Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 Next
Comments 42951 to 43000:
-
What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?
p4gs - Looks like references to this paper are already showing up on the denial sites, in the apparent hopes of yet another claim that "it's not us".
Those claims would only make sense if there had been recent changes in the heat from the lithosphere - long standing heat patterns would be part of pre-Industrial conditions as well, and not causes of recent melt acceleration. Not to mention that observed changes in GHGs already account for the Greenland changes we've seen, and such "not us" claims would have to somehow explain those away...
-
BaerbelW at 02:18 AM on 15 August 2013Where SkS-Material gets used - Coursera's Climate Literacy Course
Just now received the Coursera email that the 2nd iteration of Climate Literacy will start on September 30, 2013!
-
p4gs at 01:22 AM on 15 August 2013What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?
I want Skeptical Science to do an article on this newly published research:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1898.html
Moderator Response:[JH] See: Greenland Ice Is Melting -- Even from Below: Heat Flow from the Mantle Contributes to the Ice Melt, ScienceDaily, Aug 11, 2013.
-
Tom Curtis at 00:50 AM on 15 August 2013A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming
chriskoz @2, you calculated the equilibrium climate response, wheras Dana calculated the transient climate response. The difference is in the factor of 0.67 Dana introduces for that purpose. Absent that, his value would have been 0.45 (or 0.48 with a less aggressive rounding).
One twist on this is that radiative forcing is calculated at the tropopause rather than the top of the thermosphere. Most UV radiation is absorbed above the tropopause, and the UV component of sunlight will varies in greater proportion with changing TSI. The effect is that with reduced TSI, relatively more of TSI will reach the surface than currently does. The solar forcing will still reduce, but not as much as the reduction in TSI so that the cooling will be even less than calculated.
Conversely, for the same reason, it requires a greater than 1.55% increase in TSI to generate a 3.7 W/m^2 increase in solar forcing.
Finally, it is possible that some such mechanism as that proposed by Svensmark would result in a greater reduction in temperature than simple calculations from TSI would suggest. His theory as it stands has been pretty much ruled out. Clouds form with great facility even in the absense of cosmic rays, and therefore cosmic rays are not the dominant force governing climate over the history of the Earth. However, cosmic rays may facilitate the generation of additional cloud nucleation particles thereby decreasing the average droplet size in clouds and hence increasing cloud albedo. This may amplify the direct TSI forcing by as much a factor of 2. Of course, there is as yet no solid evidence that this is the case. It just cannot be ruled out either.
-
Chris8616 at 23:15 PM on 14 August 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #33A
New discovered Mesospheric Polar Clouds possible indicator of Global Warming Link
Save the Earth Link
-
Chris8616 at 23:07 PM on 14 August 2013What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?
chriskoz #8, fair enough, Though i thought the video was also good, since it points out rate of changes (natural vs human attributed forcing) also explains why there cannot be a runaway snowball earth.
-
cynicus at 17:50 PM on 14 August 2013A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming
One often encounters articles like this where some cherrypicked-out-of-context-but-original quotes from bonafide scientists (like Lockwood in the Irish Times article) is mixed with the breathtaking slay-of-hand conclusion by a fake authority and presented as a compelling picture to the public. In this case the fake authority who makes the final headline claim is Ian Elliott, an ex-astronomer who pensioned 12 years ago and has only few papers published during his professional career, none of which about the solar influence on Earths climate.
Judging by the wide circulation in the denial echo chamber this article is a perfect rehash of the old tobacco tactics.
-
chriskoz at 17:08 PM on 14 August 2013A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming
Dana,
I think your final formula to calculate ∆T is unreadable due to too many factors used. In the end, reading it, I'm confused which number is which factor.
I did my own calculation with simpler numbers as follows.
In my calculation, I don't need to consider ∆TSI. I can take amount of sun energy absorbed by Earth (∆TSabs) and assume it changes by the same percentage as ∆TSI. I think your calculation makes the same assumption, although I'm not sure. Then, from (Kiehl and Trenberth, 1997), I look at this picture:
and find out the amount of Sun energy absorbed by Earth is 168+67 W/m2 = 235W/m2 (ground + athmosphere absorbtion on the left side of picture).
So ∆TSabs = 0.25% * 235W/m2 = 0.5875W/m2
With the equilibrium sensitivity of 0.75K/Wm2, the corresponding ∆T is 0.5875*0.75 = 0.44K
So, my number is larger than yours (0.3K), other suties you quote. Why is that? Did I make a mistake?
