Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148700 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by Ron Graf

$
0
0

AP, thanks for your time and effort here and it will take me some time to analyze. But your basic gist is clear: the ocean not only has huge heat capacity it also has a tad of PH buffering muscle. And, kinetics increase as a system is forced further out of balance thus the rate of uptake will increase with atmospheric concentration of CO2. And then, when new CO2 is no longer introduced to the system the force of returning to a state of original balance will ensue.

If I can state ATTP’s argument for him it is that the uptake is not dominated by immense oceans but by plant life. And this plant life will cycle the CO2 into the atmosphere (the fast cycle) for some time after man is done with using fossil fuel. And, we will be stuck with it until the marine life sequesters the CO2 by permanent entombment of the carbon in sediments, the “slow cycle.”

I and others were under the impression, because of alarms regarding ocean acidification, that the ocean uptake was the dominate mode of the absorption you outlined quantitatively for us. If that were the case it is straight chemistry and CO2 will continue it’s absorption, acidification likely at the steady state rate that Henry’s Law allows solution of CO2 , (likely cold waters that are less gas saturated).

I suspect the new atmospheric/ocean equilibrium for CO2 will be between 260 and 300ppm due to slightly higher GMST, and it may take several hundred years to return to that range. However, I believe that in several hundred years humankind may not want it to return to those levels for agricultural productively, maintenance of expanded habitats and as a countermeasure against negative Milankovitch trend.


Comment on What should renewables pay for grid service? by mosomoso

$
0
0

Is there a reason beyond the semantic and tricky to lump hydro with solar and wind? Norway, BC, Paraguay, Hubei etc long ago adopted hydro for the same reason my part of the world adopted coal power. Maybe coal and hydro, along with nukes, should be lumped together as “doables”.

Of course there are practical differences between doables: coal can’t run low in a drought and hydro can’t be mined out by 2300 AD.

Comment on APS discussion thread by Ted Carmichael

$
0
0

This is a fascinating ‘mini-discussion’ … I am also a life-long Democrat (and will so remain for the foreseeable future). CAGW is, perhaps, the only area of serious and significant disagreement I have with progressives in general. (Although there are some other areas where I diverge from the most liberal among the progressives.) For me, it is a gift to have this disagreement, because it has become so much easier to spot the rhetorical patterns that one tends to fall into, on either side of the political spectrum. And so it helps me to maintain my natural skepticism, even in areas that have nothing to do with climate change. That is, clearly seeing the assumption-traps in climate science, that I am currently disposed to spot right away, keeps me on my toes when it comes to assumption-traps in other areas, where my critical thinking skills might not otherwise be engaged.

It can actually be pretty amusing, seeing the more emotionally wrought exaggerations and evidence-less conclusions so often expressed on either side.

Comment on What should renewables pay for grid service? by David L. Hagen

$
0
0
johnvonderlin. See major response below. If grid fails, the gas furnaces, hot water, stoves and ovens fail for lack electricity. Natural gas and fuel pipelines and gasoline stations similarly fail for lack of electricity. How many still have access to wood? The August 2003 heat wave in Europe was estimated to cause 70,000 additional deaths. Robine, Jean-Marie; Cheung, Siu Lan K.; Le Roy, Sophie; Van Oyen, Herman; Griffiths, Clare; Michel, Jean-Pierre; Herrmann, François Richard (2008). <a href="http://www.precaution.org/lib/heat_kills_70000_in_europe_2003.080601.pdf" rel="nofollow">"Death toll exceeded 70,000 in Europe during the summer of 2003"</a>. Comptes Rendus Biologies 331 (2): 171–178. doi:10.1016/j.crvi.2007.12.001. ISSN 1631-0691. PMID 18241810. Excess cold causes more deaths than excess heat.

Comment on APS discussion thread by Ron Graf

$
0
0

Steven Mosher: “The only people who have standing to ask people to disavow behavior are folks who already believe in the science.. Other folks are using the ethical issues as a cover for their disbelief”

Steven, that sounds an awfully lot like you are justifying immoral and destructive behavior because of an assumption that no one who opposes the bad behavior has clean hands. And, the source of their uncleanliness is an assumed opposition to the consensus. And, the consensus views are always represent the greatest good. So you also believe the consensus views are the least biased? Do you also believe there is good reason to be withholding publicly funded information from the public in the name of good science?

I do not assume these are your views. I just am having trouble understanding your posture and perhaps clarification would be in order. I honestly have a high opinion of you generally.

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by PA

$
0
0

Ron Graf | April 22, 2015 at 12:08 am |
….
If I can state ATTP’s argument for him it is that the uptake is not dominated by immense oceans but by plant life. And this plant life will cycle the CO2 into the atmosphere (the fast cycle) for some time after man is done with using fossil fuel. And, we will be stuck with it until the marine life sequesters the CO2 by permanent entombment of the carbon in sediments, the “slow cycle.”

