Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 Next
Comments 44151 to 44200:
-
Tom Curtis at 10:59 AM on 1 July 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
tcflood:
1) Certain engines are designed for use with particular fuels. In particular, jet engines are designed for use with kerosene rather than hydrogen gas, the two having quite different properties. By extracting CO2 to make hydrocarbons, the Navy will avoid the need to retrofit their fleet of aircraft with different engines.
2) Hydrogen gas is notoriously difficult to store in a compact manner, while compact storage is a necessity in aircraft. So, even in the event that the navy did convert to hydrogen gass for a fuel, it would need to retrofit the fuel tanks of its entire fleet of aircraft - again something unlikely to be practical.
3) Hydrogen gas has the tendency to make hot metals brittle, and brittle turbine fans are a very bad idea in jet engines. This may by itself make hydrogen gas powered turbojet engines impractical.
I don't know enough to know which of these three is the most important factor, or even if they are the only factors. I suspect strongly, however, that the Navy experts do know about the relevant significant of these (and other) factors, and that the Navy's decision is not fivolous. Unless you are reasonably expert in the areas of aircraft fuel storage, jet engine design, and metalurgy, however, I doubt sincerely your ability to formulate reasonable critiques of the Navy's decision. Assuming energy requirements is the only factor certainly does not count as reasonable in this context.
-
KR at 07:41 AM on 1 July 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
I would have to opine that a hydrogen economy is some time out, at least for transportation. H2 storage requires high pressure, liquification, or some sort of chemical storage (metal hydrides, carbohydrates, etc). Storage, shipment, and energy are all issues.
A hydrocarbon such as methanol (CH3OH) is a liquid at room temperature and pressure, has good energy density for weight/volume, and would be a very easy transition from the current gasoline fleet.
I don't know what the best and most cost-effective path would be, whether electrical backup or transportion - but we do have multiple alternatives worth considering.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 06:49 AM on 1 July 2013The Climate Show #34: four Hiroshima bombs a second
JC@1
;o) -
tcflood at 04:42 AM on 1 July 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
One thing I have not checked out as yet is the rate at which electrolytic H2 can be produced vs. scale (capital cost). In any event, an appropriate supply buffer would need to be maintained for backup power generation.
If enough overcapacity were constructed and enough capacity were routed to H2 production, and given that wind patterns are readily predicted several days in advance, it would mean that by switching off electrodes some amount of wind power would become dispatchable to the grid.
-
Chris G at 04:23 AM on 1 July 2013Agnotology, Climastrology, and Replicability Examined in a New Study
I sampled some more of the comments. I think it would be painting with too broad a brush to say that there is deliberate intent behind all the mistakes that are being made. The human mind is not a computer; emotion interfers with rational processing. Because of the huge stakes involved, it is difficult to avoid getting emotional when discussing climate science. I believe that some of the dissenters truly believe what they are saying; they are not being dishonest; they are just wrong.
I'm thinking of an analogy of students learning some difficult math process. (Substitute whatever your consider difficult: geometry, trigonometric substitution, discrete statistics, etc.) There are mistakes that are made by the set of students, and some are more common than others. There are patterns to the mistakes.
It is emotionally difficult to deal with the reality of our situation, and there are many mistakes that can be made that enable one to conclude that our situation is better than it really is. I see this paper as an attempt to identify the more common patterns of errors, but to conclude that the mistakes are intentional is perhaps a step too far.
Yes, I know that there have been many times when the mistakes have been pointed out and yet the mistakes are continued, but I've seen the same thing with cancer, COPD, and Alzheimer's among different family members. No matter how you lay out the information and the conclusions, the person refuses to accept that they have a serious problem and that not dealing with the problem is going to end up being worse for them.
The summary of what I am saying is that often when people are wrong, they are not wrong because they have nefarious intent or lack the skill to come to a correct conclusion. They are wrong because the correct conclusion is simply too threatening, and their emotional, and subconscious part, of their mind will not let them come to grips with the reality of the situation. With climate change, two of the most common threats as I see them are the thoughts, "I have really hurt my children's prospects for health and well-being.", and "I will be ostracised from my group." With a great many people, either of those is all the emotional motivation anyone needs to cause a cognitive gear slip. (No, I am not so naive as to think there are not people who would lie for money; I just think it is less common than some believe.)