-
shoyemore at 16:45 PM on 14 August 2013A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming
I am glad the Irish Times article came to your attention. The newspaper has actually a reasonably good record at reporting on climate change. The article on the solar minimum was an aberration because it did not mention CO2 at all, or the effect solar changes might have on global warming.
I intend to mail the link to this post to the science correspondent.
-
Composer99 at 13:28 PM on 14 August 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #32B
Peter Lang:
I've begun to notice a trend:
People interested in clear, effective communication tend to "show their working", or provide sources which have the same effect. You'll notice Aristarchus quotes passages from the report that the LA Times article discusses, and Tom Curtis quotes the article itself; they both lay out the flow of their argument, clearly and concisely.
By contrast, you appear to have acted in a manner consistent with attempting to obfuscate and confuse:
First, when asked to show your working and/or provide examples, you simply don't. You have not provided any reason to accept your claim about the LA Times article (which is hardly necessary since Aristarchus and Tom Curtis' comments would render such reason irrelevant on account of being factually false), you have not provided any reason to take your word over, say, the IEA's, and you do not provide any reference clearly showing the misbehaviour you attribute to the renewable energy industry.
Second, as a substitute for clearly making your case, you rely on bluster. You have no basis to make any assumptions about the physics knowledge of other participants in this forum. You also rely on the lazy "do your own reading" tactic, which I personally find very tiresome - after all, there's no prima facie reason to believe that someone going off and doing more reading will come back and agree with you. (*)
Finally, you make a pedantic, and apparently false, distinction between energy and power. Some rather basic definitions show that power and energy are in fact very nearly interchangeable, as power is simply a measure of energy transfer over time:
In physics, power is defined as the amount of energy consumed per unit time.
The dimension of power is energy divided by time. The SI unit of power is the watt (W), which is equal to one joule per second.
Power is the rate of doing work or the rate of using energy [...]
Ultimately, to speak of power is to speak of energy. Little surprise, then, that these terms are (colloquially) interchangeable when used outside of STEM circles. And, I might add, so much for your claim that they are "totally different".
(*) Like the appeal to authority/expertise, this sort of claim is not always a failure of logic or argument - sometimes someone really just needs to read up more on a subject. However, such exhortations should be made in response to obvious nonsense, such as when someone argues that, say, vaccines cause autism, or, topically for Skeptical Science, when someone argues that, say, the greenhouse effect violates the laws of thermodynamics.
-
chriskoz at 13:03 PM on 14 August 2013What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?
I have a technical question that I cannot figure out because I don't have access to full text.
I'm interested in knowing some more details: how they ran their simulation and what parameters did they establish to be the "tipping points" moving the climate in and out of glaciation.
In particular I'm interested how their model differ from Archer's CLIMBER model, that argues the minimum solar insolation at 65N be the triggering factor for gradual continental icesheet buildup.
-
chriskoz at 12:43 PM on 14 August 2013What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?
Chris@2,4,
You should be aware that the Hansen video you've linked to and the paper - subject to this post - are talking about different timescales. Hansen talks about 65Ma cenozoic timescale (and by implication of that context, he does not bother to consider the time granularity less than some 1Ma), while the subject paper talks about the pleistocene glacial periods of last 400Ka-1Ma.
Different factors influence average climate over those timescales. In particular, 100ka long Milankovic cycles considered by the paper override the Hansen's tectonic forcings that act on 500ka+ timescales. Therefore, although "the melting cryosphere" appears on your video, I would argue that this video has nothing to do with the article at hand.
It is very important to distinguish the timescale of changes, e.g. while debunking common "climate has changed before" myth.
- rock weathering/volcanoes with tectonic forcings: 500ky+ up to several Ma
- Ice ages with Milankovic forcings: 10ka - 100ky
- AGW: 100y (at least 100 times faster than any natural forcings)
We must make clear distinction about timescales involved, otherwise we fall into the same trap the ignorant "skeptics" have fell with the myth I recalled above.
-
saileshrao at 12:41 PM on 14 August 2013Toward Improved Discussions of Methane & Climate
Paul Beckwith's response as a link.
