... ... 0.028 ... ... 0.033
2010s ... ... 0.034 ... ... 0.040
2020s ... ... 0.032 ... ... 0.040The big omission is the negative forcings from aerosols and a lot of ink has been spilt addressing that particular omission. (For instance, the marine regs of 2020 have often been mentioned as a possible cause of the "bananas" temperatures seen from the back half of 2023.) While it is a big omission, I'm not of the view that it will not prove an essential ingredient in understanding the EEI and 'bomb increase' measured both by CERES and in OHC.
There are plenty of rabbit-holes to jump down when tring to explain the CERES data. (I note recently a couple of the 'usual suspects' Nikolov & Zeller
trying to argue that it is the 'bomb increase' that has been forcing the whole of AGW.)The 'bomb increase' is a net result from (1) a warming world which is thus leaking more IR into space and thus lowering EEI and (2), a less reflective world due to a reducing albedo increasing EEI. These both present reasonably good correlations with global temperature (1) -1.53Wm^-2/ºC and (2) +2.81Wm^-2/ºC with thus a net increase in EEI running +1.2Wm^-2/ºC.
What makes me sceptical about any very significant role of aerosol-reduction in the albedo numbers is both that there is the significant correlation with temperature wobbles (which suggests the reduced albedo results from climate feedbacks) and that the peiod where that albedo-temperature correlation looks less than convincing (2007-14 which are those dreaded hiatus years) doesn't coincide with any explained event (like the marine emissions regs) where we would expect something to be seen. [I posted a pink graphic of these correlations 5th December 2023, which you can scroll down-to here]
There remains the thorny question of whhat lies behind these correlations.
Back-of-envelope calculations appear to suggest something must be at work beyond simple AGW. The AGGI numbers above suggest the 2000-20 additional forcing totals +0.73WM^-2 which is roughly equal to the EEI increase through the period. But with SAT also rising +0.6ºC through the period, increases in AGGI and in EEI should not at all be equal.
If they are actual correlations with global temperature, what was happening pre-2000?
Do they otherwise include some wobble or some aerosol-effect?
Another rabbit hole is that while the rate of change in temperature (acceleration) over short periods fits with the wobbles in EEI, the increasing EEI does not fit at all well with the longer term temperature accelerations.
So there is a lot of rabbit holes and to-date no sensible-sounding explanation.
-
Eclectic at 20:56 PM on 16 October 2024CO2 effect is saturated
NavierStokes @719. :
The basic principles of absorption/emission and kinetic transfer of energy are (in the OP) set out and illustrated in a simple manner which allows the reader to understand the obvious implications.
So to that extent, your question is moot (= void).
If you wish to re-write the Basic Rebuttal in a superior form, please post it here as a demonstration. Readers would doubtless be interested to review your efforts ~ and the Editors may well accept a superior replacement, or at least make some modifications to the OP.
Per Ardua Ad Astra.
Moderator Response:[BL] Unfortunately, NavierStokes is yet another sock puppet of a user that has polluted these threads over the years. As sock puppetry is a violation of the Comments Policy, NavierStokes will no longer be participating here - until he makes yet another attempt to break the rules and create another sock puppet (forcing us to ban him again...)
-
NavierStokes at 18:40 PM on 16 October 2024CO2 effect is saturated
Eclectic@718:
Whoever wrote the Basic Rebuttal doesn't understand the greenhouse effect at all. They seem to believe that the GHG molecules absorb IR radiation directly from the incoming sunlight instead of the upwelling terrestrial IR from the surface as indicated in the following quote:
Sunshine consists mostly of ultraviolet, visible light and infra-red photons. Objects warmed by the sun then re-emit energy photons at infra-red wavelengths. Like other greenhouse gases, CO2 has the ability to absorb infra-red photons.
Remember that 99%+ of the incoming EMR from the sun is in the visible spectrum and is absorbed by the earth (except of course for what is reflected as albedo). The earth then re-emits this absorbed energy as a 288-294 deg. K blackbody at the surface. We then get the greenhouse effect when the GHG molecules absorb this upward-bound IR and convert it into thermal energy in some manner. Therefore, this Basic Rebuttal badly needs to be rewritten and my question still stands.
[Snip]
Moderator Response:[BL] The people writing the rebuttals here understand the greenhouse effect far better than you and your many sock puppets do. It is unfortunate that your stubbornness prevents you from ever learning any of the many things you clearly do not understand.
-
Eclectic at 17:50 PM on 16 October 2024CO2 effect is saturated
NavierStokes @717 :
Your question is answered in the Basic version of the Rebuttal.
-
NavierStokes at 15:42 PM on 16 October 2024CO2 effect is saturated
I have a question concerning the Advanced Rebuttal for this "Is the CO2 effect saturated?" argument. I agree that thermal energy is spread around and transferred upward by radiation and convection and that IR emissions are occurring at all levels in the atmosphere. What is not mentioned, however, is where and how the CO2 molecules absorb IR energy from the 15 micron band for release as thermal energy in the greenhouse effect.
