Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Ferdinand Engelbeen

0
0

Bart, show me the math:

Show me in concrete figures that there can be an increase in any natural cycle which is let’s say a threefold and a fivefold over the past 55 years and still gives a fourfold increase in the atmosphere and a fourfold net sink rate together with the fourfold increase in human emissions.

And if you have the time: show me how that should affect the δ13C ratio in the atmosphere and the residence time.


Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by dikranmarsupial

0
0

I am also leaving; life is too short to waste on rhetorical discussions with those that are not listening. Many thanks to Ferdinand, Don, ATTP and others for their efforts. It is hard to understand why this topic gets recycled so often on blogs, given that the scientific evidence is essentially unequivocal, and the errors have already been patiently explained by Ferdinand on numerous occasions. As Fred Singer wrote, clinging on to such canards is doing climate skeptics no good at all.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/02/climate_deniers_are_giving_us_skeptics_a_bad_name.html

“Then there is another group of deniers who accept the existence of the greenhouse effect but argue about the cause and effect of the observed increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. One subgroup holds that CO2 levels were much higher in the 19th century, so there really hasn’t been a long-term increase from human activities. They even believe in a conspiracy to suppress these facts. Another subgroup accepts that CO2 levels are increasing in the 20th century but claims that the source is release of dissolved CO2 from the warming ocean. In other words, they argue that oceans warm first, which then causes the CO2 increase. In fact, such a phenomenon is observed in the ice-core record, where sudden temperature increases precede increases in CO2. While this fact is a good argument against the story put forth by Al Gore, it does not apply to the 20th century: isotopic and other evidence destroys their case.”

I strongly recommend anybody to read Ferdinand’s web page on this topic, it is an excellent resource: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Ferdinand Engelbeen

0
0

Sorry,

Error in the formula:
S(k) = 0.99*(CO2(k) + N(k) – S(k))
must be
S(k) = 0.99*(CO2(k) + N(k) – H(k))
which is what was used in the calculations and graphs.
Sink capacity is directly proportional to the total increase of CO2 in the atmosphere above equilibrium, that is current level + new input.

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Ferdinand Engelbeen

0
0

Sorry again…

The formula used was:
S(k) = fS*(CO2(k) + N(k) + H(k))
where
fS was 0.99

Need to stop now, the garden is waiting…

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Ferdinand Engelbeen

0
0

dCO2/dt = k*(T – T0)

Which violates Henry’s law, the very basic principles of any feedback system and all known observations…

Thus sorry Bart, no feedback from the increased CO2 pressure in the atmosphere on the ocean in and out fluxes? Ask some chemical engineer, he/she can help you out…

Comment on True costs of wind electricity by pmhinsc

0
0
Mary Kay Barton | May 12, 2015 at 10:15 pm | <i>Cars, cats and buildings do NOT typically kill Bald & Golden Eagles, condors, whooping cranes, and other raptors — Industrial wind turbines do!
…</i> Although I agree with your comment, the distinction is lost to the average person on the street and a challenge (and you will be challenged) requires a lengthy explanation, which will be lost to all but a select audience. While I encourage you to make the argument I also caution you of the difficulty and frustration in making it.

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Mike Flynn

0
0

The U.S. EPA suggests a maximum continuous exposure level of 1000 ppm, without specifying any adverse effects for concentrations above this.

OSHA workplace limit average is 10,000 ppm, with 30,000 ppm short term.

Toxicity sets in at around 40,000 ppm.

Who cares what causes a level of 400 ppm? Natural or man made, the effect on humans is the same. Nothing. Zip.

Much ado about nothing.

Comment on True costs of wind electricity by peter2108

0
0

A minor point.

“Studies of UK and Denmark wind farms suggest their actual economic lives appear to be 12-15 years due to wear and tear [4]”.

The piece gives two references under [4]. The second is to a paper by Staffel summarised here:
https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/12880/2/Wind%20Decline%20-%203%20Page%20Summary.pdf. which criticises the first which was by Prof. Gordon Hughes.

Staffel says: “To put these claims in context, we could consider the 45 wind farms built in the UK during the 1990s
(more than 15 years ago):
• 5 were repowered before their 15th birthday;
• 5 operated for between 17 and 20 years before being repowered (1 was closed completely);
• 35 are still operating today”

Hughes was accused of statistical incompetence by David MacKay. I read the exchange (Hughes was very bad tempered) and concluded that MacKay was right. Those more knowledgeable of statistics might disagree.(see http://www.withouthotair.blogspot.se/2013/12/do-uk-wind-farms-decline-very.html and link to technical paper there).