-
saileshrao at 12:40 PM on 14 August 2013Toward Improved Discussions of Methane & Climate
Here's Paul Beckwith's response to this SKS article:
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2013/08/toward-genuinely-improved-discussions-of-methane-and-climate.html -
Terranova at 11:53 AM on 14 August 2013What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?
Dana1981,
Is the section entitled "Where We Are Today" directly from the study itself, or an add-on from Freya Roberts? The paper is paywalled unless you have another link available.
-
davidnewell at 11:35 AM on 14 August 2013Global warming, Arctic ice loss, and armchair scientists
It is interesting to note the "sea change" beginning to be noted in local papers, and at cocktail partys. Much less "denying" of the facts: the most dominent response to the rising reality is "Oh well, I'll be dead and gone, WTFrack..."
So now begins the penetration of the psyche of the reality that life on this planet is threatened: at the very least, "civilization" is at risk.
Not an easy transition to accept, everyone lives here.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:23 AM on 14 August 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #32B
Peter Lang:
1) You incorrectly claim the post above is improperly titled. The title of the post above is "2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #32B". The post correctly reports the headline of a news article without comment. Are you suggesting that SkS news round up should edit the headlines of news articles on which it reports to fit our understanding of the topic?
2) It is well known that authors of newspaper articles are not responsible for the headlines. They are merely responsible for the contents of the article (and not always all of that). As such any issue you have should be directed at the contents rather than the headlines, and the contents are accurate. They correctly report that wind is "wind energy became the No. 1 source of new U.S. electricity generation capacity".
So, if your complaint is that newspaper editors often distort news stories in the headlines - well granted, but what does that have to do with SkS (unless, of course, your demand is that SkS misquote headlines when they report them)?
All in all, your determination to ascribe an error to SkS for not misquoting a headline is rather self revelatory. Clearly if that is your approach, you will not like SkS. But that has nothing to do with the quality of SkS articles.
-
davidnewell at 10:55 AM on 14 August 2013Understanding the long-term carbon-cycle: weathering of rocks - a vitally important carbon-sink
KR:
I've read the "comments policy" , KR, and also have read the "geoengineering" thread.
I manage another large bulletin board, and encounter your "this belongs better elsewhere" notation fairly frequently. However, once there have been responses and evolution of the thread, generally moving it causes more problems of meaning.
Yes, the proposal is "geoengineering", but more specifically, it utilizes the "weathering of rock" propereties to effect it's end. (As stated, "effectiveness" needs to be quantified by a third party independent lab..) (will be done within 6 months.)
I am of the opinion that we MUST effect direct air capture, or reap a whirlwind that will be unthinkably destructive. I hope for all our sakes and subsequent generation's sakes, that this approach works, because it is one of very few that appear to be scaleable.
thank you.
David
-
Aristarchus at 10:36 AM on 14 August 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #32B
In response to Peter Lang #7
But the title of the artice refers to energy.
No, it refers to energy source.
Trolling, personal attacks and conspiracy theories aside, could you provide some numbers, with reference, on the subject of capacity additions versus energy generated by those additions ?
-
davidnewell at 10:35 AM on 14 August 2013The Albedo Effect and Global Warming
??? Well, we could descend into trivia on this point, but thank you for explaining to me what the term means to you. I would have to defer to your comment aboput saying "what we ar e FOR": it was an error, although a slight one, in my own estimation of my intent.
However, having stated that screwing up the planet is an example of what we are "NOT FOR" is another way to state that a terminal cancer is NOT FOR individual health.
You agree that there is an obvious interconnectedness of everything, You, for example, and me? How about if it was you and me and everybody else and the Earth, and we call it "Gaia" and try to figure out what is needed for "thriving?"
Mostly, you are projecting your own perceptions on me, and then "tilting" at them.
Let's agree that ther is only one god, and we and everyone else bow down to it.
That god is "God Reality", capitals provided only for efffect.
Wiat, have to go pay my Gaia taxes.
-
Peter Lang at 09:34 AM on 14 August 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #32B
Composer 99 and Aristarchus
You need to do some reading to understand the difference between power and energy. Capacity is measured in units of power. But the title of the artice refers to energy. They are totally different. The Renewabl energy industry and advocates try to confuse them to mislead. Clearly they succeed with many people. Both of you need to get some understanding about the basics and what you are reading before quotiong from artciles that are clearly outsidce your area of expertise..
(-snip-).
Moderator Response:[DB] Since you have not furnished any examples nor have you supplied reputable evidence of errors replete with emended suggested text itself based in the literature, your continuance in this line of inquiry is sloganeering (snipped).
