Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 Next
Comments 20951 to 21000:
-
nigelj at 07:11 AM on 4 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
William @13, yes batteries getting drained by demand from the grid is an issue. But the grid would probably be drawing power from cars only when the grid is in very short supply, and it would be drawing power from many cars, so might only draw a little from each car, assuming plenty of cars are linked into the scheme.
It may also be possible to design a car so that only a certain level of power is drawn, to ensure plenty is available in the morning. It should be possible to design things so that the owner can determine how much power is drawn.
-
william5331 at 06:47 AM on 4 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
A wee problem with this concept is that most people will want their electric vehicle fully charged up in the morning when they head off for work. I suspect that the real effect of electric vehicles on the grid will be to be able to some extent to be able to be charged when power is available rather than on demand. This is not as effective as what is proposed here but is still of significant value. You can charge up at work when the sun shines and the wind blows or at night if there is cheap power available due to a windy night. All this requires a grid which varies the price of power according to availability and sends the appropriate signal to the user to turn on and off his charging station according to what the user has programed into his charging computer.
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2007/10/excess-energy-what-to-do.html
-
Cooper13 at 02:08 AM on 4 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
jtfarmer-
You are absolutely correct - this concept is really nothing but a pipe-dream with present battery technologies.
Most of the Li-ion batteries have something on the order of 1000 charge/discharge cycles before they lose a significant fraction of their capacity (and mileage range). Thus, if you are recharging a couple times a week (say every 3.6 days), that is 100 charge/discharge cycles per year. That means your battery will last around 10 years before it is effectively no longer very useful and needs to be replaced (this is probably more like 5-7 years in reality with other factors).
Now, you hook that battery up to 'act as a grid buffer', and if you end up discharging and recharging 3x as often, you drop your battery life from 10 years to 3 years. NO ONE should consider doing this with an expensive, lightweight Li-ion battery in their car. There are FAR cheaper options for battery technology which are not 'lightweight', but do not need to be. Degrading our electric car batteries to support the grid makes zero sense UNLESS costs to replace them drop enough that they become 'disposable' (and recycleable).
Dig a hole in the ground and use a heavier but robust battery technology that is cheap to support grid draws and buffer wind and solar; trying to use Li-ion from electric vehicles will simply degrade batteries so fast, consumers will get VERY pissed off that their cars no longer have the range they did when they were new, and people will be less likely to spend the extra money on a vehicle which 'wears out' prematurely.
If we get battery tech that can last 10x longer in cycling, only then does this become a viable option. Until then, chalk it up as a pipe-dream in my book. And I'm all for electric vehicles - just put cheap batteries in the ground to support the grid, because you have space, weight is a non-factor, and you have FAR better temperature homogeneity for them to boot....
-
Jim Eager at 00:58 AM on 4 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
Villabolo wrote "Electric cars are not going to be popular right away because of the hassle of charging them up every 100 miles.”
Villabolo, you need to get out more. While the Nissan Leaf, Kia Soul and BMW i3 all currently get in the range of 160 km/100 miles per charge, the Chevy Bolt gets 383 km (398 max)/238 miles and the Tesla Model 3 will be in the similar range, so the range hurdle has already been lowered considerably, and the steady roll-out of a fast charger network is lowering it further. Remember, 100 years ago there weren’t all that many gas stations either. That said, although I’m considering buying a Bolt I plan on keeping my ten year old Prius for use on trips to destinations where chargers will be few and far between or non existent, or for times when I need more cargo capacity than the Bolt provides.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 20:39 PM on 3 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
nigelj
There is an interesting transition pathway here. A friend just bought a Mitsubishi Outlander plug-in hybrid. Only about 50 km on batteries. The technology is essentially a petrol motor and an electric motor driving gearbox etc. So very much conventional technology. That is phase 1.
Phase 2 is an all-electric drivetrain - electric motors only, goodbye gearboxes. But still a combustion engine but instead it drives a generator to produce electricity to drive the motors or charge the batteries. Actually mechanically much simpler and the combustion engine can now be designed for efficiency rather than the wide power/torque demands of driving.
Then phase 3 does away with the combustion engine. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 20:13 PM on 3 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
jtfarmer.
You raise an important point. Battery performance is ultimately sticker price and lifetime. Managing how our batteries are used to maximise life-time (or not negatively degrade it) is going to be an important part of the future.
Lots of ideas out there that are great at a conceptual level but the nitty-gritty can be more complex. -
BBHY at 18:36 PM on 3 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
I just love my electric car. I find it truly annoying that just about every article on electric cars brings comments about cars running on coal. I like to remind people that if your car is running on coal, then so is your refrigerator, air conditioner and big screen TV, so the problem is really not the car, but the coal plant. I've never seen anyone advocate that we should run our refrgerators on gasoline because it is "cleaner".
In any case, we are getting much less of our power from coal and an ever greater portion of our power from clean renewables. Ironically, this is even indirectly making gasoline fueled cars a bit cleaner, since refining oil into gasoline takes a huge amount of electric power.
That is why, contrary to what some people say, gasoline cars are never as clean, never can be as clean, as electrics. When you drive using gasoline, you've already used a lot of electric power just to refine your fuel, then you are burning the stuff on top of that!
