Recent Comments

Prev  741  742  743  744  745  746  747  748  749  750  751  752  753  754  755  756  Next

Comments 37401 to 37450:

37401. HughBat at 08:41 AM on 29 March 2014
       Honey, I mitigated climate change
       Link seems to have vanished - here it ishttp://energyskeptic.com/2013/tilting-at-windmills-spains-solar-pv/Tilting at Windmills, Spain’s disastrous attempt to replace fossil fuels with Solar Photovoltaics
37402. HughBat at 08:21 AM on 29 March 2014
       Honey, I mitigated climate change
       Uhfortunately we have become energy hogs - and have expectations that our expectations will be filled into the foreseeable future ... "screw the planet - I wants mine!Neither solar or any other energy source can ever support our expectations - and until we learn to lower them drastically - we'll just rack up the damage. Tilting at Windmills, Spain’s disastrous attempt to replace fossil fuels with Solar Photovoltaicswhich is a incredibly detailed analysis of the real costs of the Spanish construction of what is arguably the world's largest PV solar plant.At least wind and solar don't leave a legacy of long-lived nucleotides...
37403. Tom Curtis at 08:19 AM on 29 March 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #13A
       

       Poster @8:

       re "spelling nazi", exactly what sort of response did you expect to a comment whose sole purpose was to point out a spelling error?  If that is your basis for ignoring the entire blog post, you are patently looking for excuses to avoid conclusions you do no like.

       re "normal cautious scientist"

       No, it makes you an abnormally cautious scientist with regard to AGW, as is demonstrated by the fact that AGW is overwhelmingly accepted by experts in the field.  It probably makes you a selectively abnormally cautious scientist, both in being unusually cautious about AGW alone, and unusually uncautious about accepting "facts" that challenge AGW.  We already have at least one demonstration of that with your "spelling nazi" comment.

       re: "A bit less certainty"

       Poster sets up a rhetorical bind.  A lack of apparent certainty is interpreted by the public as indicating a lack of solid evidence in favour of the theory.  In this case the theory is well backed by evidence, and the level of certainty expressed is appropriate to the level of evidence.  Poster is unhappy, however, because enough certainty is expressed so that the expression of caution cannot be misinterpretted as a lack of evidence.  (He also seems strangely unphased by the dogmatic certainty expressed by deniers.)

       re: "note that there is very little certainty in science"

       Utter garbage.  Perhaps Poster can tell me how much uncertainty there is that the center of mass of the solar system lies within, or very near to the circumference of the Sun?  Or that the percieved motion of the stars is a consequence of the rotation of the earth?  Or that chemicals combine in discrete ratios?

       In fact, very much of science (probably most of science) is very certain.  Far more certain knowledge than that obtained in any other field except mathematics.  Scientists do not, however, study those areas of science.  Rather they use the certain elements to probe the uncertain elements, which is then fatuously interpretted as there being "very little certainty in science".

37404. tonydunc at 08:04 AM on 29 March 2014
       Climate Models Show Remarkable Agreement with Recent Surface Warming
       

       Klapper, what makes you say Sea level rise is realtivel noise free? I was under the impression that it is extremely noisy in the short term.
       I remember deneirs crowing that Sea level was actually decreasing and ridiculed the notion of that being due to extreme flooding in 2012. months later sea levels shot up supporting that asessment.

37405. Klapper at 07:04 AM on 29 March 2014
       Climate Models Show Remarkable Agreement with Recent Surface Warming
       

       "When you consider all of Earth's reservoirs of heat; the oceans, land, ice and atmosphere together, global warming hasn't slowed down at all"

       Then again has it accelerated? The suggestion of this post is that warming has in fact accelerated if you include all the heat resevoirs, including ice melting and the deep ocean. I assume that means the predicted radiative imbalance has grown larger, which is what the models predict with rising GHGs.
       

       We have a number of metrics to verify this, not the least being ocean heat content. However, there are problems with the metric of ocean heat, at least for the deep ocean in that the data are extremely sparse prior to 2005 or so when the ARGO network gained a robust density of floats.
       

       A better metric is sea level since it includes both thermosteric and net ice melt, and it is relatively noise free. There are problems with sea level too of course, namely the satellite data only start in 1993 and the readily available tide gauge compilations readily end in 2009 so are getting kind of stale.
       

       However, in neither of these sea level datasets do we see evidence of recent acceleration. If anything the reverse is true as evidenced by this paper at this link:
       

       http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2159.html#auth-1
       

       The linked paper explains the lack of recent sea level rise as related to changes in the hydrologic cycle in turn related to ENSO. However, regardless, corrected sea level shows no acceleration so the claim that there has been recent acceleration of warming is dubious.
       

       
       

37406. michael sweet at 06:53 AM on 29 March 2014
       Honey, I mitigated climate change
       

       Ranyl,

       I read the first 6 references you cited.  None of them supported your claim in 13 that:

       "PV is not good environmentally, they are toxic waste that can't be got rid of, use massive amount s of energy to make, produce lots of toxic waste in manufacturing and recycling due to treatments, release other very active GHG (NF3, HFC's used a cleanign agent"

       Reference 1 said:

       "Th[is] report also lays out recommendations to immediately address these problems to build a safe, sustainable, and just solar energy industry" (my emphasis throughout)

       and

       "The solar PV industry must address these issues immediately, or risk repeating the mistakes made by the microelectronics industry.4 The electronics industry’s lack of environmental planning and oversight resulted in widespread toxic chemical pollution"

       While I agree that large manufacturers need to be watched, it is hardly the solar industries issue that other manufacturers have been environmentally damaging.

