Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2014 - 05:03pm PT
|
You want empirical proof without a doubt that humans are causing GW.
You say no one can do that.
What is that called?
Right wing spin?
Independent thinking?
Tom Cochrane,great post.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2014 - 05:06pm PT
|
After seeing how you guys treat people with opinions that deviate from “the agenda” there is no way I’m going to let you know my name or where I live.
No, just the opposite. The science-aware folks here are starved for intelligent discussion so they're easily trolled by any newcomer who shows promise. But you face-planted pretty quick. So far, here's the face you've shown us: "sci-fi" is the sock puppet of
* a research geoscientist with no concept of time;
* someone who quotes science papers without reading them;
* someone declaring he's well versed in the debate but unaware of its basics;
* a critical thinker who writes in non sequiturs and parrots nonsense from blogs; and even
* a big wall climber who posts only to politicized threads.
The "argument from authority" ploy impressed no one, there are plenty of real skeptics here along with the fake ones. Do you deserve better? Maybe start over, clear away the spray and try out a more honest approach.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 13, 2014 - 05:19pm PT
|
A: Right! It's dealing with the uneducated and mis-informed!
LOL. In reality the Pentagon is talking about Climate Change.
Here's a reply to the article from where my quote came:
Even though the article itself offers concrete examples of government agencies and our military actually making preparations for the consequences of climate change, the deniers continue. Urban planners, insurance companies, government agencies, coastal commissions, city councils, OTHER COUNTRIES, and Wall Street are quietly moving ahead with plans to adapt to the consequences of climate change...and yet, oil interests and dirty coal industries have mounted a successful propaganda campaign that has convinced otherwise reasonable people that being a good conservative and a good Republican means never, EVER, accepting, or even trying to understand, the science behind climate change because the applied cognitive dissonance would mean that if the Republicans are wrong about climate change.....what else are they wrong about?, and that would make heads explode.
One can only hope...
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2014 - 06:54pm PT
|
Little Chief is a like a broken record...on and on and on.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2014 - 09:03pm PT
|
So, what is the state of the debate (worldwide) today compared to ten years ago. Following is a short lost of grudging agreement. Contest it or add as yoi will.
The accepted climate sensitivity from a doubling of preindustrial levels of atmospheric CO2 is drifting downwards. Many estimates are now for 2.0c or less. This amount is less than the IPCC published danger level.
The assumed positive feedback from the hypothesized addition of water vapor as a result of increased surface temperature induced evaporation is under serious reconsideration on several fronts. First there appears to be a failure of model predictives in that the assumption of increased RH in mid tropospheric extra tropical zones seems to be not only missing but decreasing. Second the assumed positive feedback from increased near surface RH and resulting GHG LW radiation backscatteting seems to be more than offset by the increased SW radiation reflectivity caused by the same humidity aiding additional cloud formation.
A greater role for natural variability, at the expense of CO2 induced radiative forcing is being accepted. Primary among these natural mechanisms is solar variability especially in the UV and other shortwave spectrums that actually penetrate the ocean surface to moderate depth rather than the few millimeters pentration of LW. Also of increasingly accepted importance is oscillations in the planets primary heat sink, the oceans, which have periodic changes in turnover, currents and winds of suspected solar causation. The biosphere reacts positively to increased CO2 levels with increased CO2 uptaking vegatation, Increased cloud nucleating aerosol release from both the plant and animal kingdoms.
There has been no increase in damaging storm intensity or rate of occurence. That storm damages are noted more frequently is the result of increased habitation of the earth surface due to population growth and the overhyping of a growing 24/7 news multi media.
The rate of Sea level rise has not appreciably increased in the 150 plus years coming out of the LIA and srands at no higher than +3.2 mm per year (or decelerating to less than 1.9mm per year per some recent sattelite observations. Despite the hype there has yet be need of relocation of any sizable sea front population.