-
tcflood at 04:12 AM on 1 July 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
As to pricing out the H2 backup, just price out the H2 + CO2 backup scheme and stop at H2.
-
tcflood at 04:10 AM on 1 July 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
KR @433;
I'm well aware of the chemistry of conversion of H2 + CO2 to hydrocarbons, the properties of hydorcarbons and their use as fuel. I agree that with enough overcapacity the generation of hydrocarbon transportation fuels could be useful until hydrogen infrastructure, fuel cell costs and battery technology all advance. However, generating hydrocarbons as fuel for backup generation, as I have often heard elsewhere, would be a huge waste.
-
KR at 03:33 AM on 1 July 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
tcpflood - "...why waste all that energy and hardware to extract and reduce CO2?"
Because liquid hydrocarbons are overwhelmingly useful in transportation. Battery tech is improving, but not quickly - however, the tech to generate kerosene/methenol/etc from CO2 and water is already available, and the energy density provided is a basic requirement for transportation use. As a personal opinion, since overgeneration appears to be more economical than large storage, I would consider generation of liquid transport fuels an excellent use of unneeded overgeneration - unlike electrical dispatch, it's not time critical given a week or so of supply buffering.
However, the idea you mention, of electrolytic hydrogen generation for power plant usage (as backup), is probably worth considering as well. Running the numbers would help to determine whether it was cost-effective.
WRT "multiple-day" limitations, I suspect that large grid interconnections and extended regional generation will be of great use. But not all solution mixes will apply to all regions - the UK, for example, with limited area and insolation, may find a larger investment in nuclear more cost-effective than being dependent on large interconnects to and energy imports from Eastern Europe or to the Mediterranean.
-
kampmannpeine at 03:16 AM on 1 July 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #26B
I am really "terrified" by the report on the lies of Big Oil ... And I thought BP is investing into PV and windmill technology ... nothing ...
They simply lie, always lie! -
tcflood at 02:23 AM on 1 July 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
One of the strongest arguments from baseload renewables skeptics is the need for backup generation amounting to a larges fraction of the renewable nameplate capacity and/or huge overcapacity for wind to assure 8-10% baseload reliability.
While I am concerned about Jacobson & Delucchi’s lack of practicality in general, they do have an excellent point about using hydrogen turbines for backup with the H2 coming from moderate wind overcapacity.
KR @341 and JvD @388 both mentioned the Navy’s proposed scheme to use nuclear power on aircraft carriers to generate electrolytic H2 and extract CO2 from seawater to prepare jet fuel onboard (http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/01/16/zero-emission-synfuel-from-seawater/). While this may make sense for the aircraft carrier, it makes no sense at all otherwise – why waste all that energy and hardware to extract and reduce CO2?
Hydrogen production technology is well established with 4-5% of feedstock-scale H2 generation being electrolytic already. No transport or consumer exposure would be involved. Gas turbines have by far the lowest levelized capital cost and low fixed maintenance costs (excluding fuel) of any current large scale generation (EIA data), and costs of redesigning for H2 should be minimal. Using hydrogen turbine backup, the base load capacity of wind could become substantial.
This scenario makes considerable sense for the US with its wind resources. It may not be sufficient for Britain or Europe where multiple-day periods of cloudy calm are not infrequent.
-
meher engineer at 01:38 AM on 1 July 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #26B
Julia Whitty's "21 Percent of Homes Emit 50 Percent of CO2" by Julia Whitty, is part of a family of rules, of which LIndsay Wolson's "60-15 rule of carbon footprints” (http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/the-60-15-rule-of-carbon-footprints) is a member. Wolfson, in his own words, traces his rule back to "the economist Vilfredo Parteo, who once observed that 80% of Italy’s land was owned by 20% of its people, and went on to find a similar ratio occurring in many systems. In business it might be ’80% of sales come from 20% of customers’ or in economics that ’80% of wealth is held by 20% of people’".
