Alert readers will have noticed the fewer-than-normal postings over the last couple of weeks. This is related mostly to pressures associated with real work (remember that we do have day jobs). In my case, it is because of the preparations for the next IPCC assessment and the need for our group to have a functioning and reasonably realistic climate model with which to start the new round of simulations. These all need to be up and running very quickly if we are going to make the early 2010 deadlines.
But, to be frank, there has been another reason. When we started this blog, there was a lot of ground to cover – how climate models worked, the difference between short term noise and long term signal, how the carbon cycle worked, connections between climate change and air quality, aerosol effects, the relevance of paleo-climate, the nature of rapid climate change etc. These things were/are fun to talk about and it was/is easy for us to share our enthusiasm for the science and, more importantly, the scientific process.
However, recently there has been more of a sense that the issues being discussed (in the media or online) have a bit of a groundhog day quality to them. The same nonsense, the same logical fallacies, the same confusions – all seem to be endlessly repeated. The same strawmen are being constructed and demolished as if they were part of a make-work scheme for the building industry attached to the stimulus proposal. Indeed, the enthusiastic recycling of talking points long thought to have been dead and buried has been given a huge boost by the publication of a new book by Ian Plimer who seems to have been collecting them for years. Given the number of simply made–up ‘facts’ in that tome, one soon realises that the concept of an objective reality against which one should measure claims and judge arguments is not something that is universally shared. This is troubling – and although there is certainly a role for some to point out the incoherence of such arguments (which in that case Tim Lambert and Ian Enting are doing very well), it isn’t something that requires much in the way of physical understanding or scientific background. (As an aside this is a good video description of the now-classic Dunning and Kruger papers on how the people who are most wrong are the least able to perceive it).
The Onion had a great piece last week that encapsulates the trajectory of these discussions very well. This will of course be familiar to anyone who has followed a comment thread too far into the weeds, and is one of the main reasons why people with actual, constructive things to add to a discourse get discouraged from wading into wikipedia, blogs or the media. One has to hope that there is the possibility of progress before one engages.
However there is still cause to engage – not out of the hope that the people who make idiotic statements can be educated – but because bystanders deserve to know where better information can be found. Still, it can sometimes be hard to find the enthusiasm. A case in point is a 100+ comment thread criticising my recent book in which it was clear that not a single critic had read a word of it (you can find the thread easily enough if you need to – it’s too stupid to link to). Not only had no-one read it, none of the commenters even seemed to think they needed to – most found it easier to imagine what was contained within and criticise that instead. It is vaguely amusing in a somewhat uncomfortable way.
Communicating with people who won’t open the book, read the blog post or watch the program because they already ‘know’ what must be in it, is tough and probably not worth one’s time. But communication in general is worthwhile and finding ways to get even a few people to turn the page and allow themselves to be engaged by what is actually a fantastic human and scientific story, is something worth a lot of our time.
Along those lines, Randy Olson (a scientist-turned-filmmaker-and-author) has a new book coming out called “Don’t Be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style” which could potentially be a useful addition to that discussion. There is a nice post over at Chris Mooney’s blog here, though read Bob Grumbine’s comments as well. (For those of you unfamiliar the Bob’s name, he was one of the stalwarts of the Usenet sci.environment discussions back in the ‘old’ days, along with Michael Tobis, Eli Rabett and our own William Connolley. He too has his own blog now).
All of this is really just an introduction to these questions: What is it that you feel needs more explaining? What interesting bits of the science would you like to know more about? Is there really anything new under the contrarian sun that needs addressing? Let us know in the comments and we’ll take a look. Thanks.
BobFJ, I’m struggling a bit to relate your numbers to the graphic you link to.
Wait. You aren’t including the warming of the surface by back radiation–a forcing of 324 W/M2. Basically, you are ignoring all greenhouse warming in your calculations, and just considering the direct absorption by the surface. Dude, if you ignore 2/3 of the energy absorbed by the surface, it’s apt to affect your conclusions somewhat. . .
manacker says:
“This would mean that the CO2 concentration then would be around 560 + 140 = 700 ppmv. Still no real big deal.”
700, 1000 whatever. It’s all good.
> Is that okay? I suspect it is.
> _________________________________
> To be continued….
Could you put your huge postings on your own blog and point to them?
Whether you’re writing or quoting, once you’ve filled more than three or four screens you’re just filling up the thread with your passion, which might be more usefully put elsewhere. Linking is good.