-
KR at 14:14 PM on 3 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
There are some limitations here. I have a Volt, too, and the pure electric range (50 miles) is too small to provide utility backup and still be a useful electric car. For something like the Bolt, with >200 miles range, there's enough extra capacity to be useful, but there will need to be the flexibility to declare the car off limits for days when you need the full range.
House systems are another matter - I have 150A 220V service at my house, and a full charge for a Bolt would require something like 12 hours at 30-40A for completion; the just isn't the capacity for household falls charge/discharge at higher amperages. That's a basic infrastructure issue.
Given that high demand is often daytime, perhaps emphasizing workplace chargers/sources for use when you're parked at work?
And perhaps a partial solution might be helpful, too - when extra per is needed, and the car is available, run the house off the car and reduce demand accordingly?
-
Lachlan at 11:59 AM on 3 March 2017Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
@me in 15. Of course I was wrong to suggest that the radial axis be the year; it has to be the amount of ice. Actually, there doesn't need to be a year axis at all, because the spiral is continuous, and the progression through the months shows how many years have elapsed.
This site has had similar graphs for other quantities (CO_2 levels?).
-
Lachlan at 11:55 AM on 3 March 2017Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
6 - OPOF: I personally think that the spiral is drawn the wrong way.
There is a natural periodicity to months of the year and to a circle. I think the month should be the angular axis, and the year should be the radial one. That shows clearly the inward spiral of the years, with a wobbly shape reflecting the seasonal changes.
I can't see any benefit at all in curving the natually linear time axis.
$0.02
-
michael sweet at 09:59 AM on 3 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
Jtfarmer,
If you plan to charge on windy days (or sunny days) and then have enough power to not charge for several days that would help the grid a lot. Forecasts of wind and sun are already very accurate for several days out. You could adjust when you "fill" your car to help reduce demand on slow days.
Different people will decide what they want to do. Everyone does not have to participate the same way. For the right price I would return power to the grid. If the price was too low I wouldn't.
-
jtfarmer at 08:46 AM on 3 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
As an owner of a Chevy Volt I'm not too keen on using my car battery for storage/retrieval by the power network. I see it degrading my battery way before its time. I would be willing for it to be used to store excess grid power (hopefully at a discount) but not retrieval by the grid.
-
nigelj at 07:22 AM on 3 March 2017Republican hearing calls for a lower carbon pollution price. It should be much higher
William @11, I agree with your sentiments and general goals, but there's an issue over oil.
You say "Get the meme into the head of their boss about how much money America the Great is wasting buying oil overseas, how that money comes back to buy up America the Great and make great Americans tenants in their own country."
Unfortunately this reasoning is a nice sentiment, but doesn't work. America's net oil imports are only 25% of total consumption as below. Fracking has almost made Americal self sufficient in oil (for a couple of decades anyway until it runs out).
www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=32&t=6
But I agree America leads the electric car industry (arguably) and Trump might respond to that and further leadership in renewable energy just to "Make America Great Again".
I also agree foreign money does buy up a lot of American assets and land, and basically America is a debtor nation in this regard.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_international_investment_position
But its not so much due to energy imports or exports and is due to an economic policy of capitalist market forces and open investment flows, and relates to land, manufacturing and financial assets etc. So theres not much governments can do with energy policy that would alter this. It depends more on how much one considers governments should regulate those capital flows, and the standard economic argument is only in emergencies.
However in my opinion, America should hold onto at least some manufacturing industry (I think thats what you are implying). However I admit economic theory says "it doesn't have to" if other countries do this better, but it seems to me you are creating a very narrow economic base, just reliant on farming and financial services exports, which could create instability, and a narrow selection of job opportunities. And outsourcing manufacture of key military assets is just very high risk, for self evident reasons.
But tariffs are a very crude way of protecting manufacturing, according to most economists. This that may reduce wealth creation globally, and also in America. It needs a bit more sophisticated thinking.
-
scaddenp at 06:59 AM on 3 March 2017How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
Well I dont know what you mean by "good", but its substance was the Briske 2013 paper "The Savory Method can not green deserts or reverse climate change". More interesting is to follow the ongoing scientific debate. I found Briske response to Teague constructive. My feeling is that more research is going to settle these questions.
-
michael sweet at 06:08 AM on 3 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
It is interesting to see a diferent method of addresing the issue of storing power for need. Several different options are offered by this article, Jacobson and the Budischak article linked in the OP. It will be very interesting over the next ten to twenty years to see which of these options turns out to be the most practical and cheapest.
It is always better to have several options when you are trying to solve a difficult problem.
-
william5331 at 05:23 AM on 3 March 2017Republican hearing calls for a lower carbon pollution price. It should be much higher
Are we going to keep charging up the centre into the teeth of the maching guns or are we going to outflank them and roll them up from the flank. Forget the battle to convince any of those worthy gentlemen of the gop (small caps intentional) about climate change. Get the meme into the head of their boss about how much money America the Great is wasting buying oil overseas, how that money comes back to buy up America the Great and make great Americans tenants in their own country. Emphasize how some of that money goes to the terrs who attack America the Great and how this could all be solved by a combination of electric cars and lots and lots of solar panels on people's rooves and lots more wind turbines. Besides, the leading Electric car company of the world is as All American as the New York Yankies. With all that saved money Trump could rebuild America and get people back to work making him the greatest president America has had since Washington. (using a trowel, not a butter knife)
-
nigelj at 05:22 AM on 3 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
Villabolo @2
I was wondering about that as well. I agree hybrids with really decent batteries would cover all eventualities, with 100 miles plus on battery and much more on petrol. It's an appealing option, but obviously not zero emissions. That's your real problem. It also adds cost and complexity of two engines, although I admit that is not a huge issue.
