Paul S -
I'm aware of the logarithmic nature of the climate response - that is why I specified a particular starting level - 400ppmv. 500 might be a better choice bit it doesn't matter much, as a rough estimate is all I was looking for.
The point about emissions reductions is crucial. Reducing emissions has absolutel no effect <b>unless</b> the unburnt fossil fuels remain in the ground I.e. they are not simply burnet at a later date. The extra Co2 in the atmosphere is cumulative, so the only question that is relevant is
'<i>what proportion of the finite quantity of fossil fuel will eventually be used'</i>
It doesn't matter over how many years this quantity takes to be reached, so slowing down the rate it is approached is an irrelevance. The only important change will be to have economically recoverable fuels left in the ground <i>deliberately</i> and <i>permanently</i>. Otherwise the end result is the same. changing emissions rates merely changes the speed (very slightly) with which the end is approached.
Comment on McKitrick on the IPCC by Anteros
↧
↧
Comment on McKitrick on the IPCC by JCH
Well, as an ExxMob shareholder, I think a nice perk-rich, persecution-free office could be arranged somewhere in big oyl.
↧
Comment on McKitrick on the IPCC by Paul S
Anteros,
Ah, I understand you now. Broadly I might agree though it depends on the timescales. I think, for example, societies (global and local) will be able to cope with a 5ºC warming over millenia better than the same amount over a couple of centuries.
↧
Comment on McKitrick on the IPCC by Robert
The IPCC produces a series of reports summarizing the science.
It’s neither a huge undertaking, nor is it very manpower-intense or expensive.
The UN is somewhat more expensive and does more things. Whether it is worthwhile or not is a broader topic.
↧
Comment on McKitrick on the IPCC by DocMartyn
“Life can multiply until all the phosphorus is gone, and then there is an inexorable halt which nothing can prevent,”
Isaac Asimov (Biochemist).
Morocco, China, South Africa and Jordan control 80 percent of the world’s reserves of usable phosphate.
Global Environmental Change
Volume 19, Issue 2, May 2009, Pages 292-305
The story of phosphorus: Global food security and food for thought
Dana Cordella, Jan-Olof Drangerta, Stuart Whiteb
Abstract
Food production requires application of fertilizers containing phosphorus, nitrogen and potassium on agricultural fields in order to sustain crop yields. However modern agriculture is dependent on phosphorus derived from phosphate rock, which is a non-renewable resource and current global reserves may be depleted in 50–100 years. While phosphorus demand is projected to increase, the expected global peak in phosphorus production is predicted to occur around 2030. The exact timing of peak phosphorus production might be disputed, however it is widely acknowledged within the fertilizer industry that the quality of remaining phosphate rock is decreasing and production costs are increasing. Yet future access to phosphorus receives little or no international attention. This paper puts forward the case for including long-term phosphorus scarcity on the priority agenda for global food security. Opportunities for recovering phosphorus and reducing demand are also addressed together with institutional challenges.
↧
↧
Comment on McKitrick on the IPCC by Robert
It’s an interesting question. Legally, you can give a microphone to anyone. Ethically, you probably have some responsibility for the message you are amplifying. On the other hand, Dr. Curry has sometimes made a sort of a “serving kids alcohol” argument about this — that deniers are going to say these things, and swap these slanders back and forth, and it’s better for it to happen with some adult supervision.
Not a clear-cut ethical question, to be sure.
↧
Comment on McKitrick on the IPCC by GaryM
If saying Joshua “stamps his pretty little foot” is homophobic, does that mean that when Joshua says that others are saying “Mommy, mommy he did it first…” he is pedophobic?
↧
Comment on McKitrick on the IPCC by Anteros
Paul S
I agree with you about that. Many people still wouldn’t like the idea but changing the rate of warming by an order of magnitude (or even 2 or 3 times) would make adaptation very much easier. As it happens I think our capacity for adaptation has been massively underestimated and hardly even tested, but that is maybe a separate issue.
I talk about ‘irrelevance’ because the numbers (in terms of emissions reductions) are so small. In realistic/pragmatic terms, whether the fossil fuels are used in 140 years rather than 115 is not going to make a noticeable difference.
And there is the added problem of a global market – one region [say, the EU] makes huge and costly efforts to reduce fossil fuel use – what happens? The cost of the fuel is reduced for everyone else and their consumption can rise. The only solution to that would be a world-wide binding agreement. Have you seen one of those around recently? 
I don’t mean to sound pessimistic (I’m not) but the prospects for leaving large quantities of fossil fuels in the ground look mighty slim to me.
I do take your point about the response to Co2 changes. Perhaps it would have been better if I suggested a mean figure between 400 and what we expect by the end of the century (or something similar). I’d still like to have a ballpark figure!
↧
Comment on McKitrick on the IPCC by Robert
Drivel. Phony statistics piled on top of lies by the Lysenkoist scum who call themselves “climate scientists”.