-
Klaus Flemløse at 22:51 PM on 30 June 2013Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
Here is the latest sea level from the area around Maldives according to Colerado University. The sea level rise is around 3 mm pr.year using a simpel linear regression.
-
Klaus Flemløse at 22:02 PM on 30 June 2013Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
Follow up to post 56:
There are two messages in this image.
1) In the underlying article the authors want to show that the water level at the Maldives is falling. For this purpose, they probably want to present a convincing picture as possible. This picture is what they can produce.
2) With a declining water level the vegetation will spread. That's what we see in the picture. Do you believe in a falling sea level over 70 years ?
This image is in contradiction with the Nils-Axel Mörner pictures, where he claims that the water level is declining despite the fact that there is no increase in vegetation.
Youtube on sea level at the Maldives:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCs-_4c6Kd0
-
John Cook at 21:15 PM on 30 June 2013The Climate Show #34: four Hiroshima bombs a second
I'd like to point out that in this Climate Show, I predict that Queensland win the State of Origin, a prediction which came true. I also predict Australia win the first Ashes test - given my successful Origin prediction, I'm confident that too will come to pass.
-
Flakmeister at 07:14 AM on 30 June 2013Agnotology, Climastrology, and Replicability Examined in a New Study
Should have added:
It woudl seem as if the experience of the Wegman report would be a fitting epilogue....
-
Marco at 05:17 AM on 30 June 2013Agnotology, Climastrology, and Replicability Examined in a New Study
Rasmus, De Groene Rekenkamer is indeed the equivalent of the klimarealisterne. Hanekamp is linked to CFACT also, so there's little to expect from him in terms of scientific objectivity.
-
Flakmeister at 04:20 AM on 30 June 2013Agnotology, Climastrology, and Replicability Examined in a New Study
I have been following things over at RC and ESDD comment section... Deliciously wicked!
Whether it has anything to do with agnotology, I am not qualified to say, but it has everything to do with proper science and the essence of peer review.
-
arch stanton at 03:01 AM on 30 June 2013Agnotology, Climastrology, and Replicability Examined in a New Study
Nice job LOL.
But how could you leave out my personal favorite climastrologist - Dr Theodor Landscheidt? I mean after all, His work with Gleissberg cycles and the sun's barycentric oscillations explains it all.
See fig 8 in this fine paper (published in E&E).
Keep up the good work,
arch
-
rasmus at 02:45 AM on 30 June 2013Agnotology, Climastrology, and Replicability Examined in a New Study
Hanekamp is an interesting case, especially if you can trust things you find with google:
http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Jaap-Hanekamp/11461458
http://www.climatewiki.org/wiki/Heidelberg_Appeal
Apparently, Heidelberg Appeal no longer exists, but there is a new one called the "Green Audit Institution" (difficult to translate "Groene Rekenkamer"):
http://www.groenerekenkamer.com/node/877
I wonder if this is the Dutch equivalent to the organisation "klimarealistene" which we discuss in our paper? Anyhow, his comment speaks for itself...
-
CBDunkerson at 21:14 PM on 29 June 2013It's cooling
scliu94 wrote: "What do you guys make of this?"
-
Rob Painting at 20:55 PM on 29 June 2013It's cooling
scliu94 - only in the mind of a climate science contrarian can the ocean heat data be unreliable so as to be unable to tell us the oceans are warming, yet reliable enough to confirm that the warming is natural!!
An insurmountable hurdle for contrarians is that the largest natural component for warming the oceans - the sun- has seen a decline in radiation output over the last 3 decades, which should have seen a cooling of the oceans. Instead the oceans the oceans have warmed substantially - as they should when increased concentrations of greenhouse gases trap more heat in the oceans.
-
Dave123 at 17:08 PM on 29 June 2013Agnotology, Climastrology, and Replicability Examined in a New Study
Auditing the "auditors". How audacious! The response from Hanekamp that invents a criteria of symmetry is delicious in an ironic sense then, that it's somehow unfair to systematically demonstrate common classes of logical, statistical and factual errors in the work of those seeking to do the same with regard to mainstream climate science. O- the humanity!
-
Tristan at 16:59 PM on 29 June 2013It's cooling
Scliu, you're more likely to get a response if you ask a specific question.