[snip] Could someone clarify this?
Moderator Response:[BL] These and many other questions you have had over the years, in many sock puppets, have been clarified over, and over, and over again. Nothing will every make it into your closed mind, so why bother?
-
cctpp85 at 04:06 AM on 12 October 2024Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41 2024
Honest candidates need supports, even if it looks like spamming.
Multi-model is a well-known technique to sample uncertainties. Mixing altitudes is a proficient means to damp out the impact of all surface station biases which are larger in the past. As you can see, since 1980 changing from surface to 850 mb is not the reason of uncertainties whereas changing from ERA5 to NCEP/NCAR is one of the reasons of uncertainties. The real interest of 850 mb is that you can use 20CRv3 since 1900 and NCEP/NCAR since 1980.
[snip]
Before you delete my comment, [snip] my Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61552583485316
Moderator Response:[BL Off-topic, non-responsive stuff snipped.
Alas, I had hoped that by commenting as a non-moderator I would encourage you to rethink your ways. Clearly not.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:03 AM on 12 October 2024Climate change made Hurricane Helene and other 2024 disasters more damaging, scientists find
A tragic reality is the ways that the economic activity to attempt to repair the damage done will get counted as part of GDP and its growth.
The repair and recovery actions may include improvements on the conditions prior to the tragedy. But a substantial part of the activity is just trying to get back to the conditions prior to the damage done. And in some cases the repair and recovery actions will not return things to the way they were before the damage was done.
A big picture view of Global Warming exposes the global example of this problem. Efforts trying to undo the global warming-climate change harm done to date, everywhere, not just in a 'region of concern', may count as 'positive' GDP. But it will fail to fully repair and fully make amends for the damage done.
For GDP to indicate improvement it needs to exclude 'repair and recovery actions'.
There is an understandable 'permanent debt due to climate change impacts' that will be experienced by humanity far into the future.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:40 AM on 12 October 2024You will not escape the climate crisis
prove we are smart,
I am quite confident that the most successful path to developing lasting improvements for the future of humanity would be 'everyone pursuing increased awareness and improved understanding of how to be less harmful and more helpful to others'.
History, recent and the distant past, is full of evidence of sub-sets of the totality of humanity (the total being all people living today and into the future) benefiting by getting away with acting in ways that are detrimental to Others, especially being detrimental to 'future Others'.
And even when the harm done happens to people they know the 'sub-set benefiting from causing harm will tend to try to find ways to excuse the harm done by their unsustainable unjustifiable pursuits of personal benefit. Their excuses will include:
- denial that the harm is real (claims about fake crisis actors)
- claiming that others are causing the harm
- claiming that Others are more harmful than they are
- blaming those who are harmed
- claiming that those who are harmed also benefit
- claiming that the harmful actions are required to support actions that reduce the harm done
So, I am also quite confident that an 'improving lasting future for humanity' requires the powerful regions on the planet ensure that their leadership is always governing based on learning to be less harmful and more helpful to others (especially the future others).
So, effectively making those who try to pursue popularity through misinformation and disinformation 'the losers' is essential to the future of humanity.
So, there will always be a tribal conflict between the harmful misleaders and those who promote learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others.
The requirement is for the misleaders to not be significantly influential - everywhere on every issue. That appears to be very difficult to achieve.I hope humanity has a lasting improving future. But there is significant reason to doubt that it will.
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:17 AM on 12 October 2024Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41 2024
cctpp85 @ 1:
Is that comment directed towards a specific part of the OP, which covers new research? If not, it is off-topic here, and you should use the search function to find a thread where it is on-topic.
In addition, you are extremely short on details as to your methodology. Your graph (based on the legend) appears to mix surface temperatures with 850mb temperatures. Why? What are your data sources? How is your analysis done? Your opinion about your version bears little weight if nobody else knows how you arrive at your results.
You have previously been warned (on this thread) about our inability to read your mind, and your unwillingness to engage with people asking questions. Please do not repeat that pattern.
-
cctpp85 at 18:57 PM on 11 October 2024Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41 2024
My version has +/- 0.06 uncertainty for each year in average since 1980, which I think is more secure than the +/- 0.02 uncertainty as communicated by individual institutes.
-
prove we are smart at 08:55 AM on 11 October 2024Climate change made Hurricane Helene and other 2024 disasters more damaging, scientists find
It's an increasing self destructive path we are on as now there are so many more of us-yes,other reasons too! An urgent reset is needed to change peoples thoughts/habits as to what is important.
As for myself,I became a tree crop farmer for the last 2/3 of my working life and raising my little family in a small village.In hindsight this kept me grounded although my joy for fifty years was up in the air,gliding on natures air currents!
These quotes are from some men and women who soared far higher than me and really lived the big picture.This phenomena is named the Overview Effect.