Global sea ice extent is within, or In excess, of the 1979-2010 mean. The majority of Asian, north american, south american, African, European, or Oceana mountain glaciers are not facing imminent disappearance. Antarctic land ice mass is stable to slightly increasing or slightly decreasing per various sattelite measurements.
Well im tired of typing on my phone , so that is all for now. Later, perhaps a list of the political conditions. As usual feel free to disagree, demean, denigrate, ridicule or even constructively contribute.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 13, 2014 - 09:52pm PT
|
And it's only gotten a whopping .6C degs warmer since that record actually began back in 1850.
I reserve this type of remark for special occasions. But here, I can't help myself.
You're an idiot.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2014 - 09:55pm PT
|
you guys are hilarious.
ed:not you sketch.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 13, 2014 - 10:35pm PT
|
The Chief, I'm not refuting your claim of a 0.6 degree C rise in temps.
I'm just astonished at your inability to see that 0.6 is indeed a significant rise in temperature.
But carry on with your ways. I'm just exclaiming my own personal point of view.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 13, 2014 - 10:37pm PT
|
There has been no increase in damaging storm intensity or rate of occurence. That storm damages are noted more frequently is the result of increased habitation of the earth surface due to population growth and the overhyping of a growing 24/7 news multi media.
Head, meet hole in the sand.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2014 - 10:43pm PT
|
Are you arguing with IPCC AR5 now Kelly?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2014 - 11:02pm PT
|
I read two of the papers here’s what I got out of this one:
Advanced Two-Layer Climate Model for the Assessment of Global Warming by CO2
Hermann Harde
It’s not clear what the “advanced” in the title refers to in this model. Perhaps the use of modern spectroscopic databases?
The actual model is similar to the original 1896 Ahrrenius paper, and in the end they arrive at essentially the same climate equilibrium sensitivity.
While the modern models are much much more complicated, which seems to be a complaint of the author, Prof. Harde, they treat all of the details in a much more rigorous manner then many of the necessary simplifications used in this very simple model. In particular, the treatment of the atmosphere details in terms of atmosphere-wide feedback makes the mathematics tractable, but introduces simplifications that limit the model’s applicability.
While the details are not available, the climate system is treated as 32 surface elements, times 2 (one for the surface, one for the atmosphere), a total of 64 elements. Three climate zones are defined: the tropics, the mid-latitudes and the high-latitudes.
It is not clear if the surface areas are all treated the same, the climate zones are not differentiated between north and south hemispheres, which would be consistent with a uniform treatment of the surface.
The bits that might be “controversial” are rather a let down… the hypothesized feedback mechanism between solar activity and cloud cover. The treatment of cloud cover in this particular model treats them uniformly spread over the atmosphere. Once again, “feedback” mechanisms are deployed to take into account the differences in clouds at different altitudes, but as far as I can see, the fact that clouds do not uniformly cover the Earth, and that what they do cover can often have very different radiation properties, is not considered in the model. Odd…
In section 5.4.7 the statement is made:
“An important criterion for any serious validation, which mechanism really might control the cloud cover changes, can be derived from model simulations, which additionally include any solar activity variations and compare these simulations directly with the observed global warming over the last century. Such kind of investigations have been performed by Ziskin and Shaviv [42] (see also [41], p.95), using an energy balance model with a diffusive deep ocean and additionally taking into account a non-thermal solar component. They show that obviously such solar induced component is necessarily to reproduce the 20th century global warming and that the total solar contribution is much larger than can be expected from variations of the total solar irradiance (TSI) alone. Altogether they attribute 40 % of global warming to the solar influence and 60 % to anthropogenic activities.”
