Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 Next
Comments 47051 to 47100:
-
Rob Painting at 04:31 AM on 27 March 2013New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated
Craig King - Further to Bob Loblaw's comments; that global surface air temperatures are warming faster than upper ocean temperatures is well-observed and completely uncontroversial.
You will have to reconsider what you think you know about this topic. Consider, for instance, that the heat capacity of the ocean is about a thousand times that of the atmosphere. What happens when this ocean heat is exchanged with the overlying air?
-
John Hartz at 04:30 AM on 27 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
@Geoff Chambers and Tom Curtis:
Please stay on topic and stop going off on tangents.
-
jyyh at 04:15 AM on 27 March 2013The two epochs of Marcott and the Wheelchair
OK, Wheelchair it is.
-
dhogaza at 03:22 AM on 27 March 2013The two epochs of Marcott and the Wheelchair
Our Changing Climate, not Our Climate Change ...
-
Doug Bostrom at 03:07 AM on 27 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Geoff: ...anonymous on-line surveys like the one on which LOG12 is based are inherently useless...
Just so we don't go too far off the path of facts, it's worth noting that Geoff's remark is a guess and as well is wrong, while in reality the authors of LOG12 used methods shown to work in work performed by other researchers. Indeed, the entire paper was an extension of previous research, employing accepted research tools and with findings paralleling earlier results in terms of connections between ideology and acceptance of particular hazards and risks. The replication of other previous findings by other workers embedded in LOG12 speaks volumes about the validity of the research methods employed in producing LOG12.
If Geoff had by some remarkable circumstance been correct in his guess, we'd then be witnessing the birth of a revolution in social science research, the upheaval of a train of thought extending decades back in time, performed by a vast number of individuals.
Moderator Response: [JH] Please resist the urge to feed the troll. -
Bob Loblaw at 02:40 AM on 27 March 2013New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated
Craig King: "evaporation ... cannot raise the temperature of the air above that of the ocean."
Evaporating water at the surface requires energy - lots of it. As the water vapour rises, it will eventually condense and form clouds, and then rain out. Globally, it's pretty hard to have a situation where evaporation and precipitation don't balance out on any reasonable time scale.
What do you think happens to the energy that is released when water vapour condenses back into liquid water? Is there a potential that it affects air temperature?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:38 AM on 27 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Spot on, Sphaerica.
I can attest to the fact that SkS consists on a very wide ideological spectrum of people. In fact, I find that to be true of the broader community of people trying to actively communicate the issues with AGW. I personally find it refreshing that there is such a broad ideological support behind the science of climate change. I don't believe you could say the same about those who reject man-made climate change.
-
Bob Loblaw at 02:33 AM on 27 March 2013New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated
Pierre-Normand:
I was only thinking in terms of the heat transfer and temperature changes, and have not thought through the implications for sea level rise. My limited understanding is that the pressure changes with depth affect the rate of expansion for a given temperature change, and the actual temperature has an effect, too - e.g., maximum density of fresh water is at 4C, so either cooling or warming at that point will cause expansion. (If water continued to contract as it approached freezing, lake ice dynamics would be very different!) Salinity plays a role on density and movement, too.
...but I think that most of the short-term variations (a few years) are related to the water cycle and movement of water between land and oceans.
-
Bob Lacatena at 02:29 AM on 27 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
geoffchambers says:
The fact that I disagree fervently with everything that Skeptical Science stands for is not a reflection on my state of mind, but on the complexity of a political programme designed to subvert science in the interest of an ideology.
But he's not a conspiracy theorist?
Moderator Response: [JH] Pease resist the urge to feed the troll. -
geoffchambers at 01:57 AM on 27 March 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Tom Curtis comment 90
You misundertand my position, and therefore misrepresent it. I’d ignore it because it’s not very interesting for others, except that you seem to be asking the moderators to snip me; so I’d better defend myself.
No. I don’t deliberately contradict myself. I have consistently expressed the idea that anonymous on-line surveys like the one on which LOG12 is based are inherently useless for any enquiry more complicated than “do you like/dislike this article?” If you want to find out what someone thinks, believes or feels, the best way is to chat to them. A street interview is a second best, a telephone interview a poor third, and so on.
My reactions to the conspiracy questions are much like many of the readers of the blogs where the survey was publicised. “Don’t know about that”, “Perhaps yes, perhaps not” and so on. I might very well, give different responses on different occasions, just as I might give different answers as to who I’d vote for or my favourite colour. I’ve sometimes expressed that jokingly in comments about Prince Philip killing Lady Di, etc. I tried to make the point seriously once at Climate Audit, that Steve McIntyre was not justified in removing two “scammed” responses. You can’t arbitrarily decide that liars or cunning bastards should be removed from a survey - it takes all sorts. It would be like doing a survey about petty crime and eliminating a respondent because he nicked your tape recorder.