Hysterical much? The denialist scum that call themselves “skeptics” seem quite touchy today.
↧
↧
Comment on Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon. Part IV by gbaikie
“You most certainly DO get an average of 5.38 kWh/day at Phoenix. This is simply the average amount of energy from the Sun over the whole year. This is similar in magnitude to the figures given in standard energy balance diagrams. It’s uncontroversial and correct.”
No, your reference was from a solar company. If you are correct than this solar company has made a mistake. Or the amount solar energy that hits a solar panel should be more energy per sq meter than amount that would “on average” or hitting a flat level section of ground, would be.
Or it’s a given that standard procedure used in the solar power industry would generally get more energy per year per square meter than what gotten “naturally” per square meter of the same earth surface.
“In nature” a south facing sloped piece of land [in northern hemisphere and temperate zone] receive more solar energy than a flat piece piece of land. Such a section of land could receive similar amount of energy per meter as solar panel would receive.
This is called southern exposure
“Another contributing factor to microclimate is the slope or aspect of an area. South-facing slopes in the Northern Hemisphere and north-facing slopes in the Southern Hemisphere are exposed to more direct sunlight than opposite slopes and are therefore warmer for longer.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microclimate
They know this in farming/gardening, they also know this in solar industry.
“The average insolation at the surface over the whole planet is about 184 W/m^2, which can also be written as 4.4 kWh/day/m^2. Some cities in the USA get more than the planetary average, others get less. Atlanta Georgia is pretty close to the average.”
You seem to have a lot faith in this number, which I do not share. I would say it is within 10 W/m^2, maybe, probably. The only reason I have this much faith in the number [to say it is within 10 W/m^2] is because I know the tropics dominates this planet and the tropics are more or less flat ocean- and oceans in general can viewed as more or less flat. I am ok with using it as approximation.
But I think it’s somewhat crazy not to have a more precise number, when one hopes to model 100 year into the future, and one is concerned about 2.4 watts, and tenths of a degree in temperature.
“If that sounds confusing, think of it this way. Suppose you have a large field, of about 10000 square meters, and use lots of panels to get all the possible energy on that field from the Sun. You can’t get more energy by mounting the panels at an angle, or using a tracking device. ”
Yes you can. It’s not in doubt.
It is more expensive to track, and so it’s mostly not considered worth it
But merely have solar panel at a correct angle will allow a solar panel to generate the most amount of energy.
There are two different factors here and you focusing on just one factor. Actually there are three factors.
A solar panel or natural surface of anything will receive/absorb more energy if more perpendicular to the sun- whether there is atmosphere or not for two reason, reflects less energy and more energy per square meter.
With an atmosphere at lower angle sunlight has pass through more atmosphere [and atmosphere may reflect more at this angle].
So, actually, possibly 4 significant aspects.
“The point is, you really are incorrect in thinking that half the energy from the sun gets absorbed or lost somehow in the atmosphere. The conventional numbers quoted by scientists for this bit of basic background information on energy from the Sun are correct.”
Ok, opinion noted.
I have not understood anything which suggests the less than 1/2 the light is in some manner prevented from reaching the surface [ground or water].
“Here it is yet again. The sun gives about 1364 W/m^2 at Earth’s distance. Spread over a globe, that works out to 341 W/m^2. Of this, you have the following:
(1) About 79 W/m^2 is scattered or reflected to space from the atmosphere.
(2) About 78 W/m^2 is absorbed in the atmosphere.
(3) About 23 W/m^2 is reflected back to space from the surface.
(4) About 161 W/m^2 is absorbed at the surface.”
It should note I find this a strange way to anything- despite how popular it may be. But I am curious would one apply this to the Moon?
So, you don’t have 1 and 2. and are left to resolve 3 and 4.
↧
Comment on Emails by hunter
The irony of the believer tactic of asserting skeptics depend on conspiracy theories after climategate is rich.
↧
Comment on McKitrick on the IPCC by Robert
It’s the collectivist agenda you support Robert
How is science “collectivist”?
Do you feel that science oppresses your individuality in some way?
Does my having integrity unfairly discriminate against people who just make stuff up?
Please explain.
↧
Comment on McKitrick on the IPCC by hunter
Ross,
The AGW apologists will do a lot of work to avoid dealing with what you wrote. BEST is simply a convenient prop for them to use as adistraction.
↧
↧
Comment on Emails by cwon14
“Hacker” is a point of bias. Odds are great there was never any hacking involved at all;
↧
Comment on Emails by Robert
Not really these records conflicted in the beginning . . .
You don’t seem to understand the point. Which, sadly, is not surprising. What’s your science background?
Maybe their account explains why they are a bit angry- betrayal
is normally not well received.
Yes, it’s a terrible feeling when reality doesn’t match up with the ideology you have committed to. But although that may engender a feeling of betrayal, the truth is never a betrayal. You just need to learn to cope with it.
