"Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.

[DarrinS]

Not only that, we would need to solve the problem of storage. I think that was mentioned by Snake at some point.

Distributed power generation would alleviate a lot of this problem.

Not only that, but it will take a massive amount of fossil fuels to make this happen. Have you seen all the big trucks hauling the windmill blades lately? I can only assume they are all being hauled to T. Boone Pickens' wind farm. All I know is I see them almost daily heading West.

[Wild Cobra]

Take a closer look at the scale of the "solar irradiance" measurements.

They vary from 1368 Watts per square meter, to 1372 Watts per square meter.

Over the last 50 years it has varied from 1370 to 1371. A total difference of 0.073%

7 hundredths of one percent variation.

Surely this causes some of the increased temperatures, and no one, not even the IPCC disputes this, as their bar graph shows.

Let's see. Earth with no solar radiation, best case, 55 K
Earth currently at 288 K

288 - 55 = 233 change in temperature (K or C).

233 times 0.0007 = 0.163 change in Celsius based on 55 K dead earth temperature and 0.07% solar radiation increase.

From IPCC; AR4WG1_Pub_Ch01.pdf, chapter 1.4.3, Solar Variability and the Total Solar Irradiance, page 108:

These satellite data have been used in combination with the historically recorded sunspot number, records of cosmogenic isotopes, and the characteristics of other Sun-like stars to estimate the solar radiation over the last 1,000 years (Eddy, 1976; Hoyt and Schatten, 1993, 1997; Lean et al., 1995; Lean, 1997). These data sets indicated quasi-periodic changes in solar radiation of 0.24 to 0.30% on the centennial time scale. These values have recently been re-assessed (see, e.g., Chapter 2).

They say they have reassessed the value. However, a 0.3% increase would account for about all the warming we have seen, and a 0.24% would be more about 2/3rds of it!

Now in Chapter 2, the IPCC uses a model of about They have a human +solar effect at 0.6 watts to 2.4 watts. Solar is at 0.06 watts to 0.3 watts. If we take their estimated 1.6 watts of warming and do some math with the estimated 0.12 solar:

1.6 watts of warming = 0.74 C = 2.16 watts per degree C
0.12 watts of solar = 0.055 C due to solar.

That’s by the IPCC numbers. However, they admit a minimum of 0.24% increase in solar radiation. The Earth would be dead cold without the sun. The be is around 5 K to 55 K with no sun. At 5 K the sun warms the earth with the greenhouse effect feedback system to about 15 C, or about 283 K of warming. Only 233 K of warming at 55 K for no solar radiation.

0.24% of 233 K = 0.56 C of warming
0.24% of 283 K = 0.68 C of warming

Why does the IPCC purposely lie? They aren’t that ignorant to solar radiation, are they? Did they misplace a decimal point? Maybe that’s what happens when you have Climatologists assess situations that include solar radiation with no such disciplines of science?

If we use the 0.3% the IPCC admits to:

0.3% of 233 K = 0.7 C of warming
0.3% of 283 K = 0.85 C of warming

Warming is estimated by the IPCC report at 0.74 C +/- 0.18 C (0.56 C to 0.92 C.)

Is this how they justify the lie, chapter 2 Executive Summary, page 132:

The direct RF due to increases in solar irradiance since 1750 is estimated to be +0.12 [–0.06, +0.18] W m–2, with a low level of scientific understanding.

[Wild Cobra]

By the way, feel free to test WC's intellectual honesty. Perhaps he will respond to you.

I have had no luck in getting straight, honest answers from him.

I think you simply don't understand my answers!

[ClingingMars]

that video made me lol. it's as if it's trying to destroy the debate, and force the global warming religion down our throats, just because there is a remote possibility that it could happen.

-Mars

[Wild Cobra]

Here's a very important video related to the solar effects:



From Failure to Warm
Occasional Address
AGM Lavoisier Group 22 October, 2007
David Archibald:



Here's a short temperature reconstruction:



And one on why CO2 cannot be blamed:

[Wild Cobra]

Here's another thing to consider. The northern ice melt:

Hi Resolution Animation of the Norther Ice melt 2008 (88 MB)

Satellite reconstruction of Ice Melt animation (40 MB)

Why is the majority melt under the Jet Stream that comes from Asia?

Could it be the soot it carries...