“you’re just filling up the thread with your passion”
Gee, and I was afraid my writing was too dry and technical :)
I will try to keep future posts here much more brief.
Clarifications:
current leakage from panels:
“The loss will be proportional to the square of the voltage of the series since the current per unit area is inversely proportional to the number of panels in a series.”
That’s if the individual panels are not changed.
—-
Inter-panel connections: “Some of that length bipasses panels through shunt diodes.”
Oops. that shouldn’t be necessary if shunt diodes connections within panels are sufficient. But there may be some other wiring needs where the whole panel array is connected to batteries, inverters, the building’s wiring and the grid.
—–
k as a wave vector of a plane wave, invariant in x,y,z space for a given electronic state:
“PS the above at least applies to the case where electrons are described by plane waves. In an atom or molecule, electron waves are a bit more complicated, but the same concept of E as a function of the electron wave function still applies.”
Wave functions are more complicated in general – my impression is that the plane wave concept works as an approximation in metals, at least in some cases for some purposes…
—-
“The average velocity over all states in an energy band is zero, which is why a nonzero electric current requires energy bands with at least some occupied states and some unoccupied states.”
…
and for an E(k) function symmertical about k = (0,0,0), the distribution of electrons and holes must have some assymetry if there is to be a nonzero current. There is much more to know…
Gavin,
In your response to my 898 you write:
“no-one has great data on cloud feedbacks (which is why they are still uncertain).”
I like this honest response, Gavin.
I do not like the IPCC model assumption that cloud feedbacks are strongly positive, leading to a 70% increase of the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity from 1.9°C to 3.2°C, especially when there is empirical evidence based on actual physical observations (Spencer et al., Norris) that tell us that the net cloud feedback is strongly negative (about the same order of magnitude as assumed by IPCC models, but in the opposite direction).
This is the dilemma, Gavin.
Max
[Response: Sigh… POSITIVE CLOUD FEEDBACK IS NOT AN ASSUMPTION – IT’S A RESULT! Sorry for shouting, but really, how many times do I need to say this? And with all due respect to Spencer, his analysis (which has yet to be properly published) is not yet convincing – there is a lot of messing around with timescales and metrics which has not been explained and so it is not clear that like is really being compared with like – plus it is only using a few years of data. The overall constraints on total sensitivity have nothing to do with direct cloud measurements – and so how can they be affected by new cloud measurements? The paleo-record simply does not allow for a small to non-existent climate sensitivity. – gavin]
Patrick, sorry, I was cranky and didn’t mean that the way it sounded. Rephrased — this is good information. Good info on specifics like this in threads on other topics often is hard to find later, and when it’s in various responses it’s often hard to even know which bits are part of the set. If you are keeping it all together somewhere else please include a pointer; if not it’d be a kindness for those of us who need to reread sometimes months later and have trouble finding all the bits.
In re Hank @ 903:
I’m also unsure of the relevance to the discussion. Okay, nice details on how PV works. “How PV works” isn’t the same as “How solar power systems work” in terms of climate effects. Right now I’m on Day #2 of “It Also Rains In Texas” (“Or how my solar power system hates it when it is cloudy”). TXU Energy is still having to provide me power, regardless of how PV works at an atomic / junction level.
[Response: Careful w/ the use of “PV”–many of our meteorologist readers will think you’re talking about “Potential Vorticity”! Similar to the problem w/ “PDF” (a distribution? or a file type?). – mike]
Patrick 027,
You seem to be attempting to calculate energy payback time for solar panels from first principles. You will not be able to do that. You need manufacturer input. Here is an example where manufacturer data has been used. Payback times are 1.7 to 2.7 years in Southern Europe, probably improved by now.
http://www.nrel.gov/pv/thin_film/docs/lce2006.pdf
Chris Dudley
Thanks for the very interesting RMI report (878) on the long-term viability of large nuclear power stations versus smaller localized units. There is a lot of good information there (under the motto “small is beautiful”, which I can fully endorse, based on personal experience).
The argument is made that large central power stations are less efficient than smaller local plants, called “micropower” and defined as “distributed turbines and generators in factories or buildings (usually cogenerating useful heat) and all renewable sources” (except hydroelectric plants exceeding 10 MW).
Figure 5 shows how these sources have grown since 2000 and how they are projected to grow until 2010.
Nuclear shows a 2000-2010 growth of around 800 TWh/year (from 2,000 to 2,800), while wind grows from ~0 to around 300 TWh/year and solar from ~0 to maybe around 50 TWh/year.