You will note that in my comment 38 replying to Albatross, I don’t deny the reality of the theory of anthropogenic climate change or anthropogenic global warming. I’m therefore a warmist, and not a denier, according to the criteria of the questionnaire in LOG12. The fact that I disagree fervently with everything that Skeptical Science stands for is not a reflection on my state of mind, but on the complexity of a political programme designed to subvert science in the interest of an ideology. You’re not going to get to the bottom of that by asking if people agree or disagree with anything.
Moderator Response: [JH] You are skating on the thin ice of sloganeering. Please cease and desist or your future posts may, indeed, be deleted. -
A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
JvD - I have a number of issues with your arguments:
You have attempted to dismiss baseline support numbers with ad hominem arguments, are now attempting to demonize Greenpeace (not a perfect organization, but then neither are some of the nuclear interest groups you have sourced from), and make claims from a single study that a 1/3 penetration of renewables will be outrageously expensive - others show 50% wind/solar with 80% renewable quite achievable, and right now in the US Iowa has 24.5% of its electricity coming from wind, and South Dakota 23.9%; without bankrupting either.
You have also flatly stated that "Intermittent renewables cannot provide baseload power, per definition", dismissing (on rather poorly supported economic grounds, not technical) the entire opening post and many studies discussed in this thread. Meaning your statement is, so far as you have shown, incorrect. Renewables can provide baseload - whether that's the economic path, and the assumptions used, can still be a point of discussion.
You have not made your case, and your methods of argument weigh against your conclusions.
Instead, you appear (again, IMO) to be convinced that nuclear power is the panacea, dismissing or attacking any other approach, and ignoring or hand-waving issues such as waste disposal, which have not been adequately or socially addressed in the 50 years we've had nukes. You've even proposed ideas like the 1960's truck reactor, which I suspect was abandoned for very good reasons (such as mechanical flaws in the design, or the 150 meter radioactive exclusion zone during operations due to having zero shielding) - and seem blind to the issues with your proposals.
Personally, I feel that nuclear power and its expansion has a place in our future. So do significant amounts of renewable power, improvements in efficiency, synthetic fuels, improvements in energy dispatch, and so on - each can contribute. But in terms of the simple, technical question of whether or not baseload power can be provided by renewables - yes, yes it can, that 'skeptic' myth is (ahem) baseless.
In the meantime, crusading for a single black/white all/nothing solution, attacking other approaches with a blind eye to your own, is not going to be a useful part of the discussion - it's a False Dichotomy fallacy. We have to consider and perhaps implement all options, while being realistic about which issues are myths, and which are real and significant.
---
[ Side note: There have been a couple of posts in this thread where I have been ambiguously linked to or directly quoted for something I have not said! Please pay attention the sources of your quotes. ]
-
dana1981 at 01:09 AM on 27 March 2013New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated
Salamano @32 - the purple is at least 0-2000m, though I think I recall reading it's even deeper than that, like to 5000 meters. I could be wrong, but that's what I recall.
-
gws at 00:39 AM on 27 March 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
gws@392 needs to be amended. My bad, I managed to overlook JvD's comment @389. Neverthless, as CDBunkerson pointed out, your "Intermittent renewables cannot provide baseload power, per definition"-statement appears as a gross generalization.
-
gws at 00:29 AM on 27 March 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
JvD @390,
This is not helpful. Again, you simply repeated your assertion.
So far, the only unchallenged argument you made with respect to the 100%-impossible-claim is an economic one (you cited an EU report), and I asked @356 if that is set in stone. You did not address that. I may be naive, but usually economic forecasts assume BAU and use statistics of past data to extrapolate, so whatever bleak economic forecast re renewables there is, it is not likely very reliable, meaning it can change quickly given changing circumstances.
I quote that EUR 24996 report from 10/2011, preface:
The policy implication of this analysis is that there are increasing costs associated to the deployment of intermittent generation technologies in the EU-27. If the cost of integrating intermittent generation was to be limited to about 25 billion EUR per year, no more than about 40% of intermittent generation can be integrated in the European power market. The final choice of an acceptable cost increase will be a political choice.
Clearly, the calculated limit of of 40% is created by the artifical 25 billion EUR per year cap with the implication that political choices need to be made. May I say ... duh. Somehow I think that report is hardly the last definitive word out there ...
Furthermore, I got the impression that you argue from the narrow view that renewables basically mean wind and solar and that 100% use of these cannot work (although even your arguments for that were contested here strongly). That may be correct on small scales and ignoring other renewables such as hydroelectric, wave and tidal power generation (hello The Netherlands!), and biomass, presuming the latter is done responsibly.
-
CBDunkerson at 23:59 PM on 26 March 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
There are dozens of countries currently generating more than 35% of their electricity from sources other than fossil fuels, biomass, and nuclear. Eleven of these countries generate more than 99% of their electricity without using fossil fuels, biomass, or nuclear.