       Reference 2 says:

       "How can the production process ensure that panels are manufactured without leaking waste and how will they be disposed of after a lifetime of use? These concerns, though fairly manageable in and of themselves,"

       and

       "even with the side effects discussed here, solar energy remains far cleaner, for the atmosphere and for human health, than burning coal"

       and "As The New York Times noted, “the solar industry in Europe is not taking any chances with its reputation as a clean business.”

       They do not suggest an alternative energy supply from solar.  Are we to be concerned about "managable" issues?  Should we stop solar becasue they are "not taking any chances with its reputation"?

       They also state "The US and other developed countries have shown that polysilicon manufacturing can be an entirely safe process that recycles silicon tetrachloride".  That doesn't sound so bad.

       Reference three states

       "For the average U.S. insolation and electricity-grid conditions, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from manufacturing and using NF₃ in current PV a-Si and tandem a-Si/nc-Si facilities add 2 and 7 g CO₂(eq)/kWh, which can be displaced within the first 1-4 months of the PV system life"

       Reference 5 is a law reveiw from 1982, hardly current, and has no complaints.

       If this is the best you can do the soalr industry is ready to go all out.  All large electronic firms in China should be carefully watched.  Your claims that solar (and wind) cannot be environmentally produced do not stand up to a review of your own citations.

37407. scaddenp at 06:46 AM on 29 March 2014
       Honey, I mitigated climate change
       

       Ranyl, perfection would be good but things that are better than coal is still an improvement. While the energy cost might be high, it is returned many times over in the lifetime of a panel, recycling releases far less waste and the GHE from the emissions is far below that from equivalent energy return on coal. Better solutions are welcome but frankly all forms of energy extraction have environmental impacts.

37408. KR at 06:45 AM on 29 March 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #13A
       

       Poster - Your comment is rather lacking in content; you seem to have missed the point that some of the low-estimate language in the WWII draft was primarily the result of a single author, based on his own work, and that the Working Group as a whole has some serious objections (and perhaps some corrections before publication) based on its factual support. 

37409. scaddenp at 06:35 AM on 29 March 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #13A
       

       Poster - my comment was not meant as criticism, but your repetition suggested it was something of a concern for you and if so, it would be better to discuss in the appropriate place.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] A good place to discuss the "hiatus" would be on the comment thread of James Wright's recent post, Global warming not slowing - it's speeding up.

37410. Poster9662 at 05:07 AM on 29 March 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #13A
       

       KR  I went to Rabbett Run where the most significant comment from Eli Rabbett was  and I quote "Spelling Nazi".  Is there really any need for that sort of comment?  I (really) am a scientist in a hard science (Biochemistry/Molecular Biology) with a PhD from UWA and also not entirely covinced by the AGW hypothesis.  This doesn't make me wrong or right it just makes me a normal cautious scientist.  (-snip-) there is very little certainty in science.  And don't quote cigarettes and cancer as there is little doubt that link is true but and i repeat but that link came from detailed observation by Richard Doll not via computer programs he employed

        

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] You are now skating of the this ice of sloganeering which is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. Please read the Comments Policy and adhere to it.
       
       [DB] Moderation complaints snipped.

37411. ranyl at 04:22 AM on 29 March 2014
       Honey, I mitigated climate change
       

       I am just truly caring for the environment and humanity and not just backing something cos someone said it was green, when isn't, is a highly manufactured, high enbodied energy, high toxicity energy production system, not as bad a coal but still not exactly environmentally good and metalurgic grade silicon needed does need to heated to 2000C.

       http://svtc.org/wp-content/uploads/Silicon_Valley_Toxics_Coalition_-_Toward_a_Just_and_Sust.pdf

       https://www.stanford.edu/group/sjir/pdf/Solar_11.2.pdf

       http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21067246

       http://www.pnas.org/content/110/6/2029

       http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1765&context=ealr
       http://www.solar-facts-and-advice.com/cadmium-telluride.html
       http://www.bnl.gov/pv/files/pdf/art_170.pdf
       http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/bsc/2009/july/draft_resconcept/ito.pdf
       http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjir/pdf/Solar_11.2.pdf
       http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp59.pdf
       http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/LawsRegsPolicies/upload/Norwegian-Geotechnical-Institute-Study.pdf
       Recycling isn’t that easy it seems and is full of chemical and energy intensive processes, just like making the original panels was, so many things not accounted for.
       http://2011.solarteam.org/news/recycling-methods-for-used-photovoltaic-panels
       http://www.renewablepowernews.com/archives/1281
       Doesn’t really bust any myths but does resort to comparison to nuclear and coal albeit without actual comparison and doesn’t say solar panels aren’t an environmental hazard just says that the risks are minimized in the production process although waste disposal and issues aren’t really addressed that well.
       http://www.airproducts.com/~/media/Files/PDF/industries/pv-nf3-lifecycle-emissions-from-photovoltaics.aspx
       Company sponsored paper so will be biased to a degree.
       http://www2.avs.org/symposium2011/Papers/Paper_EN+TF-TuA7.html
       http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/thin-film-solar-market-to-grow-1-500-percent-by-2017_100004524/#axzz2DlT7sIK0
       http://www.eere.energy.gov/basics/renewable_energy/types_silicon.html
       http://svtc.org/wp-content/uploads/Silicon_Valley_Toxics_Coalition_-_Toward_a_Just_and_Sust.pdf
       http://www.resourceinvestor.com/2008/03/13/materials-for-solar-photovoltaic-cells-i-silicon-v
       http://www.oregon.gov/odot/hwy/oipp/docs/life-cyclehealthandsafetyconcerns.pdf

       There are few for a starter.

