Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 Next
Comments 37451 to 37500:
-
martin3818 at 08:53 AM on 30 March 2014Climate Models Show Remarkable Agreement with Recent Surface Warming
Knowing quantitavely what we do now about the different forcings how good are predictions or projections regarding global surface temperatures for the next 10 years?
I'm sure that volcanoes and ENSO still can't be predicted. But what about solar and aerosols. How broad should the uncertainty band around the ensemble mean be for the year 2024?
-
Kevin C at 07:21 AM on 30 March 2014Climate Models Show Remarkable Agreement with Recent Surface Warming
The thermal inertia of the climate system means that the temperature takes time to respond to a change in forcing. In the case of the solar forcing, the temperature response is expected to lag the forcing by 30-50 degrees, or 11-18 months. So even if we have just passed the peak of the solar cycle, the peak effect on temperatures may not occur for another year. (And of course solar cycles are rather variable in length.)
See for example:
- White WB, Lean J, Cayan DR, Dettinger MD (1997) Response of global upper ocean temperature to changing solar irradiance. J Geophys Res 102:3255-3266.
- Van Hateren, J. H. (2013). A fractal climate response function can simulate global average temperature trends of the modern era and the past millennium. Climate Dynamics, 40(11-12), 2651-2670.
-
NewYorkJ at 07:18 AM on 30 March 2014Cherry picked and misrepresented climate science undermines FiveThirtyEight brand
Like gentlemen?
Seriously?
-
Klapper at 06:36 AM on 30 March 2014Climate Models Show Remarkable Agreement with Recent Surface Warming
@jja #9:
"...and the current solar cycle also reaches a maximum of intensity during the years 2015-2016"
That is highly unlikely since the official start of solar cycle 24 is Jan 2008. A 2016 peak would put the cycle 24 peak at least 7 years after the start of the cycle, which is highly implausible.
-
Klapper at 06:31 AM on 30 March 2014Climate Models Show Remarkable Agreement with Recent Surface Warming
@tonydunc #5:
"Klapper, what makes you say Sea level rise is realtivel noise free?"
Do a rolling R-squared using a 10 year period on the sea level data (satellite or tide guage) and compare it to the same metric on any atmospheric data set (also a 10 year period). A crude comparison but the results show sea level have much lower deviation than other climate metrics.
-
PhilBMorris at 06:17 AM on 30 March 2014Honey, I mitigated climate change
We have to stay below 450 ppm CO2 (even that may be too high), a level we'll reach by 2033 with the BAU approach, and then get down to 350 ppm ASAP. US EIA predicts global electricty production by 2025 as 4.1 million MW installed capacity from fossil fuels. That is equivalent to 6300 London Arrays, currently the largest offshore wind farm. Until there are appropriate advances in battery storage systems, wind power will never achieve base load capabilities. The US EIA also estimates that electricty production and direct heating produce just 31% of all CO2 emmisions; the only other sector that has the potential for replacing fossil fuels is transportation (another 20%) but that requires an entirely new infrastructure for electric vehicles and/or hydrogen fuel.
That still leaves about 50% of CO2 emmisions that are not readily dealt with (manufacturing, construction, land use/direct emissions etc) We'd have to squester atmospheric CO2in massive amounts, which, unless there's a breakthrough in technology, will require copious amounts of electricty - from non-fossil sources of course (see House et. al. Royal Society of Chemistry, 2008, Direct Air Capture of CO2 with Chemicals, American Physical Society, 2011, and Rau et. Al Institute of Marine Sciences, U. Of California, 2013).
Our only hope is nuclear, but not the uranium based systems that Rickover decided on in the 1970's but throium based systems that are walk away safe; produce far less radioactive byproducts of far lower toxicity; are far more prolieration resistant, and potentially far cheaper to build that the current PWR systems. Maybe fusion will finally get the breakthrough needed to produce power, but as a civilzation we cannot rely on hoped for solutions. Getting our political systems to really deal with climate change is in itself a problem we seem unable to overcome, let alone techical issues of implementing timely solutions. I for one have come to realise that adaptation, really feasible for a modest prcentage of the global population, is now inevitable. Mitigation becomes less and less likely as the years go by.
The book '2084: An Oral History of the Great Warming' by James Powell may well be prescient.
-
scaddenp at 06:11 AM on 30 March 2014Climate Models Show Remarkable Agreement with Recent Surface Warming
I would also point out that Argo data is not an input into models.