[clambake]

i found ice in my freezer.

[Wild Cobra]

Haven't seen a reply since last year (two days ago.)

[RandomGuy]

Not only that, but it will take a massive amount of fossil fuels to make this happen. Have you seen all the big trucks hauling the windmill blades lately? I can only assume they are all being hauled to T. Boone Pickens' wind farm. All I know is I see them almost daily heading West.

Not really "massive amount" of fossil fuels. Any power source built today will consume fossil fuels.

To be sure, you burn oil digging up ore, transporting it, smelting and forming to into something useful and transporting and assembling it, just like any other machinery, and you will burn some oil fuels maintaining them, but after the initial investment, it starts adding CO2 free energy into the system for decades.

The good thing about wind though over coal is that you don't have to continuously burn energy digging up coal transporting it, then cleaning up after burning it.

[RandomGuy]

that video made me lol. it's as if it's trying to destroy the debate, and force the global warming religion down our throats, just because there is a remote possibility that it could happen.

-Mars

It isn't advocating either theory. It is advocating a response to risk.

There is a remote possibility that your house will burn down, but yet you buy fire insurance. Why?

[RandomGuy]

The design of coal and nuclear plants can't be duplicated. I loved that one.

By the by, I didn't say that at all. The nuclear power plants built in the US were of many different designs.

Standardization tends to drive unit costs down, and one of the things that has made nukes expensive in the past has been a lack of standardization.

[RandomGuy]

If you follow this guy's logic, we should have been trying to warm up the atmosphere back in the 1970's to stave off the global cooling that was being predicted.

Indeed we would have started taking some steps, as would have been prudent based on the best available information.

If you follow that guy's logic, you would avoid drinking bacon grease with every meal.

If you follow that guy's logic, you would avoid smoking cigarettes.

If you follow that guy's logic, you would buy health insurance.

If you follow that guy's logic, you would insure your house against damage.

We CAN'T know the future, but we CAN take reasonable steps to mitigate the risk of loss.

[RandomGuy]

Here's another thing to consider. The northern ice melt:

Hi Resolution Animation of the Norther Ice melt 2008 (88 MB)

Satellite reconstruction of Ice Melt animation (40 MB)

Why is the majority melt under the Jet Stream that comes from Asia?

Could it be the soot it carries...

Indeed, it could be. It seems to be a reasonable conclusion.

[SnakeBoy]

By the by, I didn't say that at all. The nuclear power plants built in the US were of many different designs.

I was referring to the chart in the link you gave.

[RandomGuy]

I have no problem with renewable energy sources as a supplemental engery supply. They have been used for decades.

The entire point of my posts to RandonGuy have been about the logic flaw in global warming predictions versus their proposed solutions. Everytime I have had this discussion it goes exactly the same. They try to change the subject because they really don't have a valid argument.

I'll restate the facts...

If the predictions of Global Warming theory are not valid then Global Warming theory is not a valid science.

If the predictions of Global Warming theory are correct then the only solution in the short time we have is an all out effort to go nuclear in the next 15-20 years max. All the "green" proposals cannot be implemented fast enough to avoid the doomsday prediction.

If you go back to my original post in this thread you'll see the real issue with CO2 emissions. We have considerably longer to address that issue and so we can pursue a much more reasonable approach now and hopefully new technologies will emerge over the next 50 - 100 years to resolve the issue entirely.

I am not proposing an all out effort to go nuclear. It's just the only realistic solution to the problem that alarmists believe in. And they are against it.

1) Nuclear is NOT the only realistic solution to the problem. That is a false assumption.

2) I have never advocated a radical multi-trillion dollar, do it all right now approach. That is silly. Please stop claiming I do without actually asking me what I think, it's rude.

My biggest pet peeve about conservatives is that in Conservative World, all "liberals" believe that we need to stop burning any fossil fuels right now, give up our cars, start eating grass, and lower our standard of living to levels that would make a midieval monk's lifestyle look like Caligula.

Please stop it.

Here is what I think we SHOULD do based on what evidence is available:

A strong investment in renewables, starting with solar and wind.
Encourage and promote a more distributed and robust electrical grid.
Encourage and promote efficiency.
Research and development into large-scale storage systems, such as industrial-sized fuel cells.

[RandomGuy]

Given:

Risk has two dimensions.