       And as for recycling and closed loop manufacture, well how many times can you recycle anything and then it si still toxic and clsoedmanufacture well if the NF3 leaks is anything go by that isn't really practical either.

37412. KR at 04:09 AM on 29 March 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #13A
       

       Poster - The low-ball estimates you describe come almost entirely from Richard Tol, taken from his own papers and inserted into the WGII report - as discussed at Rabett Run his work represents an extreme opinion, not that of the literature as a whole. 

       Richard Tols estimates seem to assume a best-case scenario (immediate curtailing of emissions), ignore many possible consequences of climate change, and only hold true up to the mid-21st century. They are by no means the mid-line estimates. 

       [Ridley and Tol, incidentally, are both on the Academic Advisory Council of the denialist organization GWPF]

       "Do you have any thoughts or comments why on Ridley and Delingpole suggest the Summary for Policymakers will be "much more alarmist" than the report from the Working Party?"  That outcome remains to be seen, as the WGII report has not been published yet - it may be more pessimistic than they expect. Clearly, though, denialists such as Ridley and Delingpole find it advantageous to highlight the lowest estimates. 

37413. KR at 03:57 AM on 29 March 2014
       Climate Models Show Remarkable Agreement with Recent Surface Warming
       

       tonydunc - If the models when run with accurate forcings continue to reproduce observations, and there is no time span of divergence, the 'time period' question is moot. 

       This post simply demonstrates that the CMIP5 model runs weren't done with the exact forcings from the last few decades, and that if those actual instances of natural variance are taken into account that the models are quite good. 

37414. Poster9662 at 02:51 AM on 29 March 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #13A
       

       Thanks for ypur criticism scaddenp.  Perhaps you might also have suggested Gingerbaker could have looked for another thread.  Incidentally have you seen the comments (admittedly from climate change deniers Matt Ridley in the Wall Street Journal and James Delingpole in Breitbart News) that the upcoming IPCC report from Working Group II will ( -snip-) estimates a rise of 2.5C in glbal temperature will cost the global economy between 0.2% and 2% of its GDP.  Do you have any thoughts or comments why on Ridley and Delingpole suggest the  Summary for Policymakers will be "much more alarmist"  than  the report from the Working Party?  Are they  telling lies?  

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Accusation of fraud and misconduct snipped.

       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.

37415. tonydunc at 02:01 AM on 29 March 2014
       Climate Models Show Remarkable Agreement with Recent Surface Warming
       

       I have been using this argument with opponents of ACC, and rarely get a coherent response. I also include the apparent ocean heating from Argo as another factor, and that if it was not for CO2 global temps should have fallen significantly with all these factors. so current high plateau global temps are actually strong support for ACC.

       My positon is that if this is an ad hoc argument designed to shore up the fradulent alarmist cries of CAGW, then the fixes should be clunky and increasingly untenable. Much like epicycles were for the solar system. 

       I always acknowledge that it is possible that these are not factors, but I don't know enough about quantifying the effect, and can't read Gavin's paper (paywall).

       At some point, unless these particular mitigating factors become stronger, the GHE will have to overwhelm then and global surface temps will increase  and stay above current global temps. So what period of time from now would undermine current ACC theory?

37416. michael sweet at 00:51 AM on 29 March 2014
       Honey, I mitigated climate change
       

       Ranyl,

       Can you provide citations for your claims about the problems of manufacturing solar.  Please cite peer reviewed material if possible.

37417. energydata at 00:45 AM on 29 March 2014
       Climate Models Show Remarkable Agreement with Recent Surface Warming
       

       Current Locations of the Net Energy Gain by the Earth over the Past 40 Years (According to the IPCC AR5) http://j.mp/EarthEnergyAllocation

37418. folke_kelm at 20:31 PM on 28 March 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #13A
       

       regarding ElNino development there is a very intresting discussion on the

       Arctic Sea Ice Forum. http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?topic=730.new;topicseen#new

37419. michael sweet at 20:16 PM on 28 March 2014
       Honey, I mitigated climate change
       

       Terranova,

       I agree with Scaddenp above. I would add that in the two places in the US that I have lived, Florida and California, two nuclear plants have recently shut down because of failed upgrade attempts and no new plants are planned.  If it is not economic to repair an existing plant (with the generators, transmission lines and environmental studies already in place) how could you build a new one?  There is extreme subsidation of nuclear (one Florida company was allowed to charge their customers $1.5 billion for planning on a new plant that never broke ground).  Another Florida plant has severe problems from a recent upgrade.  Can you provide evidence that nuclear is economic without government subsidy?  In what country?

       I do not want to comment again on nuclear because everyone has already made up their minds and it clogs up the threads.

37420. ranyl at 18:15 PM on 28 March 2014
       Honey, I mitigated climate change
       

       Ranyl #3: So where I was not being truthful about solar and wind energy? I only suggested in passing that they are good from climate point of view (which they are) and didn't claim we only need to use those in the future. Neither did I claim that these two don't have any environmental problems.

       Well I didn't say you wren't beign truthful in aspect just not taking full consideration.

       PV is not good environmentally, they are toxic waste that can't be got rid of, use massive amount s of energy to make, produce lots of toxic waste in manufacturing and recycling due to treatments, release other very active GHG (NF3, HFC's used a cleanign agents) have significant impacts in large arrays (and to provide large amounts power really that have to be huge arrays) and so on and so on, so how are they good for the environment actually?

