According to my theoretical model (underlined above), the global average temperature rise after 1970 was due to the transport delay of heat in the oceans finally reaching the extent that the oceans were now heating the atmosphere again. An atmospheric temperature rise of 0.48C after 1970 is consistent with that. After being a large heat sink after 1940, we would expect the oceans to return their heat to the atmosphere eventually.
The Lean result supports my theoretical model.
The humorous part is that the modern elite, litigation-happy American environmental movement, per William Tucker, began with the rebellion of wealthy homeowners against the Storm King pumped storage project in New York back in the 1960s. Apparently the tower would have ruined some people’s views over a river.
I just glanced at “Five weird things about the EU’s cost of energy study”
The author makes the error, intentional or otherwise, commonly exploited by greens. Starting here:
“The study found that new gas powered electricity would cost €55 per megawatt hour, assuming plants operate at full capacity. That would make gas the cheapest power source. But if a power plant operated only half the time like most plants around the EU today, gas gets more expensive, at €95 per megawatt hour.”
The resulting charts then show the relative cost of renewable (but intermittent) and baseline generation. The error is this: the extra €40 per megawatt marginal cost of gas generation should be totaled x the number of megawatts produced under partial load conditions created during the saddle of the Duck Curve, and then charged back to the intermittent energy sources in a rational and methodical fashion. Only then does the real cost of an intermittent source begin to emerge. Instead, the author would charge the gas generator for inefficiencies caused by the intermittent source.
The fallacy of the author’s numbers can be easily exposed. Just build a hypothetical system with all of the existing hydro sources (for high-demand topping), all existing nuclear for baseline power, and just enough coal and gas capacity to create a reliable grid. Then compare the total operating and capital costs for generation and distribution with a system wherein 50% of energy comes from wind and solar. Sit down first.
The foremost problem with cloud behavior (and its accompanying dynamical response evolution over time) is with the theory , ie the absence of one eg Ramanthan at Gewex.
It is remarkable that general circulation climate models (GCMs) are able to explain the observed temperature variations during
the last century solely through variations in greenhouse gases, volcanoes and solar constant. This implies that the cloud contribution
to the planetary albedo due to feedbacks with natural and forced climate changes has not changed during the last 100 years by more than ±0.3%; i.e, the cloud forcing has remained constant within ±1 Wm–2. If indeed, the global cloud properties and their influence on the albedo are this stable (as asserted by GCMs), scientists need
to validate this prediction and develop a theory to account for the stability.
Hello Rob,
I see that you have covered much the same ground albeit more recently.
However, my scenario provides a step by step sequence that can be compared to real world observations in order to test validity.
Your work raises lots of questions but does not provide a coherent overview
I am sorry that my narrative style doesn’t meet with your approval but it is helpful to many.
Ludington Pumped Storage was a cost effective way to supply customer demand without building a new coal or nuclear plant. In 1970.
Consumer’s Power has been forced to build “renewable” power generation and knows it is foolish. But … at least they put the windmills near existing pumped storage to make the best of a bad situation. Cost effective? I doubt it. Minimizing the negative return on an investment in renewables? Yes.
The fishing is great around the penstocks.
“The Ocean is the “GreenHouse” of the the world”
Correct:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/the-hot-water-bottle-effect/
June 25, 2008
Replying to Matthew Marler (Nov 5, 2014 at 9:56 pm)
Planetary tropospheric temperatures have a mean overall level determined by the limit as the system approaches radiative equilibrium with incident insolation from the Sun. We all know that, Matthew.
But the temperature gradient in such tropospheres is determined by the limit as the system approaches thermodynamic equilibrium, that meaning overall thermal, mechanical and internal radiative equilibrium with no unbalanced energy potentials and maximum entropy within the constraints of the system.
You don’t make it clear which equilibrium you are talking about, but variations due to weather tend to average out and what we are concerned with is the limiting values for the temperature gradient and the overall level of the thermal profile.
I think I’ve never heard so loud
The quiet message in a cloud.
=======================
Rob said:
“Cloud is overwhelmingly ocean sourced as is hydrology. ”
The vapour certainly is but condensation into cloud is more dependent on the amount of mixing of air masses with different characteristics.
There is much more of such mixing when the jet stream tracks are looping about meridionally (quiet sun) than when they follow a straighter more poleward zonal track (active sun).
In the end the entire system is balanced between the top down solar effect on stratosphere temperatures via varying ozone amounts and the bottom up oceanic effect on troposphere temperatures from water vapour.
Both affect tropopause heights and the configuration of the air circulation in the troposphere depends on the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles.
Overall one gets more zonal jets, less cloud and warming oceans when the sun is active with more meridional jets, more clouds and cooling oceans when the sun is less active.
My tax dollars only go to the gov’t programs I like.
“It gets by law to sell whatever it produces whenever produced into the New England grid at a guaranteed feedin tariff (IIRC 0.23/kwh, near 3x the wholesale cost of electricity).”
