Sorry angie, I don’t have any more time or patience to deal with you characters. Jimmy will handle it.
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Don Monfort
↧
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Don Monfort
Nice work pa:
“is actually reduced by fossil fuel use”
Your Nobel Prize is in the mail.
↧
Comment on True costs of wind electricity by John F. Hultquist
“<em>That is a good deal for the Nebraska billionaire, but not for the rest of us.</em>”
“<em>That is a good deal for the Nebraska billionaire, but not for the rest of us.</em>”
Not exactly on target. First, I do not think wind energy is a good idea and will be happy when it goes the way of whale oil.
However, for those with broad-based stock holdings (say mutual funds) there is some return of the taxes paid to support the credits and subsidies. Berkshire Hathaway, or any company, should do what it can to support (enrich) its stock holders. Buffet says this is what he does. It may not be a net gain for me but something is better than nothing. [I haven't a clue as to which stocks/mutual-funds that we own are involved in such things.]
↧
Comment on True costs of wind electricity by Hans Erren
Another aspect that needs to be adressed is: 1 kWh of wind electricity does not replace the generated co2 of 1 kWh of gas electricity although the dutch bureau of statistics suggest it does.
↧
Comment on ENSO and the anchovy by El Niño, se fossi un’alice non mi fiderei | Climatemonitor
[…] ieri l’altro mi è capitato di leggere un altro post molto interessante sul blog di Judith Curry. Protagoniste della storia le alici peruviane (Engraulis ringens), che ho scoperto essere di gran […]
↧
↧
Comment on True costs of wind electricity by fernandoleanme
Excellent. It seems to me the best way to put a price on wind power is to have it compete in the open market. The federal government, if it wishes to have more wind installed, can set up a program to provide a subsidy per kWh delivered over a 20 year period. The subsidy would be a bid parameter companies would put on the table. The wind provider would have to deal with all the associated problems.
I think this would lead to the creation of consortia willing to build integrated solar/wind/gas turbine/energy storage/grid improvements mega projects. The federal government can decide if the bid price is worth the effort by looking at energy security, global warming, job creation, and income tax generation. This will give the public a pretty good idea of what renewables cost, and also a transparent view of what the government thinks about long term energy security.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by agnostic2015
@dikranmarsupial
Human emissions are merely an input, and a minor one at that, into a large and complex dynamic self regulating system. I fully understand Barts argument on this, and his objection to the mass balance idea. It so happens that the total increase in AtmosCO2 is less than our input, but that does not necessarily mean that we are responsible for the increase, the system may have been able to increase (as it has in the past at least on long time scales) on its own.
I think Bart and Fred Haynie has convincingly shown that AtmosCO2 in the very short term is very closely correlated with temperature (with a lag). Therefore if there is a trend in the temperature there should be a trend on the AtmosCO2, regardless of human emissions. The mechanisms for increased Carbon cycle are well understood, but the magnitudes, extent, and details are not, and it’s an area that needs a lot more study IMO.
Your question asking me whether I thought nature was a net sink, is a misleading one – this is something I have come to appreciate over the course of this thread. Since human emissions are greater than the increase in AtmosCO2 one would think so, but if Bart and Fred are right, and I think they probably are, then absent ACO2 AtmosCO2 would still increase – nature would be a net emitter. However the big question is by how much?
@Willard
I appreciate that correlation is not proof of causation, but the mechanism explaining the reason why if temperatures go up, so must CO2 is very easy to find. Perhaps a little harder to quantify, but that’s what this OP was taking a stab at.
You only need to take a look at why you need your fridge for an explaining mechanism. If you leave meat on kitchen work top, it goes off much faster than when you out it in the fridge. Higher temperatures encourage biological breakdown of organic matter releasing, amongst other things, CO2. OTH green houses raise temperature and often add CO2 artificially in order to increase plant growth.
Increased temperatures mean organic matter in the soil are broken down faster, re absorbed by the biosphere faster, but never in balance. Bacteria, which vastly more abundant than larger flora such as trees, become more abundant and metabolise faster in times of higher temperature unlocking more CO2 to be available to the carbon cycle. When trees and other CO2 absorbing flora die during colder periods, they are not broken down as fast thus trapping CO2 that would otherwise be returned to the atmosphere, lowering AtmosCO2.
↧
Comment on True costs of wind electricity by Phillip Bratby
An excellent article and some equally good comments. The UK electricity system is becoming a train crash waiting to happen and the new Government has no intention of stopping the crash. It may stop onshore wind turbines but it is promoting more expensive offshore wind and other more expensive and equally harmful renewables (such as solar – useless with the UK’s unsunny weather – and tidal lagoons).