37421. Paul W at 17:30 PM on 28 March 2014
       Honey, I mitigated climate change
       

       Ari, I agree with your concerns about natural gas and bioenergy. Neither are solutions yet are portrayed as such. I agree with you that energy spent on natural gas and bioenergy just consume a resouse and take time we dont have.

       We do need to solve the energy produciton situation and dont have time to waste on non solutions that further harm the environment.

       Haing said that to nuke/antinuke debate dose seem rather unavoidable at this point in history. I would completly love it if other solutions were at hand. It's been an interst now of mine for 30 years and the big rewnewables genaration don't seem to get near nukes for Gwatts instaled cost which is a bottom line.

       Still your point is valid natural gas and biofuels are a way of keeping on putting CO2 in the air when we really do need to end that and move on to other energy sources.

       Your point that food supply is now decrasing and we need that to not be caused by a false energy alternative like biofuels.

37422. Ari Jokimäki at 17:16 PM on 28 March 2014
       Honey, I mitigated climate change
       

       Numerobis #1: Like I tried to explain in the article (and obviously failed), we though we had reduced emissions but didn't - this is "once", and in a worst case scenario biofuels (and natural gas) have much higher emissions than fossil fuels - this is "twice".

       Ranyl #3: So where I was not being truthful about solar and wind energy? I only suggested in passing that they are good from climate point of view (which they are) and didn't claim we only need to use those in the future. Neither did I claim that these two don't have any environmental problems.

       Paul W #4: This article was not meant to be overview of the whole energy production but just an effort to highlight couple of problems in our current mitigation efforts. I actually had nuclear power included in the article originally, but I decided to take it out because usually any mention of nuclear power leads to nuke/anti-nuke debate. Proof of this we have here: no comments on bioenergy or natural gas after your message, only comments on nuclear power. I wanted to highlight the situation with bioenergy and natural gas.

37423. Harry Twinotter at 16:35 PM on 28 March 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #13A
       

       Even global warming deniers who agree the global average temperatures have increased during the 20th century will use the "hiatus" to dispute anthropogenic global warming ie the warming has occurred naturally and is not caused by greenhouse gases.

       Putting aside the fact that deniers have not identified what the "natural" cause is, is it safe to say another fact that shows it is unlikely to be natural is the global average temperatures did not experience any cooling trend in the 15 years of the "hiatus"? It seems to me that in general the global average temperatures had as much chance of a cooling trend in those years instead of a warming trend.

37424. scaddenp at 14:24 PM on 28 March 2014
       Honey, I mitigated climate change
       

       Further to that Terranova, would you invest in plant where your investment was liable for costs associated with malfunction in operation or in waste disposal? Should nuclear be allowed to pass such risk costs to goverment when other forms of power generation do not?

37425. scaddenp at 14:16 PM on 28 March 2014
       Honey, I mitigated climate change
       

       Terranova, I would have thought a working definition of economic would be "able to attract investors wanting to build one who have a reasonable confidence in making money from their investment". Is there any private investor-built nukes without government guarantees anywhere? For naysayers, well say Morningstar or Peter Bradford, or how about Cooper 2013?

       That said, I would very much welcome government investment in new breeds of reactor, particularly Thorium or IFR and completely accept that development of such advanced technologies wont happen without government support.

37426. mercpl at 12:23 PM on 28 March 2014
       Honey, I mitigated climate change
       

       Jim Hansen loves nuclear power anyway.  that's enough for me.

       http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2014/20140310_ChinaOpEd.pdf

       There's a thread over at Arctic Sea Ice Forums discussing it right now.

37427. Terranova at 11:43 AM on 28 March 2014
       Honey, I mitigated climate change
       

       Sweet, can you defend your statement about non economic?

37428. Albatross at 11:32 AM on 28 March 2014
       Cherry picked and misrepresented climate science undermines FiveThirtyEight brand
       

       John Abraham has an article today in the Huffington post that also deals with Pielke Jnr's misrepresentations and attempts to obfuscate and confuse.

37429. michael sweet at 11:14 AM on 28 March 2014
       Honey, I mitigated climate change
       

       Paul,

       Where I live in Florida no-one in the government cares what environmentalists think.  Nuclear was given enormous subsidies and has failed because it is not economic.  Nuclear is too expensive to build in the USA.

       With the problems in Japan (which the Nuclear industry is not paying to fix, it comes from taxpayers) I would be very hesitant to put reactors in the third world.  They would be sure to have severe problems.  I don't think that will become an issue because nuclear is uneconomic.

37430. Composer99 at 10:42 AM on 28 March 2014
       Honey, I mitigated climate change
       

       Paul W:

       Out of curiosity, what is the source for your assertion that "People have moved back in to the exclusion area and are having good lives."

       A Kyiv Post article from 2012 reports:

       In the so-called Exclusion (18.5 mile radius) Zone around the Shelter, most of the so-called samosely (self-settlers, i.e. returned evacuees) are dying out. In 2007, there remained 314 scattered throughout 11 villages, with an average age of 63. In 1986 there were an estimated 1,200. Ten villages were bulldozed in the zone and others are in a state of decay. The 1986 disaster has destroyed settlements and patterns of life that date back to medieval times. Of those moved from the Exclusion Zone, only 3% were employed in 2003 (though some had retired by then).

       Do you have more recent information describing an influx of people?

       The article suggests that the Chernobyl situation is in fact nowhere near as rosy as you portray. Do you have any sources describing a dramatic turnaround?