"we're seeing very clearly that if the earth becomes sick,then we become sick,if the earth dies then we are going die.People sense that something is wrong but they are stuck struggling to go back and find what the real root of the problems are and I think what we need to come to is the realization that it's not just fixing an economic or political problem but it's a basic world view,a basic understanding of who we are that's at stake. Part of that is to come up with a new story,a new perspective,a new way to approach this. To shift our behaviours in a way that it leads to a more sustainable approach to our civilization as opposed to a destuctive one".
Send the decision makers up in space-who would of thought?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:57 AM on 11 October 20244 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second
I forgot a link in my message @55,
Based on NOAA (see here) ...
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:55 AM on 11 October 20244 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second
MA Roger @54,
Thank you for the detailed explanation. I now appreciate that the ‘reason’ or attribution for the EEI rate appearing to have increased from 4 bombs to 9 bombs (or higher) is still not fully understood.
The annual CO2 level increase now appears to be about 40% higher than the average from 1980 to 2010 (see below). That does not appear to reasonably explain the more than doubling of the EEI in a way that is reasonably consistent with the expectation that no significant warming will occur after human impacts on GHG levels are effectively ‘net-zero’.
Could it be that the magnitude of annual GHG increase is significantly exceeding the rate of annual EEI to achieve the new balanced state? That would mean that there is a growing amount of ‘yet to be realized’ global warming. However, if the wind-down of GHG impacts is able to be slow enough, the reduction happens sooner and a more significant reduction happens earlier, then that excess warming could be realized by the time that human impacts become effectively net-zero. That would be seen by the EEI not declining at the time that the rate of CO2 increase begins to significantly decline.
Based on NOAA (see here) the approximate 10 year average annual increases of CO2 levels were as follows:
0.8 ppm - in the 60s (1960 to 1970)
1.3 ppm - 70s
1.6 ppm - 80s
1.5 ppm - 90s
1.9 ppm – 2000s
2.4 ppm - 2010sAverage annual increase from 1980 to 2010 = 1.7 ppm
Average of 2010 to 2020 = 2.4 (with 2018 at 2.4 and 2019 at 2.5), an increase of about 40% compared to the period used to calculate the 4 bomb per second rate.
-
prove we are smart at 10:23 AM on 10 October 2024You will not escape the climate crisis
Yes, mitigation policies are 100% better than forced adaptation measures and surely educated people can elect educated leaders-( I wish).
-
MA Rodger at 21:14 PM on 9 October 20244 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second
One Planet Only Forever @52,
The difference (4 bombs & 9 bombs) is indeed due to a different EEI numbers which are increasing with time. The OP uses 8Zj/y. The 1.12Wm^-2 quoted by philalethes @48 is 18Zj/y. But even that could be now out-of-date.
The actual EEI wobbles a lot and through 2019 12-month average CERES number is 1.30Wm^-2.
The quoted 'EEI (from 2019) = 1.12 W/m²' value presumably comes from Loeb et al (2021) 'Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth’s Heating Rate' which puts it as "1.12 ± 0.48 W m−2 in mid-2019," this based on a linear (OLS) fit through CERES data, a linear rise 2000-19 backed by the OHC data for the same period. The CERES linear fit gave a +0.05Wm^−2/year increase in EEI, the OHC +0.04Wm^−2/year, both with big error bars (making the results barely statistically significant at 2sd).
While we now have had a few more years of looking at EEI, the 2000-to-date OLS thro' the CERES data is still yielding the same basic result suggesting today a value of 1.37Wm^-2/y. But the point of such an analysis (which as a strict linear value would point to AGW starting only in 1995) is to work towards an attribution of the increasing EEI.
(The EEI numbers presented by the ClimateChangeTracker EEI page stretches back to 1985 when estimates of EEI were cooling due to volcanic eruptions (El Chichón 1982 & Pinatuba 1991). Within the wobbles, the latest 12-month average (to June 2024) is +0.95Wm^-2.)
Reconciling CERES numbers with longer in-situ OHC data isn't entirely achieved with such OHC data significantly lower, although OHC calculated from sea level (geodetic) data gives a good match to CERES. The graphic below is from Cheng et al (2024). Note numbers in the insert in graph suggests 2020-23 OHC rising at 17.7Zj/y.
-
nigelj at 14:56 PM on 9 October 2024You will not escape the climate crisis
I suspect the world will only take climate change seriously when a heatwave kills something way out of the boundaries of normality maybe 300,000. It's like covid when it was a small thing in China nobody was too worried but when large numbers started dying in Italy the world woke up. But I could be wrong so it's still Important to promote mitigation policies.
-
prove we are smart at 07:59 AM on 9 October 2024You will not escape the climate crisis
Of course no life will escape the increasing effects from climate change and we know dealing with its consequences will vary from annoyance to survivability depending on many factors - especially your bank account.
Further checking out Mr Dressler's re-post and his informative articles, i could particulary relate to this comment ...
John Hardman
John’s Substack
Aug 4, 2023
Liked by Andrew Dessler"I am reminded of the silly Monty Python skit where the knight confronts the king and is progressively dismembered while staying defiant. “It is but a flesh wound!” he bellows as his dismembered arm lies at his feet. Denial is not bound by sanity.