Granted, most of that power is hydro (and geothermal in Iceland) rather than wind and solar, but it is obviously not true that we have no choice other than 'nuclear vs combustion'. Wind and solar account for greater than 35% electricity generation in several sub-national regions (e.g. German states) and will soon be reaching that point on a national level (e.g. Italy and Spain).
-
DSL at 23:53 PM on 26 March 2013New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated
bjchip, try Skyllingstad et al. (2000), Schewe & Leverman (2010), the wiki on Langmuir cells, the wiki on Ekman pumping, and Stewart & Thompson (2012). Wind can drive vertical circulation in a variety of ways, from micro to macro scales.
-
bjchip at 21:53 PM on 26 March 2013New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated
"So what's causing this transfer of heat to the deeper ocean layers? The authors suggest that it is a result of changes in winds related to the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and more frequent La Niña events."
OK... I'm sort of puzzled here. The PDO is what it is and the Meehl paper seems to explain the heat transfer.... though warm water going down seems "odd" ... but how does the wind carry heat into the deep ocean? Wind can carry less heat away from the surface? Is this a loosely worded summary that misleads? Looking at what the links to the briefs on Meehl say I am missing something ?
-
Leto at 21:15 PM on 26 March 2013New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated
Craig King wrote:
"Likewise surely the atmosphere cannot be warmed by the ocean to a temperature higher than the ocean."
I think this reveals a misunderstanding, though I'd be hapy to be educated by the climate scientists. The ocean can be cooler than the atmosphere and still modify the atmosphere's temperature in an upward direction compared to an even colder ocean. It doesn't have to provide the heat (which comes from the sun); it just has to modify the heat flows.
Can cold milk make a hot coffeee hotter? Simplistic thinking would say no, because how could heat flow from the milk to the coffee?
But what if I usually whiten my coffee with icecream, and one day I replace the icecream with cool milk? The use of cool milk will lead to a warmer coffee than the original situation - not because heat has flowed from cool milk to hot coffee, but because less heat has flowed into the whitener than when icecream was used.
-
JvD at 21:09 PM on 26 March 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
@gws, I already replied to KR 372. My reply is that I do not dispute that intermittent renewables could provide 35% of supply. I dispute that it can supply a majority of the required 100%. The difference will be made up with fossils or (worse) biomass, if we don't use nuclear. That is why I am pro-nuclear. Not because I am against solar or wind (which I am not!) but because I am against GHG emissions and against blackouts. If we don't use nuclear, the only way forward is continued use of fossils, or blackouts.
-
JvD at 21:06 PM on 26 March 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
gws: "Everyone should focus on a smaller issue first, say "why is the economic forecast (in the EU paper link you gave) so bleak?" and "is that an accepted fact we cannot hope to change?", or "how can we (best) make renewables provide baseload power?", I suggest. Then take it from there."
Intermittent renewables cannot provide baseload power, per definition. Only fossil fuels, nuclear, hydro and biomass can do that. Biomass and hydro are not large enough, which leaves fossil and nuclear. The only way to make intermittent sources supply baseload is by using electricity storage. Hydro is too small for this, while engineered storage is too expensive. If money is not issue, there would be no problem, but money is an issue, and while it is, intermittent renewables will never provide baseload.
-
JvD at 20:56 PM on 26 March 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Andy Skuse: "I have one question for Joris. What do you think of this report: California’s Energy Future - The View to 2050?"
I think it is a very good report. I recommend everyone read it, because it does justice to pointing out the *serious* problems associated with banking on intermittent renewables to provide the majority of sustainable energy, let alone firm capacity, which is the topic of this thread.
The report unfortunately appears to dismiss the option of producing fully synthetic liquid fuels on the grounds that it would require (too) much energy. I don't agree and neither does the US navy. Recently, the US navy has shown that shipborne nuclear power could supply synthetic liquid jet fuels at reasonable cost, allowing nuke powered navy fleets to go without refueling for decades, and still fly regular air superiority sorties.
So since California has a high technological skill base and reputation for innovation, my recommendation for Californians is to push for building nuclear powered synfuel facilities which makes liquid fuel from carbonates in seawater. Initially, they could be built to make synfuel from coal, but ultimately they should switch to using seawater. The cost per gallon ofequivalent liquid fuel will then be only slightly higher than current prices at the pump, and would be completely GHG free. Such facilities could be built at the 10GW scale, or 50GW or even higher. Studies have already shown that inherently safe liquid metal cooled fast reactors or breeders could arguably be built at that scale, and possibly even up to 100 GW capacity per reactor. (source: AFAIK as yet unpublished research by a PhD friend of mine specialised in LMR technology.)
Additionally, another PhD friend has shown that such applications could benefit from molten salt heat storage, which doubles as a credible indirect eletricity storage. In other words: building such nuclear powered synfuel facilities allows coupling with intermittent renewables by damping fluctuations in energy supply by storing and retrieving process heat from molten salt heat stores in tandem with increasing and dereasing wind speed or solar insolation. However, while technically feasible, the economics would not favour this as a long term strategy. Still it could help in absorbing large penetrations of intermittent energy sources until such time as there is a global superconductor grid that would actually make a fully solar/wind power system slightly possible, as opposed to impossible.