Looking at fully electric cars with 100 - 150 miles range, this does cover most trips, and can be charged overnight. People charge their smartphones every day, and it hasn't stopped them being popular.
Most people make short trips, plus a few long trips on holiday. It's not such a big issue to stop for an hour for a coffee or two while the car charges, or rent a very long range electric car for the annual holiday. It's just a mental adjustment and planning thing.
-
nigelj at 04:51 AM on 3 March 2017Republican hearing calls for a lower carbon pollution price. It should be much higher
This is a very good read on discount rate theory applied to climate change;
www.sciencenews.org/article/discounting-future-cost-climate-change
I read it purely to get some understanding of how the economics of this issue works. Conventional discount rates don't make sense over the long term time frames of climate change. The article discusses modified approaches.
-
villabolo at 02:49 AM on 3 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
Electric cars are not going to be popular right away because of the hassle of charging them up every 100 miles. Hybrids, on the other hand, get up to 500 (50mpg X ~10 gallons.)
The best of all worlds will be plug-in hybrids. The 2017 model of the Toyota Prius is supposed to go 20 miles only on electric drive alone and about 500 miles on hybrid - gas/electric. Once they get to the point where they have a range of 100 miles on battery power alone the driver will be able to relax knowing that he could recharge his car at home overnight.
One thing to keep in mind is the fact that battery technology has been coming down in price, becoming denser in energy storage, and getting safer. The technology is improving fast - every year sees a notable improvement.
With clean energy as it's source, you can have an 80 to 100% reduction in fossil fuel emissions from vehicles alone.
-
JWRebel at 02:22 AM on 3 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
In the Netherlands they (cabinet) are toying with a ban on fossil-fuel cars in 2035 (the right) although the left wants to see 2025. They already ban old cars from the city centre — on the highways they compare your license plate and if the car predates certain emission standards, signs warn you not to exit or go into town. The highways for some time now are already being built with facilities under the surface for autonomous driving. Plans are to fit more cars onto narrower lanes spaced close together and driving 150km — such lanes would obviously be barred for manually driven cars. There is a good chance that fossil-fuel and manual driving will run into simultaneous elimination, manual-driving because people don't heed rules and speed limits and a lot of energy and trouble could be saved on speed bumps [it would be interesting to know how much energy stop signs and speed bumps cost] and investments in safety. There is still a challenge in building enough renewable energy of course.
Things will happen faster than people think. If more people here were less complacent about melting ice and SLR [the country is under sea level, and everybody takes it for granted there will be no problem raising sea walls and barriers for centuries], there would be quite a lot more pressure on the government to set an example for other nations.
-
David Kirtley at 23:13 PM on 2 March 2017Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
@10 DrivingBy, further to what Rob and Tom said..."The Pumphandle" video showing the Keeling curve as well as other CO2 measurements from around the globe, clearly shows the differences in S. and N. hemisphere CO2 measurements as the years pass. The graph on the left side shows the various CO2 stations according to latitude. The south pole station is the blue dot on the far left and the Keeling measurements come from Mauna Loa, the red dot. Notice how much the other station readings in the northern hemisphere bounce around during each year.
-
michael sweet at 20:54 PM on 2 March 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Tmketner,
I am curious as to why scientists working for Exxon and the other oil comapnies concluded that AGW is affecting the Earth. According to your points, they should have concluded that AGW was not caused by CO2 and would cause no harm. In addition, during the Bush aministration, when scientists warning about AGW were censored, scientists continued to warn about the dangers of AGW against their economic interest. The Trump administration rewards those who deny AGW but there are few takers.
Can you explain why scientists are so stupid that they act against their own clear economic interest and continue to claim that AGW is a problem?
-
Paul W at 20:32 PM on 2 March 2017Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
@9 What a treasure trove the work of Wally Broecker is!! Thank you for the reference. No wonder you did not bother to write about igneous rock weathering. I'd expect now from a slight glance from "over Broecker shoulder" that igneous rocks rate of weathering is going to be some what slower than carbonate rock weathering.
-
sjames0101 at 18:59 PM on 2 March 2017How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
Here is good article that debunks some of the claims made by Savory. http://sierraclub.org/sierra/2017-2-march-april/feature/allan-savory-says-more-cows-land-will-reverse-climate-change
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link Please learn how to create links yourself with the link tool in the comments editor.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 17:17 PM on 2 March 2017Republican hearing calls for a lower carbon pollution price. It should be much higher
Tom Curtis@6
My point is requiring the proof that an economic pursuit is very likely to improve the future for all of humanity. A future Net-Benefit evaluation can be the basis for that. However, like structure engineering, the evaluated negative impacts (loads) would need to be magnified to account for the inaccuracy of speculation. And the positive expectations (structure performance) would need to be scaled back. That would be the way to establish reasonable certainty that there was an expected future net benefit.