Change happens using the same path as the grief cycle: denial, bargaining, anger, surrender, and acceptance. Logically we should be feeling the pain of climate change wounds and the financial pinch of accruing costs, but we are looping in a cycle of denial, bargaining, and anger. The question becomes what level of pain will knock us (and the rest of the natural world) to our knees and accept responsibility for our fate?
Looping in the first three stages of change allows us to play the victim and shift the blame to others which is easy and addictive. But, inevitably a reckoning happens where the wound is felt deeply and personally. The pain sears through the fog of illusion bringing us out of the clouds and back into our humanity. I shudder to think what must happen to bring us down to earth but the power of denial is formidable and we now have a lot of distractions from our pain. Monty Python showed us the bounds of our absurdity. We may just exceed them."
The distractions are increasing and I have always believed when we are faced with a common "enemy", the whole tribe would unite-put our differences to one side and work together- people, how bad does it have to get before this happens? Are we just too de-sensitized to human suffering now?
-
Bob Loblaw at 07:52 AM on 9 October 20244 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second
OPOF @ 52:
The difference? At a guess, time. The OP is a dozen years old. Currently, the planetary energy imbalance is probably that much higher now.
If someone has current numbers, please post.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:31 AM on 9 October 20244 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second
Bob Loblaw @51,
Thank you for the correction and clarification.
What is the reason for the difference of 9 bombs per second as calcualed @48 and the 4 bombs per second rate?
-
Bob Loblaw at 03:51 AM on 9 October 20244 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second
The earth being half-lit only applies to solar radiation. The 1.12 W/m2 net radiation value is global average (night and day), and already accounts for the periods of daylight and darkness.
The difference between Philalethes (comment 48) and Eclectic (comment 49) is simple units: 63GJ vs. 63TJ. In the original post, we see the Hiroshima bomb was 6.3 x 1013 Joules. That is 63 x 1012 J, 63 x 109 kj, 63 x 106 MJ, 63 x 103 GJ, or 63 TJ.
Philalethes simply mixed up TJ and GJ to end up off by 1000.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:49 AM on 9 October 20244 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second
Philalethes @48,
In addition to Eclectic's repsonse, only half of the Earth's surface receives sunshine energy at any moment in time.
-
Eclectic at 21:26 PM on 8 October 20244 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second
Philalethes @48 :-
My quick glance at Wiki suggests Hiroshima yield roughly 63 TJ
leaving you with 9 bombs per second.
And planetary heat gain might actually be less than 1.12 W per m2.
-
philalethes at 08:07 AM on 8 October 20244 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second
I've been looking at updated versions of this figure, but I seem to be getting around a factor of 1000 wrong, so if someone could point out what mistake I'm making, that'd be great.
EEI (from 2019) = 1.12 W/m²
surface area of Earth = 5.1 * 10^14 m²
1.12 W/m² * 5.1 * 10^14 m² = 571.2 TW
This means 571.2 TJ every single second.
energy released by the Hiroshima bomb as per what I found = 63 GJ
So the number of bombs per second would be:
571.2 TJ / 63 GJ = 9067
As mentioned in the beginning, this seems to be a factor of 1000 too much; what am I doing wrong here?
-
BaerbelW at 20:10 PM on 6 October 2024Skeptical Science News: The Rebuttal Update Project
Cedders @21
Thanks for your comment! Without going into too many details just yet, I can tell you that we are currently working on expanding the "It's too hard" section considerably and plan to publish many additional rebuttals later this month. So - as the saying goes - "watch this space"!
-
Cedders at 19:44 PM on 6 October 2024Skeptical Science News: The Rebuttal Update Project
I would also welcome any expansion of the 'it's too hard' section of myths, as this has been such a boom area since about 2015. Generally industry and society has moved from denial that climate change is a human-caused threat, to delay and sometimes fatalism ('it's too late' could be a whole new top level of the taxonomy). While there are a small rump of people with 'dismissive' attitudes to climate science, a majority of people accept there is a major problem, but are helped to feel powerless to do anything (per Michael Mann's The New Climate War).
Addressing this trand could be seen as straying into technological and economic and policy questions, but objectivity is still possible (eg citing whichever economic opinions are expressed and a range of informed views where there are no scientific facts).
This would be very helpful to deal with in the same format as there are certainly a lot of myths circulating in political circles and media. Typically the misguided arguments concern technology and what can be permitted within remaining carbon budgets, but also sometimes groups of scientists and activists. For example in the context of a climate mitigation conversation, policy-makers can express a preference for hydrogen cars over EVs or even public transport. At that point someone lie Auke Hoekstra or Michael Liebreich can explain simple facts about energy losses in electrolysis and fuels cells or combustion engines. This makes it clear that the most efficient use of renewables will not be hydrogen cars or heating, so investmeet in some hydrogen infrastructure would be a misguided dead end, rather like 'low tar' cigarettes or diesel engines. This is also a consequence of understanding from about 2009 that carbon pollution has to be cut to ('net') zero.