To be clear, Is support wind and solar energy and further build out of those technologies. What I do *not* support is the nonsensical idea that intermittent energy sources can replace stable supply from fossil or nuclear power plants. I view that as a very dangerous and unfortunately very prevalent myth, and I take time out every once in a while to point this out since the future is also mine, not just of greenpeace. Note that I bring up Greenpeace, because the IPCC has used the Greenpeace vision as the lead scenario in there press-release statement about the SSREN study. This is a major mistake. Part of my intention is that the Greenpeace scenarios are exposed as nonsense and removed from the IPCC documentation until such time as they are made rational, which will happen as soon as Greenpeace ends it's counterproductive crusade against nuclear energy and also acknowledges the grave difficulties with switching to 100% intermittent renewables. They will do both sooner or later, since logic and truth requires it.
-
gws at 20:27 PM on 26 March 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Okay, so it took a while after me and now KR suggested to get back on topic. There is not much to add re nuclear here, Joris, and while I see some folks here correcting there own comments, I see few of your points being convincing.
Joris now finally returned to his 100%-impossible-claim, but now beats Greenpeace as a strawman. This post is not about them ... obviously a small country like yours should and need not attempt an island solution. Care instead of responding to my post @356 and KR's @372 ?
-
JvD at 20:21 PM on 26 March 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
@Glenn: "The concepts behind Fast Breeder Reactors are certainly a major advance over earlier designs - much greater intrinsic safety, massively lower dangerous wastes produced, able consume a lot of existing wastes, and can even run on Thorium. However, they are still at the proof of concept/pilot stage. They are years away from serious scale commercial deployment."
They are years away from serious deployment because there is not yet a need for fast breeders. But the technical knowhow to build them is there already, after decades of research and demonstration in multiple countries. The argument that fast breeders are not commercial (if you are making it) is a non argument. The only reason they are not (strongly) commercially pursued today is because we already have licenced thermal reactor technology that will be applied first. But there is no technical reason why we could not equally build fast reactors. In fact: almost all nuclear countries such as the US, Japan, Russia, etc, have proven and demonstrated the technology through decades. It's here. It's real. If we want them, they can and will be built. And you are right: they have all sorts of advantages over traditional thermal reactors.
-
JvD at 20:14 PM on 26 March 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
@JasonB. We do not need fast breeders for at least a few centuries if we don't scale up nuclear power. Only if the world would embark on a rational nuclear build-out, then most new reactors would be fast reactors, fast breeders or breeders. China's long-term energy plan calls for a majority of such reactors, which they will start building toward the second half of the century (or earlier, according to recent announcements, but that aside). India's long term plan is to use thorium breeders, which deliver similar benefits as fast breeders.
Fast breeder technology is a proven technology. the US EBR-II operated as a (inherently safe!) fast breeder IFR for years, though only at a small (research) scale. The French Phenix reactor was very succesfull, although the Superphenix suffered from teething problems. Still, much was learned from that and the current state-of-the-art of fast reactor technology is highly advanced.
There is no serious person who knows the technology who claims that fast reactors are not feasible. The reason for not building them today is mainly that the once-through uranium fuel cycle is still economical, and because of technological lock-in of traditional thermal reactors, which makes it hard to make a case for spending billions on new licencing regimes and designs while the traditional thermal technology is completely developed and licenced. If getting a new thermal reactor through the red tape is extremely costly. Imagine how expensive a 4th gen design will be! They can be made, and they will be made, but arguably not while uranium is still dirt cheap. This says nothing about the feasibility of fast breeders, but is just a matter of basic economics and the current status of uranium supplies which still gives the cost advantage to a once-through fuel cycle.
Finally, note that the actual nuclear component of a typical new nuclear power plant is only 5% of the project cost. 95% is for redundant safety, financing and red-tape. So even if a fast-reactor is more expensive than a thermal reactor, it will change nothing to the overal cost of the reactor. Arguably, since fast reactors can be built inherently safe, there are cost *savings* available, if licencing regulations can evolve to incorporate the inherent safety. However, politically, evolving licencing regulations is very difficult. It takes more than a decade to change something in the licencing system in the USA. Licencing regulation has prevented nuclear innovation, which is the main cause of a percieved lack of innovation.
-
JvD at 19:54 PM on 26 March 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
KR: "While the advantages/disadvantages of nuclear power are an interesting topic, they are a red herring in regards to the actual topic of this thread - the capabilities of renewable power to supply baseload/ongoing energy demands.
In that regard, and in reply to a number of assertions made recently:
[...]NREL has also shown that 35% penetration by wind/solar in the Western US can be accomplished, and "not require extensive infrastructure if changes are made to operational practices", contrary to assertions re: penetration made on this thread."