I’m an advocate of the little critters theory of CO2.

On land or in the ocean, more CO2 means more plant growth. More plant growth means more food for the little critters that eat the plants, which means more little critters. As long as there are more plants and more little critters the carbon stays out of the atmosphere.

In the ocean – if the little critters die and become part of the sediment their carbon dies with them. On land if plants die and become part of the soil (tree roots definitely do) the carbon has to take the long way around and is tied up for a long time.

However that is just my viewpoint. Someone else will have studied this and attached some numbers. I’ll see if I can collect some defensible numbers and compute what dumping all 760 GT of fossil carbon into the ocean would do to the PH (this is the absolute worst case – you can’t put more than all of it into the ocean). .

Oh, and be careful with carbon and carbon dioxide. People claim 36 GT/year of CO2 emissions. This is identically equal to the 9.8 GT/year of carbon emission because 36/3.67 = 9.8 more or less.

Comment on What should renewables pay for grid service? by HAS

$
0
0

If you are on grid down this way and the power goes down you can’t generate locally for safety reasons.

My feeling is that people are worrying a lot about issues that technology is rapidly going to deal with. Smart transformers will move from focusing just on improving asset life and begin to add functionality that allows better load management including reactive power.

Short-term storage devices will smooth out the peaks and help with VARS and the distribution system beyond the last transformer will start to be able to be managed as a local a/c grid rather than needing private DC micro grids. Local intelligence will be able to heuristically model local load characteristics and respond (managing the odd key bits of load) even without the intrusive monitoring implied by smart-plugs/appliances all joining in on the internet of things.

Comment on APS discussion thread by PA

$
0
0

Steven Mosher | April 21, 2015 at 11:16 pm |
You haven’t made a case Matthew. Pal review was widely publized.. Wegman.. And ya some guys privately disagreed with mann. Therefore line people up and demand that they disavow this… Right as if that will make people open their minds and read the science.

The only people who have standing to ask people to disavow behavior are folks who already believe in the science.. Other folks are using the ethical issues as a cover for their disbelief

“Sigh”. It is too much to hope for integrity from people who accept government grants. Government corrupts everything. I have seen the enemy at close range and it is alarming and dismaying.

But you can get balance. AGW has thrived by choking off the opposition. A Republican congress can carve off half the “climate change” funds and have an external entity – say one of the oil companies – administer the grant process. The legislation would authorize RFPs for natural climate studies, proving the IPCC is wrong, proving that more CO2 is good for the environment, proving that there isn’t a chance in hell of the ocean becoming acid, proving that CO2 can’t rise more than about 100 PPM, detailing the model failings, doing model runs with sane parameterization, and investigating the integrity of AGWers. Basically a mirror image of what is getting done with the funds now.

I’m not sure who is right. But a fair debate is always beneficial. Ala “A private little war” we just need to make sure both side are equally armed and we might even get some real science out of it.


Comment on What should renewables pay for grid service? by Peter Lang

$
0
0

Excellent post, as usual Planning Engineer. Thank you. I invariably learn a lot from your posts.

Here are a few references that I found particularly helpful:

1. Energy Supply Association of Australia “Who pays for solar energy?http://www.esaa.com.au/policy/who_pays_for_solar_energy_1_1_1_1_1_2_1_1_1

2. Graham Palmer, 2013, “Household Solar Photovoltaics: Supplier of Marginal Abatement, or Primary Source of Low-Emission Power?

3. OECD/NEA “System effects in low-carbon electricity systemshttp://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2012/system-effects-exec-sum.pdf

4. Martin Nicholson and Barry Brook, 2013, “Counting the hidden costs of energy” “http://www.energyinachangingclimate.info/Counting%20the%20hidden%20costs%20of%20energy.pdf”

#4 is a 3 page summary of #3. The table shows the average grid system cost for six OECD countries in $/MWh of delivered electricity for 10% and 30% penetration level. At 30%, penetration, nuclear costs $2.1/MWh and solar PV $55.6/MWh. Projecting linearly to 50% penetration the costs would be: Nuclear = $1.8/MWh and solar PV = $74.8/MWh.

Comment on What should renewables pay for grid service? by Peter Lang

$
0
0

In 2012, I did a very rough estimate of the additional costs of a system of about mostly nuclear versus mostly renewables to reduce emissions intensity of electricity by around 90% (similar to France’s emissions intensity of electricity). The estimate was $37/MWh for mostly renewables versus $4/MWh for mostly nuclear.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.363.7838&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Note this is not a sophisticated analysis. It is a ‘ball park analysis’. However, more recent studies have shown I was not too far off.

I’d welcome Planning Engineer’s and other’s comments on that analysis.