Essentially to get a major policy through needs people to agree it is fair, effective and beneficial. Incumbent industries want to preserve their business model and deny access to new entrants by influencing regulation. So they need to suggest clean technology uptake is inherently unfair, or that it has inherent environmental costs. Informing people about not just why stopping fossil fuels is fundamental but that the transition can generally improve equity and have environmental co-benefits is the hard task ahead.
I hope this take wasn't too off-topic. My thanks to all the SkS authors and editors for their continuing work.
-
Cedders at 19:08 PM on 6 October 2024Skeptical Science News: The Rebuttal Update Project
I'm glad to read that the articles are getting a systematic refresh. Anything to make the rebuttals more accessible can help effectiveness in countering myths, misunderstanding and misinformation.
There are two reasons I can think of for the new intros. People are looking for shorter tl:dr abstracts. Secondly, information can be too technical for some audiences. Unfortunately it's hard for scientifically literate writers to know what is likely to be misunderstood, deliberately or accidentally (we know frequent examples like Greenland surface mass balance). Is the new text being tested against actual occurrences of myths?
I hope there's no need to delete much text from the passage of time and it can be edited instead. Historical perspectives can help transparency. As a hypothetical example: 'Loss of Arctic sea ice seemed in the early 2010s to be happening far faster than projections, leading some people to conclude at the time that summer sea ice would be virtually gone by 2020/whenever and headlines. Ice loss has since slowed bringing it more into line with projections.'
-
Cedders at 18:49 PM on 6 October 2024Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
BTW spelling: is 'exogenic' in para 2 of basic full text intended to be 'exergonic'?
-
Doug Bostrom at 15:02 PM on 6 October 2024Remembering our friend John Mason
Thank you for that, hairbear.
-
michael sweet at 06:12 AM on 6 October 2024Correcting myths about the cost of clean energy
David-acct at 8:
I do not need you to explain how electricity was generated in the 20th centuary. We are now replacing obsolete, polluting energy sources with cheaper, cleaner renewable sources. We need to evaluate how energy resources will contribute to a future renewable system. At the same time we want to keep prices down.
We currently have a hybrid system while the renewable system is being built. Renewable wind and solar can generate most needed power using existing peaker plants as storage. Old baseload plants cannot compete economically with cheap renewable energy. As more wind and solar is built obsolete plants are closing. Expensive coal and nuclear have closed first.
Batteries are now cheaper, more versatile and provide more grid support services than peaker plants. Batteries store extra power on sunny, windy days. As demonstrated by the EIA report you cited, (I note the EIA has always been biased against renewable energy in he past) the market is planning on building a lot of wind, solar and batteries in the next four years. Very litle, heavily subsidized, gas is planned. Everyone in the market can see the handwriting on the wall. The market is building out cheap renewables virtually everywhere in the world.
The professionals at Lazard. have chosen LCOE as the best metric to compare different technologies. The EIA report does not support your claim that obsolete technologies are cheaper than renewable energy. You have cited no authoritative sources to support your argument that Lazard is incorrect. Your argument that obsolete technology should be promoted is simply wrong.
In any case, the website Oil Price says all the best fracking sites in he USA have been tapped. Fracked wells decline in production very rapidly (just two or three years). Oil, gas and coal are finite resources that are declining. We have to build out a renewable system now before those nonrenewable sources run out.
I am surprised that someone with a background in cost accounting is so supportive of expensive, polluting, obsolete technologies when cheaper alternative sources are readily svailable.
-
michael sweet at 05:34 AM on 6 October 2024Correcting myths about the cost of clean energy
David-acct at 7:
As Nigelj has pointed out, other energy sources besides renewable energy are heavily subsidized. Fossil fuel subsidies in 2022 were estimated at $7 Trillion, far more than subsidies for renewable energy.
Zero nuclear power plants world wide have been built without enormous subsidies since they are not economic.
-
Cedders at 20:47 PM on 5 October 2024Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
This is my attempt to contrast biogenic CO₂ and fossil CO₂ in one figure, referring back to this page. The diagram already seems too complex without all the ocean carbon cycles and weathering details. One implication: Bill Gates's recent comment about ineffectiveness of tree-planting is not far off the mark.
The animal carbon cycle estimate is based on rough caloric intake and vertebrate biomass estimates; I'd be interested in any better sources. Also notable from IPCC figure: ocean-air fluxes are up nearly 50% owing to human activity, and photosynthesis up 25%.
I'm not sure what the image constraints are here, but playing it safe: this is half-width the graphic is intended for.
-
Charlie_Brown at 04:44 AM on 5 October 2024CO2 effect is saturated
JockO @ 711 This is a long and convoluted thread, but your question is a very good one. Recently I had another occasion to find the answer. Upon reviewing the many comments since 2019, the concept of saturation has been discussed thoroughly and does not need to be repeated. I also got involved with that between @669 and @679. However, the specific problem with Wijngaarden & Happer has not been pinpointed previously.
