Seems that you have not learned anything at all during these exchanges. Amazing!
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Peter Davies
↧
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by verytallguy
If you wanted to know, you could ask.
What have you learned, Peter?
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by dikranmarsupial
Bartemis wrote ” The fact that the temperature sensitivity dominates anthropogenic emissions is established by the empirical data [plot of temperature and growth rate yet again].”
This would only be true if there were no confounding factors affecting the growth rate, but unfortunately there is (anthropogenic CO2), which makes Bartemis’ argument circular.
Now if Bartemis’ model is correct then it also needs to:
(i) conform to the principle of conservation of mass (as otherwise his model is physically implausible, significant amounts of CO2 do not just dissappear into nowhere, the carbon budget has to balance). Bartemis’ model fails on this count.
(ii) show that the growth rate is less than anthropogenic emissions, as that is what we observe. If Bartemis fixes his model so that it obeys conservation of mass, it will fail this one.
(iii) give a residence time of 4-15 years (as that is what we observe).
It isn’t enough just to show a correlation with one set of observations, it needs to fit all of the available observations.
” The solution of the differential equation
dA/dt = (Aeq – A)/tau + H
for tau “short” is approximately
A := Aeq + tau*H
Note, NOT the integral of H, just the rate of change. Thus, tau*H is a very small addition. ”
Yes, but this is contingent on tau being assumed to be short, however that assumption is only needed to make Bartemis’ model fit the data, but it is not an assumption needed to make more conventional models fit the data, so that is just more circular reasoning from Bartemis.
The funny thing is that Bartemis’ solution shows that the rise in atmospheric CO2, over its equilibrium value, should be proportional to some fraction of the anthropogenic increase and depends on nothing else. LOL.
One last bit of analysis:
Bartemis gives the d.e.
dA/dt = (Aeq – A)/tau + H
So the natural influence on atmospheric CO2 is the first term and is proportional to the difference between the equilibrium concentration Aeq and its current value. This is fine for a first order model, however unless you are going to argue that the equilibrium value is *higher* than the current concentration, this term is NEGATIVE, i.e. the natural environment will be opposing the rise.
Bartemis goes on:
“dAeq/dt := k*(T – T0)
If tau is “short”, then we can reduce this to approximately
dA/dt := k*(T – T0)”
Right, so now the natural influence on the growth rate is proportional to the current temperature minus some equilibrium temperature T0. Now unless you assume that the Earth is below the temperature required for the carbon cycle to be in equilibrium, (T – T0) is POSITIVE. In other words, Bartemis’ little piece of legerdemain has flipped the sign on the natural influence on dA/dt. And nobody noticed! LOL!
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by dikranmarsupial
It is rather ironic.
↧
Comment on True costs of wind electricity by franktoo
Rod and PE: UK’s National Grid released documents discussing their ability to forecast production of electricity 4 hours in the future, but didn’t explain why a 4-hour period was important. It may be the amount of time needed to bring an idle fossil fuel plant on line.
In theory, wind power varies with the third power of wind speed. If wind speed is 10% less than forecast, wind power is 27% less than forecast. If wind speed is 20% less than forecast, wind power is 50% less than forecast.
Current plans in the UK call for producing 30% of electricity from wind by 2030, which means optimal winds will be capable of producing nearly 100% of demand. If forecasts of wind speed are 10-20% too high on one of those windy days, the grid operator will be scrambling to meet 25-50% of the nation’s electricity demand! If forecasts of wind speed are 10-20% too low on one of those windy days, the grid operator have 25-50% more capacity in reserve than needed. A reserve this size will be associated with significant emission of CO2 even when wind is providing all the power!
In East Denmark, hydroelectric power backs up electricity generation by wind. Hydroelectric power can be turned on almost instantly and doesn’t emit any CO2. Where the reserve must come from fossil fuel plants, the situation is more complicated. Wind power can be saved through pumped storage and provide its own back-up, but that will roughly double the cost
The accuracy with which wind power output can be forecast appears to have a major impact on the cost of wind power and the actual reduction in CO2 emissions.
↧
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Peter Davies
I think that we always learn something from every contributor, whether we agree with their general POV or not. The learning may not necessarily be about the topic at hand but we can still get something out of every exchange that leaves us better off for having been here to read it.
If not, then you would need to question whether your continued presence here will be fruitful, for you and, in fact, for every one else who visits this blog. I have learned that both Bart and Ferdinand have both put a lot of thought into their comments and while the jury is still out (in my humble opinion) I have appreciated these exchanges. I am sorry that you have not.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by verytallguy
Peter,
err… you haven’t actually asked me what I’ve learned. Might be better not to make assumptions?