So the %-age growth of renewables is high, but the net increase in generation in TWh/year is less than half that of nuclear plants.
The largest growth comes in the category of non-biomass (i.e. conventional fuel-fired) decentralized turbines and generators with cogeneration, from around 2,000 to 4,000 TWh/year, such as those built in chemical plants and refineries, where thermal energy from steam can be used to improve the overall thermal efficiency.
So it is not wind and solar (or bio-mass) that is taking over a significant percentage of total power generation, but rather the decentralized conventional “micropower” units.
It appears that on a localized basis, photovoltaic plants can make sense (domestic use, for example, where the backup power source is provided by the grid). The same can be true for wind generation. But the major problem that these sources have as a general, larger-scale power generation source is that they require some sort of backup to cover the significant periods when there is no sun or no wind.
This is why the RMI projections do not project a major portion of the total power to be supplied by these sources.
If we want to shut down coal plants to reduce CO2 emissions, we will need to replace them with something else. Conventional “micropower” cogeneration plants also generate CO2 (possibly a bit less per MWh generated, due to the higher thermal efficiency if cogeneration is included).
But it will not be wind or solar on such a large scale. And I’m betting that at least a major portion of the “non-CO2 generating” replacement plants will have to be nuclear, as the figures in the RMI report show (despite the rather negative rhetoric on nuclear generation).
But, thanks anyway, for the link to a very interesting article.
Max
The paleo-record simply does not allow for a small to non-existent climate sensitivity.
This should be turned into a (rather long-winded) bumper sticker. If clouds are a negative forcing, how did we get out of the last glacial period? Milankovich forcings are an order of magnitude smaller than CO2. If clouds mitigate against warming, the Earth would have simply stayed ice-bound.
> If clouds mitigate against warming, the Earth would have simply stayed ice-bound.
Bingo… or would never have frozen over in the first place. Clouds would then also mitigate against cooling!
Gavin,
I will, of course, excuse your shouting in your comment to 905 on cloud feedbacks.
But I will still insist that IPCC models have assumed a strongly positive feedback leading to an increase of the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity from 1.9 to 3.2C, while empirical data based on subsequent actual physical observations indicate that the net feedback from clouds is likely to be strongly negative instead, at about the same order of magnitude, but with an opposite sign. This is not only based on Spencer et al. It is confirmed by Norris. Your rationalization of Spencer “messing around with timescales and metrics which has not been explained” is simply an attempt to discredit the physically observed data in order to defend the hypothesis (see earlier posts on this).
And even the modelers tell us that by introducing superparameterization for determining cloud feedbacks in models we end up with strongly negative feedbacks, rather than the strongly positive feedbacks as assumed by all the IPCC climate models.
A true dilemma, Gavin, because it has such a major impact on the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity.
And this dilemma was already pointed out much earlier by Ramanathan and Inamdar when they lamented that there were no actual physical observations to check the model assumptions and that they were not sure whether the net cloud feedback was positive or negative.
If the feedback is truly strongly negative as observed by the physical observations of Spencer and Norris (and confirmed by model studies using superparameterization), then the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity is probably closer to 0.5 to 0.8C rather than 3.2C, and this would be a major change.
[Response: You just don’t get it. Climate sensitivity cannot be this low because of the paleo-climate constraints – or even the impacts of Mt. Pinatubo. Therefore it is highly unlikely that cloud feedback is strongly negative. And your reliance on unpublished work by Spencer indicates, let us say, a rather over-eager jump to conclusions. As for super-parameterisations we are a very long way from the final word on those – they still do not resolve the scales for marine stratus clouds which remain the big uncertainty in cloud modelling. You want to bet the farm on that? Curious. -gavin]
In effect, it would confirm that there is no evidence supporting the premise that AGW is a potential serious threat. Instead it would confirm that it is only a minor factor (that may actually prove to be beneficial to mankind rather than harmful).
[Response: How warm was it in the last interglacial? How much higher was sea level? And you still think there is no evidence of a potentially serious threat? Get real. – gavin]
So you see that the unresolved dilemma is crucial.
Max
Jim Bouldin, re that very recent paper (this one)
Global Biogeochem. Cycles 23: GB2023, doi:10.1029/2008GB003327.
http://65.216.151.13/pubs/crossref/2009/2008GB003327.shtml
(assuming you have access to the full doc)
they’re talking about how much organic carbon is _under_ each surface square meter — “including deeper layers and pools not accounted for in previous analyses” — and going down about a meter then estimating what’s below that. And while there’s a lot of ice there, there’s also an awful lot of organic material.