Discount rates would be irrelevant. The future costs and benefits are in the future. A discount rate used to compare discounted future costs to current day Lost Opportunity is not an acceptable evaluation for this and many other issues. It would not even be acceptable to do a comparison that reduces current day Lost Opportunity to compare with an increased or amplified future cost. It needs to be understood that it is unacceptable for a current generation, especially only a portion of a current generation, to benefit from creating a net-negative consequence for future generations.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 16:39 PM on 2 March 2017Republican hearing calls for a lower carbon pollution price. It should be much higher
Tom Curtis@6.
Many things considered to be "benefits" today are only unsustainable perceptions that actually are adding more future costs. Many perceptions of prosperity and wealth are actually without a future. The examples of unsustainable and harmful developed economic activity abound. Until they are cleared from the economy the economy is at future risk of Depression.
The reality that this is one planet with a tremedously long potential future for humanity, and potentially the only future for humanity, fails to be properly considered.
Properly considering the real future changes what is perceived to be of value.
However, if it can be shown, not just speculated, that more burning of fossil fuels actually is very likely to develop a lasting improvement for all of humanity I would accept that rigorous proof. I am however very skeptical that evidence of that sort exists. The same requirement for evidence of helping to improve the future for all of humanity would apply to any other desired economic pursuit.
All that is being asked for is what an Engineer is required to do. Prove the viability and lack of harm before something gets to compete to be popular and profitable.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 16:25 PM on 2 March 2017Republican hearing calls for a lower carbon pollution price. It should be much higher
I wish to clarify my comment about laws/regulations/rules.
Legitimate rules, rules that will have a future, are consistent with the objective of helping to improve the near and distant future for all of humanity. Rules, or a lack of rules, because of other objectives eventually get over-ruled as their unacceptability and the harm they do becomes more apparant/better understood.
And new rules and regulations are constantly required to attempt to discourage activity that has developed to the point of being a significant source of harm and concern. The required change related to pursuits of profit is eliminating the defence of "What was done cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be against the laws that existed at the time it was gotten away with". The requirement for acceptability of pursuits of profit needs to be that what was/is being done can be proven to not likely be creating negative consequences for others or for future generations based on the 'developed understanding of the time' (not the understanding that was popular - the real understanding). On that basis, pursuits of profit related to fossil fuel burning that were developed after the 1980s would have no valid defence, no matter what made-up laws/regulations/requirements existed.
This change would result in a correction of perceptions of wealth and opportunity. It would help improve the future of humanity. It would only negatively affect people who have developed a negative value from the perspective of future generations of humanity.
Of course, a global enforcement of the rule would also be required. That means the end of sovereignty when it comes to economic matters impacting the future of humanity. But multi-national corporations and international trade have already ended economic national sovereignty regardless of the persistence of other perceptions.
-
Tom Curtis at 16:16 PM on 2 March 2017Republican hearing calls for a lower carbon pollution price. It should be much higher
OPOF @5, we do not receive only costs from prior generations. We receive benefits as well. In this century, at least in the west, those benefits are substantial. Acting on a policy that excludes anything that has costs attached will necessarilly exclude also many of those things which provide benefits - often more benefit than cost. Looking to the future, we need to assess whether the things we do now will provide more benefits than costs, and act accordingly. To do that on a formal basis requires that we use discount rates.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 15:36 PM on 2 March 2017Republican hearing calls for a lower carbon pollution price. It should be much higher
The Moral/Ethical/Justified basis for the discussion has to be that "anything that cannot be shown to most likely improve the near and distant future for all of humanity" should no longer be allowed to compete for popularity and profitability.
Starting from that understanding the discussion of discount rates on future costs goes out the window. Creating costs and challenges to be faced by future generations (others) would simply be unacceptable. The games of competition for popularity and profitability only work well when every person wanting to benefit from an activity faces the full risk and negative consequences. Trying to "set a price to be paid" for creating negative consequences is just another game that is easily rigged to delay the actual required change. And in this case the rigging includes the deception that wealth today will grow to be more future wealth. Only economic activity that can be proven to be lasting improvements of the near and distant future for all of humanity would be likely to "grow future value". So an activity like burning fossil fuels is worse than worthless, it has negative value from the perspective of the future generations.
The Lost Opportunity or Lost Perception of Prosperity by members of the current generation do not get to be Balanced with risk of challenges and costs imposed on others, especially the impacts on future generations. And the people wanting to benefit today from an activity should definitely not have the freedom to believe whatever they want regarding the potential negative impact their actions will have on others or the future generations. That is understood by the misleading marketing people who are now pushing the propaganda to encourage people to dismiss and dislike explanations from "Experts".
That clarifies the problem to be solved: The objective is rapidly curtailing the impacts of very popular and profitable damaging activity (striving for a limit on impacts of 1.5 C increase). And that means current day pursuers of benefit (with all of the wealthiest leading by example) would have to prove that they have fully addressed and neutralized the unacceptable impacts of their desired pursuits or stop trying to benefit from them (no matter how much more expensive or less profitable for them the justifiable alternatives are).
That will mean that many people perceived to be prosperous or having opportunity (or perceived to be Winners) are not as valuable to humanity as their current measure of wealth indicates. And some of them would have a significant Negative value (from the perspective of future generations).
One battle line has been drawn - The claim that many people have developed expectations and perceptions of prosperity and opportunity that must be "Maintained and Boosted, rather than be Corrected". This is the case in Alberta where a rush to expand the rate of extraction of Bitumen from the sands of Northern Alberta for global burning is being used to claim that the recently increased population and investment attracted by perceptions of opportunity and prosperity must have their damaging delusions defended and even encouraged to become even more powerful damaging delusions (like the claims that new pipelines must be built). Many similar misleading marketing campaigns "excusing and defending understandably unacceptable developed economic activity" are being played around the planet, to the detriment of the future of humanity.