Comment on APS discussion thread by angech2014

$
0
0

Who has left the circle?
Who has joined the circle?
At ATTP he has much bigger blogs when he lets people put up dissenting views with some factual basis.
This leads to a mutual attack on the dissenting views which is OK as it clears the air on the science , shows which arguments are sensible and allows a comparison of said arguments.
The level of discussion gets quite heated and some of the attacks become personal which leads to said dissenters firing back and being moderated.
I doubt there has been much change in personnel at ATTP or Climate etc in the last few years apart from WHT going there and a number of people do both blogs.
ATTP will occasionally disagree with a warmist view that has no science to back it.
Joshua did give Dana a rap on the knuckles in a similar vein.
I am sorry Don is banned and Punksta but I understand it from both sides. Better to have both meet on semi neutral territory here where Full blown attacks defeat one’s intended purpose or are sensibly moderated out.
More people have said they have left the extreme sites to come here than I have ever heard people say[blog] that they changed their minds and went to them.

Comment on APS discussion thread by angech2014

$
0
0

My bet is that an extra 4-14 people will write on the APS site Judith has put up. My hope would be that someone from APS will also put forward the reasons for their view.
This is unlikely as the Mann/Lewindowsky tactic is to deny debate the oxygen it needs to flourish which is best done by sitting quiet and not engaging.
We actually need an activist excited enough to break ranks.
AlsoiIf we get a groundswell of people prepared to stick their necks out, minimum 50, a torrent could develop.
The time is near but not right, I fear a la Le Miserables.

Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by matthewrmarler

$
0
0
Willard, I gather that you are happy with Prof Bretherton's remark, even though he specifies no scale at all: <i> Some scientists, though they welcome Mr. Stevens’s contribution, wish the paper had been written in a different way. “This paper is designed to make a larger story out of a relatively small result,” said Chris Bretherton, a professor of atmospheric sciences and applied mathematics at the University of Washington.</i> about this: <i> using counterfactual clouds and rains. </i> Why do you call them counterfactual? Cloud cover changes are the most widely discussed and elaborated unknowns -- here they are merely conjectural; the evidence on rainfall almost all supports the idea that increased temperature will bring increased rainfall: 2%-7% per C increase.

Comment on What should renewables pay for grid service? by David L. Hagen

$
0
0
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/23/business/energy-environment/a-challenge-from-climate-change-regulations.html?_r=0" rel="nofollow">A Challenge From Climate Change Regulations</a> <blockquote>“If the proposed rule stands the way it is, <b>there will be blackouts,”</b> said Nick Akins, the chief executive of American Electric Power, an electric utility that supplies power in 11 Midwestern states.</blockquote>

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by The Whitehouse-White House inquisition | Black Quill and Ink

$
0
0

[…] climate crisis skeptics. It’s why Democrats became so frustrated with Dr. Judith Curry’s expert testimony at a recent House Science Committee hearing that they left the room. They couldn’t stand it when […]


Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by mosomoso

$
0
0

Models and mechanistic simplifications aside, it’s a pretty good bet that the planet is able to blink and make all sorts of adjustments we don’t know much about. Natural iron seeding from glacial melt and El Nino-borne dust would be among the many balancing tricks. Iris effect? I wouldn’t be surprised. Why not play with such notions?

Right now we’re like the High Victorian prudes who avoided references to sex by covering even table legs. We don’t want to be confused or aroused too much in this staid era of Publish-or-Perish.

Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Michael

$
0
0

So should we disdain efforts by John Whitman to portray scientists in ‘pro’ stereotypes?

Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Willard

$
0
0
> I gather that you are happy with Prof Bretherton’s remark [..] Because I have not commented on them? I am happy to have recognized the small argument all over again. I am even happier to witness how a scale can help push the limits of justified disingeniousness. *** > Why do you call them counterfactual? Because the formulation make them so: <blockquote> A “relatively” small increase in summertime daytime cloud cover <strong>could</strong> blot it out entirely. As <strong>could</strong> a “relatively small” increase in precipitation. </blockquote> Minimizing a signal by using an absolute scale and then using possibilias to drown it into noise is a pure thing of beauty. Please, do continue.

Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Michael

$
0
0

“JC warning to Bjorn Stevens: In my quest to objectively evaluate the IPCC’s attribution argument and stand up for research integrity post Climategate, I was not ‘pulled’ away from the establishment community by ‘deniers'; rather I was ‘pushed’ away by scientists who were IPCC ideologues and advocates. Watch out.” – JC

For something new, let’s play the victim card…again.

Yawn.

Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by John Whitman

$
0
0

Michael on April 22, 2015 at 10:33 pm

– – – – – – –

Michael,

I certainly should wisely disdain
attempts to stereotype and put in a camp. N’est ce pas?

Whether I do so or not might show procession of wisdom on my part.

John

Viewing all 148700 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images