Are your tree numbers figuring total carbon the same way, per square meter (so including all that shaded fairly open ground in between those big trees)?
Gavin, Reur comments attached to my 893:
Sorry, but there is a typo in my paragraph listing:
(a), (a), (b), (c), (d) whereas it should be;
(a), (b), (c), (d), (e)
In response to my following point;
(c) If there is increased E-T, surely, it follows that there will be a further negative effect on surface temperature.
You responded (?);
c) No. It depends on what happens to water vapor and clouds.
Perhaps I should rephrase it;
If there is increased E-T, surely, it follows that there will be a further negative effect on surface temperature, as a consequence of that HEAT transfer process alone.
BTW, the thermal consequences of water vapour and clouds that you mention are different processes, which do not alter the fact of surface cooling from E-T alone.
[Response: Who is disputing that E-T cools the surface? However if E-T is simply reacting to warmer temperatures then it doesn’t ‘further’ cool the surface, it’s simply a response to warmer SST. If you are positing it is changing because of an increase in wind speed, then that could cool temps, but why would the winds be changing? – gavin]
Re 908 – actually, just the material requirements – regarding energy payback, I had tried a rough ballpark guesstimate a few years ago and came up with something on the order of magnitude of what I’ve read (PS in my very rough guesstimate I actually assumed mining from common rock based on a logarithmic formula for energy of Cu extraction from ore as a function of ore grade), but certainly that could have been coincidence – you have to know all the manufacturing steps, mining, transportation of materials, etc. (and decide whether to include the energy use per person of people employed by the industries). Ideally, the market would calculate fossil carbon emissions payback if a carbon tax were implemented… But thank you for the link.
Kevin McKinney 901:
It is easy to struggle with the IPPC (Kevin Trenberth) graphic because it includes a rather crude illustration of the greenhouse effect.
Try this easier NASA version that just deals with the net energy budget
http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/images/Erb/components_erb.gif
Summarising the IPCC numbers, the surface absorbs 168 units of insolation which for equilibrium must via four primary processes all be ultimately lost back out to space as long-wave EMR. Thus;
EMR absorbed by atmosphere; 168/(350-324)*100 = 15.5%
EMR directly to space; 40/168*100 = 23.8%
E-T (Evapo-transpiration); 78/168*100 = 46.4%
Thermals, (convection & conduction); 24/168*100 = 14.3%
Bob, I never struggled with the graphic, just with your numbers! And I’m no longer struggling with those, because when I realized that you were considering only the direct solar absorption by the surface, they (mostly) made a kind of sense.
However, you seem still to be struggling: it’s not just the direct absorption of EMR that warms the surface. It’s also the back radiation from the atmosphere. Without that, we’d have quasi-Lunar temps.
To put it another way, your analysis is way wrong because you are not accounting for all energy inputs and outputs. In terms of your numbers, the confusion probably shows up most clearly in your figures for the EMR absorbed by the atmosphere. You give 168/(350-324)*100 (which, by the by, is not 15.5%, but 14,200%!). However, the direct absorption by the atmosphere is given in the figure as 87 W/M2. This would be a tad over 50%.
But don’t forget that the energy of those thermals & E-T you mention are also “absorbed by the atmosphere,” as is some (unspecified) portion of the 350 W/M2 emitted by the surface. (This part is absorbed very efficiently, since it has been “thermalised,” as they used to say. Classic Tyndall.) So there is a lot of “indirect absorption” of energy, in addition to the direct absorption of incoming ER.
But rather a lot of that energy–324 W/M2 in the graphic–goes right back to the surface again, warming it further, which–let me say it again–is the bit you seem to be missing.
The surface budget balances like this: 168 (solar ER) + 324 (atmospheric ER, AKA “back radiation”)=24 (thermals) + 78 (E-T) + 390 (surface radiation)=492.
The TOA budget balances like this: 342 (solar ER)=235 (LW ER) + 107 (reflected solar).
You’re mixing elements of both, and not including everything–the old “apples and oranges” problem.
