The fountain of energy Copernicus discovered at the gravitational center of the solar system in <b>1543</b> is only 133,000 times more massive than the third speck of dirt orbiting it, the water covered planet we call Earth.
Do you suppose the Sun might influence climate change on planet Earth?
Comment on Week in review – science edition by omanuel
↧
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by Don Monfort
Looks good, Springer. When the temperature bounces off the hard cloud ceiling it plummets into another ice age. Metaphorically perfect. Your Nobel Prize is in the mail.
↧
Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by Peter Lang
PA
If you assume 2100 fossil fuel consumption will be 1/2 of the current consumption
What would be the basis fore such an assumption? It seems totally ridiculous to me. Unless there is a cheaper alternative, fossil fuels use will increase roughly in proportion to population growth, energy intensity of GDP, GDP growth – see Kaya Identity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaya_identity
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by Russell Seitz
You get what you pay for.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by popesclimatetheory
How robust is the ECS conclusion?
After decades of failed forecasts, you can REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, still ask that?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by kennethrichards
Comparing the dissertation to the paper published in GRL, the following GRL statements have been apparently added:
“The global warming observed is to a large extent caused by anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2013].”
“It is important to note that these results do not contradict the key statements of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [Solomon et al., 2007; Ramaswamy et al., 2001; IPCC, 2013], namely, the well-known warming effect that CO2 has on the Earth’s climate.”
To what extent were these deferential statements stipulated for publication?
↧
Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by PA
Peter Lang | January 4, 2016 at 12:37 am |
What would be the basis fore such an assumption? It seems totally ridiculous to me. Unless there is a cheaper alternative, fossil fuels use will increase roughly in proportion to population growth, energy intensity of GDP, GDP growth – see Kaya Identity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaya_identity
More cra-cra. If their buddies weren’t doing the peer review some of these people would never publish.
Global warming is a bunch of conjectures, hypotheses, and theories.
The Law of Supply and Demand is THE LAW.
If you repeal the law of supply and demand and eliminate all alternative power sources there might be more than 50% of current emissions in 2100. NOT.
There is going to be little oil or gas consumption and China (half of today’s coal consumption) will be burning little or no coal.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china–nuclear-power/
150 GWe by 2030…400-500 GWe by 2050…1400 GWe by 2100
What and who are going to be doing the burning? The huge transport costs of coal make it a mostly indigenously burned product.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station
China is going to be nuclear – that is very clear. India is going nuclear as well and is working on thorium prototypes. If China is putting in 15+ reactors a year they are going to end up producing a modular unit that is less than 1/2 the cost of current reactors. A thorium reactor is a soup kettle on top of a larger soup kettle. The Indian equivalent of LFTR could be dirt cheap. The pre-1970 reactors in the US cost less than $ 1 billion/ gigawatt in today’s dollars. There is no reason to believe China’s installed cost won’t drop to that level with the current reactors and a pour and drop module will be cheaper.
Worrying about proliferation is a joke and a sick one. China, given the need to develop a mass produced reactor, or India with its thorium reactor, will be the suppliers of choice. The US won’t be able to stop China/India from selling them and won’t even be able to compete for sales.
Indonesia, 6% of coal exports, is almost out of coal. When it is done the coal export market will tighten significantly. 1/3 of the worlds coal is just going to be sat on since it it in the US.
Then we have renewables that greenies is claiming are “almost” at parity with fossil. Either they are contemptible liars or renewables will steal a fraction of power generation that isn’t taken by nuclear.
For countries without indigenous supplies coal is expensive. There will still be coal being burned in 2100 by countries with indigenous supplies.that are local to a power plant. It probably won’t even be clean coal. It certainly won’t have CC because that is stupid. Generating more CO2 is a desirable side effect of fossil fuel consumption.
And we haven’t discussed development of other sources. Organic solar with organic batteries will certainly be in the mix by 2050. Putting energy generating glazing or siding on your building is almost irresistible. Not to mention cold fusion or hot fusion etc.
Once we hit peak fossil and fossil fuels reach multiples of their current price then nuclear and other sources will take over power generation, if they haven’t already.
↧
Comment on NOAA fails walrus science by Don Monfort
Little willy has been studying the walrus, for about a week. Another few hours and he will be the world’s foremost expert.
COMMENTS ARE CLOSED FOR THIS THREAD
↧
Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by Peter Lang
PA,
When you start with nonsense lie this, there is no point me reading any further:
More cra-cra. If their buddies weren’t doing the peer review some of these people would never publish.
Global warming is a bunch of conjectures, hypotheses, and theories.
The Law of Supply and Demand is THE LAW.
If you repeal the law of supply and demand and eliminate all alternative power sources there might be more than 50% of current emissions in 2100.
This sort of comment is unhelpful, silly and unprofessional. Why don’t you just answer the original questions I asked you with straight, quantitative, relevant answers to the actual question and with authoritative link and quote that addresses the actual question.
↧
↧
Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by Peter Lang
The question I asked was:
“Thank’s for your reply. However, it doesn’t address the question I asked you. My point is that technology keeps improving – history of the past 100 and 200 years clearly demonstrates that. Current prices are irrelevant to predicting prices and the status of extraction technology decades from now. Therefore, I am not persuaded that the amount of fossil C available will be a limit on the amount of fossil C that can be burnt this century. … you haven’t provided a link to an authoritative paper that supports your argument and and clearly and succinctly explains it.”
Please answer this question. If you don’t have a link to an authoritative source that addresses it, then just say so.