Comment on Is federal funding biasing climate research? by Punksta

0
0
<i>Funding and bias are two different things. Funding per se is not biased, just selective.</i> A contradiciton in terms.

Comment on True costs of wind electricity by aplanningengineer

0
0

Whether it’s “interesting” or not – here’s my response. I don’t know of any “good” estimates of externalities that could be used, let alone that we would agree upon. In that absence of such – I don’t think the answer is to “fudge” cost data in order to support vague externality concerns. The cost data shows that the differential of externalities need to be huge. In any case if someone wrote a piece discussing and shedding light on externalities, I don’t think my reflexive answer would be to criticize them for what they did not look at, like the KWH cost of delivering power. I don’t think I would get snide about, but if troubled I would say, “Thanks for that, we’ll have to see how (or here’s how) that works out with other considerations such as cost and technical feasibility.” Not ” I don’t have the cost data myself but you need to work that out to before speaking on the subject”.

As confident as you might be that a “good” understanding of externalities might sway the US to favor more wind, I am at least equal confident that any “good” study of the externalities that incorporated compassion and concern for third world people would find that fossil fuel was the correct choice for most of Africa at this time. Our false expectations and over-optimistic hopes are keeping poor people in the dark.

I welcome externality studies in the US and other nations. Mostly what I see on one hand are global studiess against conventional technology that don’t delve into alternative technologies dark sides (large deaths in US from particles in the air). Or scattered criticisms of alternative technology(bird deaths). I wish would had more comprehensive efforts to get things on some comparable basis, even if value bound. I don’t know how shutting down dialogue on costs helps with that effort.

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Willard

0
0

> The rate at which any single sink absorbs CO2 will depend on many factors, among them the ambient pCO2.

That’s not control theory. Neither is it formal.

***

> there’s no good reason to regard any simple (simplistic) model as predictive in any way.

We’re talking about a descriptive one.

Comment on True costs of wind electricity by aplanningengineer

0
0

Thank Lisa. Good points. As the arrangements get more convoluted (and disconnected from economics and market considerations) problems (negative pricing) can become cures for some ills.

I’m curious about the -1000/mwh limit. I’m thinking maybe there is an extra zero by typo, but my real question is what is the driver for the limit. Any links or info there would be appreciated.

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Willard

0
0

> There is an entire continuum of source/sink behavior which could produce the observations.

None of them make physical sense if they depend on CO2 molecules bootstrapping themselves, therefore the whole continuum belongs to the equivalence class of formal fluff.

Comment on True costs of wind electricity by aplanningengineer

0
0

Jim – I think of the question as largely rhetorical and the answer is that utilities are incentivized or mandated to do it by regulatory bodies and policy makers.

Comment on True costs of wind electricity by aplanningengineer

0
0

I think the “wind” industry is largely responsible for the ills, but in some cases it is being embedded and part of traditional utilities.


Comment on True costs of wind electricity by ...and Then There's Physics

0
0

Well, except your article seems to focus on some hidden incentive (PTC) that means wind is more expensive that it seems, while ignoring externalities associated with the various fossil fuels. We may not have an agreed cost per MWh, but there are many estimates that suggest costs at least the same as the PTC you’ve focussed on here.

Comment on True costs of wind electricity by aplanningengineer

0
0

To be clear – I think negative pricing is a good thing if it’s needed. I think it is a bad thing that the industry is being driven to where it is needed. It seems the most effective way to get unneeded generation off the grid. I wouldn’t put a limit on it when it’s the most needed 9at higher cost values). I just wouldn’t exempt anyone who could not be counted on to meet the next days peak.

Comment on True costs of wind electricity by ...and Then There's Physics

0
0

Interesting. Gordon Hughes was rather scathing of a supposedly simplistic statistical error in the Marotzke & Forster paper. He was wrong about that too. Seems rather ironic to me.

Comment on True costs of wind electricity by Barnes

0
0

“Near lethal” – you are being too kind. It looks absolutely lethal to me. Greens love to point to the polution created by coal plants in china that do not employ available technology to greatly reduce the pollution while ignoring baotou. If the msm employed real journalists, all factors around green energy would be exposed. Instead, we get one-sided reporting that grossly distorts the truth and that the average citizen does not see through.

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by AK

0
0

We’re talking about a descriptive one.

“We” are? I was sure I saw the word “attribution” in there somewhere.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images