Some may say that the point I start from is Extreme. However, when dealing with people who think everything is a game and anything can be negotiated it can help to be clear about just how much they stand to lose if helping to improving the future for all of humanity actually becomes the generally accepted judgment basis (rather than just made-up laws that can be changed, are different in different regions, and are subject to gaming and selective enforcement).
-
scaddenp at 12:38 PM on 2 March 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
"A final question, why is it climate change deniers start invoking conspiracy theories as soon as it becomes clear they are on a hiding to nothing as regards the evidence? "
Because if your worldview is at odds with data, then that data must be wrong? Let your opinions be changed by facts is not something that naturally to any of us.
Also note that FF CO2 is differently isotopically from Volcanic CO2 as Tom has detailed before.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:12 PM on 2 March 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
tmketner @295:
""The levels of CO2 needed to cause the types of changes specified, would have to be much higher. Absorption, molecular structure, and the carbon cycle itself prevents the levels getting high enough to cause a significant change."
This is assertion with no evidence."
stephen baines is correct. You did provide no evidence for your claim, and the evidence that has been provided (Glenn Tamblyn @293, Me @294) shows conclusively that your claim was incorrect.
The further "evidence" you no provide has no direct bearing on whether or not there is sufficient CO2 in the atmosphere to cause a significant greenhouse effect (what you were discussing).
"The amount of CO2 released by the Earth alone closer to 1 billion tons per year on average, according to new research."
Indeed, according to that research total geological outgassing from all sources amounts to 937 Mt/annum (second paragraph, page 343). But according to that same research, total geological ingassing is measured at 403 Mt/annum; and that probably represents a measurement error in that over time total geological outgassing equals total geologial ingassing. It follows that net geological outgassing is, at most around 500 Mt/Annum, and probably zero. In the meantime, that same research quotes a 2010 estimate of anthropogenic emmissions at 35,000 Mt/annum (page 342, 3rd paragraph). So, the best you can claim is that geological emissions are 2.9% of anthropogenic emissions; and probable net geological emissions are negligible in comparison.
A final question, why is it climate change deniers start invoking conspiracy theories as soon as it becomes clear they are on a hiding to nothing as regards the evidence?
Moderator Response:[RH] Cognitive dissonance is a physically painful malady to sing. Probably best to refrain.
-
Ogemaniac at 12:04 PM on 2 March 2017Republican hearing calls for a lower carbon pollution price. It should be much higher
This research and similar studies that have come out in the last few years need to be incorporated in to the SCC calculations.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3548274/
CO2, at relevant levels, has a direct negative impact impact on human performance and decision-making. From the conclusion:
"Increases in indoor CO2 concentrations resulting from the injection of ultrapure CO2, with all other factors held constant, were associated with statistically significant and meaningful reductions in decision-making performance. At 1,000 ppm CO2, compared with 600 ppm, performance was significantly diminished on six of nine metrics of decision-making performance. At 2,500 ppm CO2, compared with 600 ppm, performance was significantly reduced in seven of nine metrics of performance, with percentile ranks for some performance metrics decreasing to levels associated with marginal or dysfunctional performance. The direct impacts of CO2 on performance indicated by our findings may be economically important, may disadvantage some individuals, and may limit the extent to which outdoor air supply per person can be reduced in buildings to save energy. Confirmation of these findings is needed."
If this type of research is confirmed, it will likely contribute enormously to any cost-benefit analysis or social-cost-of-carbon calculation.As for the discount rate, it should be low. It is nonsense to have it higher than the government's own cost of borrowing, but even that may be too high. The reasons we have for discounting as individuals do not often translate to intergenerational thinking. I discount because I or my creditor may die tomorrow. Humanity is extremely unlikely to disappear relative to any individual, and thus as a group should discount far less. Additionally, people are just flat out irrational, and that irrationality, while affecting the market rate for debt, should not be reflected in policy.
-
green tortoise at 11:03 AM on 2 March 2017Republican hearing calls for a lower carbon pollution price. It should be much higher
About the discount rate I make the following provocative question:
Given that:
1) the existence of a positive discount rate assumes positive (per capita?) economic growth
2) Climate change is potentially catastrophic and will last for millenia
3) A catastrophe lasting for millenia leads inevitably to a global, permanent recession, i.e. highly negative economic growth,
4) That would not lead to a negative discount rate?
It would not be advisable to use a range of discount rate, from the highly unlikely economic BAU scenario (unlikely because BAU will almost surely lead to economic collapse) to (in the other extreme) a climatic BAU scenario (with global recession and negative discount rate).
I am asking myself this question for a while, the answer should be anywhere in the middle.
-
tmketner at 10:43 AM on 2 March 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
- Stephen Your Response "This is assertion with no evidence. Measurements show O2 and N2 have little effect on IR radiation, while CO2 and H2O do. Models based on physics of CO2 predict a clear effect. You have to understand why they do so, before you can question those assumptions. Warning: those models are based on an enormous body of observations."
“This is assertion with no evidence” How can you say this? CO2 levels are at or near their lowest in Earth’s history. The Current average of 400PPM is well below the 1600PPM average for most of Earth’s history. Plants had to adapt some 30 mm years ago when it fell below 800PPM.