Scale of loss and probability of occurance.

WC and the deniers, when they are being honest, will agree that if we really do get into the worst case GW scenario as the AGW alarmists claim, it will be catastrophic.

They spend their time attacking the probability of occurance, which they put at virtually nil.

OK, fine.

They say then, that we should do/change absolutely nothing based on this, because "we will ruin our economy doing it", which is their worst-case scenario.

OK, fine.

Now provide data that supports that assessment of probability.

It is claimed to be a near certainty that we will ruin our economy and standard of living by moderating our greenhouse gas emission profile.

Your claim.

Your burden of proof.

[DarrinS]

WC and the deniers, when they are being honest, will agree that if we really do get into the worst case GW scenario as the AGW alarmists claim, it will be catastrophic.

Aren't you glad that we didn't spend billions of dollars back in the 70's trying to prevent the impending ice age that scientists were predicting?


A simple question for you. If IPCC model predictions are erroneous over the short term, how much confidence do you have in their long-term predictions?


By the way, when IPCC reports use bad science, include numbers that are off by an order of magnitude, and censor comments from scientists whose opinions don't support their agenda, I have to consider them no more credible than the UN.

[DarrinS]

An interesting quote from Albert Einstein:

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."



I wonder what he would think about "consensus" science?

[SnakeBoy]

You started off good but have been slipping on the intellectual honesty scale. Let's try it this way.

A strong investment in renewables, starting with solar and wind.

What percentage of world energy supply do you believe renewables can supply and how long will it take to implement? Doomsday is in 41 years max.

Encourage and promote a more distributed and robust electrical grid.

What impact will this have on atmospheric CO2 levels and how long will it take to implement? Doomsday is in 41 years max.

Encourage and promote efficiency.

Specifics? How much can we reduce CO2 emissions through efficiency factoring in the fact that the world population will increase from 6 to 9 billion by 2050? How long will it take to implement these improvements in efficiency? Doomsday is in 41 years max.

Research and development into large-scale storage systems, such as industrial-sized fuel cells.

How long will research, development, and implementation take? Doomsday is in 41 years max.

Your claim.

Your burden of proof.

Global Warming Theory is your claim not mine.

[RandomGuy]

Global Warming Theory is your claim not mine.

Economic Implosion Theory is your claim, not mine.

...or to be more precise, WC's.

Do you think we should not do anything because it would harm our economy for something that doesn't exist?

Yes or no or an alternative.

[SnakeBoy]

Define "anything".

[RandomGuy]

You started off good but have been slipping on the intellectual honesty scale.

I've given it a lot more shrift than you have, actually.

Intellectual honesty and good critical thinking requires one to provide proof for one's assertions when asked fairly.

You have not done so, when asked for some simple proposals as to how the limitations of nuclear will be overcome to make it the "only realistic option" for massively reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

What percentage of world energy supply do you believe renewables can supply and how long will it take to implement? Doomsday is in 41 years max.

Renewables can supply 100% of the world's energy supply. Before you go ape about that statement, I will add the caveat: given enough time and investment. I would put that time frame to be well over a century if you want to go completely renewable. We only really get about 2% or 3% of our electricity now from renewables, and increasing that is not too hard within 10 years to 10 or even 20%. By investing in this we buy ourselves time and push the Doomsday scenario back.

What impact will [distributed power grids] have on atmospheric CO2 levels and how long will it take to implement? Doomsday is in 41 years max.

Distributed power grids actually mean less economic losses from outages from any kind, and also offer less transmission loss. I don't have and likely can't provide definitive statements on the exact impact of CO2 levels. It would provide efficiency gains that would alleviate the need for new power plants, part of which would be coal, and would reasonably be concluded to reduce CO2 emissions. It would take about 10-20+ years to really implement on a large scale, to what I have read. By investing in this we buy ourselves time and push the Doomsday scenario back.

Specifics [on encouranging and promoting efficiency]? How much can we reduce CO2 emissions through efficiency factoring in the fact that the world population will increase from 6 to 9 billion by 2050? How long will it take to implement these improvements in efficiency? Doomsday is in 41 years max.

Specifics on energy efficiency would take an entire discussion in and of itself. It is estimated that this is, out of all the things we do, the quickest and easiest thing, and has the capability of completely negating the need for new power plants to keep up with economic growth, even with global increases in population. Implementation on this would be immediate and continuous. By investing in this we buy ourselves time and push the Doomsday scenario back.