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Ferdinand Engelbeen
PA,
The variability in year by year CO2 increase is certainly caused by vegetation, but that is not the cause of the long term trend, as the whole biosphere, including plants, bacteria, molds, insects, animals and human caused land use changes is a net producer of oxygen, a net sink for CO2 and preferably for 12CO2, thus leaving relative more 13CO2 in the atmosphere. See:
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
Thus the biosphere is not the cause of the δ13C decline in the atmosphere, only humans are, as all known other important sources of CO2 (oceans, volcanic vents, rock weathering,…) are higher in δ13C than the atmosphere.
↧
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Don Monfort
Looks like this bizarre thread has pretty much run its course. Judith is apparently not going to respond to comments/questions on her tepid, some would say lame, summary comment.
The genius warmists, who are accustomed to having to defend the indefensible, have had a good time here for a few days and they will go back to their warmist blogs to celebrate. They should at least thank Judith for meekly allowing them to mercilessly beat up on her denizens.
The majority of Judith’s flock sail on wearing their little paper hats floating on their little paper boats down that big river in Egypt.
I am used to dealing with serious people. I would have to say that even a majority of the evil doers that I have had to squash were serious, in their own perverted ways. What I am finding in this climate debate is that about 95% of the participants are small characters who are not to be taken seriously: simple axe grinders. I am out.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Ferdinand Engelbeen
Ragnaar,
Fortunately for the earth, even including human caused land use changes, the whole biosphere still is more sink than source, as can be deduced from the oxygen balance: the earth and especially the dry areas are greening.
See http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Ferdinand Engelbeen
Richard,
Natural sinks do respond to the increase in the atmosphere, no matter the cause of the increase. The whole ocean-atmosphere cycle reacts to any disturbance as a simple linear feedback system: the sink rate is directly proportional to the increase in the atmosphere above the equilibrium level(steady-state: as much CO2 is coming in as going out). That was the case for the past 800,000 years: a change of ~8 ppmv/K warming or cooling over the 8 glacial – interglacial periods.
The CO2 level in the atmosphere should be ~290 ppmv for the current average ocean temperature, according to Henry’s law. We are at 400 ppmv. That means that there is 110 μatm (~ppmv) extra pressure to push more CO2 into the oceans. The net result is that ~2.15 ppmv/year (4.5 GtC/year) sinks into the oceans (and vegetation).
Human emissions are ~4.5 GtC/year, twice the current net sink capacity of the natural carbon cycle, no matter how much CO2 cycles through the different reservoirs.
Conclusion: human emissions exceed the sink capacity of the carbon cycle and are the main cause of the increase in the atmosphere.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Ferdinand Engelbeen
Fred,
I have repeatedly shown to you that the seasonal swings are caused by (NH) vegetation, not by the oceans. That is very clearly demonstrated in the opposite CO2 and δ13C movements over the seasons:
And if you look at the literature, the whole biosphere is a net, growing sink for CO2. Not a source. So are the oceans, as can be deduced from the increase in DIC everywhere (and the hardly measurable decrease in pH).
↧
↧
Comment on True costs of wind electricity by krmmtoday
Thanks for this analysis. I’ve been interested in this topic for some time but the literature is quite muddled and I found it difficult to find some dependable info.
Perhaps it makes sense to add that the perspective for renewables is the intention to replace all other energy sources in the more distant future.
The intermittency in distribution related complementary system costs will
increase tremendously when a certain level of generation of perhaps 10-30% is surpassed (if some marvelous technological innovations won’t come to rescue).
This also means that further reductions in wind turbine or solar panel costs will be increasingly irrelevant though they are presently regularly cited as a reason to be just optimistic about the future of renewables, especially solar.
It mostly hinges on future storage technologies. One never knows but this always makes me think of fuel cells which are just on the verge to become economical for 25 years or so now.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Ferdinand Engelbeen
Don,
I am leaving too. It is quite depressing that even Dr. Curry with brilliant ideas about the (small) influence of CO2 on temperature is trapped in the delusion of a (probable) non-human cause of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere.
All available evidence points to a human cause. Every alternative I have heard of violates one or more observations. Bart’s alternative even violates ALL observations, including Henry’s law and the most elementary knowledge of a feedback process, which the oceans are for the carbon cycle.