↧
Comment on Emails by John
Ironically Robert had you actually read the emails you would have realised that it is you that are now the DENIER !!!
↧
Comment on Emails by Rich Matarese
Returning to his fixation on corn farmers in Illinois, <b>bob droege</b> on November 28, 2011 at 4:17 PM perseverates: <blockquote>Alright, imagine if you will, what an Illinois landowner and farmer would say,
“If you do not want to buy the corn at the market price to feed the hungry, then it will be turned into ethanol. If you buy enough of it, then it won’t be turned into ethanol.”
Rich, have you ever heard of the free market?<blockquote>
Why, little <b>bob</b>, I've not only heard of <i>"the free market"</i> but I've learned Adam Smith's lesson that there's nothing in <i>"the free market"<i> (by which is meant a market free of violent coercion directed at forcing outcomes according to political priorities) which has ever guaranteed anybody preservation from the consequences of his own decision-making.
If that <i>"Illinois landowner and farmer"</i> fails to judge the market for his production - or, more likely, gets suckered by government goons encouraging him to spend his time and his capital growing a crop that wasn't going to find market demand capable of compensating him for his expenses, much less getting him a profit - just what in your way of thinking about "<i>the free market"</i> gives you to conceive that somebody else - <b>any</b>body else - has an obligation to bail him out?
I wouldn't mind at all if your corn farmer in Illinois were to sell his corn to a manufacturer of ethyl alcohol, provided of course that there's no taxpayer subsidization involved to make profitable for him or for his customer a transaction that <i>"the free market"</i> wouldn't otherwise make remunerative.
Heck, I wouldn't mind if he shucked his corn, mashed it, fermented it, and distilled it into unadulterated potable ethanol himself. I'm for doing away altogether with the federal excises on spirituous beverages. The way things are going under your TelePrompTer-in-Chief right now, increasing numbers of us could do with a cheering cup. Or six.
I suspect that listening to Barry burble for the next eleven months will require a little medicinal alcohol, if only to mitigate the nausea.
But as for your hypothetical farmer who somehow grew corn for a market where the real demand was piddlin'-to-nonexistent (not that real farmers tend reliably to screw up that badly), have you ever heard the expression <i>"Your lack of planning does not constitute my emergency,"</i> <b>bob</B>?
And with that understanding of what <i>"the free market"</i> actually is (and what it emphatically is <b><i>not</i></b>) we continue with <b>bob droege</b>'s noise: <blockquote>Now, who is a willfully ignorant, unthinking fascist, contemptible putz, schmuck, and utter ignoramous spouting pointless crap with unthinking sheer callous visciousness?</blockquote>
Well, if it weren't for the fact that it'd get this post of mine censored off the board, I'd say that you've just proved that it <b><i>has</i></b> to be you, <b>bob</b>.
But, of course, I'm not saying that.
I don't really need to, do I?
Finally, we finish up with <b>bob</b>'s callous indifference to the suffering of other people a whole buncha miles away from Illinois (where those whom <b>bob</b> consider <i>real</i> people live and work and farm the good earth): <blockquote>Yes and I think that the revolution in Libya and free elections in Egypt are a good thing.</blockquote>
Not saying good for <i><b>whom</b></i>, of course, are ya, <b>bob</b>?
===
<blockquote>The highfalutin aims of democracy, whether real or imaginary, are always assumed to be identical with its achievements. This, of course, is sheer hallucination. Not one of those aims, not even the aim of giving every adult a vote, has been realized. It has no more made men wise and free than Christianity has made them good.
-- H.L. Mencken</blockquote>
↧
↧
Comment on Emails by Rich Matarese
Tsk. As usual, HTML in a “Leave a Reply” box, repent at leisure.
↧
Comment on Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon. Part IV by Chris Ho-Stuart
The NASA data is as accurate as they can make it. The numbers are based on 22 year averages, I think from memory. The major variation is due to cloud, which is not a constant. I think you can download information about the variation year to year as well, but I am not sure.
People in the solar power industry routinely take this data and then provide it in a convenient form usable to members of the general public wanting to place solar panels. The adjustments for angling are mostly simple geometry. In any case, the page you cited does right now provide a whole range of maps for all kinds of panel orientations, which you can specify from drop down lists.
They are plenty accurate enough for purposes of people wanting to set up solar panels in various locations across the USA.
↧
Comment on McKitrick on the IPCC by Anteros
Robert, you say –
“the goal is to shift the definition of economically recoverable”
I suspect you may be speaking for yourself. Because, I guess, you have the opposite goal of most sane, intelligent people. These people, of course, wish to make a greater proportion of the fossil fuel economically recoverable.
Obviously, not being misanthropic, these intelligent people wish to bring electricity, health and prosperity to the broad swath of humanity, and generally think that if in the process the climate becomes a tad milder, then so much the better.
Enjoy the interglacial
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