How long will research, development, and implementation [into large-scale storage systems, such as industrial-sized fuel cells] take? Doomsday is in 41 years max.

Unknown. Were I to guess, 10-15 years. Large fuel cells are more efficient than small ones and MUCH more technically/economically feasible. We aren't starting from scratch, and there are a lot of promising technologies out there. By investing in this we buy ourselves time and push the Doomsday scenario back.

I don't think it is really possible to completely totally stop buring fossil fuels and eliminate CO2 emissions in 41 years, or even entirely desirable.

It is VERY possible to push any Doomsday scenario back long enough for us to really find something revolutionary, or simply give ourselves the room to change at a much more gradual and sustainable pace.

We can't do it all instantly, but we didn't get our present economy instantly either. We can start the process, and buy ourselves time to really see if WC is right or not.

By the way, we can and should invest in nuclear power as well at some level, simply because, even with its limitations, it is still better than coal. By investing in this we buy ourselves time and push the Doomsday scenario back.

[RandomGuy]

Define "anything".

Should we not attempt to do any mitigating of our CO2 emissions at all because it would harm our economy to the point of a needless economic meltdown?

[Wild Cobra]

Originally Posted by DarrinS

If you follow this guy's logic, we should have been trying to warm up the atmosphere back in the 1970's to stave off the global cooling that was being predicted.

Indeed we would have started taking some steps, as would have been prudent based on the best available information.

We may have done that to some extent, but by coincidence rather than intent. By the 70's we saw a terrible trend and severe problems from smog. We formed the EPA and started cleaning up the air. As I have stated before, it takes a long time (lag) before we see results from causes on global scales. These particle pollutions were no doubt, cooling the earth to at least some extent. When we removed most of them, I believe the natural warming from the increased solar radiation 1900-1950 started showing itself again.

[Wild Cobra]

1) Nuclear is NOT the only realistic solution to the problem. That is a false assumption.

2) I have never advocated a radical multi-trillion dollar, do it all right now approach. That is silly. Please stop claiming I do without actually asking me what I think, it's rude.

I have also drawn that conclusion by the way you say we should error on the side of caution. Small amounts of money will not mitigate CO2 emissions by any degree to matter. It will take trillions, and maybe more.

My biggest pet peeve about conservatives is that in Conservative World, all "liberals" believe that we need to stop burning any fossil fuels right now, give up our cars, start eating grass, and lower our standard of living to levels that would make a midieval monk's lifestyle look like Caligula.

Please stop it.

Well, I don't see it quite that way. I do see that, in general, liberals have all these plans to make changes without offering acceptable solutions that really work!

Here is what I think we SHOULD do based on what evidence is available:

A strong investment in renewables, starting with solar and wind.
Encourage and promote a more distributed and robust electrical grid.
Encourage and promote efficiency.
Research and development into large-scale storage systems, such as industrial-sized fuel cells.

For the most part, these are great goals. However, you can only so so much with the power grid structure without superconductor technology. Making grids more reliable is economically done by making more power plants rather than trying to redistribute power. Solar and wind cannot effectively be used until we have energy storage systems. Wind really doesn't do much now because other power generation needs to be on Hot Standby in case of the sudden loss of wind. Solar is still pretty small, and shades large portions of the earth.

Efficiency... How much is acceptable?

Connecting grids sound great, but the power losses involved in sending electricity more than a few hundred miles become rather massive.

Fuel cell storage. This is probable the most efficient method we could use today. Same thing however. You have energy losses in creating the hydrogen for storage, and then recombining it to electricity.

Large grid problems...

You may want to look over this:

Power System Security in the New Industry Environment

Worse than loss of efficiency, When you start switching high power long distances, the 0.23 HZ oscillations really things up! I was trying to find the power loss factor of the 3.1 giga-watt Pacific Intertie when I found that.

I wonder if 0.23 hz was the frequency Tesla was playing with?

edit/add:

I'm unsure what you mean by "a more distributed and robust electrical grid." If you mean what a Distributed Power Grid would technically mean, then I agree with you.

I thought about that after answering and realized I may have jumped to conclusions. It's long distances from energy source to user that causes us grid problems which are plagued by power losses, es, and reflect power.