W&H describe the physics of radiant energy and the effect on the spectrum of outgoing infrared radiation very well, not withstanding a complex and distracting diversion into the atmospheric temperature profile. However, they make a misleading comparison to reach a false conclusion that “at current concentrations, the forcings from all greenhouse gases are saturated.” They compare the effect from 0-400 ppm with 0-800 ppm, both of which include the very steep initial slope of the band saturation effect, to conclude that the current rate of global warming is negligible. But the initial steep slope is irrelevant to anthropogenic global warming. In W&H Figure 4, they illustrate and compare the difference in the green line (0 ppm) and the black line (400 ppm) to the difference between the green line and the red line (800 ppm). To describe global warming, they should be comparing the difference between the black line and the red line. Thus, they use an irrelevant comparison to reach an incorrect conclusion “at current concentrations, the forcings from all greenhouse gases are saturated.” Saturated should mean no change as it would to a lay person, not diminishing change, although even the semantics of the definition are debated and misleading. In any case, anthropogenic global warming is not negligible.
-
nigelj at 04:38 AM on 4 October 2024Correcting myths about the cost of clean energy
David-acct @7
"Nuccitelli as you noted, uses the after tax credit LCOE cost for renewables. Those tax credits get paid by the consumer in the form of higher income taxes to cover the subsidy.
Yes but it should be noted that gas and coal fired powered generation and nuclear power also get very substantial tax credits or subsidies with costs passed onto consumers. All effects their LOCE numbers as well.
David-acct 8
I think M Sweets point about the electricity system might have been that criticising renewables based on the reliance on gas peaker plants is ultimately flawed because a fully renewables system would be generation and storage without a need for gas peaker plants. So your response quoting baseload and peaker plants doesnt address the point. We are talking about two completely different operating systems. Interesting though how the current system operates so good information in that respect.
-
David-acct at 11:04 AM on 3 October 2024Correcting myths about the cost of clean energy
Without addressing your last paragraph directly, it should be pointed out the need to understand the fundementals of electric generation. Electric generation has three major tranches of electric generation demand. First there is baseload power demand, second there is intermediate level demand and third peaker level demand. Peaker demand is the most expensive tranche of demand because it is only needed when demand is high, Peaker has low fixed costs, but high marginal costs. That is generally okay since the peaker demand is infrequent. Baseload has high fixed costs though low marginal costs. Intermediate demand is the lowest cost of the three tranches.
Its also important to understand the fossil fuel, hydro, nuclear electric generation are all Demand constrained generation sources. Wind and Solar on the other hand are resource constrained, ie electric generation limited resources ie amount of wind.
It should be noted that Wind and solar perform very well in middle intermediate tranche of electric generation demand, while performing very poorly in the peaker demand tranche precisely due to their resource limitations.
With that background, when comparing costs across each type of electric generation source, it important to compare Baseload LCOE for gas, coal, nuclear against baseload LCOE cost for Wind and solar. Same with comparing Peaker LCOE cost for Gas, coal, against peaker LCOE cost for Wind and Solar. Its telling that Lazard's doesnt compare across each of the demand tranches.
As noted in the EIA article, its also quite telling that the industry does not use LCOE in plant generation planning because the LCOE doesnt provide any meaningful information for purposes of cost analysis.
lastly, my background is accounting and cost accounting, as such, it is much easier to spot and recognize inconsistencies in the presentations and representations than the layman.
-
David-acct at 11:00 AM on 3 October 2024Correcting myths about the cost of clean energy
The point of the article is "correcting myths about the cost of clean energy"
When compare costs of each type electric generation it is important to compare apples to apples.
Nuccitelli as you noted, uses the after tax credit LCOE cost for renewables. Those tax credits get paid by the consumer in the form of higher income taxes to cover the subsidy (subsidies arent free in macro economics) or paid by the consumer in the form of higher prices due to inflation which is the result of deficit spending. Thus using the after credit LCOE cost is hiding the full LCOE cost.
-
hairbear at 20:35 PM on 1 October 2024Remembering our friend John Mason
I first met John just over 43 years ago on our first day at Aberystwyth University in 1981. We've kept in touch on and off over the years and was in contact with him just weeks before he died. It was a real shock to the system that someone so young should die so suddenly. I'm going to the funeral but will have to ask Johns sister if it's OK to post the details here in case anyone wants to go.
-
michael sweet at 13:19 PM on 1 October 2024Correcting myths about the cost of clean energy
Sorry about all the typos, I am out of town and it is difficult to type on my tablet.