37431. scaddenp at 10:29 AM on 28 March 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #13A
       

       Poster, this is essentially the same remark that you made in December. If you wish to discuss this, how about going to one of the relevant threads? Search for "hiatus".

37432. bill4344 at 10:22 AM on 28 March 2014
       Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
       

       Ah, Haber and Bosch, the two most influential people you've never heard of!

37433. Paul W at 10:04 AM on 28 March 2014
       Honey, I mitigated climate change
       

       A good article in what it covers. It's what it avoids is the issue. The sustainable energy source that is not mentioned is nuclear. We need to stop the use of coal ASAP and move to reduce our CO2 level to below 350 ppm. With this I agree completely.

       Advanced nuclear can do that in a short period of time at least in the third world. Yet much of the environmental movement thinks that nuclear has cooties and must be opposed.

       The feeling attached to nuclear are understandably strong given the history of the bomb but the mass cancers after Chernobyl have not happened. People have moved back in to the exclusion area and are having good lives. Nuclear cooties appear not to be as leathal as claimed.

       The denial of nuclear science from the anti nukes is similar to the denial of climate science of the climate deniers.

       The use of mass produced nuclear bateries as the heat source for existing coal fired power stations makes them a rapid coal replacer.

       Since the fuel is already processed in the form of depleated uranium and bomb grade plutonium further energy use in production is minimal. Since the technology is ready for regulatory approval it's the cooties factor that is the main impediment.

       It's a shame the civilisation can be ended because of cooties!

       I agree with the author that many renewables while good as an energy source don't easily translate to the scale need to replace coal inside of the 10 years needed where as nuclear batteries could get quite close to that.

       The near extinction of the orangutan and environmental damage just is not worth the the bio-deisel produced.

37434. ranyl at 09:34 AM on 28 March 2014
       Honey, I mitigated climate change
       

       "Examples of such energy production methods are wind power and solar power. These two are clearly good options."
       Quite a statement.
       Firstly for clarity to survive climate change humanity needs to stop using all fossil fuels asap so contrasting wind an dsolar to coal is thus just an abstract issue now. And to get 350ppm we have to remove approximately 100ppm worth of CO2 from the atmosphere, we have to re-remove what the sinks will release as CO2 concentrations fall.
       So we have no carbon budget at all, all we have is a carbon gamble and all renewable cost carbon to set up of which is carbon that will need removing again from the atmosphere.
       Secondly solar PV has serious issues with associated toxic waste (that is very toxic and a severe issue in the made in China ones) to in thre process to make them , in themselves and in the processes needed to recycle the,, including rare earth metals, heat up to 2000C and cleaning agents like trinitrofloride that do get released all eventually which are 17000 x potent GHG's. And what will happen to the soil beneath fields of solar panels (lose soil carbon due to no acute growth carbon load?) and in lsarge arrays they mimic water causing insects and birds to gather by them, and disturbing them during migration etc, and lowering chances of success, basically they disturb ecosystems functioning when we need them to be fully repaired from our destruction.
       And wind has large carbon inputs, and does disturb birds and bats populations (a real issue in North America) If misplaced, and sound causes biodiversity issues in oceans and they warm and dry the land and cause excess evaporation over oceans, all of which mean they definitely have quite significant environmental impacts, and I'm not anti wind just realize that their utilization is actually very limited and we have actually no carbon to gamble with to be safe anyway.
       Therefore to say wind and solar are without environmental issues is fool hardy and misleading and will mean that once again mankind will produce in excess in our craze for more power and cause more harm than good, remember again I say we need to not being using any fossil fuels asap , 5-10years to no fossil use?
       Then there is all the carbon upfront that adaptation measures needed will cost.
       So we have no carbon to spend on them and they have real and very significant impacts on an environment we need to repair, nowhere near as much as fossil fuels for sure.
       That s not saying no wind or solar it is saying be truthful about them and accept they very limited and we have no carbon to spend on them anyway really, just a very risky gamble (we left it too late for luxuries, (sacrifice for the greater good is the new game and fortunately that brings people together and feels good apparently if we take it on) and therefore most appropriate thing to do is to power down as much as possible immediately and get away with as few additional carbon, other GHG and toxic waste issues as possible, in this case less is more, but accepting power down is difficult so I'm sure on the whole we'll just turn a blind eye again to known environmental impacts and the reality of the carbon situation and overexploit renewables again in what would best be called mal adaptation.
       So to be clear I feel we need to be off fossil fuels asap, however we also need to judicious with power use and get this down as much as possible so we get away with as few new technologies as possible and as just less carbon emissions to install them and less environmental impacts to an environment on the point of biodiversity crises in any case, when it comes to energy using less is the greatest more.

        

37435. Poster9662 at 08:56 AM on 28 March 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #13A
       

       I think the comment is that there has been no statistically significant increase in global warming since 1998 (actually I think some say since 1997 and others claim since 1995)

37436. Tom Curtis at 07:01 AM on 28 March 2014
       Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
       

       dwdeclare @22, it becomes clear from the broader context that Lovelock is in fact talking about (primarilly) fossil fuel emissions in the production of food rather than mistakenly considering respiration as a form of net emissions.  Because those fossil fuel emissions are for the most part normal industrial emissions, they can for the most part be eliminated by the same processes used to eliminate emissions from the rest of industrial civilization, and Lovelock's pessimism is largely unwarranted.