-
Andy Skuce at 03:06 AM on 30 March 2014Cherry picked and misrepresented climate science undermines FiveThirtyEight brand
i recommend that people read the addendum to a recent RealClimate piece, where Stefan Rahmstorf shows how gentlemanly Pielke was in a discussion over the Russian heat wave paper.
Steve McIntyre also claims to be a gentleman over at Climate Audit, at least in a Wildean sense. Judith Curry also talks admiringly about the wave of "gentleman scientists" who doubt the seriousness of climate change.
There seems to be a lot of it about.
-
Stephen Baines at 01:38 AM on 30 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #13A
Poster,
"Science" can be interpreted as an endeavor, or as the body of scientific knowledge derived from that endeavor. The scientific endeavor focusses on unresolved issues, because there is no need to actively study resolved issues. It can be tautological, therefore, to say there is much uncertainty in the endeavor of science because uncertainty is specifically what the activity of science addresses - and this is what journals like Nature will highlight as they are concerned with cutting edge scientific endeavor.
At the same time, it is non-sense to suggest that issues that have been resolved are still uncertain. There is a huge body of scientifically resolved issues which we build on to further the scientific endeavor. Climate science is no different. There is no doubt that CO2 has increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial period, that human activity is responsible of that increase, that the greenhouse effect exists, and that warming of the planet has occured in response. Those issues have been resolved by decades, sometimes over a century, of prior scientific research.
Most of the current research now addresses how the warming will manifest itself going forward, the implications of that warming for us and the living world and the possible ways that feedbacks could exacerbate or ameliorate those implications. Of course there is uncertainty in those topics — they wouldn't be interesting to scientists otherwise! But that uncertainty has absolutely no bearing on the body of resolved scientific knowledge upon which that new research is built.
Your broad generalizations haphazardly paint over this distinction between the endeavor of science and the body of established scientific knowledge upon which it builds. In doing so, you make science generally sound like a fruitless enterprise that never generates established knowledge, which is non-sense given how much predictive ability science gives us in our everyday lives, including with respect to climate.
I do understand that someone from a different branch of science might be unclear about what exactly is the established science in climate science, and what are the new cutting edge research questions for scientific endeavor. Before expressing doubt, I would expect you to educate yourself about those, just as someone from a different discipline would expect me to educate myself about his/her field before making broad statements.
If you don't do that, regardless of your real intentions, you appear just like those who deliberately obfuscate because of their non-scientific agenda.
-
Rob Painting at 19:21 PM on 29 March 2014Climate Models Show Remarkable Agreement with Recent Surface Warming
"Some sources suggest that > 40% of Argo floats are either non- operational or produce questionable data"
Let me guess, these 'sources' don't happen to be oceanographers, but are instead non-experts ideologically resistant to the whole idea of climate-driven policy?
If readers are interested in the robustness of ocean heat measurements they should consider the IPCC AR5, Abraham et al (2013) & Von Schuckmann et al (2013). Yes the oceans are warming and the consequent thermal expansion of seawater is one of the main contributors to sea level rise.
IPCC AR5 Chapter 3 states:
"It is virtually certain that upper ocean (0 to 700 m) heat content increased during the relatively well-sampled 40-year period from 1971 to 2010"
&
"Warming of the ocean between 700 and 2000m likely contributed about 30% of the total increase in global ocean heat content (0 to 2000m) between 1957 and 2009. Although globally integrated ocean heat content in some of the 0 to 700m estimates increased more slowly from 2003 to 2010 than over the previous decade, ocean heat uptake from 700 to 2000 m likely continued unabated during this period."
As for the models, see figure 3 in the post. CMIP5 seems to do a reasonable job of simulating surface temperatures over the last hundred years. With better forcing estimates going back in time they might do an even better job. It's certainly plausible based on the work of Schmidt et al (2014).
-
Tom Curtis at 18:54 PM on 29 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #13A
Poster @12 forward, I remind you that your statement was that:
"...Mr Cook and his team might take note that there is very little certainty in science."
(My emphasis)
Your statement was about certainty in science in general, rather than the level of certainty of specific aspects of climate science. Pointing to specific aspects of climate science with a high level of uncertainty therefore represents a straigh forward bait and switch.
If you want to defend your absurd notion that "there is very little certainty in science", defend it. And start by showing that there is very little certainty that the Earth is an oblate speroid, rather than a euclidean plain. Alternatively, concede that you massively overstated the facts - to the point of absurdity- for rhetorical purposes. And let us have no more of this dishonest rhetorical game of pretending you were saying something entirely different to that which you actually said.