-
rockytom at 08:11 AM on 14 August 2013Global warming, Arctic ice loss, and armchair scientists
Especially for the "armchair" scientists, Coursera is offering a new course on climate change offered by the University of Melbourn. You can go to Coursera.com to enroll.
-
Icarus at 08:01 AM on 14 August 2013What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?
Presumably the ice sheet albedo change is relatively straightforward to calculate, and we have data on greenhouse gas changes from ice cores, so is there anything new or substantially different in this study which would lead to different conclusions about fast feedback climate sensitivity - i.e. lower or higher than the generally accepted figure of around 0.75°C/W/m², or 3°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ from 280 to 560ppm?
-
Chris8616 at 07:15 AM on 14 August 2013What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?
The linked video content is directly relevant to the question "What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?".
-
michael sweet at 07:08 AM on 14 August 2013What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?
Chris,
What is your point? In your linked video Hansen says that volcanoes affect CO2 and climate over eons of time. Current CO2 changes are human caused and are 10,000 times faster than volcanoes.
No-one disputes that in the past volcanoes have affected climate. Current climate change is caused by humans.
-
Chris8616 at 06:35 AM on 14 August 2013What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?
This video explains how volcanoes too can melt the cryosphere.
-
DSL at 02:53 AM on 14 August 2013Global warming, Arctic ice loss, and armchair scientists
CT has done that, but it's only up to 2006 (with a few more yearly anims for the 2000s). They also have a comparator. I like the tab flip, though, because it's a little more dramatic.
Need to shoot them an email for the updated anim.
-
acjames76 at 01:58 AM on 14 August 2013Global warming, Arctic ice loss, and armchair scientists
funglestrumpet @ 9
All the images are at arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/archive.html
A video expert could, with a bit of time, put the entire dataset into a movie.
-
Aristarchus at 01:37 AM on 14 August 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #32B
In response to Peter Lang #4
The U.S. DoE (Wind) report is available here.
It says, page 6, executive summary :
Wind Power Represented the Largest Source of U.S. Electric-Generating Capacity Additions in 2012. Wind Power constituted 43% of all nameplate capacity additions in 2012, overtaking natural gas-fired generation as the leading source of new capacity. This follows the 5 previous years in which wind power represented between 25% and 43% of new U.S. electric generation capacity in each year.
which is what the LA times wrote in its unreliable article and what SkS copied.
It seems that you made the basic error of not checking the source.
Secondly, the use of the capacity for new additions makes sense so that new equipment from january to december weight the same. I suppose it would be possible to count differently but that's not what the DoE is doing.
Third, note that natural-gas power plant, although they could generate power 90% of the time or more, do not, in practice, as they have to adapt to demand and other factors. From the eia website :
Between 2005 (purple line) and 2010 (red line) average capacity factors for natural gas plant operations between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. rose from 26% to 32%. For peak hours—from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.—capacity factors averaged about 50% (the red line) on a national basis in 2010 compared to about 40% in 2005.
Your sentence "Wind, like solar, produce little energy from their capacity. You need roughly three times as much wind capacity to supply the same energy as a conventional power station over say a year." is too simplistic to account for the reality of power generation.
Fourth, this post was just a news roundup, where some articles are quoted without comment. Even if the article quoted was incorrect - and he wasn't - judging the quality of this website on just that seems completely unfair.
Fifth, could you please provide examples of other basic errors on this website ? I will be there to ask for corrections.
-
funglestrumpet at 01:37 AM on 14 August 2013Global warming, Arctic ice loss, and armchair scientists
DSL @ 7
Any chance of getting those two ice concentration images put into one of those clever graphics that flips between the two conditions - in the same way the 'escalator' one does? It does rather spell out just how much the Arctic is changing.
-
Composer99 at 23:37 PM on 13 August 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #32B
Peter Lang:
On what basis should others accept your claim that "the amount of energy generated" is more important than capacity in determining what is or is not the "fastest-growing energy source" in the US? FAQs and summary documents I have seen by the IEA and other informational agencies (such as this one) tend to use capacity as a metric for ability to generate power.
Further, expecting a site maintained and updated by humans to be 100% error-free - by the way, please provide examples - strikes me as inherently unreasonable. What matters is not what happens when errors are made, because they are inevitable. What matters is whether and how they are corrected.