       There are a couple of subtleties involved, however, one of which you draw attention to.  Methane has a far higher forcing per unit carbon than does CO2.  Therefore, the emission of methane by cows in the form of burps and farts represents a transformation of CO2 into methane, and a net short term increase in radiative forcing.  Short term because after about 15 years (from memory), the methane in tha atmosphere has transformed back to CO2.  The same applies to methane released from swamps (natural) or rice fields (anthropogenic).

       The second subtley is far more important.  Most fertilizer used in modern agriculture is produced from methane plus components in the atmosphere.  The essential step is the Haber-Bosch process:

       N2 + 3 H2 → 2 NH3 (ΔH = −92.4 kJ·mol−1)

       The hydrogen is produced through one of several processes from methane, of which the two step process may be considered representative:

       CH4 + H2O ⇌ CO + 3 H2

       CO + H2O ⇌ CO2 + H2

       Combining these reactions, we see that for each 8 nitrogen atoms in fertilizer, 3 methane atoms are used in its production, and 3 CO2 molecules released to the atmosphere.  By mass, that means that for each 28 Kg of Nitrogen produced in fertilizer, 9 Kg of carbon is consumed as methane, or released to the atmosphere as CO2 in addition to that emitted in producing the energy to drive these reactions.

       How significant this is can be seen from wikipedia:

       "The Haber process now produces 500 million short tons (454 million tonnes) of nitrogen fertilizer per year, mostly in the form of anhydrous ammonia, ammonium nitrate, and urea. 3–5% of the world's natural gas production is consumed in the Haber process (~1–2% of the world's annual energy supply).  In combination with pesticides, these fertilizers have quadrupled the productivity of agricultural land:

       "With average crop yields remaining at the 1900 level the crop harvest in the year 2000 would have required nearly four times more land and the cultivated area would have claimed nearly half of all ice-free continents, rather than under 15% of the total land area that is required today."

       
       Due to its dramatic impact on the human ability to grow food, the Haber process served as the "detonator of the population explosion", enabling the global population to increase from 1.6 billion in 1900 to today's 7 billion. According to Howarth (2008), nearly 80% of the nitrogen found in human tissues originated from the Haber-Bosch process. Since nitrogen use efficiency is typically less than 50%, our heavy use of industrial nitrogen fixation is severely disruptive to our biological habitat."

       (My emphasis)

       As a rule of thumb, if 80% of nitrogen in human tissue originates from the Haber-Bosch process, then without that process the sustainable population will drop by 80%.

       Clearly the hydrogen in the Haber Bosch process could be collected by catalyctic processing of water.  That would need to be made significantly more economicly efficient, however, to compete with current methods of production.  One of the reasons we should rapidly convert electricity production to carbon neutral methods is just to allow more time before we need to modify the industrial manufacture of fertilizer, both in terms of emissions, and in terms of the availability of methane.

37437. scaddenp at 06:20 AM on 28 March 2014
       Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
       

       dwdeclare - the issue with cow burps etc is methane - a potent GHG that would not normally be produced if grass were not eaten by a ruminant. Eventually methane oxidizes to CO2 but while present in the atmosphere it contributes strongly to the greenhouse effect. You will see that greenhouse gas inventories are expressed in terms of CO2e (CO2 equivalents) rather than CO2 though the accounting for methane in this method has some issues. Methane from ruminants is increasing only because the number of ruminants has been increased by intensive farming practices.

       I think the article should perhaps also mention that there is another way to track the source of the increase in the CO2 in the atmosphere - carbon isotopes. Fossil fuels have no C14. C13 ratios are also different for different sources.

37438. dwdeclare at 06:06 AM on 28 March 2014
       Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
       

       @Dikran Marsupial Here is the entire paragraph:

       It is surprising that politicians could have been so unwise as to agree on policies many decades ahead. Perhaps there were voices from scientists who warned of the absurdity of such planning, but if so they do not seem to have been heard. Even if we cut emissions by 60 per cent to 12 gigatons a year it wouldn’t be enough. I have mentioned several times before that breathing is a potent source of carbon dioxide, but did you know that the exhalations of breath and other gaseous emissions by the nearly 7 billion people on Earth, their pets and their livestock are responsible for 23 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions? If you add on the fossil fuel burnt in the total activity of growing, gathering, selling and serving food, all of this adds up to about half of all carbon dioxide emissions. Think of farm machinery, the transport of food from the farms and the transport of fertilizer, pesticides and the fuel used in their manufacture; the road building and maintenance; supermarket operation and the packaging industry; to say nothing of the energy used in cooking, refrigerating and serving food. As if this were not enough, think of how farmland fails to serve Gaia as the forests it replaced did. If, just by living with our pets and livestock, we are responsible for nearly half the emissions of carbon dioxide, I do not see how the 60 per cent reduction can be achieved without a great loss of life. Like it or not, we are the problem – and as a part of the Earth system, not as something separate from and above it. When world leaders ask us to follow them to the inviting green pastures ahead they should first check that it really is grass on solid ground and not moss covering a quagmire.

       Let me also ask, if respiration is carbon neutral why would cow burps and farts add to the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere? Please don't for a moment think I'm trying to dispute the veracity of anthropogenic climate change being largely caused by the burning of fossil fuels. I'm just asking because I'm curious.

37439. Dikran Marsupial at 03:49 AM on 28 March 2014
       Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
       

       @dwdwclare If Lovelock is going to take exhalations as contributing to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions then you would need to consider the food we eat as being carbon uptake.  Respiration is carbon neutral, the carbon in the food we eat originally came from the atmosphere, so when we breathe it out again, we are just returning it to the atmosphere and it has no net effect on atmospheric CO2 levels.