What have you learned?
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by dikranmarsupial
Indeed, adhering to the idea that carbon doesn’t spontaneously appear from nowhere or vanish without a trace seems pretty reasonable to me, just as conservation of energy is a constraint on the Earth’s energy budget or conservation of momentum is an important constraint in modelling collisions of billiard balls. Using disparaging terms doesn’t change that, it just means you back yourself into a corner where you can no longer admit that you are wrong without looking an utter fool (not for being wrong, that’s O.K., but for being so rude to those who have attempted to help you see your error). A good way of avoiding cognitive biases is being polite you your opponents, as Ferdinand has been polite to you, despite your continual rudeness to him.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Peter Davies
Well, if you wanted to provide an itemised list of what you have learned from these exchanges, you would, instead of trolling. If my assumption about you being a troll is incorrect, I apologise.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by fernandoleanme
The forthcoming fossil fuel supply crunch seems to be largely ignored. I notice it just doesn’t seem to sink in.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by mosomoso
When European heat shocks like UK 1976, France 2003 and Russia 2010 occur, it would be handy if we had more voices like Tonyb to recall and emphasise events like those of 1540 and surrounding years. When the Rhine and Elbe are at 10%…you have a climate problem. That 1540 scorcher – covering the whole continent from England to Russia, Sweden to Spain – may well be without equal in the history of Europe, yet it was hardly an indication of future climate “by the end of the century”.
By the end of this century there will be two zeros at the end of the date. The rest is unknown.
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by fernandoleanme
I wonder if Harold denied his efforts to influence the university? Or did he show an alternate set of meeting notes?
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Mike Flynn
dikran,
I wonder if you could explain why the conservation of energy is a constraint on the Earth’s energy budget.
The Earth seems to have cooled quite a lot.
What energy has been conserved? All the energy released by the conversion of mass to energy due to nuclear processes over the last four and a half billion years seems to have left the Earth. If the Sun winks out, the Earth will lose energy quite rapidly.
If you are trying to say that the Earth emits just as much energy as it receives from the Sun, this is obviously incorrect.
I wonder if you could explain what energy is being conserved.
Thanks.
PS. The conservation of momentum may well apply to modelled billiard balls, but of course not to real ones. There is course no conservation of energy. The balls come to rest. Losses in the physical collisions are emitted as heat, which can be calculated, photographed, and confirmed by the paths of the balls.
Maybe I misunderstood. I would appreciate correction if I have.
↧
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by verytallguy
Apology accepted.
I’m genuinely fascinated by what Salvatore has learned. I’ve no desire to troll anyone.
What have you learned, Peter?
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by fernandoleanme
Let’s be perfectly clear: water disposal operations can cause stresses which in turn cause earthquakes. Filling a dam reservoir can also trigger earthquakes. These phenomena can be studied, and the problem can be solved so as to avoid earthquake risk from our disposal operations. If the story is true and this guy is trying to stop an investigation it can make him liable for the consequences.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Peter Davies
Next time I see a smarmy comment from anyone, I will not let my irritation get the better of me. Salvatore no doubt will appreciate your genuine interest in his personal quest for learning and will respond in the spirit in which you have engaged him.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by verytallguy
Peter, the thread has been fascinating.
It’s a shame you won’t share your own reflections on it, but people’s reactions here is what makes it so compelling, so I guess that’s part of the fascination in and of itself.
↧
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by dikranmarsupial
Mike Flynn Internally generated heat is a small component of the Earth’s energy budget. Conservation of energy constrains the energy budget so that any energy gained (either internally generated or from the sun) is either radiated away into space or it is retained by the Earth. The energy that has been radiated has been lost from the earth, but it has been accounted for in the Earth’s energy budget – we know where it has gone – it has been radiated out into space.
The Earth cools whenever it radiates more energy than it gains. At the moment, the Earth is radiating less energy that it receives (because of the increase in the greenhouse effect) and as a result it is currently warming (the Earth system as a whole, rather than just the atmosphere). Jupiter on the other hand is cooling, because it radiates appreciably more energy than it receives from the sun.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Peter Davies
Indeed vtg. That is one reason that I enjoy coming here. Human nature is a constant source of surprises, to me, anyway. Good evening.
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by David Wojick
Nice piece by Ross McKitrick on the 97% myth.
http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/climate-change-consensus-among-the-misinformed-is-not-worth-much
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