Also, given the source, (Bob Tisdale) it's pretty obvious what people will make of it. "Tisdale at it again, after being repeatedly shown to be wrong".
Here's a link. http://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/a-challenge-from-bob/
-
scliu94 at 12:59 PM on 29 June 2013It's cooling
What do you guys make of this? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/11/is-ocean-heat-content-data-all-its-stacked-up-to-be/
-
Andy Skuce at 12:33 PM on 29 June 2013BC’s revenue-neutral carbon tax experiment, four years on: It’s working
William: people on low incomes get cheques worth $115 annually per adult and for the first child. Effectively, it is a form of negative tax. But that's only one part of the rebate.
Of course, ecoonomists could argue how the refunds of the tax should best be distributed: between rich and poor, and between individuals and businesses. It is not just a matter of economic efficiency, but also one of social justice and getting public buy-in. The fact that the tax is relatively popular suggests to me that the mix of rebates in BC may be about right.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:27 PM on 29 June 2013CO2 effect is saturated
scaddenp @229, it is not that the water vapour feedback is not well understood. Rather, because feedbacks are responses to warming of cooling, other feedbacks which also warm (or cool) will also result in an additional WV feedback response. Therefore you cannot quantify the WV feedback without quantifying all feedbacks. The IPCC recognize this. They quantify the WV feedback to the Planck response alone, but note that "... because of the inherently nonlinear nature of the response to feedbacks, the final impact on sensitivity is not simply the sum of these responses. The effect of multiple positive feedbacks is that they mutually amplify each other’s impact on climate sensitivity." Consequently, while the WV+Lapse Rate feedback increases the temperature response by 50% of the Planck response ignoring other feedbacks, their total contribution to climate sensitivity will be greater than 0.5 C.
Ignoring cloud feedbacks, the IPCC indicates the other feedbacks will result in an increase of temperature of 1.9 C for a doubling of CO2. If the cloud feedback would increase the temperature response by 50% by itself, then the final climate sensitivity will be > 2.85 C, with a combined WV, Lapse rate and Surface Albedo feedback greater than 0.9 C. If, however, it is -10%, the resulting climate sensitivity will be less than 1.71 C, and the contribution of the non-cloud feedbacks will be less than 0.9 C.
-
Andy Skuce at 12:19 PM on 29 June 2013BC’s revenue-neutral carbon tax experiment, four years on: It’s working
Geoff Hughes: The percentage changes reported for each year are year-on-year changes. For example, the 2008 value of -1.0% in the first table represents a drop in consumption of petroleum products subject to the carbon tax in BC between 2007 and 2008. The 2009 number represents the change between 2008 and 2009.
-
scaddenp at 10:23 AM on 29 June 2013CO2 effect is saturated
Tom, I do realise that H2O isnt that straightforward a feedback - especially if you take into account clouds, (I've worked through the excellent series at SoD ) but my understanding from th IPCC reports is that uncertainties with GHE of water vapour are in the "well understood" category with good agreement between theory and experimental/observational data. (unlike say clouds, ice sheet loss, clathrates etc) Ignoring clouds, I understand the effect to be effectively double planck response. For that reason, I think claims of "only" 1K for double CO2 are particularly spurious. You can argue about the feedbacks from clouds and melting ice, and especially ocean saturation and methane release, but you cant argue too much about the water vapour.
-
Ken in Oz at 10:03 AM on 29 June 2013Agnotology, Climastrology, and Replicability Examined in a New Study
Close scrutiny of the 3%?
I vacillate between thinking it's best not to draw too much attention to them, on the basis that any publicity will lift their profiles, and thinking an expose of their bad science can only damage the denialist cause. On the basis that more and better information is best, I've decided to pump for the latter.
-
Chris G at 09:25 AM on 29 June 2013Agnotology, Climastrology, and Replicability Examined in a New Study
DSL, I only read a couple of the responses, but yeah, it seems that in addition to the need to avoid confirmation bias, there is a complementary need to avoid dis-conformation(?) bias, the bias against understanding an argument correctly the conclusion is contrary to existing beliefs.
I read them and I think, "You are arguing with something that was not said."