       Taking carbon out of the lithosphere and putting it into the atmosphere does however affect atmospheric CO2 concentrations (and indeed increases the total amount of CO2 circulating through the carbon cycle).

       It could be that Lovelock is making a subtle point that requires greater context to be apparent.

37440. Gingerbaker at 02:38 AM on 28 March 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #13A
       

       "13 of 14 warmest years on record occurred in 21st century"

        

       This is surely impossible, as I have it on good authority that there has been no global warming since 1998. ;)  How can a denialist meme survive such a throbbing kick to the shins from reality? It boggles.

37441. HK at 02:11 AM on 28 March 2014
       The Big Picture (2010 version)
       

       Have updated the Norwegian translation!

37442. dwdeclare at 01:59 AM on 28 March 2014
       Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
       

       So is James Lovelock wrong when he says in his book The Vanishing Face of Gaia (2009):

       I have mentioned several times before that breathing is a potent source of carbon dioxide, but did you know that the exhalations of breath and other gaseous emissions by the nearly 7 billion people on Earth, their pets and their livestock are responsible for 23 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions?

37443. John Hartz at 01:50 AM on 28 March 2014
       Honey, I mitigated climate change
       

       By coincidence, the following article was posted on the Carbon Brief blog yesterday

       Carbon briefing: changing views on biofuels reflected in forthcoming climate report by Robin Webster.

       The lead paragraphs of Webster's post: 

       The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s new report, due to be launched next week, is likely to give a new and updated perspective on biofuels - reflecting a flood of research on their impact on natural systems in past years.

       The UN-created body launched its last major report back in 2007. At that time, the idea of using plant based crops as a replacement for fossil fuels was largely viewed as an effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector.

       But soon after, studies began emerging in the scientific literature that challenged this idea. They suggested biofuels could damage the environment, drive up food prices, or even increase greenhouse gas emissions.

37444. numerobis at 01:35 AM on 28 March 2014
       Honey, I mitigated climate change
       

       This conclusion of the article seems very fuzzy.  Biofuels may not be any improvement over fossil fuels — US corn ethanol in particular appears to barely stretch oil reserves at all, never mind land use considerations.  But how are biofuels "twice as bad" ?

37445. chriskoz at 17:21 PM on 27 March 2014
       The Carbon Bubble - Unburnable Fossil Fuels - Seminar and Discussion
       

       Regarding "FF companies to redeploy their expertise in new projects", the only example Andy has given is the CCS by the oil companies in the exploited porous rock reservoirs.

       That's very unconvincing example. Especially in light ofof this article:

       Sequestering carbon nature's way

       (the cartoon therein gives thousand words  on the subject)

       I would like to see something better, that would make a real difference on AGW, unline imaginary stories for what the technology does not exist yet. For example drilling expertise in construction of geothermals. Better than CCS by far, and realistic and truly changing the face of the company involved. That's the kind of FF company tranformation I'd like to see happeing...

37446. energydata at 15:07 PM on 27 March 2014
       The Carbon Bubble - Unburnable Fossil Fuels - Seminar and Discussion
       

       What If We Burn All the Fossil Fuel Reserves? Simple Arithmetic Using the IPCC AR5 http://j.mp/FF_RR_CO2

37447. Paul.H at 09:34 AM on 27 March 2014
       Cherry picked and misrepresented climate science undermines FiveThirtyEight brand
       

       Are Silver's views on agw public knowledge?  Though I guess given the way he covered it in 2 books & the hiring of Pielke it's not to difficult to imagine which way he falls...  

       For someone who seems to be all about the hard data, analysis, facts and all that good stuff it's certianly a very interesting tack for him to take, maybe a staff member of a certain well respected science driven climate change site could interview him to see what's what?

37448. Dikran Marsupial at 05:09 AM on 27 March 2014
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: J.S. Sawyer in 1972
       

       Adrian Smits wrote "According to J S Sawyer the warming He estimated was a natural rebound from the little ice age so what was so ground breaking about His work?"

       Except that isn't actually what he said.  What he said was "Against this background [a change of 2C between the medieval optimum and the LIA and a rise in GMST of 0.6C between 1880 and 1940] a change of 0.6C by the end of the century will not be easy to distinguish from natural fluctuations and is certainly not a cause for concern".

       
       It is a coincidence that the warming from 1880 to 1940 is about 0.6C (I suspect his data is now rather dated) and the warming from a 25% increase in CO2 by the end of the century is also about 0.6C.  There is a difference in talking about past warming (1880-1940) and a prediction of future warming (that resulting from a 25% increase in atmospheric CO2) and you appear to be confusing the two, and hence missing the importance of what Sawyer actually wrote.

       
       Sawyer also didn't say anything about a "rebound" from the LIA, just that it had warmed since the LIA, without implying any active mechanism.

       I'd agree that 0.6C warming is no great cause for concern, if it stopped there I wouldn't be concerned either!

37449. Dikran Marsupial at 04:13 AM on 27 March 2014
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: J.S. Sawyer in 1972
       

       merlin5x5 @ 6 You are making a classic error in interpreting a statistical hypothesis test.  A lack of a statistically significant trend does not mean that there has been no warming, but essentially just that there hasn't been enough warming for us to rule out the possibility that there has been no warming. 

       To demonstrate this, imagine I have a two headed coin, and I flip it four times and get a head each time (oddly enough).  If you perform the standard test for the bias of a coin, you will find that the p-value (1/2)^4 is greater than the critical level (0.05 by tradition), so the evidence of bias is not statistically significant.  Does that mean the coin is unbiased?  Of course not, it has a head on both sides, it couldn't be more biased!  All it means is that based solely on the observations, we cannot rule out the possibility that the coin is unbiased.