KR, I don't dispute that 35% penetration is possible (although it will be very expensive, as shown by the OECD report I linked to). Rather I dispute that 100% is possible.
I linked to an excruciatingly obtuse Greenpeace study that says that in my country, the Netherland, 70 GW (!) of solar and wind farms should be installed by 2050, even while maximum power demand is 13 GW. This is a dream. No scratch that: it is a fantasy. No, scratch that too, it is a LIE! It will never happen and cannot happen. In my country, we will NOT build 70 GW of batteries to store the power of 70 GW of intermittent renewables. Greenpeace places itself outside of normal rational discussion, and is thereby the enemy of all parties who sincerely want to solve the GHG emissions problem. Fortunately, I know some people within Greenpeace who are as sick and tired of such nonsense as I am. I dare to predict that Greenpeace will abandon its deadly obsession with destroying the nuclear option within ten years. Greenpeace has already recently abandoned its deadly embrace of biofuels (I like to think partly due to the almost 10 years I have spent reminding them of the deadly facts about biofuels), and similarly, Greenpeace will abandon its nuclear sabotage ideology sooner or later.
-
Salamano at 19:36 PM on 26 March 2013New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated
Couple Questions...
1. The purple line "overall depth" ... Is this 0-2000m, or is this 0-700m? (I'm looking for a chart that shows 700m-2000m warming over the past 30 years. (presumably this is the whole matter being discussed anyway). From what I think I'm seeing, the purple line minus the blue line gives us the bottom 1300m?
2. More frequent La Ninas and the negative phase of the PDO are the reason for the increased transfer of Global Warming contribution into the deeper oceans in the last 15 years... This means previously the oceans were not the receptor of as much GW heat content? What allows us to track with relative certainty the variable contribution percentage of GW into the deep ocean?
-
JvD at 19:34 PM on 26 March 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
@Michael Sweet. I don't care whether some people claim nuke EROI is less than one. And I don't care whether the American Scientists sees fit to cite such wild claims. Note that they also published the WNA figures of 40-60. The WNA figures are credible. Vattenfall published figures for their Swedish Forsmark plant which demonstrates EROI > 50. This is not a controversial figure, and I trust you will find the Forsmark figures using google and not muddle this discussion again. If nuke EROI was 1, there would never have been any nuke plants built, so it is completely silly to pursue this wild claim and frankly it makes you look like a troll, I'm sorry to say. Stop doing it. Start learning.
-
JvD at 19:31 PM on 26 March 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
KR. "I did not see your source for truck mounted fission reactors before. Reading it I see that they are not praticable. No shielding for operators! Keep up trying to convince people."
I brought up the truckmounted nuke plant only as an example of what is possible. You are trying to make it sound as if this is a major part of my argument. Shielding reactor cores is as simple as pooring concrete, by the way. Concrete is an excellent radiation shield.
-
Craig King at 19:29 PM on 26 March 2013New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated
@Glen . . thanks for that analogy but surely ultimately the two pools would be at the same level. Likewise surely the atmosphere cannot be warmed by the ocean to a temperature higher than the ocean.
With regards to the evaporation, surely while it does lower the temperature of the water it cannot raise the temperature of the air above that of the ocean. I am thinking at a global rather than a topical sense.
-
Pierre-Normand at 19:17 PM on 26 March 2013New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated
Rob Painting,
That's very useful. Thank you. If there indeed was this slowdown in sea level rise, aerosols and ENSO would seem to possibly account for everything, including Figure 1 above. Aerosols would account for part of the reduction in OHC trend, while El Nino dominated ENSO would further flatten this trend while contributing to the remaining small rate of sea level rise through water run-off (adding up to the small contribution from continued ice-sheet and glacier melt). Everything seems to fit.
-
philipm at 19:02 PM on 26 March 2013New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated
Add in the fact that much more of the Antarctic than previously thought is grounded below sea level (reported on the BBC web site; full paper here), and things have taken a decided turn for the worse. Warmer oceans + lots of ice grounded below sea level … do I need to join the dots?
Maybe Hansen was right back in 2007 about the potential for very rapid sea level rise:
There is enough information now, in my opinion, to make it a near certainty that IPCC BAU climate forcing scenarios would lead to a disastrous multi-meter sea level rise on the century timescale.
– and the scary thing is that Hansen issued this warning without the latest data on how much of the Antarctic is grounded below sea level.
-
Rob Painting at 18:47 PM on 26 March 2013New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated
Pierre-Normand - There is some scientific literature that suggests a slowdown in sea level rise (SLR) coinciding with the slowing of ocean heat content during the 1960's to 70's.
Church (2004) has this SLR slowdown during the 1960's, and Kohl & Stammer (2008) have this persisting into the 1970's.
There is a great deal of variation between all the sea level estimates prior to modern satellite-based observations, but it may not be necessary to invoke novel mechanisms.