-
michael sweet at 13:18 PM on 1 October 2024Correcting myths about the cost of clean energy
David-acct:
rn
You appear to have cited the incorrect page in the EIA report. Page 9 does not discuss LCOE as you suggest. LCOE is discussed on page 7. The EIA has a metric called LACE which. I do not remember seeing this metric before. It appears to me that the graph on page 7 shows that most of the wind and solar projects have good to outstanding LACE while none of the as projects have good LACE.
rn
I note that on page 6 the EIA estimates that in 2028 approximately 30 GW of wind will be built, 20 GW of solar, 2 GW of gas and zero nuclear. I thought that was interesting because there is cursors solar under construction than wind. Obviously gas is on the way out.
rn
I note that in the past the EIA has grossly underestimated the amounts of renewable energy to be built. The EIA cost of nuclear is half the Hazard cosr. The EIA has consistently underestimated nuclear costs in the past.
rn
Nuccitelli clearly labels his graph as "Levelized cost of energy with IRA tax credits". You list the cost without the tax credits. Your assertion that Nuccitelli used the low end of the range for solar and wind LCOE is false. The comparable graph in the Lazard report (which does not include the taxes) states that the average of the high and low values are used. Nuccitelli used the average of the high and low values from the tax included table. The EIA report states that the average cost of construction of wind and solar is less than the average of the high and low
rn
If you read the sources that you cite more carefully you will stop making obviously false claims. Please try to read more carefully, it is very time consuming for me to read all the citations to find errors.
rn
Baseload plants cannot generate peak power and require back-up by peaker plants. Electricity in a traditional system always costs a lot more than the costs of the base load plants since during the day everyone is paid the peaker plant rate. Baseload plants make all their money during the day and often operate at a loss at night.. Renewable energy systems can supply all required power and require storage for times of low generation. Since the two systems work completely differently Lazzad has to compare the costs they think are most comparable
-
michael sweet at 13:18 PM on 1 October 2024Correcting myths about the cost of clean energy
David-acct:
You appear to have cited the incorrect page in the EIA report. Page 9 does not discuss LCOE as you suggest. LCOE is discussed on page 7. The EIA has a metric called LACE which. I do not remember seeing this metric before. It appears to me that the graph on page 7 shows that most of the wind and solar projects have good to outstanding LACE while none of the as projects have good LACE.
I note that on page 6 the EIA estimates that in 2028 approximately 30 GW of wind will be built, 20 GW of solar, 2 GW of gas and zero nuclear. I thought that was interesting because there is cursors solar under construction than wind. Obviously gas is on the way out.
I note that in the past the EIA has grossly underestimated the amounts of renewable energy to be built. The EIA cost of nuclear is half the Hazard cosr. The EIA has consistently underestimated nuclear costs in the past.
Nuccitelli clearly labels his graph as "Levelized cost of energy with IRA tax credits". You list the cost without the tax credits. Your assertion that Nuccitelli used the low end of the range for solar and wind LCOE is false. The comparable graph in the Lazard report (which does not include the taxes) states that the average of the high and low values are used. Nuccitelli used the average of the high and low values from the tax included table. The EIA report states that the average cost of construction of wind and solar is less than the average of the high and low
If you read the sources that you cite more carefully you will stop making obviously false claims. Please try to read more carefully, it is very time consuming for me to read all the citations to find errors.
Baseload plants cannot generate peak power and require back-up by peaker plants. Electricity in a traditional system always costs a lot more than the costs of the base load plants since during the day everyone is paid the peaker plant rate. Baseload plants make all their money during the day and often operate at a loss at night.. Renewable energy systems can supply all required power and require storage for times of low generation. Since the two systems work completely differently Lazzad has to compare the costs they think are most comparable
-
scaddenp at 05:36 AM on 30 September 2024Remembering our friend John Mason
In a world that badly needs both accurate information and hope, John provided both. His passion will be sadly missed.
-
Eclectic at 04:22 AM on 28 September 2024Just have a think: Arctic Sea Ice minimum 2024. Three degrees Celsius warming now baked in?
Jim Hunt @4 :
Yes, you won't get much sense from yer average WUWT-er in the comments columns. As you know. Still, your good self plus Tony Banton, Nick Stokes, and a few others all do contribute a modicum of amusement to the columns ~ when you stoop to tweak the noses of the regular "attack dogs" at WUWT.
But your term "attack dogs" is being overly generous to what is really more like a pack of rabid Chihuahuas with blunt teeth.
Keep up your good work, Jim. And ankle boots will be enough protection against the rabies at WUWT.
.
-
Jim Hunt at 23:10 PM on 27 September 2024Just have a think: Arctic Sea Ice minimum 2024. Three degrees Celsius warming now baked in?
Eclectic @3,
I was indeed, but the UKMO's Tony Banton described Anthony's flock of faithful followers as "attack-dogs"!
Even when I point them at scientific explanations for the alleged "hiatus" in the wiggly line of Arctic sea ice extent they respond with "ROFLMAO" and similar astonishing insights:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2024/09/the-2024-arctic-sea-ice-minimum-extent-in-the-cryodenialosphere/
I'll be publishing a more "scientific" article on the subject, as and when the overdue sea ice age data for August are released. In the meantime, there wasn't much "thick, old ice" left in the Arctic Ocean at the beginning of August:
-
Sarah at 22:57 PM on 27 September 2024Remembering our friend John Mason
I'm very sad to learn of the passing of this dedicated climate hawk and prolific SkS contributor. A blessing and a curse of the internet is "meeting" amazing people online whom we never meet in person. All of us who "e-met" John have been touched by his passion and energy.