-
Peter Lang at 20:49 PM on 13 August 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #32B
The title of the post "U.S. wind power fastest-growing energy source in 2012, report says" is incorrect. The article says:
"In a first, wind energy became the No. 1 source of new U.S. electricity generation capacity in 2012, according to a report released by the Energy Department on Tuesday."
The article is about the capacity, not the amount of energy generated. Wind, like solar, produce little energy from their capacity. You need roughly three times as much wind capacity to supply the same energy as a conventional power station over say a year.
I seldom look at SKS anymore because each time I do I find it makes basic errors, or uncritically quotes unreliable artciles as in this case, or is involved in advocacy.
Moderator Response:[DB] Please furnish evidence of such supposed basic errors. Unsupported assertions bordering on sloganeering struck out.
-
bouke at 19:16 PM on 13 August 2013What makes ice sheets grow and shrink?
Excellent piece. One minor nitpick though: Some things are implied to be new results from this study, but they aren't all that new. For instance, the fact that Milankovitch cycles alone aren't enough to explain the ice age cycle has been known pretty much since the beginning of that theory. Scientists have been looking at the necessary feedbacks for decades.
For a general history of the science of the ice ages, see http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm [warning, massive wall of text :-)]
-
bill4344 at 14:43 PM on 13 August 2013Global warming, Arctic ice loss, and armchair scientists
Nice to see some well-deserved recognition for Neven's efforts. He runs a great blog.
-
DSL at 13:43 PM on 13 August 2013The Albedo Effect and Global Warming
David, Gaia is not simply about the obvious interconnectedness of everything. There is the suggestion made by its proponents that the Earth has an agenda -- if not forethought, a program that strives toward a goal. There's no evidence for this. Appealing to the unknown and then defining it according to your own needs is not good thinking, and that's what most people do when they seek to supplement science with another method. You can't define with any sort of authority (beyond your own assumption of your own authority) what the supplement looks like. Who is Gaia? The part of Gaia that is beyond science is a figment of your imagination, differing in quality (sometimes radically) from every other human's concept of beyond-science Gaia. If you don't have any rigorously-discovered evidence for this reality undiscoverable by science, and you don't even have a consistent logic for confirming what counts as evidence, then you're not going anywhere.
-
CO2 has a short residence time
And like a bad penny, this silly argument has risen again. Someone named Gosta Petterson (a professor emeritus of biochemistry and specialist in reaction kinetics, not atmosphere or carbon cycle) is once again claiming that individual molecular residence time (one way) is somehow identical to CO2 concentration change time (with most CO2 molecules simply exchanging for another from a different climate compartment), a much slower process.
There's a good discussion of this topic and the errors involved on SkS, under The Independence of Global Warming on Residence Time of CO2.
Sadly, this appears to be yet another example of an emeritus professor wandering out of his specialty, and with little perspective proclaiming an entire field of science invalid. And of long-debunked myths being recycled over and over again...
-
Chris8616 at 13:38 PM on 13 August 2013Ocean Acidification: Eating Away at Life in the Southern Ocean
Well, both description are ok, but there is a term missing for CO2 increase and results on marine life, fish.
-
Chris8616 at 13:36 PM on 13 August 2013Ocean Acidification: Eating Away at Life in the Southern Ocean
Re technical term description
"Ocean acidification is occurring as a result of carbon dioxide emissions from industrial activity dissolving into the oceans, and involves a fundamental change in the chemistry of the global oceans."
The wikipedia entry is a bit misleading
" Ocean acidification is the name given to the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere." Link
-
chriskoz at 13:29 PM on 13 August 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #32
This cartoon is actually not far from reality.
This picture (taken from priceofoil.org):
looks as sobering as the cartoon and even more surreal. Admitedly, taken as to induce emotions but still a good documentary.
-
Chris8616 at 13:20 PM on 13 August 2013Ocean Acidification: Eating Away at Life in the Southern Ocean
Another impact from OA
Carbon Dioxide Is ‘Driving Fish Crazy’
Rising human carbon dioxide emissions may be affecting the brains and central nervous system of sea fishes with serious consequences for their survival Link
-
Chris8616 at 13:11 PM on 13 August 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #32B
A Deadly Climb From Glaciation to Hothouse — Why the Permian-Triassic Extinction is Pertinent to Human Warming Link
A Mechanism for Shallow Methane Hydrate Dissociation Link
-
Riduna at 10:39 AM on 13 August 2013Fox News found to be a major driving force behind global warming denial
Who owns Fox News? And the major newspapers in Australia?