-
Rob Painting at 17:10 PM on 26 March 2013New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated
Brenty - The increased level of atmospheric sulfate aerosols from tropical volcanoes over the last decade, blocked sunlight reaching the Earth's surface, which has contributed to a very slight reduction in warming. This is not the same as your claim.
There are a number of problems with the idea of undersea volcanoes warming the ocean, but the greatest obstacle is that the volcanoes would have to be upside down on the sea surface, because the heat is originating at the surface and propagating downwards.
-
Pierre-Normand at 17:02 PM on 26 March 2013New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated
Bob Loblaw,
Tanks for helping me there. Reading your post I had an 'Aha!' moment and wondered how I hadn't thought of that obvious time delay explanation. I knew a bit about the mixed layer, thermocline, etc. But trying to think it through, much of my puzzlement remains. Such an explanation would possibly explain a pause in sea level rise while OHC continues to rise. But how can the reverse occur? If the ocean rise is a delayed response to past warming, this means that heat previously sunken in deep layers is now moving to upper layers... How might this happen?
El Nino or neutral events that follow La Nina events also tend to result in a net transfer of run-off water from lands to oceans. So this may also contribute to the sea level rise in spite of the reduced OHC increase. El Ninos events of course promote such a reduction.
-
Brenty at 15:33 PM on 26 March 2013New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated
Given that the increased activity of above ground volcanoes is supposed to be stopping global warming, I presume this increased activity is limited to those 30% of volcanoes and not the 70% that we can't see under the oceans. Given that there are enormous numbers of undersea volcanoes (I have seen estimates of a million or more) I guess there would have to be some extra deep ocean warming when more erupt than usual.
The tectonic plates are now supposed to be moving a little more than they were in the 20th C. This should manifest in a higher incidence of great (8+) earthquakes. In fact since 2004 the incidence rate has increased by around a factor of 6 or 7. I don't think there a good enough records to measure how much the above ground volcanic activity has increased but if Alex Kirby is correct then the same must be occuring undersea.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 14:23 PM on 26 March 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
The concepts behind Fast Breeder Reactors are certainly a major advance over earlier designs - much greater intrinsic safety, massively lower dangerous wastes produced, able consume a lot of existing wastes, and can even run on Thorium. However, they are still at the proof of concept/pilot stage. They are years away from serious scale commercial deployment.
Should money be poured into developing them? Absolutely. Particularly if that development can produce modular designs that don't need to be specially designed for each installation.
But that does not justify any slowdown in deployment of Renewables. Any and every technology that can save a kilogram of CO2 going into the atmsphere now should be used to the maximum possible now! FBR's, as a viable option are quite some years away. But our CO2 problem is today.
-
JasonB at 14:18 PM on 26 March 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
I wrote:
According to the World Nuclear Association, your reserves are off by a factor of ten: 5,327,200 tonnes. Oops. And right now, with nuclear power representing less than 6% of world energy production, the consumption rate is 68,000 tonnes/year. That means that at the current rate of consumption we have less than 80 years' worth of uranium left.
Oops indeed — it's not JvD's reserves that were off by a factor of ten, it was the consumption rate per reactor per year that was off by a factor of more than 100. Not sure how I misread the "5.000.000" but my conclusions stand.
Anyway, current consumption rate divided by the 435 reactors in use equates to 156 tonnes of Uranium/year, not 1 tonne/year. It seems likely that JvD was referring to the rate of consumption of U235 per year, which would be about 1 tonne/year, but the problem is that the reserves are not reported as tonnes of U235 but as tonnes of Uranium, of which only about 0.7% is U235.
There are many different estimates of the actual time left at the current rate of consumption but they're all in the 50-100 year ballpark, including the OECD's red book. I'd certainly be concerned about embarking on a program to build over 6,000 conventional reactors that I'm budgeting on running for 60 years under those circumstances, even if we can assume that more reserves will be found and exploited as demand went up.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 14:00 PM on 26 March 2013New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated
Craig
'The ocean lag means heat will come out of the oceans' idea is a common interpretation of the meaning of the lag but it is wrong. An anlogy might help.
I have two swimming pools I want to increase the level of, a little toddlers pool and an olympic size pool. They are connected by a pipe so water can flow between them and they will have the same water level. I start adding water to the toddlers pool and it's level rises. As that happens water starts to flow through the pipe to the olympic pool. But it's level rises much more slowly because of its much greater volume.
Eventually I might even see the rise in the level in the toddlers pool slow down so that it is only rising as fast as the olympic pool. What is happening is that as fast as I add water to the toddlers pool, the same amount flows out through the pipe to raise the level of the big pool. This will continue until I stop adding water to the toddlers pool and they can all reach equilibrium.
The big pool is restricting the rate at which the little pool can rise. But when I stop adding water, the final level in the toddlers pool isn't because water starts flowing into it from the olympic pool. It is because water stops flowing out of it to the olympic pool.
The water in my anaolgy is heat, toddlers pool is the heat content of the atmosphere, the olympic pool is the heat content of the oceans.