See if this updated (larger copy) Trenberth image helps, hat tip to:
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/an-update-to-kiehl-and-trenberth-1997/
http://chriscolose.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/kiehl4.jpg?w=480&h=350
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/10.1175_2008BAMS2634.1.pdf
Ah, and here’s the final published paper, further hat tip to the comments thread at Chris Colose’s blog:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/10.1175_2008BAMS2634.1.pdf
Patrick 027 (#915),
One of the main things that goes into reduced energy payback time is reduced use of materials for the same generating efficiency. However copper does not come into the picture all that much except for a couple of thin film technologies.
Gavin, on my 896 response to Bart Verheggen 885, you responded to me thus concerning increasing E-T as a consequence of global warming:
I think at “best” you could say that my intuition on the relative importance of side issues (that I have previously mentioned) to that of the fundamental process of E-T (HEAT loss from the surface), is controversial, or maybe suspect, but not WRONG, unless you have some data to back your assertion up. Bart has suggested, opposite to my view, that the secondary issues are indeed major, but does not offer any qualification either.
Furthermore, here is my original statement WITH my briefly stated CAVEATS:
(4) Thus, putting aside a few relatively trivial complications, SUCH AS regional weather, and especially rainfall variations, if there is an INCREASE in water content in the atmosphere, it follows that it would have to be because of INCREASED E-T.
I guess you [Bart] are making an intuitive statement that conflicts with my intuitive proposal. Would that be correct?
Also, Remy 893, I asked of you
(b) Do you agree that if the water content (vapour and clouds) in the atmosphere increases, then the fundamental source would be E-T. (putting aside a few complications that I and Bart Verheggen have mentioned)
You responded thus:
[Response: … b) of course, …gavin]
If your opinion on this has changed since then, do you have any back-up explanations, such as data?
Kevin McKinney 917:
Here is a quickie partial response:
Did you look at the easier NASA graphic, that I linked to, that is sprayed all over the blogosphere?
(and there are other versions that are somewhat similar)
Are you claiming that e.g. the NASA graphic is wrong in any way?
You make no comment on it. Why not?
BTW, I’m not asserting that any of the numbers in the various sources, including Hank’s 918 new link to an update, are correct, my argument is more about understanding the processes involved based on the IPCC declared values and they being their stated splits in the energy budget. (regardless of their numerical accuracy)
I’ll get back to you on your other stuff when I have time.
Oh, but, BTW quickie #2, the NET of +350 plus -324 is 26!
Oh, and BTW quickie # 3, whoops, SORRY, I typed the maths formulae the wrong way around, or inverted in the case of ‘EMR absorbed by the atmosphere‘. {it should be (350-324)/168, not 168/(350-324) as typed.}
You might have noticed that the stated product when added to the other three, which were not mathematically inverted in error, summed to 100%, as pasted below:
EMR absorbed by atmosphere; 168/(350-324)*100[wrong] = 15.5%[correct]
EMR directly to space; 40/168*100 = 23.8%
E-T (Evapo-transpiration); 78/168*100 = 46.4%
Thermals, (convection & conduction); 24/168*100 = 14.3%
Gavin,
Thanks for your reply to my post #912, in which I pointed out that recent studies based on the empirical evidence of actual physical observations showed that the net feedback from clouds is strongly negative, rather than strongly positive as assumed in all the climate models cited by IPCC.
You are, in effect, telling me that the physical observations of today cannot be right because they are not confirmed by paleo-climate studies. Something is basically flawed with this conclusion, Gavin, as I am sure you will be able to see.
In addition, you make a point of the fact that the work of Spencer is as yet “unpublished”, a weak point scientifically, because it has, in fact, been put out there for one and all to see. The same is true of the independent study of Norris, which has come to the same conclusion.
You then attempt to discount the model studies using superparameterization, which also showed strongly negative net feedback from clouds, with a claim that these “still do not resolve the scales for marine stratus clouds which remain the big uncertainty in cloud modelling.” While I do recognize that you are an expert on modeling, I find this a rather “off the top of the head” discounting of a study that happens to conclude something with which you do not agree.
Jumping to conclusions is always a dangerous thing to do, I agree. But I believe that empirical evidence based on actual physical observations is much more meaningful than paleo-climate reconstructions or (even more so) model studies, and this evidence seems to be pointing toward a strongly negative net feedback from clouds, possibly solving the dilemma of Ramanathan and Inamdar and clearing up IPCC’s “largest source of uncertainty”.
Just my thoughts, Gavin, but you are the modeling expert.