Thus sorry, I am going to plant the pumpkins, the weather is getting nice here…
Don, and many others, thanks for the help, see you next time, I suppose, as this discussion is repeated every few weeks nowadays…
Ferdinand
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by ...and Then There's Physics
Ferdinand,
I sympathise. I did learn from some of your comments, so not a complete waste of time, I hope :-)
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Ferdinand Engelbeen
angech2014,
The possibility that a natural source was synchronizing with human emissions is quite impossible”: not only in timing: starting exactly together with human emissions and increasing in exactly the same ratio of a fourfold in the past 55 years. Even more important: there is not the slightest evidence that there is any important change in any observation that indicates an increased natural carbon cycle, to the contrary: what is known shows no change at all.
Thus while pure theoretically possible, the observations show that it didn’t happen.
Take your example: more undersea volcanic emissions may give more acidic ocean upwelling and more CO2. The latter a remote point, as the deep oceans are a gigantic reservoir for carbon derivatives. A lower pH gives more CO2 release in the atmosphere, thus more loss of CO2/DIC in the sea surface. The observations show a small decrease in pH, but an increase in DIC. Thus the main flux is from the atmosphere into the oceans, not reverse…
↧
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by ...and Then There's Physics
I must say, Don, that you’ve surprised me on this thread, and I mean that positively. You re-instilled – in me – a sense of optimism, although you may not regard that as particularly positive yourself :-)
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by dikranmarsupial
Brandon S? wrote “Suppose instead your wife was adding $400 each month while withdrawing $300. At the same time, you were withdrawing $50 each month. That would result in the bank account growing by $50 a month.”
Yes, in that case my wife would be 100% responsible for the rise as she is putting in $100 a month more than she puts in, and I would be strongly opposing the rise because I am taking $50 dollars out each month more than I am putting in.
“Then one day you decide to start withdrawing only $25 a month from the account. That causes the account to start growing by $75 a month even though no additional money is being added.
Your influence on the bank account is still a net loss/sink, but because the amount of that loss/sink changed, the rate of growth increased. You can, of course, say, “Well, that rate of growth would be impossible without the wife depositing her money.” That’s true.”
indeed I agree.
” It’s just not a rebuttal of the point people are making – by reducing the amount of money you withdraw from the bank, you cause the rate of growth to increase.”
Now this is the point where your logic is mistaken. By taking only $25 out a month, rather than $50 I am not causing the rise, just opposing the rise caused by my wife less strongly. “causing an increase” and “opposing the increase less strongly” are not the same thing.
To show why, consider what would happen if there were a divorce and my wife and I agreed to share the remaining balance equally on the grounds that we had both caused the rise in the balance. Would that be fair? Of course it wouldn’t, common sense ought to be able to tell you that!
“It’s easy to see why this point matters. Imagine if natural sinks increased in efficacy so much CO2 levels began rising by only 1 ppm/decade. That would be a huge deal, but under the mass-balance argument, nothing would change. The mass-balance argument would still say 100% of the rise is due to man. That the amount of rise changed would be ignored.”
So you are suggesting that because the natural net sink even more strongly opposes the rise it should be considered as causing even more of the rise and anthropogenic emissions less? That is a rather strange form of logic. It is a bit like sating that if I started taking $95 dollars out of the account each month does that change who is responsible for the rise in the balance? No, of course it doesn’t it is still my wife as she is putting more in than she takes out and I am taking more out than I am putting in.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Ferdinand Engelbeen
PA,
Anthro emissions are 5% of the carbon cycle, thus only 5% of the rise?
Sorry, but a feedback system doesn’t work like that:
The 95% in and out is mostly a matter of (seasonal) temperatures and at 290 ppmv for the current temperature, everything is balance: input and output fluxes are equal. Even if you add only 5% of a one-way input, that does disturb the equilibrium and levels will go up, 100% caused by the 5% extra input. In this case, the carbon cycle is not fast enough to remove the 5% extra input (which also is increasing over time) and the levels go up further and further, near fully caused by the extra input, whatever the natural in and out fluxes were, until a new equilibrium between inputs and outputs is reached. That is a pressure dependent process, which is much slower than the temperature related processes responsible for the huge in/out fluxes.
The 300 GtC extra from 1 K temperature increase is simply impossible. An increase of 1 K gives ~8 ppmv (~17 GtC) extra in the atmosphere. That is all.
The quantities in the (deep) oceans don’t play any role at all: only the change in oceanic CO2 pressure plays a role: it doesn’t make much difference if you shake a 0.5, 1.0 ot 1.5 l bottle of Coke from the same batch: you will find near the same CO2 pressure under the cap at the same temperature…
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