As an introduction to Section 6. where solar influence is included as a feedback. Eq. (86) is used to estimate the feedback parameter under two assumptions:
”that the cloud cover variation over the period 1983 - 2000 of -4 % is only determined by an
observed increase of the TSI of dES = 0.1 % [35]”
reference [35] is: R. C. Willson and A. V. Mordvinov, “Secular Total Solar Irradiance Trend During Solar Cycles 21-23,” Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 1–4, 2003
the cloud cover variation is taken from reference [25]: http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/products/onlineData.html
this is a daunting site to navigate, but you can go to:
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/climanal.html
and look at the plots… what’s interesting is the amount of detailed information available regarding cloud cover, regional, temporal, altitude, etc, etc… all of this is included in the single parameter of the cloud cover anomaly…
For the cloud cover amount:
If you take that plot of the coverage and do a least-squares fit to a straight line, you get a trend of -3.9% over the period from 1983 to 2000, which is similar to the value Prof. Harde refers to…
Now he takes that, and the TSI reduction and the quoted and the cloud cover reduction and calculates a feedback, which is large (it equals nearly 100), that is, the TSI goes up, the cloud cover goes down, the surface temperature goes up.
No mechanism is suggested (those that have been suggested are already ruled out by other studies, such as the CLOUD experiment ruling out Cosmic Rays as a cloud producer).
But something is strange.. if you look at the data that was referred to, you find this, which is unfortunately complicate, but I’m sure sci-fi can understand it.
I’ll describe it. The blue dots are the cloud cover anomaly in percent, the red dotted lines is the TSI anomaly in percent. The solid blue line is Harde’s fit to the data, and the solid red line the same for the TSI. His feedback is requires a positive slope to the red line and a negative slope to the blue line, and he has it.
However, if we fit out to 2010 the results are the dashed lines… and here the blue dash shows a decreasing cloud cover trend, but the red-dashed line shows a decreasing TSI anomaly. Now we would calculate that the cloud cover gets smaller as the TSI gets smaller… which is just the opposite of what Harde proposes.
But let’s take his hypothesis… what you see from 2000 to 2010 is that the cloud cover anomaly is nearly constant, yet the TSI is varying all over the place. Not very sensitive.
And not only that, but most of you are aware that there has been a hiatus in the SST since about 2000, it might be reasonable to assume the constant cloud cover anomaly over that same period has an explanation which is related to the climate, and not something outside of the climate, as Harde proposes.
It’s no wonder that he couldn’t get it published in a “real” journal. It doesn’t add anything to the state of the knowledge on climate, and it makes a rather dubious argument regarding the solar variability that is readily seen to be incorrect with the very same data he used to make it.
What did you get out of the paper, sci-fi, that you thought you should cite it in this thread?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2014 - 11:05pm PT
|
The Chief, your plot is altered in some way, that trend line cannot have an R²=0 as indicated.
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2014 - 11:06pm PT
|
A bigger threat than Isis? Yup.
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon on Monday released a report asserting decisively that climate change poses an immediate threat to national security, with increased risks from terrorism, infectious disease, global poverty and food shortages. It also predicted rising demand for military disaster responses as extreme weather creates more global humanitarian crises.
The report lays out a road map to show how the military will adapt to rising sea levels, more violent storms and widespread droughts. The Defense Department will begin by integrating plans for climate change risks across all of its operations, from war games and strategic military planning situations to a rethinking of the movement of supplies.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2014 - 11:17pm PT
|
why would I do that?
if you know that definition of R² you don't have to calculate it for that plot to know what's there wrong...
if you ask Chiloe nicely, he could point you to a good reference.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 14, 2014 - 06:31am PT
|
Are you arguing with IPCC AR5 now Kelly?
No rick, I'm not arguing that 0.6 degrees is right, or wrong. I'm just saying that 0.6 degrees C is not an insignificant amount of temperature rise.
Previously The Chief stated that he believed 2014 would not be in the top 10 hottest years on record. Looks like that might not be the case.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2014 - 07:57am PT
|
I don't think you have any idea of Richard Feynman, The Chief, but he wouldn't support your arguments (I knew him a bit and he'd have an entirely different view on the subject)
as for the paper up above, it occurred to me to plot the predictions of the feedback parameter on the actual cloud cover, Harde's eq(86):
which seems to miss badly... we can do a statistical analysis if you like... by the way, C_C,min is another arbitrary parameter whose setting is unsupported...
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 14, 2014 - 08:01am PT
|
minute 4:45 on says it all.