-
Poster9662 at 18:42 PM on 29 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #13A
My apologies for my sloppy typing, there are too many typographical errors in the above comment. I wrote"inter aloia containsd" that should be inter alia contains". That said the piece in Nature is well worth reading for itself as it illiustrates both uncertainties in climate science and the efforts being made to resolve them
-
Poster9662 at 18:32 PM on 29 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #13A
Tom Curtis re-reading your comments about certainty is science I encourage you to read this piece from Nature
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525
It commences "The biggest mystery in climate science today may have begun, unbeknownst to anybody at the time, with a subtle weakening of the tropical trade winds blowing across the Pacific Ocean in late 1997." and inter aloia containsd this "Climate scientists, meanwhile, know that heat must still be building up somewhere in the climate system, but they have struggled to explain where it is going, if not into the atmosphere. Some have begun to wonder whether there is something amiss in their models."
(-snip-)
Moderator Response:[DB] Inflammatory tone snipped.
-
chriskoz at 18:29 PM on 29 March 2014Cherry picked and misrepresented climate science undermines FiveThirtyEight brand
Interesting turn on Pielke's critique. He responded by threatening his critics (he picked up Mike Mann & Kevin Trenberth - based on their prominence I guess) therefore ashaming himself. Up to the point that Nate Silver needed to appologise on his behalf.
IMO Pielke Jr has issues not just with his scientific integrity but also with his basic principles. His words:
"More generally, in the future how about we agree to disagree over scientific topics like gentlemen?"
actually apply to himself! True gentelmen never opine/argue with threatening language! They don't need to use threats to uphold their public image!
-
jja at 15:42 PM on 29 March 2014Climate Models Show Remarkable Agreement with Recent Surface Warming
If the 2015 El Nino projections are true and we experience a temperature spike similar to the 1997-1998 El Nino, and the current solar cycle also reaches a maximum of intensity during the years 2015-2016 and if China begins to more agressively scrub its SOx emissions then we may see a significant spike in warming on a global average over the next few years.
Recent shifts in the jetstream may be harbingers of larger shifts in the global hydrological flows. If this is the case then the added tropical atmospheric moisture associated with the El Nino flow may produce a stark shift in global weather patterns. -
Poster9662 at 15:39 PM on 29 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #13A
Tom Curtis
I suggest you might read this, taking especial note of the section "From the Royal Society's archives. If you read it you might like to reflect on your "Utter Garbage" comment
http://royalsociety.org/further/uncertainty-in-science
-
Andy Skuce at 11:03 AM on 29 March 2014The Carbon Bubble - Unburnable Fossil Fuels - Seminar and Discussion
chriskoz, I agree that developing geothermal energy would be a good use of oil company technical expertise and capital. And I agree that the most effective way to sequester carbon is to leave it in the ground.
But I don't think we can brush off CCS quite so easily, although I am very skeptical than it can be scaled up and deployed fast enough to make a big dent in emissions. However, many researchers, like the IEA and the people who did the socio-economic modelling behind the RCP2.6 scenario (the only one that keeps us below 2 degrees) foresee a big role for CCS.
This graph (modified Figure 2 from here) shows CCS (including biomass CCS) will be the source of about 40% of our energy supply by 2080. If that CCS business is captured by current fossil fuel firms, the total size of fossil fuel energy (CCS and non-CCS) will be about double the size that it is now. This scenario is hardly one in which the fossil fuel industry fades into extinction.
Now, you can be skeptical about this ever happening on this scale and on this timeline as I am, but CCS does have some respectable and thoughtful proponents.