I can’t imagine how happy our farmers would be selling their ethanol for triple the wholesale price.
Something which staggers me is when people draw conclusions from looking at temps, especially minima, without considering cloud cover and even the daily times of cloud cover.
The winter of 1946 here was extremely dry. The winter of 1950, as for all eastern Australia, was phenomenally wet. So winter 1946 had our lowest mean minimum post 1906 (but high maxima). Winter 1950 had low maxima and freakishly high minima. It was easily our “warmest” on record by mean minimum. A metre of rain in June and July will do that. I believe there’s a greenhouse principle involved?
Anybody just looking at temp numbers without taking into account what actually was going on with cloud is likely wasting their time. Doesn’t stop ‘em doing it.
Numbers are okay. But they’re just okay.
Energy from the Sun warms the surface in proportion to that which is absorbed.
Clouds reflect much of this energy, at wavelengths between UV and 10 cm at least, dependent on droplet size, temperature, thickness, nature of condensation nuclei and other factors. A proportion, therefore, does not reach the surface.
An example of this effect is to notice the temperature drop when bright sunlight is obscured by a cloud passing overhead.
During the day, clouds can reduce the rate at which the surface heats. At night, clouds reduce the rate at which the surface cools, by exactly the same mechanism.
If meteorological conditions lead to a diminution in cloud over a period, it will no doubt be perceived as warming, due to greater energy from the Sun being absorbed by the surface.
It is no more or less than the effect of stepping into direct sunlight, after being in the shade. Conversely, you will be aware that nights become colder, if clouds reduce.
Unfortunately, none of this helps at all with peering into the future. If the lithosphere, aquasphere, and atmosphere behave chaotically in the mathematical sense, you will be able to count yourself a seer if you can forecast any more effectively than the average 12 year old Chinese student.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
If we want to talk about global warming in the short term and by extension, climate change over the long term we should be talking about CLOUD COVER CHANGE.
“The marginal cost cannot be determined uniquely, because a major part of the costs of a power system are fixed, and there many alternative principles that can be used in allocating fixed costs to the customers. The result depends strongly on the time perspective taken and on the assumptions on the future investments needed to maintain the reliability of the power system.”
Yes. Marginal cost at its most basic asks the question, if I change 1 variable, what happens to total costs? Cost accounting does have to allocate joint fixed costs. Transmission line fixed and maintenance costs could be allocated some to conventional and some to wind. Line construction costs would be a fixed asset. We’d ask how much value do they lose each year? Probably little in most cases. But what about when we build a new one that is 200 miles long? We might say we expect wind generators to pay for 10% of it and conventional the rest. If the reason we build the thing from Southwest Minnesota to the our south metro is because windmills are in one place and consumers are a bit South of the Twin Cities, how do we allocate them then? Since a new line effects the needs of the grid, if the grid is helped, should not all parts of Xcel’s grid pay for it? For instance the new line prevents the need for an upgrade to some other nearby line. It’s been many years since I studied cost accounting and I haven’t had to practice it. Yes. There are many alternate ways to allocate costs. In the end, we are trying to help the company by providing the best information to base their economic decisions on. Management will most likely be subject to political realities. Accountants should not.
The moon enables us to monitor aspects of climate change,
the Earth’s reflectance. ‘Earth-shine’ is the ghostly glow on
the dark side of the moon first explained by Leonardo da Vinci
and first explored in the 1920s.
Palle’s Earth Shine Project is a viable way to monitor the climate
system on a large scale over a long period.
Summary:
* ‘By combining the Earth Shine and International Satellite Cloud Climatology project data we have a record of the Earth’s SW
reflectance that:
* Shows surprising inter-annual coherence and a large decadal
variability that is likely natural (why??)
* Is not reproduced by current models.’
[PDF]Earth’s albedo
lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2004ScienceMeeting/…4/4_12_Palle.pdf
Derp.
Inter-annual variations in Earth’s reflectance 1999-2007.
bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2008_JGR.pdf
In relation to energy balance and energy budgets in general, there is a generally a lot of energetic but unbalanced talk.
For each point on the surface, there are at least two times a day when radiative balance exists. These of course are at the temperature inflection points, minimum and maximum. If the temperature is unchanging, then energy in equals energy out. If temperature is changing, energy flows are unbalanced. Confusing the issue by referring to short waves, long waves, Mexican waves, or hand waves, is just confusing the issue.
People talking about heat being accumulated, hidden or trapped, obviously have little to no comprehension of physics, or the difference between heat, temperature, energy, work and all the rest.
This might go some way to explaining why the waste of billions of dollars has resulted in precisely no scientific advances or benefits of any sort, and why some supposed scientists claim that contributing to an organisation which was awarded a Nobel Peace prize, is evidence of scientific prowess of some sort.
A pox upon all their houses, say I! Onwards and upwards, to the next spectacular example of human folly!
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
