<i><b>Bob Ludwick</b> | November 10, 2014 at 12:27 am | Reply
@ daveandrews723
“But the warmists claim their CAGW belief is beyond hypothesis, that it is a proven theory, unchallengable now.”</i>
CAGW isn't a hypothesis. It is a proposition that is unproven and based on inconclusive data that for the last 14+ years don't support it.
Venus is a planet with over 91000 times the CO2 at the surface (9,100,000% more CO2), no water vapor, and almost as much hydrogen sulfide (119 PPM) as the earth has CO2 (160 PPM) during the depths of the ice age). CAGW for Venus is a hypothesis.
CAGW for earth is a conjecture.
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by PA
↧
↧
Comment on Challenges to understanding the role of the ocean in climate science by nottawa rafter
John
Could you provide links to studies asserting oceans are warming 15 times faster than any time in last 10000 years? Thanks.
↧
Comment on Challenges to understanding the role of the ocean in climate science by Stephen Wilde
↧
Comment on More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve by Bob Ludwick
@ Curious George
Why gigawatts?
Because gigawatts of storage are small, cheap, and available off the shelf.
Take this from General Atomics for example:
Model: 37634
Capacitance (microfarads): 0.0125
Size (inches): 2.3 x 5.9 x 4.0
Weight (lb.): 2.5
At its rated voltage, 50 kV, and its rated discharge rate, 25 kA, it could do the job all by itself. But not for long.
Now when they start talking gigawatt-hours, they got a whole nother problem. Not small, not cheap, and definitely not off the shelf.
For example, a typical car battery is good for around 0.5 kW-hr. So you would need 2,000,000 of them, containing around 30-40 lbs of lead, each, per gigawatt-hour. Say 60,000,000 pounds, or 30,000 tons of lead per giga-watt hour. 40,000 tons for every hour at a 1.3 gigawatt discharge rate. Wonder how many hours they want their battery to back up their 1.3 gigawatt generator?
PS: The above figures are only ballpark, using typical car batteries. They may be able to do better. Quoted energy density for lead-acid is 30-50 w-hr/kg. But we are still talking a LOT of lead to back up a 1.3 gW plant for any meaningful time.
↧
Comment on Challenges to understanding the role of the ocean in climate science by PA
The top 2000 meters warmed around 0.072°C on average since 1960. That doesn’t seem particularly fast. The atmosphere warmed (accord to Hadcrut) about 0.55°C over the same time period.
The top 700 meters warmed something less than 0.018°C (assuming the observed 70% in the top 700 is typical) during the same 54 year period.
The ocean doesn’t seem to be warming particularly fast, unless you think at rate of 0.03°C per century for the top 700 meters is really hustling.
↧
↧
Comment on Challenges to understanding the role of the ocean in climate science by nottawa rafter
Excellent post. A very complex subject explained in a way that is easily understood.
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by Phil Brisley
Wow!….asked and answered, with charts, maps and links too.
PA, captdallas, Rud Istvan, Rob Ellison…thank you all for a very thorough answer. I was going to ask another question, but I have to absorb what’s been said before I can do that.
Regards, Phil.
↧
Comment on Challenges to understanding the role of the ocean in climate science by John Smith (it's my real name)
“abrupt climate changes during the last ice age have possibly been linked to large variations in AMOC”
I’m assuming not anthropogenic
can we ever separate natural variation from “anthropogenic”?
can we now agree that “abrupt” change happened before human activity?
is human activity “natural”?
(my wishing we could retire that word I know is futile)
this walks and talks like a philosophical question
so we mitigate carbon and develop clean energy
but, then a large variation in the AMOC, or some other unanticipated variation, might nail us with an “abrupt” change in climate anyway, no?
seems to come back to the precarious nature of existence
but hope for the perfect equation to predict and explain the entire universe springs eternal
thanks Carol Anne and JC
enjoyed the read
↧
Comment on Challenges to understanding the role of the ocean in climate science by Rob Starkey
John Carter
You are an excellent example of a person taking a small amount of information and then fitting that limited data to fit and try to justify your personal system of beliefs.