May his memory be a blessing. -
Eclectic at 12:50 PM on 27 September 2024Just have a think: Arctic Sea Ice minimum 2024. Three degrees Celsius warming now baked in?
Jim Hunt @2 ,
you were, two or three days ago, crossing swords with the amiable skeptics at WUWT blog, about Arctic ice.
It seems they feel that a sort-of flat-lining of minimum Arctic sea-ice extent during the past decade . . . is a disproof of the contemporary reduction in Arctic sea-ice volume . . . which in turn demonstrates that there will be no further ice melt as sea-level continues to rise ~ the ongoing rise which in turn disproves that global warming is occurring. (If I have understood their argument correctly.)
And since global warming is not continuing, despite rising measurements by worldwide thermometers, then the whole AGW thing is a hoax and can be ignored.
Or something like that.
And if Plan Denial eventually crumbles, then the WUWT skeptics will develop "concepts of a plan" to deal with the non-problem. [Please excuse contemporary 2024 political joke.]
-
Jim Hunt at 10:28 AM on 27 September 2024Just have a think: Arctic Sea Ice minimum 2024. Three degrees Celsius warming now baked in?
"Ice of this age is now mostly confined to a narrow strip extending from north of Greenland along the north-west edge of the Canadian archipelago."
The most recent PIOMAS thickness data suggests that it is now mostly confined to a small area within the CAA:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2024/09/facts-about-the-arctic-in-september-2024/#Sep-21
-
Eclectic at 17:19 PM on 26 September 2024Correcting myths about the cost of clean energy
David-acct @2 ,
you are quite correct, in that pricings ought to cover external costs.
Also, the projected future costs.
Thus the costs should be shown in several categories :-
(A) The immediate LCOE, and projected costs at 5, 10, and 20 years.
(B) Immediate and projected total grid costs.
(C) A range of amortisations regarding environmental and projected societal costs.
*
Of course, (C) is the most difficult to estimate. Yet important, in both dollar and non-dollar terms.
And (A) ventures into guesstimations of changes in technology.
But we should always be looking at the bigger picture.
-
David-acct at 13:06 PM on 26 September 2024Correcting myths about the cost of clean energy
US energy Information Adminstration has an excellent comment on why LCOE is not used by the electric generation industry in planning for plant expansion, primarily because LCOE doesnt capture all the costs and value of the different sources of generation
"LCOE is limited because it only reflects the cost to build and operate a plant, but not the value of the plant to the grid"
See page 9 of the pdf in the attached link.
www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation/
A couple of other observations with Chart created by Nuccitelli =
Lazards report shows the LCOE range for the various types of electric generation sources
Wind Onshore $27-$73
Solar utility $29-$92
Gas combined $45-$108 (which includes base gas generation and peak generation)
Coal $69-$168The two observations are why does Nuccitelli's chart use the low end of the range for solar and wind LCOE while showing the upper mid range for gas?
The second question is why the LCOE computation used by lazards for gas include both baseload costs and peaker costs (peaker costs being the highest cost for all sources of electric generation) and then comparing to the LCOE for wind and solar when they dont perform in that space?
thanks for an explanation
-
sailrick at 13:16 PM on 25 September 2024Just have a think: Arctic Sea Ice minimum 2024. Three degrees Celsius warming now baked in?
From the World Meteorology Organization's report; The Global Climate 2011-2020
"Reduced sea ice extent was accompanied by a decrease in thickness and volume, although data for these indicators are more limited. There has also been a marked decrease in the extent of ice which lasted for
more than one year.
In March 1985, old ice (four years or more) accounted for 33% of the total ice cover of the Arctic Ocean, but that figure had fallen below 10% by 2010, and in March 2020 it had dropped to 4.4%..
Ice of this age is now mostly confined to a narrow strip extending from north of Greenland along the north-west edge of the Canadian archipelago." -
RedRoseAndy at 01:41 AM on 25 September 2024Correcting myths about the cost of clean energy
The Labour Government in the UK are in a rush to get to get clean energy by 2030. Due to the last Conservative Government there are few onshore wind turbines in the UK, but their planning permission allows them to be made taller to take bigger blades, and if we add the maximum height allowed by the planning permission we can approximately triple the amount of electricity generated. And of course the infrastructure is already built so we can triple onshore wind turbine electricity in months. This is a win win as infrastructure takes a long time to put in, and at great expense. Great British Energy can hit the ground running by picking the lowest hanging fruit. Octopus Energy is already buying up 10% of our onshore wind turbines to heighten our onshore wind turbines, and we can do the other 90% by paying the owners to do the work, or nationalizing them.