That's pretty good The Chief, a cricket chirping for a couple of seconds before the tape ends.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2014 - 09:28am PT
|
Kelly, are you trying to match alchohol consumption with the rummy dummy canadian Bruce who can't even spell Feynman yet still judges his philosophy? The question Kelly was if you disagreed with IPCC asessment report five which ascribes low probability to AGW causing increased storm intensity and frequency, or even if it exists.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2014 - 12:01pm PT
|
That news about fast charging Li batteries is groundbreaking for electric cars. One of the two biggest hurdles to driving a e-car is having to take charging breaks for longer than desired.
The other hurdle is the cost of the batteries, which is just as phenomenal in how fast the price is dropping.
Lower cost batteries will also make a huge impact for electric power.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/battery-storage-costs-plunge-below100kwh-19365
How battery storage costs could plunge below $100/kWh
By Giles Parkinson on 7 October 2014
(Note, all dollars are $US).
The flow of analysis about battery storage from big-end investment banks continues apace. Last week it was HSBC and Citigroup with ground-breaking reports – which we wrote about here and here. UBS also jumped in on the act too.
Why is this so? Well, according to UBS, interest from both investors and corporates has accelerated in recent months. That’s because the big end of town is suddenly alive to the opportunities of a technology that will likely be even more disruptive than solar. And the key is in the forecast on costs.
Citigroup last week cited $230/kWh as the key mark where battery storage wins out over conventional generation and puts the fossil fuel incumbents into terminal decline.
UBS, in a report based around a discussion with Navigant research, says the $230/kWh mark will be reached by the broader market within two to three years, and will likely fall to 100/kWh.
And it predicts that the market for battery storage will grow 50-fold by 2020, mostly in helping households and businesses consumer more of their solar output, but also at grid scale and with electric vehicles.
So here are some highlights gleaned from the UBS discussion with Navigant:
Navigant estimates the cost of materials going into a battery at the Tesla Gigafactory on a processed chemical basis (not the raw ore) is $69/kWh [kWh = kiloWatt hour].
The cost of the battery is only ~10-20% higher than the bill of materials – suggesting a potential long-term competitive price for Lithium Ion batteries could approach ~$100 per kWh. Tesla currently pays Panasonic $180/kW for their batteries, although conventional systems still selling for $500-700/kWh. But Navigant says that the broader market place will reach the levels Tesla is paying in the next two to three years.
A typical ‘load shifting’ 4-hour battery (designed to address the afternoon/evening peak) costs anywhere from ~$720-2,800/kWh, depending entirely on the scale of the Lithium Ion battery employed and the size of order.
The average $500-700/kWh for a typical battery is probably closer to the $2,000-3,000/kW when including the balance of the system costs ( around $400-500/kW), with a trend towards around $1,500/kW within the next 3-years. Navigant estimates the global market for batteries will grow from 400 MWh in 2013 (ie – 100 MW assuming 4-hour systems), to 20GWh (or around 5GW/yr) by 2020, globally.
UBS believes that the ‘merchant’ entry of batteries for wholesale purposes on the grid remains a few years off. Some above-market PPAs will be supported by utilities looking to use the technology to balance their grids but UBS believes commercialisation of battery storage will remain biased towards ‘short-usage’ needs, and by businesses looking to clip their ‘peak’ usage charges.
Still, over the long run, the advantages of scale will mean that utility-scale storage will evolve much more rapidly compared to the residential product.
As for the market for batteries, UBS cites three sub-sectors:
Transportation: low-cost, high-density, low-weight batteries. We emphasize this sector is likely to take a different direction from utility solutions.
Utility-scale: The main focus, with the primary consideration for these solutions being their ability to deploy quickly, into high density populations without contributing to air or water permitting hassles.