- Stephen your response: Again, assetion without evidence. Annual human emissions of CO2 are in fact on the order of 100x the contribution by volcanic eruptions.
This is now in question due to diffuse CO2. The amount of CO2 released by the Earth alone closer to 1 billion tons per year on average, according to new research. Considering the unknown unknowns, none of the graphs above can be blamed on humans alone. There is much more study that needs to take place, before any definitive answer given. To sell this as “fact” is irresponsible.
When the Earth heats up, the CO2 released from the ocean alone is immeasurable. To blame that on humans is also irresponsible.
I just looked to the left of the comments section and noticed this website is copy written by John Cook… I am out, and will not participate in this topic any longer. It is a known fact that John Cook used less than 2% of his research/data to come up with his hypothesis on global warming. This comes from several sources who peer reviewed his findings.
My last point.
There are 3 reasons you hear CO2 causes climate change/global warming, even from very reputable scientists.
#1 (The evil reason) CO2 is one carbon molecule and 2 oxygen molecules. Everything living on this planet is made of carbon, uses/expels CO2, and/or interacts with it in some way or another. When you control CO2, you literally can control/profit from everything.
#2 (Not so evil) It is the big lie, so people change their ways. Reputable scientists know that people do not react to anything but crisis. Oil will run out someday, and if we have not changed our ways, or at least come up with alternatives, we are hosed. This is why reputable scientists support it, because you can't fund change, when people aren't spending money on it.
#3 (Affect from #1 and #2) If you are a scientist, you are way less likely to get funded from the #1 or #2 proponents, unless you are on the climate change boat. I understand #2. Read up on rivers and lakes so polluted/acidic, you will die within minutes of falling in. The problem with exhorting change based on falsehoods, puts you in the situation we are in, where facts get in the way, and the true focus gets lost.
Moderator Response:[RH] Please read SkS commenting policy. Keep comments directed to the science. This is not the place for conspiracy theories. Accusations of manipulating peer reviewed research deleted.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:09 AM on 2 March 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
tmketner @289, the responses by Stephen Baines and Glenn Tamblynn are excellent, so that I have little to add beyond detail.
"My point is, based on my “lake rolling over” and “tree-line” statements, it is concentrated closer to the surface."
First, as is shown by CO2 measurements at altitude, the "tree-line" evidence is not related evidence at all. Tree-lines are governed by temperatures, not CO2 concentrations.
Second, here are the NH seasonal CO2 concentrations by altitude from Bolin and Bischof (1970):
You will notice the clear intercept points in late May and at the end of September. In the months between those periods, CO2 at moderate altitudes is more concentrated than CO2 near the surface due to the difference in amplitude of the seasonal cycle. (For measured data, see Figure 1, but the same pattern exists)
Here is equivalent data from Foucher et al (2011), but for a higher range of altitudes:
Again, due to the seasonal cycle, at certain times of the year, CO2 concentration is greater at higher altitudes. That is particularly the case given that the 16-18 km altitude band has a seasonal cycle with opposite phase. That is probably because, being above the tropopause, CO2 mixing occurs slowly by diffusion rather than rapidly due to convection. As a result the seasonal cycle is lagged relative to the surface cycle.
The lagged cycle, and diminishing seasonal cycle with altitude in the troposphere, shows that surface emissions and absorptions of CO2, together with rates of mixing dominate the CO2 altitude profile. Relative mass compared to other atmospheric molecules is largely unimportant.
Finally, particular in the NH, and particularly near cities, at very low altitudes there is a high concentration of CO2, but that is because these are locations where CO2 is generated. The opposite would be found over the Antarctic Ocean, where CO2 is absorbed by the ocean surface.
"The levels of CO2 needed to cause the types of changes specified, would have to be much higher."
I point you to the evidence provided by Glenn Tamblynn. More specifically, from the evidence in Schmidt et al (2010), the effect of CO2 on outgoing radiation, as shown by Glenn Tamblyn @293, averages at 31 W/m^2, or 12.1% of the effect of incoming solar radiation. The further effect of doubling CO2 would be and additional 3.7 W/m^2 (before feedbacks), or equivalent to a 1.5% change in incoming solar radiation. That is much more than the observed changes in incoming solar radiation, and from reconstructions, is much more than the difference in solar radiation between the Maunder Minimum and the Grand Solar Maximum of the 20th century.
"The more temperatures keep rising, the more CO2 releases into the atmosphere"
Yes, the higher the temperature, the higher the equilibrium point in pCO2. But anthropogenic CO2 emissions have raised pCO2 far above the pCO2 increase that would be expected from the temperature increase. As I previously noted, that increase would not be above 10 ppmv for the 20th century temperature increase, if we base our estimate on the glacial cycle. Less on other basis. Repeating the claim does not change that fact.
-
scaddenp at 09:50 AM on 2 March 2017Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
Further to Philippe's comment, no one earns a living a "Global warming Scientist". They might earn a living as a climate scientist but suggesting that funding of science would stop if GW went away is nonsensical. We research climate to understand it, just like any other scientist. This a piece of bunkum propogated by people that dont understand science funding. FF companies hire highly competent scientists - they are my clients and colleagues. If you could counter AGW with science research, then why spend money on PR, lobbying and obfuscation?