To extend the analogy, instead of just turning on a tap to fill the pools, imagine that I have a float valve - if the level is too low, water flows in until the level rises to the setting on the valve then the valve closes. The height setting on the float valve is the Greenhouse Effect. This determines how much heat needs to be in the system.
So if I increase the GH effect by adding CO2, I am doing the equivalent of adjusting the float valve to a higher level. If I was just filling the toddlers pool (atmosphere) the level would have risen very quickly. But since most of the extra water (heat) actually has to go into filling the olympic pool (ocean) that retards the rise of the toddlers pool.
If I make a one-off adjustment to the float valve, it takes some time for it all to catch-up. In reality I am continually lifting the valve higher and higher; continually adding more and more CO2. So even the toddlers pool alone would need to keep rising to catch up although alone it could do that quickly. But even if I stopped right now, and didn't adjust the valve any further, it would still take substantial time for the Olympic pool to catch up and all rising to stop.
But at no time does water (heat) need to flow the other way.
We could extend this analogy; instead of 1 olympic pool, we could have a linked series of mini-olympic pools, each one connected to the next. The rise of each pool would be retarded by the delay in raising the level of the next pool in the chain. Each of these mini-olympic pools would then correspond to different layers and regions in the oceans.
-
JasonB at 13:54 PM on 26 March 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
KR — sorry, yes, the quotes were from JvD but the initial sentence was in response to your request to stay on-topic. :-)
As an aside, I'm not that strongly against about nuclear power, as long as it's not in my backyard; if the Chinese want to go ahead and build 30 new reactors in addition to their wind farms, I see that as a useful reduction in CO2 emissions vs what would be the case if they built coal instead. What I don't like is people with massive blind spots in regard to the issues with nuclear power blowing every little problem with renewables out of proportion in their efforts to capitalise on the potential benefits of AGW to their favoured solution. Nuclear has been around for a long time now, it still costs a lot of money, has unique hazards, and major obstacles that need to be overcome if it is to scale up to a useful level. China has been able to build nuclear power plants on time and on budget, but that's partly thanks to a skilled workforce willing to work 10 hour days, 7 days/week, for Chinese wages, and (although I have no proof of this) I suspect partly because the Chinese probably aren't as demanding when it comes to safety. Olkiluoto, on the other hand, is now up to €8.5 billion for one conventional 1.6 GW reactor that has taken eight years to build so far and counting. And we're supposed to believe that magically we can now build fast breeders at scale, starting any day now, without any problems?
It seems to me that solving the storage and distribution problems with intermittent renewables will be a lot easier.
As an interesting aside, the global nuclear power production has been roughly 2500-2600 TWh per year for the past decade. From 2010-2011 wind power production increased by 118 TWh (from 341 TWh to 460 TWh). At that rate of increase it would take only 20 years to be generating as much power per year as the entire world's nuclear fleet just with wind power alone, and there have only been four years since 1980 where the increase in nuclear power generation per year has exceeded that rate of increase (1984, 1985, 1987, and 1988). (Note that I'm talking about actual power generated here, not nameplate capacity, so it's taking into account the fact that wind has a capacity factor of only about 30% while nuclear has a capacity factor of about 90%. The only difference between them is that wind is intermittent while nuclear is flat; demand, of course, fluctuates.)
-
Bob Loblaw at 12:42 PM on 26 March 2013New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated
Pierre-Normand:
Due to time lags in moving energy/heat around, there is no reason to think that deeper ocean temperature changes will be in lock-step with surface changes. The upper ocean mixed-layer (60-100m) will interact with the atmosphere quite quickly, but deeper ocean temperatures can be responding to surface changes from decades ago.
A similar phenomenon happens on land: at depths of a few tens of cm, the daily cycle of surface temperature is both reduced in amplitude and lagged in time. The maximum or minimum temperature at 10-20 cm depth will happen several hours after the surface max/min. (Details depend on the thermal properties.)
-
Bob Loblaw at 12:29 PM on 26 March 2013New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated
barry:
I remember Roger Sr.'s arguments in favour of using ocean heat content (OHC), rather than atmospheric temperatures. I think he was active in discussions at both SkS and RealClimate at the time. A few things I remember were:
- I had the impression he really only wanted to look at recent OHC, particularly Argo data, and particularly the 0-700m depth. I also had the impression that he wanted to do that because it suggested less warming (compared to 0-2000m data) and was a much shorter record than surface temperatures. The short record made it easier to justify a "wait and see" position - a "we don't have enough data for long enough" position. Overall, an argument for the status quo, AKA "business as usual". I thought his preference was based on the conclusions he could draw from it (avoiding stuff that gave the "wrong" message), rather than a rigorous scientific analysis.