-
Tom Curtis at 09:23 AM on 29 June 2013CO2 effect is saturated
scaddenp @227, it is incorrect to think of the water vapour feedback as a singular factor. To illustrate this, consider the procedure for estimating the planck response plus water vapour feedback using Modtran. I will do so just using the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere with no clouds for illustrative purposes. To do it properly, you should do it for a representative sample of environmental and cloud conditions, and take a weighted average, something it is not strictly possible to do with the University of Chicago Modtran model due to the limited number of environmental conditions specified. Bearing that caveatte in mind, however, we proceed as follows:
- We determine the upward IR flux at 280 ppmv with all other values unadjusted (260.02 W/m^2).
- We increase the CO2 concentration to 560 ppmv, thereby reducing the upward upward IR flux.
- We increase the temperature offset until the upward IR flux again matches the initial value (Offset of 0.86 C required.) That represents the Planck response.
- We increase the water vapor scale to equal ((288 plus offset)/288)^4 to allow for the increased water vapour pressure at the higher temperature (1.012 scale factor).
- We again increase the temperature offset to restore the upward IR flux to the original value (Offset of 0.96 C required). This represents the increased water vapour pressure due to the initial water vapour response.
- You repeat step five until the value stabilizes. You have now calculated the Planck response plus the water vapour feedback to the Planck response.
Now, at this stage we may want to calculate the snow albedo feedback to the Planck response plus WV feedback to the Planck response. That will again increase the offset temperature required, which will inturn result in another round of WV responses, and a further reduction in snow cover and so on.
It is because feedbacks iterate like this that it is not correct to talk about the WV feedback as a singular factor. Supose, for example, that the total cloud feedback were slightly negative rather than (as is more likely) positive. Then the total WV feedback will be less. On the other hand, if the snow albedo feedback is stronger than expected (as is known from observation), that will result in a stronger WV feedback.
Because feedbacks interact in this way, I think it is conceptually better to determine the Planck response, and then determine the feedback factors as a group to the extent that is possible.
-
Geoff Hughes at 08:43 AM on 29 June 2013BC’s revenue-neutral carbon tax experiment, four years on: It’s working
I would like to share this good news on my blog, but I do not find the base year(s) for the changes in the tables. Without a base, I do not know what I am reporting. Could you clarify, please?
-
william5331 at 05:53 AM on 29 June 2013BC’s revenue-neutral carbon tax experiment, four years on: It’s working
I wonder if this very laudable system wouldn't be even more effective if the dividend was given to every registered tax payer rather than to everyone that is currently paying taxes. In other words, simply deposited into every adult's bank account or credit card rather than given as a tax deduction. So many people are out of work through no fault of their own and they would spend every cent of the sum instantly to the benefit of the whole economy. It would be a welfare subsidy paid for by fossil fuel or the much discussed negative tax which may become necessary as the luddite effect bites deeper and deeper (everything manufactured by machines with the profits going to the owners of the machines and no more service jobs {politicians, prostitutes etc} available.
-
DSL at 02:10 AM on 29 June 2013Agnotology, Climastrology, and Replicability Examined in a New Study
The interactive comments are highly entertaining. There should be a separate post just on those comments.
-
Esop at 02:00 AM on 29 June 2013Agnotology, Climastrology, and Replicability Examined in a New Study
This sounds like a very, very interesting paper. Looking forward to seeing the comments from the various authors that are being "audited" as well. Great work!
-
citizenschallenge at 01:51 AM on 29 June 2013Agnotology, Climastrology, and Replicability Examined in a New Study
Interesting - perhaps one lesson is to accept the notion that:
"We need each other to keep our selves honest."
-
Chris G at 01:29 AM on 29 June 2013Agnotology, Climastrology, and Replicability Examined in a New Study
I suppose it depends on the mentality of the person. Some get confused by conflicting information. Personally, I tend to withhold judgement until I have heard a differing opinion; it doesn't matter if it is climate change or an argument between two children.
-
Chris G at 01:25 AM on 29 June 2013Agnotology, Climastrology, and Replicability Examined in a New Study
Somewhat on the topic of how we know what we think we know, this was something interesting I came across recently.