Distributed resources: in both commercial and industrial, and residential applications. “While many would point to the ability to move ‘off the grid’ entirely, we suspect the economics are unlikely palatable. Rather, the ability to clip ‘peak’ demand contributions by industrial customers is particularly notable. “
As for the question of which technology, Navigant expects lithium ion to remain the market leader for grid as well as small-scale storage for the next ten years. The main risks remains the uncertainty on input costs for Lithium, as well as Cobalt and Graphite, where Navigant thinks the greater “pinch points” await.
Other technologies being considered include flow batteries, such as advanced lead acid carbon, which are also functionally well suited for grid storage/long duration applications. Newer chemistries, such as the currently under research lithium sulfur and magnesium-Ion batteries may gain traction by early next decade.
Beyond batteries, pumped hydro faces the problem of limited favorable locations available, but fly wheels and compressed air storage (combined – and dispatched through gas turbines) may yet find their respective niches, although could well be excluded from ongoing state processes to kick-start the battery sector.
“In the end, lower prices are coming, but the technology is not yet clear,” UBS notes.
And, it quotes Navigant researcher Sam Jaffe in this clear point, that battery storage is coming now.
Jaffe said most of his ten years in the sector had been “sitting at conferences hearing the same presentations from the same people about the same hypothetical benefits of energy storage.
”But I see a very important change in the last two years where most of the presentations at these conferences are now talking about actual deployment of storage. So what has been a hypothetical concept for so long is now becoming a real business.”
As Jaffe noted, the $180/kWh price paid by Tesla compares to about $1500/kWh even five years ago, maybe seven years ago when it was $1200 to $1500 per kilowatt-hour. “So $180 per kWh is the price of those batteries, not the manufacturing cost but the price that they’re paying for them,” he said..
He also made this point about the comparison between battery storage and gas-fired peaking plant:
“If you assume that we’re at around a $200 per kilowatt- hour price point today for high quality Lithium-Ion batteries that are going to last ten years under frequent cycling, and if you wanted to build a very large peaker plant with four hours of energy duration behind it, it would be about $1400 per kilowatt on those costs.
“Interestingly, that’s actually pretty comparable to the cost of building a natural gas fired peaker plant. Keep in mind, you’re not buying fuel for batteries – you’re essentially just arbitraging low and high cost of daily electricity.”
And later:
“A lot of people think you tie a battery to a solar panel and boom you’ve got a power plant, which is technically true but managing it at the central grid level makes it much more than that.
“For instance, I’m aware of one project where the idea was to put a multi-gigawatt hour battery plant at a spot in a suburban location, where the local utility was looking for a natural gas peaker plant.
“However, they knew it was going to be an enormous uphill climb to site that peaker plant because nobody wants to live next to a smoke stack. People are more than willing to live next to a warehouse full of batteries.”
And this on its overall impact on the grid:
“We essentially just developed a grid over the last 150 years throughout the world that immediately consumes what it produces and manages that by essentially overproducing a little bit so that you can make sure you have some backup in case of unforeseen outages.
“But if you have energy storage then you don’t need to over produce, and you don’t need backup reserves. It allows you to store electricity and use it when you need it. “
That is a fundamental change. And it is happening now.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2014 - 12:02pm PT
|
"See EDH, you missed the mark again.
It is NOT that he would support MY arguments. Rather it is HIS insistent philosophy of DOUBT that needs to be applied here. Something of which you and the others here that are supposed experts do not exhibit at all when it comes to any of the science that aligns itself with the ideology of AGW."
no The Chief, you missed the mark, by assuming that I do not apply the same level of doubt and skepticism to all the science I am interested in studying.
When I read a paper, any paper, I apply the same sorts of analysis that I've given to you above from one of sci-fi's offering. A level of analysis which you cannot achieve, you simply don't have the skills to do it. And by assuming that your favorite blogs do it for you, you are easily mislead by the fact they push a point of view that you agree with, but you have no way of knowing whether or not you've been duped.
When you can get close to following Feynman's reminders on his blackboard, then you might get to the point where skepticism is a useful attribute:
but it is not a philosophy of doubt.. that's what you have, skepticism and doubt are quite different.
So much for your assuming...
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!