There is a recent article on CCS in Wired by Charles Mann that is worth a read. He quotes Fatih Birol (IEA chief economist) as saying:
“I don’t know of any other technology which is so critical for the health of the planet and at the same time for which we have almost no appetite,”
-
Riduna at 10:56 AM on 29 March 2014Climate Models Show Remarkable Agreement with Recent Surface Warming
An interesting article on which I would make two observations: Firstly: the author points out that the accuracy of model output is dependent on reliable input – the GIGO factor. On this point one should perhaps question the reliability of Argo data. Just how reliable is it? Some sources suggest that > 40% of Argo floats are either non- operational or produce questionable data.Secondly: the author suggests that CMIP5 has been proven to be a reliable model when compared with observation – but is this really so? An improved model, maybe. (Overland et al (2014) questions the ability of CMIP5 to accurately show current or predict future temperature, particularly in higher latitudes. Predicting average global surface temperature, even in the short-term is, as the author points out, an extraordinarily difficult and complex process since it relies on the reliability and accuracy of a vast amount of data and models which predict the interaction of these data. Even though we do not have access to such data, two things can be predicted with reasonable certainty.1. El Nino is very likely to become established within the next 6-18 months and may well be as strong as or stronger than the one experienced in 1997/98.2. We shall not need complex models and data to appreciate its effect on average global surface temperature or the prognostications of so called “skeptics” who have rashly declared a hiatus in global warming, or its demise.Nor does one need sophisticated models to tell us that, as long as we continue to pump increasing amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, temperatures will continue rising, first with dangerous, then with catastrophic consequences. -
wili at 10:18 AM on 29 March 2014Climate Models Show Remarkable Agreement with Recent Surface Warming
Yes, tonyd, sea level can vary quite a bit and can be quite noisy. The same heat that warms and expands the ocean also lofts more water into the air and then onto land, where it can stay in some cases long enough to alter ocean levels. It may take a few years for the signal to become perfectly clear, but the latest measurements from Greenland and Antarctica show that we're in for accelerating sea level rise from here on out.
-
Rob Painting at 08:44 AM on 29 March 2014Climate Models Show Remarkable Agreement with Recent Surface Warming
Probably the best estimate of ocean warming is Balmaseda et al (2013) because, amongst other things, it combines multiple datasets and feeds these into an ocean model - thus accounting for known physics. This provides a more robust estimate for sparse or missing data.
Here's the ocean heat content trend:
What you will notice is that there an abrupt spike in heat uptake in the early 2000's followed by a slower rate up toward the present. This trend is probably one of the most obvious features of the Hiroshima Widget too.
So even though the total uptake of heat into the Earth system is greater in the last 16 years than the previous 16 years, it has not steadily accelerated. It would, therefore, be illogical to expect sea level rise to exhibit ongoing acceleration when one of the main contributors (thermal expansion) hasn't. The Cazenave et al (2014) paper seems more in line with mainstream scientific expectations, although that isn't the final word either.
-
HughBat at 08:41 AM on 29 March 2014Honey, 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 -
HughBat at 08:21 AM on 29 March 2014Honey, 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. -
Tom Curtis at 08:19 AM on 29 March 20142014 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".
-
tonydunc at 08:04 AM on 29 March 2014Climate 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. -
Klapper at 07:04 AM on 29 March 2014Climate 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.
-
michael sweet at 06:53 AM on 29 March 2014Honey, 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.
-
scaddenp at 06:46 AM on 29 March 2014Honey, 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.
-
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.
-
scaddenp at 06:35 AM on 29 March 20142014 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.
-
Poster9662 at 05:07 AM on 29 March 20142014 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. -
ranyl at 04:22 AM on 29 March 2014Honey, 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.pdfThere 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Poster9662 at 02:51 AM on 29 March 20142014 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.
-
tonydunc at 02:01 AM on 29 March 2014Climate 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?
-
michael sweet at 00:51 AM on 29 March 2014Honey, 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.
-
energydata at 00:45 AM on 29 March 2014Climate 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
-
folke_kelm at 20:31 PM on 28 March 20142014 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
-
michael sweet at 20:16 PM on 28 March 2014Honey, 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.
-
ranyl at 18:15 PM on 28 March 2014Honey, 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?
-
Paul W at 17:30 PM on 28 March 2014Honey, 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.
-
Ari Jokimäki at 17:16 PM on 28 March 2014Honey, 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.
-
Harry Twinotter at 16:35 PM on 28 March 20142014 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.
-
scaddenp at 14:24 PM on 28 March 2014Honey, 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?
-
scaddenp at 14:16 PM on 28 March 2014Honey, 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.
-
mercpl at 12:23 PM on 28 March 2014Honey, 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.
-
Terranova at 11:43 AM on 28 March 2014Honey, I mitigated climate change
Sweet, can you defend your statement about non economic?
-
Albatross at 11:32 AM on 28 March 2014Cherry 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.
-
michael sweet at 11:14 AM on 28 March 2014Honey, 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.
-
Composer99 at 10:42 AM on 28 March 2014Honey, 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?
Prev 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 Next