Changing Minds About Climate Change Policy Can Be Done -- Sometimes
-
chriskoz at 23:43 PM on 28 June 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #26A
To the whole SkS team, you have to check This panel discussion about science denial. Four experts talk about the anti-science of climate change, tobacco link to cancer, gun control and healthcare.
The most interesting is the moment at 44:00, when a question comes what to do to fight the science denial, Mike Mann quickly replies saying that SkS is na excellent site and their presentation of scientific arguments debunking denial taking points is the best and should be "the model for all of those other issues". That comment should make us, espetially the authors, proud.
-
chriskoz at 21:13 PM on 28 June 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #26A
This latest study Anthropogenic aerosol forcing of Atlantic tropical storms apparently established the link between aerosols and Cyclones on Atlantic. Apears to be the first of its kind. I don't have full access to check and form my opinion. Earlier studies, e.g. Mann 2006 explored the correlation of Atlantic Cyclones and AMO but did not talk about aerosols. Would be interesting to analyse it. On the surface it does not look good, because it vindicates the "Faustian bargain" which is like giving more heroine to a drug addict.
-
JasonB at 20:49 PM on 28 June 2013President Obama acts on climate change by enforcing the law
Donthaveone @ 42,
1, What is the makeup of renewables, for example how much of this increase is from existing Hydro etc
I don't have time to look this up for you right now, but from memory the majority of the recent increase is from wind and solar. Perhaps you could try searching yourself? It didn't take me long to find that report.
It might be educational to see if you can find the reports I mentioned above, showing that wholesale electricity prices actually dropped due to wind and solar penetration. In fact, wholesale prices have actually gone negative multiple times now, because they would rather pay you to take their power than have to shut down the wind turbines when they're producing too much.
2, They are talking about name plate capacity and not how much energy was produced. Do you know what the actual production figures are?
The figures I quoted were energy production figures, not nameplate capacity. It clearly says "Electricity generation by fuel type Terawatt-hours". TWh is a unit of energy, not of power (which nameplate capacity is). Renewables were responsible for more energy generation than gas and liquids, and over half as much as the total for brown coal.
BTW, everyone familiar with the topic already knows the difference between nameplate capacity and actual production. What actually matters is the levellised cost of production, not how "efficient" it is. (For example, a cheap solar PV that only achieves 12% efficiency but costs half as much per peak Watt as a high-end system that achieves 18.5% efficiency is a better deal provided you have enough roof space to meet your generation requirements, which shouldn't be a problem with the cheaper system if you're living in a house, for example.) Wind is already cheaper than new coal power plants even at an average efficiency of 30%.
-
scaddenp at 14:55 PM on 28 June 2013CO2 effect is saturated
Also, just looking at the change in temperature from increased CO2 isnt that meaningful. You cannot change temperature without also invoking the water vapour feedback. Calculating the other feedbacks is complex (hence the range in estimates for climate sensitivity) but Planck feedback plus water vapour feedback should be the baseline for considering the effects on increased CO2.
-
scaddenp at 14:48 PM on 28 June 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Australia and US are different. Australia must have one the best resources of solar power (eg CSP) around. If Germany can make such a difference with their poor solar resources, Australia should be able to massively more.
-
KR at 14:38 PM on 28 June 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Addendum to this post: The Budischack paper did not incorporate demand management, which is an ongoing development in many markets (I have begun to receive indications from my power company regarding networked thermostats for distributed demand management already), nor sharing arrangements with neighboring power grids - I expect that incorporating those will reduce fossil fuel contributions even more, perhaps to the the level of zero.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:37 PM on 28 June 2013CO2 effect is saturated
stealth @224, given that it is the Top Of Atmosphere radiative forcing that we are discussing, the proper comparison is not with the back radiation (which is of secondary importance) but with the Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR). Granted that 1.3 W/m^2 is just 0.5% of the OLR, but then, just 0.5% of the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) is 7 C. Percentages without perspective are not very informative here.