The truth is we know little about what drives the system today, but that doesn’t stop people like you from trying to tell others that you are sure how we should be living.
↧
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by Phil Brisley
Thanks captd. I’ve read your replies several times now, it is sinking in. The map and chart are a great help.
Regards, Phil.
↧
Comment on Challenges to understanding the role of the ocean in climate science by PA
I ran the rough numbers for the 200 zettajoules of energy that the ocean is said to have absorbed in the top 2000 meters since 1960.
If my math is right that is an absorption rate of 0.2 W/m2 from an atmosphere that on average for the period according to HADCRUT was emitting 1 W/m2 more “back radiation” (0.55°C ~ 2 W/m2).
Assuming the above is correct the transfer efficiency is about 20% which means 80% of the “warming” energy went back to the atmosphere in some way (evaporation/convection/radiation).
↧
Comment on Challenges to understanding the role of the ocean in climate science by Fernando Leanme
The post leaves out a really ugly fact: most of the money spent by NASA over the last 40 years was for the Space Shuttle and the international space station. The shuttle was poorly designed, and the bulk of the “space research” carried out in the space station is nearly useless.
So the issue isn’t only the lousy fund allocation, it’s also about the way a government bureaucracy aimed for circus rather than science.
↧
Comment on More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve by PA
If the PV output noise is an issue wouldn’t a small backup on site (20-30 minutes at rated capacity) provide significant smoothing?
↧
↧
Comment on Challenges to understanding the role of the ocean in climate science by Fernando Leanme
David, we always use models to explain data. Let’s not get carried overboard and demonize models. They are bread and butter in science and engineering from evolutionary biology to plumbing design.
↧
Comment on Challenges to understanding the role of the ocean in climate science by David L. Hagen
Excellent overview by Carol Anne Clayson
I strongly endorse her emphasis on the importance of actual oceanic measurements - especially in light of the <a href="http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/" / rel="nofollow">miserable predictive skill of climate models.</a>
We need to cut ineffective "climate modeling" by 80% and increase Ocean measurements 800%.
↧
Comment on Challenges to understanding the role of the ocean in climate science by Forrest Gardener
Thanks to all for the explanations. So when the author says that evaporation is a source of heat to the atmosphere, that is a two stage transfer. First into the water to evaporate it and then from the vapour to the surrounding atmosphere when it condenses to form clouds.
Is that right?
↧
Comment on Challenges to understanding the role of the ocean in climate science by miker613
This is absolutely insane. With a multi-trillion-dollar mitigation decision in front of the world, they should be spending billions now to get as much and as accurate data as possible.
↧
↧
Comment on Challenges to understanding the role of the ocean in climate science by Forrest Gardener
Thanks David. I think I’ve got it now.
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Phil, one thing you will probably notice is that the old guard warmists don’t like to stray far from the classic simplifications. Classic simplifications are useful as analogies but not very useful as physical models because the system is dynamic and the “forcing” small, ~ 1%. Even at 1%, the expansion of the dry gas envelope or shell is negligibly small, expansion of the moist air envelope, i.e. retreating snow/ice field and general changing of precipitation patterns and associated cloud cover is not negligible. Since water vapor is not well mixed, average atmospheric water vapor is not all that useful and the simplified analogy requires a meaningful average that can be approximated as an “equilibrium” condition. That is a huge assumption.
I hope that doesn’t confuse you more, but “surface” response isn’t a very simple problem.
↧
Comment on Challenges to understanding the role of the ocean in climate science by PA
They are spending billions. The problem is they are spending them on CO2 studies.
They should just drop the GCM model and global warming funding for the time being and switch the money to atmospheric/oceanic studies to better understand the climate system. The only part of the system they claim to understand well is GHG. Fine – quit studying it and go study something else that is less well understood.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