-
Tom Curtis at 08:56 AM on 2 March 2017Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
DrivingBy @10, not only is there far less land in the Southern Hemisphere (48.7 million km^2) than the Northern Hemisphere (100.2 million km^2), but the Southern Hemisphere has far less Deciduous Forest:
(Source)
That is important because evergreens, which are relatively far more common in the Southern Hemisphere, do not generate a seasonal cycle in CO2.
Further, the stronger NH cycle diffuses across the equator, obliterating the innate SH cycle (to which it is antiphase):
So strong is this effect that it is only from about the latitude of New Zealand that the CO2 cycle in the SH follows its own seasons rather than those of the NH.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:46 AM on 2 March 2017Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
DrivingBy... Pull up any image of the globe. Note that the total land mass above the equator is greater than that below. Reverse with the oceans. Right?
That's why you get that seasonal CO2 cycle. There are some really great videos of the process in action here.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 08:19 AM on 2 March 2017Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
GB @ 13 says "It is rather obvious that if one is making a living as Global Warming Scientist receiving funding, such a person would be a proponent of the issue."
This particular argument is often seen and is complete bunk. It does not even pass the lowest level of scrutiny. Despite armies of lobbyists at the boot of fossil fuel industries making billions in profit every quarter having an interest in demonstrating flaws, no such behavior has been identified as causing any significant bias in research results. Every time that someone looks into the real science from the assumption that it is flawed and the motivations are questionable, they find exactly the same things that others have before them. Even Richard Mueller and Anthony Watts went through this. Watts could barely accept the obvious result of his own paper. People who can barely draw a square trying to reinvent the wheel, and beiung all proud of themselves when they have something round, while all the serious scientists have already moved on.
Then there is the other fact that competing theories are nowhere near the ability to actually compete (cosmic rays come to mind). Furthermore, if one makes a living of studying climate change, the best thing that can happen to perpetuate their source of income is doubt, and the continued need for more studies to keep building up a case. The moment that it all becomes commonly accepted as an undeniable fact, they loose their source of income and have to start working at something else.
I'm not sure if there is a specific thread addressing the dishonesty/financial motivation argument on SkS but it deserves to have one, considering that it is one of the most vacuous out there. It's funny when one considers what happened to the Exxon scientists, who happened to reach similar conclusions as others, even though their financial interest should have steered them toward the denial side. Ironic.
-
DrivingBy at 08:02 AM on 2 March 2017Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
OK, I like this, but I don't get
"Feeding pattern makes the seasonal wobble on CO2 graphs. Up & down, up & down, year in year out. So like a heartbeat."
When it's winter in the Northern Hemisphere (the Greatest Hemisphere, the most Hemi Spherical sphere there's ever been ;-), it's summer in the Southern Hemisphere (Southern anything makes people lazy, this is proof ;-).
Um, anyway, it should be equally winter and summer in wherever locations, ignoring that land mass is unevenly distributed around the globe. So why the seasonal C02 jig-jag?
-
John Hartz at 07:25 AM on 2 March 2017Republican hearing calls for a lower carbon pollution price. It should be much higher
Another aspect of yesterday's hearing is covered in:
Members of Congress met to discuss the costs of climate change. They ended up debating its existence. by Chelsea Harvey, Energy & Environment, Washington Post, Feb 28, 2017
-
John Hartz at 07:22 AM on 2 March 2017Republican hearing calls for a lower carbon pollution price. It should be much higher
For additional details about the social cost of carbon, see:
Q&A: The social cost of carbon, Carbon Brief, Feb 14, 2017
-
Doug Mackie at 04:32 AM on 2 March 2017Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
@8 yes rxn *can* happen. But which process CONTROLS carbon cycle in GREAT America over non-geological time? See Wally Broecker (ldeo) books -
Nick Palmer at 00:31 AM on 2 March 2017Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
I thought I'd see how many of the usual suspects were in it. Interestingly, I didn't find Christy or Peiser in there...
ABDUSSAMATOV, Habibullo Ismailovich
ANDERSON, Charles R
BALL, Tim
BARTLETT, David
BASTARDI, Joseph
BELL, Larry S
BOEHMER-CHRISTIANSEN, Sonja A
BRIGGS William M.
D'ALEO, Joseph S.
DOUGLASS JR.
DYSON, Freeman
EASTERBROOK, Donald J.
EVANS, David M. W.
HAPPER, William
HUMLUM, Ole
IDSO, Craig
LEGATES, David R.
LINDZEN, Richard
MANUEL, Oliver K.
MISKOLCZI, Ferenc Mark
MOCKTON, Christopher
MOORE, Patrick
MORNER, Nils-Axel
MOTL, Lubos
SCHMITT, Harrison H.
SINGER, Fred S.
SOON, Willie
SPENCER, Roy W.
WHITEHEAD, David -
Paul W at 21:19 PM on 1 March 2017Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
@7 http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/gpg/projects/carbon-sequestration
Mg2SiO4 (olivine) + 2 CO2 (from gas or fluid) = 2MgCO3 (magnesite) + SiO2 (quartz)
-
Doug Mackie at 20:02 PM on 1 March 2017Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
@4: Dissolution 1x carbonate rock (weathering) uses 1x CO2 & makes 2x bicarbonate (not carbonate). Weathering = sink CO2. Equatn 4 OA not OK
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 20:01 PM on 1 March 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
tmketner
Next, refering back to one of Tom's earlier posts to Rudmop here.