-
Wcalvin@uw.edu at 09:23 AM on 13 August 2013No alternative to atmospheric CO2 draw-down
My proposal “Emergency 20-year Drawdown of Excess CO2 via Push-Pull Ocean Pumps” is a geoengineering finalist in the Climate CoLab competition at MIT.
-
Neven at 07:32 AM on 13 August 2013Reflections on a changing Arctic: Less ice means faster warming
-
kampmannpeine at 07:24 AM on 13 August 2013How much will sea levels rise in the 21st Century?
a bit OT:
When I look at the first curve above (http://www.skepticalscience.com//pics/CSIRO-92-13-sea-level-rise.JPG) then a perhaps interesting idea arises and I hope I am reasoning correctly:
You observe an increase in SL in the last years more than the "red" trend. Having said this and knowing about the "standstill" of global temperature during more than the last decade, this seems to be a good explanation that the heat of the sun went to the ocean more than before (which needs an oceanographic explanation - what I do not know). The only doubt which arises is that the timeperiod of this "steep" rise is only 3-4 years whereas the "standstill" of global temperature is about 10-15 years ... Maybe we find here somebody who has an explanation .... :)
Thus the typical argument of the denialists is kind of falsified by experimental evidence which I think is an important issue. -
Tom Curtis at 07:10 AM on 13 August 2013The Albedo Effect and Global Warming
dn @10 whatever ....
-
davidnewell at 07:03 AM on 13 August 2013The Albedo Effect and Global Warming
This is not a new "religion", it is an observable fact that we are not separate from our environment: and the principles of quantum physics support the premise. You may object to "Gaia"because of it's "in the poppys" overtone..
But don't think for a moment that "science" is a complete or sufficient matrix to describe phenomenae.
What you see is what you get: What you get is what you look for: What you look for is what you see.
If you want to look for something we are NOT "for",
examine the nature of activity hamans have conducted on this planet which threaten Life on it.
"Science", the "intellect" and "the ego", thinking that it is separate from "context", has led to this situation. Now, "science" , and "the intellect" have GOT to be employed to "get us out" of this situation. Only one change, Tom. "you" and "I" and "the planet" are NOT separate.
You can dispute this only in the face of incredibly overwhelming facts staring you in the face.
I'll call it Gaia, and have a sense of what I'm talking about, and it ain't "religion".
regards,
David
-
davidnewell at 06:42 AM on 13 August 2013Understanding the long-term carbon-cycle: weathering of rocks - a vitally important carbon-sink
KR: My apologies, I am new to this site, and have not explored all it's nooks and crannies.
this seeme to be "on subject", dealing essentially with "weathering of rock" , but I would be glad to start another thread, or do whatever I can to cooperate.
meanwhile, the following is in response to Michael's observations
In response to:
michael sweet
"David,
It strikes me that it is unrealistic to imagine that 100% of the CO2 that passes the waer jet would be absorbed. Find some data to support your claim, or withdraw it."
Michael:
I cannot withdraw an assertion I did not make.
No assertion that 100% would be captured was projected. If you COULD capture 100%, you most definitively would not want to, as downwind vegetation would be significantly affected.
My WAG as stated above, is here replicated for your reading convenience:
=
quote:
"i GUESS that between 8% and 15% can be 'caught": but this is a guess."
Unquote:
Further, the following tests are indicated:
from the paper:
"Attachment three" details these tests, (as well as a proposed field trial), but following is a summary of them.
1. Drift droplets of pure water, ocean water, and ocean water from over playa soils, through various sized nozzles, through an enclosed cylinder of air, while monitoring the reduction in the amount of CO2 in the air over a time interval.
This experiment will show the effectiveness of the proposed water source options, and the effects of changing the droplet size.
2. Perform the same tests through an extended archway with a specified rate of air flow through it, measuring the humidity and depletion % of CO2 in the air at the exit.
This experiment will generate a better profile of anticipated effectiveness of air droplets rising and falling in the proposed construct.
Proposed field trial:
3. An approximately 30 HP water pump should be provided to pump basic pH ~9.1) and saline Carson Sink water into the air in a breeze, utilizing the "tuneable spray nozzle" of "attachment one" (or similar), with upwind and downwind measurements of CO2.