- I remember discussions (particularly at RC) about him claiming that you could "see the heat moving" and actually estimate the fluxes just by looking at changes in ocean temperature. He seemed to not have a clue about the differences between "flux" and "flux divergence", and could never actually describe a methodology by which you could calculate the fluxes. It was all pretty hand-wavey, and left me with the impression that he really didn't know what he was talking about.
That said - yes, the total energy content of the earth-atmosphere system would be a nice thing to have, but keep in mind a couple of things:
- even though it is noisier, the records of surface air and sea surface temperatures go back a long way, and we have well over 100 years of near-global coverage
- surface temperatures and deeper ocean temperatures are linked by physics, so the long surface temperature record can't wander willy-nilly all over the place, independent of deeper ocean temperatures.
- thus, limitations noted, the surface temperature record is still useful.
-
John Hartz at 12:17 PM on 26 March 2013New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated
@mehus #19:
The article that you have provided the link to is:
Volcanic Eruptions May be Masking ‘Lost’ Warming by Alex Kirby, Climate News Network/Climate Central, Mar 11, 2013
As fate would have it. the following article by the same writer was posted today:
Volcanic Eruption in Iceland Did Little to Lower CO2 by Alex Kirby, Climate News Network/Climate Central, Mar 25, 2013
Both articles are based on peer reviewed published papers that suggest volcanic aerosols have played a part in the recent slow down of atmospheric warming. Neither article suggests that volcanic aerosols were the sole cause.
-
dana1981 at 11:49 AM on 26 March 2013New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated
mehus @19 - I believe that paper is actually discussing the lack of warming higher in the atmosphere, but it could also explain the slight slowdown in ocean warming over the past few years.
-
mehus at 11:25 AM on 26 March 2013New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated
I have a question for the crowd. A recent paper suggested that volcano aerosol emissions were to blame for a lack expected warming over the last decade or so. Here's a link to climatecentral's coverage: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/volcanoes-may-mask-lost-warming-15683
This research would seem to contradict that paper. Are these papers in fact contradicting each other or ????
-
Pierre-Normand at 11:25 AM on 26 March 2013New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated
The apparently very low rate of ocean heat content increase from 1958 to 1984 was very puzzling to me, even accounting for the error bars. I had assumed for some time that despite the 1940-1970 slowdown in global surface warming (partially explained by a rising concentration of sulphate aerosols) the OHC was still increasing very much during that period as the continued sea level rise apparently testifies. But now, if the mid 20th century slowdown in global surface warming occurs at the same time as a slowdown in OHC increase, how do we account for the lack of slow down in the rate sea level rise from 1958 to 1984?
StBarnabas's remark seemd very enlightening and suggestive to me. Could it have been that much more heat was propotionately gained by the upper warmer layers of the oceans (where the thermal expansion coefficient is much higher)? Unfortunately, the breakdown of layers in Figure 1 above doesn't seem to support that hypothesis. So I remain puzzled. What caused the sea levels to rise so much during that period of very slow OHC increase? (Melting ice sheets contributed little, I think).
-
Andy Skuce at 11:04 AM on 26 March 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
As a Skeptical Science contributor and regular, I should say that I am grateful for this discussion about a subject that I really should learn more about. It is frustrating for me that such discussions actually range a little too widely and it might help if we isolated one subject at a time (nuclear waste, intermittency and the grid, uranium ore resources, energy storage options, demand management etc). I realize that all these subjects interact and can't be entirely considered in isolation but some better focus would be helpful for beginners.
Some of the comments in this thread are longer than some SkS blogposts, so I would encourage everyone here to consider submitting a focussed blog post on some aspect of this huge and important problem.
I have one question for Joris. What do you think of this report: California’s Energy Future - The View to 2050?
-
John Hartz at 10:52 AM on 26 March 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
Beleive it or not, the State of Kansas has visions of becoming the "Saudi Arabia of Wind." Read about it in the article, New transmission lines funnel wind-generated electricity out of Kansas. by Dan Voorhis, Wichita Eagle/McClatchy Newspapers, Mar 25, 2013.
-
Mark-US at 10:47 AM on 26 March 2013New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated
As for mechanisms, for one thing, Antarctica is producing a lot less very-cold "bottom water" in the offshore basins.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Southern-Ocean-research-shows-continuing-deep-ocean-change_CSIRO.html
-
barry1487 at 10:18 AM on 26 March 2013New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated
chriskoz @ 1
That confirms my opinion pronounced here a year or two ago, that we should use OHC as the measure of GW rate.
That has long been the opinion of Roger Pielke Senior, whose views have received some attention here at SkS. While OHC may be the best indicator, nothing would be better than the completest accounting of all the energy in the system - surface, ocean, ice, atmosphere etc. -
A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
JasonB - I assume you are responding to JvD with these quotes? You might want to identify whose comments you're talking about :)
I suspect a well-written SkS post on nuclear options and possibilities for mitigating greenhouse gases would be useful, but quite frankly that hasn't been (as far as I know) a recurring denial myth - it's not even on John Cooks list.
Prev 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 Next