To calculate the temperature impact of a given radiative forcing prior to any feedbacks, you must recognize that a positive radiative forcing represents a reduction in the OLR. In order to restore the TOA energy balance, and assuming no feedbacks, the OLR must be restored to its original value. That requires an increase in the effective temperature of radiation to space. Assume that 240 W/m^2 OLR is required for the energy balance, then the effective temperature or radiation to space must be (240/(5.67x10^-8))^0.125, or 255 K. A radiative forcing of 1.3 W/m^2 then, reduces the effective temperature to 254.7. Consequently a 0.3 K increase, ignoring feedbacks, is required to restore radiative balance.
For the full 3.7 W/m^2 from a doubling of CO2, the reduction in effective temperature is 1 K, and hence a 1 K increase is required to restore radiative balance, ignoring feedbacks. Finally, because atmospheric temperatures within the troposphere are locked together by convection so as to follow the lapse rate, any change in temperature at the top or middle of the troposphere the results for the need to restore radiative feedback will result in a change in surface temperature of the same size. After that occurs, the increase in back radiation will be larger than the radiative forcing, but the energy balance at equilibrium will still be neutral because heat transfer from the surface by convection and latent heat will increase to make up the difference.
Finally, the most recent surface and TOA energy balance diagram is from Stevens et al 2012:
-
KR at 14:33 PM on 28 June 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Donthaveone - An Argument from Incredulity is not a refutation. Read the linked paper, read the Archer and Jacobson 2007 article as well. When you actually run the numbers for observed weather, for distributed generation sites (even if you only use inland wind, which will have a lower capacity factor than mixed generation), doing the work shows that renewables can provide baseload, and can do so less expensively than fossil fuels if you actually account for external costs (pollution, toxins, warming, etc.).
One of the largest errors made in this discussion is referring to the numbers for (as you do) single stations - distributed sites have much higher capacity. Storage is expensive, mind you - I find the Budishcack et al 2013 very interesting in that they find excess capacity is more economical than storage.
Fossil fuel backup? Budishcack et al 2013 find that it's roughly 0.017% total capacity for the 99.90% renewable scenario. Your objection, a mix of incredulity and Common Sense fallacies, just does not hold.
-
KR at 14:17 PM on 28 June 2013CO2 effect is saturated
Stealth - It doesn't matter what the baseline is. Really. Because the baseline represents the current situation, the Holocene, the environment we have dealt with for the last 8-10 kY.
What matters is the change. The forcing deltas, the temperature deltas, the shifts in growth zone, in sea level, in heat wave frequencies, etc. Only 0.4%? Irrelevant! How much will the change affect us, what do we have to do to adapt - that is the real question.
See CO2 is just a trace gas - the baseline is comprised of multiple elements, of many components, and it simply doesn't matter what the magnitude of various components are. What matters is the change in components, in forcings, and how those changes affect us. Focusing on the scale of a change versus a baseline, without looking at how that change affects us in real terms, is a false minimization of the issue.
-
StealthAircraftSoftwareModeler at 13:52 PM on 28 June 2013Levitus et al. Find Global Warming Continues to Heat the Oceans
KR @33: I was questioning the ability to measure 1/10,000th of a degree. I made a math error and was off by 3 orders of magnitude -- the actual temperature change is 0.1 degrees, and I can easily see that as measureable. While I make no claims to be a statistician, I do understand the Central Limit Theorem, and I understand the difference between precision and accuracy.
I am posting and asking questions from topic to topic because questions have to stay on topic or the moderator will delete them. I have a method to my madness and I am mostly gathering data. I have to find the right thread to ask my questions to get specific data. And my questions are being answered and I have learned a little bit all ready. Many thanks to all, especially Tom Curtis!
-
smerby at 13:45 PM on 28 June 2013A Looming Climate Shift: Will Ocean Heat Come Back to Haunt us?
I think this research is positive step in proving that the Pacific Ocean is a bigger regulator in not only short term but longer term trends in global surface temperatures. "This climate model-based IPO cycle length is shorter than the IPO cycle length observed during the 20th century, however the reasons for this disparity are not yet clear". Does anyone have an idea on why the models are cutting short the cycle length of the IPO?
-
michael sweet at 13:29 PM on 28 June 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Here is the correct link for the above comment.
Prev 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 Next