This test will demonstrate the more expensive option, (which is likely to be the most effective), which relates to dumping water on the playa after it has been used to generate electricity, and using the power produced to drive a pump which sucks up the water again and produces the spray.
A "Request for Proposal" (RFP) is being drawn up in regard to these tests, and will generate actual quotes
==================
You (Michael) said:
"The volume transport of the overturning circulation at 24 N has been estimated from hydrographic section data ([4]) as 17 Sv (1 Sv = 106 m3/s),
The currents off of Chile also move a tremendous volume of water. How can you compare the amount of CO2 your scheme would remove to the CO2 those currents absorb?
Mr. Sweet, your source, http://www.pik-potsdam.de/\u126 ~stefan/thc_fact_sheet.html, doesn’t open.
Perhaps I’m missing something, but it appears you are speaking of the mass transport of the current, whereas the key point of the above proposal is a function of the surface area .
Would you like to see a calculation of surface area on the flow of water subdivided into various size droplets sprayed through the air?
(As stated by Glenn in post # 28:
The surface area of all those aerosols up there is huge. A sphere with a surface area of 1 m2 has a diameter a bit over 1/2 meter. Split that into micro spheres with a diameter of a micron and the total surface area increases by a factor of over 1/2 a million!)
michael,
Do you think that the principle mode of ocean CO2 absorption occurs directly across the surface of the ocean, or do you think it may significantly derive from rainfall and ocean spray?
What do you think happens to mists of neutral water collected in a tray after falling through 8 feet of fall?
The pH goes through interesting curves,, but winds up around pH 5.6 if I recall.
You asked (again, and I will answer again)
Where will all the salt go?
The 3% NaCl content of the water would be of no significant concern on the already saline playa under discussion.(Of which many others of similar saline character can be found) The volume of soils in which it would be mixed, over decades, would be be of no concern. On the other hand, if it is seen as a desireable commodity, the locus of the spray heads and their localized retention podns can be changed frequently, and the prior spray surface allowed to dry, at which time the NACl can be scraped up and utilized Other places. One way, or the other, it's not a problem.
Uou observed:
According to
the state of California, the total electricity generation in California is about 74,000 MW. Since you claim at post 24 that 835 MW is 1/3 of the power used in California I am inclined to think you need to check your math much more carefully. It is unreasonable to imagine that 1/3 of the power in California is used to pump that single water station. In general, the amount of water that would need to be pumped is far beyond any reasonable amount that could be pumped. Where would the gigantic amount of energy come from?
Thank you, Michael, I can’t find my source, and it appears to be in error anyway, I will retract that.
The salient point intended to be communicated, was that the "power source" for the enterprise can be compared to existing plant used for the same purpose: moving water.
Regards,
David
-
Tom Curtis at 05:56 AM on 13 August 2013The Albedo Effect and Global Warming
davidnewell @8, any mention of gaia that is not purely metaphorical is simply mysticism. Humans are not "for" anything within the purview of science; and if we are "for" something, that thing will be found within the texts of some traditional religion. Further, absent a direct causal link between the presence of highly alkaline soils and increased rainfall, claims that anticipated increased rainfall on one region with such soils have a teleological basis are (yet again) mysticism. Don't for a moment imagine that your new religion has any basis in science.
-
davidnewell at 05:27 AM on 13 August 2013The Albedo Effect and Global Warming
william at 06:43 AM on 1 August, 2013
releasing heat and water vapour to the atmosphere or thinner ice doing likewise. Gaia is trying to fight back.
Right on! Totally agree! We humanoids think we're "all that", and we HAVE evolved "intellects" which have gotten ALL of Gaia endangered...
but.."what we are for" ( as close as I can intuit/express it) is to see what the INNATE intelligence of the "larger system" is trying to "do", and help it along.
============
For instance, there is a focused change anticipated in weather patterns in the Northern Pacific, which is anticipated to drive precipitation into Northern Nevada. Why?? So that rain can fall on the pH 10 (or so) alkaliine soils found so abundantly in that locale, in the Great Basin.
Thus cometh (pat pending)
"Carbon Dioxide Direct Air Capture and Sequestration Utilizing Endorheic Basin Alkaline Deposits to Effect Mineral Carbonation"
all WE have to do, is quit being a "ME", and become open to ??whatever is apparent to do.."
We are all in this together.
Prev 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 Next