Here is another graph from the same paper.
To explain the graph. the upper curve is direct observations from a satellite, the lower calculations from theory. The upper curve is shifted up for clarity, they are actually almost identical. Theory matching observations really, really well.
They are measuring the intensity of infrared radiation coming up from the Earth, wavelength by wavelength. The observations were taken by the Nimbus 3 satellite in April 1969
The area under the curve is how much energy is being radiated to space. And as you can see the curve isn't smooth, as we might expect. There arest chunks missing from it. The biggest one, centered at a wavelength of 15 microns, is due to CO2. Predicted by theory and directly observed before Armstrong and Aldrin landed on the moon.So there, directly observed, is the major role of CO2, that gas that makes up only a small part of the atmosphere.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 19:40 PM on 1 March 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
tmketner
Responding to your comment to Tom.
"The levels of CO2 needed to cause the types of changes specified, would have to be much higher" Why? You are making a quantitativestatement but not supplying any numbers for the argument.
The question is this. When a typical photon of IR radiation is emitted from the surface, are there enough CO2 molecules in the air column above it to intercept it before it reaches space? If no, it escapes easily and there is no heat trapping effect. If yes then it is trapped, its energy is added to the atmosphere and it contributes to modifying the climate state.
So there are two key numbers that you need to think about (actually 3).- How many photons are emittet, per seconds from say 1 m2 of surface?
- How many CO2 molecules lie between them and space?
- And the thrid question covers how likely it is that the CO2 molecule will absorb the photon if they meet, and how many times per second a CO2 can do this?
Note that this does not depend on the relative proportion of CO2, its percentage of the atmosphere. So you are focusing on the wrong measure.
So the starting point for thinking about this is how many CO2 molecules are there? Not their proportion.
Pick a patch of ground and picture a square meter of ground area that photons might be emitted from. Now go up 1 meter. Thats 1 cubic meter of air. CO2 is around 400 parts per million of that cubic meter. How many CO2 molecules is that?
8,500,000,000,000,000,000,000
8 1/2 thousand million million million CO2 molecules. And the same in the next cubic meter above it and the next and the next....
So as a starting point, there are huge numbers of CO2 molecules, even though they are only a small percentage of the atmosphere.
That cubic meter contains around 20,760,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of all types.
This is the problem with trying to think in terms of ratios, proportions, percentages etc. Small percentages might seem insignificant but actually it is the absolute magnitude that matters, not the percentages. -
One Planet Only Forever at 15:31 PM on 1 March 2017Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
I like the Death Spiral presentation of the Arctic Sea Ice Mass.
It may be even more effective paired with a regular line graph. The line graph would show how the rate of reduction has noticeably increased since the late 1990s (no statistical evaluation required). The spiral makes it difficult to see that there was only a slight reduction from 1978 to the late 1990s (the first 20 years) compared to the more recent rate of reduction (the most recent 20 years).
The implication is that although the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase has been generally steady some of the impacts on significant aspects of the global climate system are accelerating, even through the period of time that some people still try to claim was a hiatus or stop of the warming of the surface.
-
stephen baines14492 at 14:34 PM on 1 March 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
"My point is, based on my “lake rolling over” and “tree-line” statements, it is concentrated closer to the surface."
The constant mixing ratio to 90km in the atmopshere, provided by Tom, is measured. Your contrary evidence from periodic overturn of meromictic lakes and tree lines is purely circumstantial. You hypothesize a pattern in CO2 from those observations, but the measurements disagree with your predictions, so your hypotheses are wrong. The effect of CO2 emitted by lakes and the location of treelines are easily explained by other hypotheses (lag in mixing, and temperature).
"The levels of CO2 needed to cause the types of changes specified, would have to be much higher. Absorption, molecular structure, and the carbon cycle itself prevents the levels getting high enough to cause a significant change."
This is assertion with no evidence. Measurements show O2 and N2 have little effect on IR radiation, while CO2 and H2O do. Models based on physics of CO2 predict a clear effect. You have to understand why they do so, before you can question those assumptions. Warning: those models are based on an enormous body of observations.
"If you throw in hundreds of volcanic eruptions where the Carbon cycle cannot keep up then maybe, but eventually it will even out."
Again, assetion without evidence. Annual human emissions of CO2 are in fact on the order of 100x the contribution by volcanic eruptions. The carbon cycle can't keep up with that. The increase is measured. The carbon can be attributed to humans using multiple lines of evidence.
"Isn’t it more feasible that the solar minimum/maximum cycles with the maunder minimums that happen control the temperature, which then affect the CO2 levels based on the things already mentioned?"
No. This hypothesis has been addressed and found wanting. Solar inputs are flat or declining since the temperature began increasing in earnest in the 1980s, when CO2 levels began taking off and CO2 effects rose above natural variation. Patterns of warming (night/day, troposphere/ stratosphere) have the fingerprints of warming due to greenhouse gasses. No model can recreate current temperature increases and these fingerprints from natural solar or albedo variations.
At this point. I'm going to stop, because I have barely got through a few paragraphs and addressed all your questions with links to this site that clearly show you are working on false premises and drawing false conclusions. You need to start with the data and work through the resulting theory. I suggest you list your questions and read the relevant posts. Then post questions if you still have them.
Prev 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 Next