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by franktoo
franktoo asserted: Simple physics makes it easy to prove that ECS can’t be near zero.
Matt replied: Simple physics does not describe the climate accurately. Simple physics does not give you the change in the rate of the hydrological cycle that results from a 1C increase in global surface temperature; or local surface temperature of ocean, savanah or forested surface.
Franktoo continues: You didn’t not show that any of the calculations supporting this conclusion were incorrect. You did raise interesting issues with the hydrological cycle and surface energy balance. If surface temperature rises 1 K, upward LWR from the surface rises 5.4 W/m2. Average DLR is 333 W/m2, appropriate for a blackbody model at 277 K, which would rise 4.8 W/m2 upon warming 1 K. So the increase in surface OLR is nearly cancelled by the increase in DLR reaching the surface. If evaporation increases at 6-7%/K like saturation water vapor pressure, the 80 W/m2 of latent heat increases about 4.8-5.6 W/m2. That would make increase the total power flux from the surface by about 6 W/m2/K. However, a no-feedbacks climate sensitivity of 1 K/doubling results in a change in the TOA flux of only 3.8 W/m2/K. An ECS of 2 K reduces this to 1.9 W/m2/K and 3 K to 1.3 W/m2/K. It is obviously impossible for the surface upward flux to indefinitely increase at 6 W/m2/K and the TOA upward flux to increase by much less than this.
If OLR (+reflected SWR) increased at 6 W/m2/K, ECS would be about 0.6 K/doubling – which is not zero.
One solution to this dilemma for albedo to decrease with warming and let an additional 4-5 W/m2/K of SWR reach the surface, thereby reducing the surface energy change of only 1-2 W/m2/K. A change this big might have been detected from space by now.
A second solution to this dilemma is to suppress the increase in the amount of evaporation with temperature to less than 6-7%/K. The rate of evaporation depends on the saturation vapor pressure (which does rise 6-7%/K), the “undersaturation” of the air above the ocean, and the wind speed. Climate models project that the saturation of air above the ocean will increase about 1%/K, reducing undersaturation about 5%/K.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/2014/06/26/47-relative-humidity-over-the-oceans/
However, precipitation appears to be increasing at a rate of 6-7%/K in recent decades, suggesting that neither rising relative humidity above the oceans nor falling wind speed are suppressing evaporation.
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by RichardLH
Apparently my attempting to point out some of the rather more obvious flaws in people’s arguments is like poking bees, best avoided.
I’ll chose my targets more carefully in future :-) Lets just say, a set of ranging shots always gets me a read on their tells.
Sure those who have been buried in id–ts are going to twitch badly. But no omelettes etc.
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by RichardLH
“Re error bars, at a minimum they should extend from above the GISS value to below the UAH value at a given time, as these are 2 estimates of a similar property.”
Approximations and error ranges do not seem to be well founded in Climate work. Repurposing instruments is always going to be tricky. It is a lot more complex than a bit of stats IMHO.
↧
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by RichardLH
An observation that may be worth while. Be very careful around Logic. It underpins all that we do in the Sciences and can turn those nice solid equations and stats you have into much more flexible beasts unless used carefully. See the duality of 0:infinity if you want a taste on my blog :-)
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Tom Johnson
Hopefully Peter Lang will rebut this anti nuclear nonsense down thread
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by RichardLH
“I wonder if the mathematical models have provision for sensitivities lower than 1, or zero or negative.”
or even if we have correctly assessed the basis for that question in the first place.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by RichardLH
“Anyone have insight into the models these folks used and how robust the ECS~0.4 conclusion is?”
Or the weight one should apply if knowing its true value.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by RichardLH
“After reading the Twitter article re 2440 new coal plants planned around the world”
Politics is about what you can claim., not what you can deliver. That’s the next parliament/election. :-)
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by RichardLH
“Update on Antarctic sea ice:”
Its big, high, remote and badly sampled. Anything we know is only from the last few decades really. As we know there is a 60 year ‘cycle’ in the North, I would be surprised if there wasn’t a similar one in the South somewhere.
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by johnturnerphysicist
Yes, David, the Sky dragons make the same old mistake regarding radiation as do the Lukes and Warmists. Postma tries to explain the surface temperature with radiation calculations, just like the IPCC, Trenberth and others. Maybe you can set them right by explaining to them all that such calculations just don’t work. We have a “Kalte Sonne” don’t we?
“Doch sind die berüchtigten Treibhausgase tatsächlich im Alleingang für unser Klima verantwortlich? Und warum wird es nicht mehr wärmer? Vahrenholt und Lüning haben sich im Laufe ihrer Untersuchungen intensiv mit den verschiedenen Klimamodellen beschäftigt. Sie kommen zu der Auffassung, dass ein großer Teil der Erderwärmung der letzten 150 Jahre durch einen natürlichen Zyklus bedingt ist, der von der Sonne geprägt wird. Die nächsten Jahrzehnte wird es aufgrund natürlicher Ursachen eher zu einer leichten Erdabkühlung kommen, die vom CO2 vorerst nicht ausgeglichen wird.” *
which I translate as …
Are the notorious greenhouse gases actually single-handedly responsible for our climate? And why it is not much warmer? Vahrenholt and Lüning have studied the different climate models intensively. They have come to the conclusion that much of the global warming over the last 150 years is due to a natural cycle, which is indicated by the Sun. Over the next few decades there will likely be a slight cooling due to natural causes, which is for the time being not compensated for by CO2.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