       If this sounds counterintuitive, then yes, I would agree that it is, but that is the way that traditional frequentist hypothesis testing works (largely as a result of using a definition of probability that doesn't allow you to attach a numeric probability to the truth of a particular hypothesis - unlike the Bayesian framework).

       Of course climate skeptic blogs tend to ignore this stats 101 issue.

37450. Bob Lacatena at 03:21 AM on 27 March 2014
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: J.S. Sawyer in 1972
       

       Adrian @5...

       The paper itself is available here.  You don't need to read it, but if you skip around and peruse it, you'll get a good feel for the actual nature and intent of the paper.  You'll also see that there is nothing remotely like what is being claimed.  The paper is all about the fascinating science of estimating past (as in 10,000 years ago) climate from stalagmites.

       To give everyone some feel for the paper's contents, here is one paragraph from the Conclusions:

       Stalagmites can record environmental and climate changes through variations in their growth rate and stable isotope composition, and can therefore provide valuable terrestrial proxy archives. In the Okshola cave near Fauske (northern Norway) stalagmite formation began at about 10.4 ka, soon after the valley was deglaciated. Past monitoring of the cave and surface has revealed stable modern conditions with uniform drip rates, relative humidity and temperature. Stable isotope records from two stalagmites provide time-series spanning from c. 10 380 yr to AD 1997; a banded, multi-coloured stalagmite (Oks82) was formed between 10 380 yr and 5050 yr, whereas a pristine, white stalagmite (FM3) covers the period from ∼7500 yr to the present. The δ18O_c, δ13C_c, and growth rate records are interpreted as showing i) a negative correlation between cave/surface temperature and δ18O_c, ii) a positive correlation between wetness and δ13C_c,and iii) a positive correlation between cave/surface temperature and growth rate. The data from Okshola show that the Holocene was characterised by high-variability climate in the early part, low-variability climate in the middle part, and high-variability and shifts between two distinct modes in the late part.

       Here is the only mention, in the entire paper, of the MCA and the LIA are from the section titled Stable oxygen isotope patterns for the last 1000 years.  Read it carefully and critically, and most importantly from the point of view of the author, not from the perspective of a climate change dismissive looking to find evidence of something that probably isn't there:

       The δ18O_c pattern (inset, Fig. 3d) largely mirrors the conventional understanding of the climate development for the last millennium; warm – cold – warm. Firstly, the depleted isotope values (1000–400 yr) can be attributed to ameliorated climate conditions during the Mediaeval Warm Period (MWP) or Mediaeval Climate Anomaly (MCA) (e.g. Crowley and Lowery, 2000; Broecker, 2001, Trouet et al., 2009).  Secondly, the interval of enriched isotope values (400–70 yr) coincides with the historically documented climate deterioration associated with the Little Ice Age (LIA) (e.g. Bradley and Jones, 1993; Mann et al., 1998; Nesje and Dahl, 2003).  Thirdly, the most recent depleted values (last ∼70 yr) correspond with the warming following the LIA.

       The change in δ18O_c around ∼AD 1500–1725 amounts to a relative enrichment of 0.6–0.8‰. Because the greater effect on fractionation of meteoric precipitation (e.g. +0.59‰/˚C, Rozanski et al., 1993), and the opposing direction of fractionation during calcite precipitation (−0.24‰/˚C, O’Neil et al., 1969), an enrichment in the order of 0.6–0.8‰ could in theory translate to a ∼+2˚C warming (if δ18O_c is dominated by the isotopic composition of meteoric precipitation). This contradicts all other observations of the climate transition into the LIA. The observed trend is taken as confirmation of a net negative relationship between δ18O_c and surface/cave temperature, echoing previous studies of Holocene stalagmites from Norway (Lauritzen and Lundberg, 1999; Linge et al., 2001, 2009). However, this interpretation invokes the need for a selective or amplifying mechanism responsible for enhancing the apparent dominance of T cave on the direction of change in δ18O_c. This has previously been suggested to be through discrimination of isotopically light winter water during cooler phases because of surface runoff during snowmelt (Linge, 1999; Sundqvist et al., 2007a; Linge et al., 2009).

       and later:

       All records covering (parts of) the last 1000 years (Fig. 5) appear to display a depletion-enrichment-depletion pattern (cf. inset Fig. 3d) commonly interpreted as reflecting the conventional view on climate development for the last millennium, i.e. the MCA, LIA, to present climate transition.  Despite the pattern similarities, the timings of change in the individual records are asynchronous, but then most age models are of low-resolution in this interval. Moreover, the observed δ18O_c-trend for the last c. 1000 years (inset, Fig. 3d) is commonly taken as a confirmation of a negative relationship between δ18O_c and surface/cave temperature (e.g. Lauritzen and Lundberg, 1999; Linge et al., 2001, 2009). In addition, the amplitude of change in this interval suggests that the apparent dominance of T cave on the direction of change in δ18O_c must be attributed a selective or amplifying mechanism, such as discrimination of isotopically light winter water through surface runoff during snowmelt during cooler phases (Linge, 1999, 2009; Sundqvist et al., 2007a).

       The bottom line: be very, very wary of what you read of other people — particularly climate change dismissive websites — claiming of actual, published, peer-reviewed papers.  They very rarely say anything near what the climate change dismissives claim they say.

Prev  741  742  743  744  745  746  747  748  749  750  751  752  753  754  755  756  Next