Your final point with dire warnings of a potentially serious threat by conjuring up the specter of sea level conditions during the last interglacial misses the point. If cloud feedbacks are strongly negative as the empirical evidence seems to indicate, we will not have the conditions of the last interglacial due to the few hundred ppmv of anthropogenic CO2, so conjuring up this specter is actually meaningless.
Max
[Response: This is getting a little tedious. But once more with feeling… Measurements today are not the problem. But measurements need to be interpreted and fitted into a theory and explanation in order to be used for estimating a climate sensitivity. Since those interpetations and theory need to be quite sophisticated there is a big difference between someone plotting a figure and publishing all the details. As it stands no-one has any clue what Spencer did to get his numbers – are they annual means, daily means, tropics or global, ocean-only? If you think that is all irrelevant and that everything Spencer does must just be peachy then your ‘skeptical’ sense has failed you. And if you think superparameterisations are a mature field, you are in cloud-resolved cuckoo land. If the planet is immune to forcing from CO2, it is immune from forcings of everything else. It isn’t, so it can’t be. You don’t understand this and so this conversation is pretty much pointless. – gavin]
Chris Dudley
You appear to be concerned about energy content of products, improved energy efficiency, alternate energy sources, etc.
Several years ago (following the first big “energy crisis” in the 1970s) a high-level visionary in a very large (and successful) chemical company came up with the idea of not only doing the standard cost accounting of all products, but also to introduce “BTU accounting”, whereby the total energy content of each product was calculated and reported monthly.
The idea at the time was (of course) not to reduce CO2 emissions, but to reduce the energy content of products by concentrating on improving the energy efficiency of the processes producing these products. The pressure was put on plant managers to reduce the BTU content of their products. Plants with higher unit BTU efficiency as well as those that had made major reductions in their unit BTU content, were given awards.
This was a strategic decision, not so much driven by standard cost reduction principles, but by the principle of reducing the wasting of energy, a basic resource that is limited.
Maybe it took the “wake-up call” from OPEC and the oil crisis of the time to kick this off (because unlimited crude oil at $5 per barrel was suddenly no longer a reality).
This visionary has long since retired and died, but the practice is still being followed there, I am told.
Max
Max writes:
Smart wide-area grids can average out the variability of wind and solar power sources. We need to replace our grids anyway; we should simply make sure all the new grid hardware is advance in the way required.
BTW, photovoltaic isn’t the only kind of solar power. Solar thermal power plants store excess heat acquired during the day in molten salts, and use that energy to run the turbines at night and when it’s cloudy. Some solar thermal plants achieve nearly 24/7 operation this way, in many cases just as good as coal-fired plants.
Hank, thanks for those links.
I’m reminded once again of just how hollow a canard it is to claim, as do a number of denialists with whom I interact semi-regularly, that it’s all “just models,” as if there weren’t mountains of actual data that need to be painstakingly assessed, collated and interpreted. The amount of sheer drudge work involved in a paper such as the present one is quite impressive.
Barton Paul Levenson
Reur 924
Agree with you that solar power has a future. But so far it does not look like this includes large scale power generation other than mostly domestic use (backed by the power grid).
Chris Dudley (878) cited a very interesting report by the Rocky Mountain Institute comparing various types of energy sources. This report is worth reading.
The article was basically biased against large nuclear power stations with the title: “Nuclear Power: Climate Fix or Folly?” and the theme “smaller is better”, plus some verbiage touting both solar and wind generation.
But the forecast shown in Figure 5 (2000 – 2007 actual, 2008 – 2010 forecast) showed that wind would only cover a very small part of the growth and photovoltaic an even smaller part. Together they would cover less than half of the growth from nuclear generation. Non-photovoltaic solar thermal was not even shown.
The largest growth comes from what the RMI report called “micropower”: smaller decentralized non-biomass (i.e. mostly gas-fired) stations mostly with cogeneration (i.e. using the waste energy from the low-pressure steam).
These plants generates CO2, of course, but due to the fact that they are gas-fired (rather than coal) and that they have a higher overall thermal efficiency (due to the cogeneration) the CO2 would be less than with a normal coal-fired plant.
But, hey, if solar power really can compete on its own long-term (without a bunch of taxpayer-funded subsidies), it will undoubtedly do so.
Max
Gavin
Thanks for your comment. I am eagerly awaiting the new model outputs that incorporate the findings of the observations made by Spencer and independently by Norris, both of which point to a negative net feedback from clouds. As Ramanathan and Inamdar lamented, “The few results we have on the role of cloud feedback in climate change is mostly from GCMs. Their treatment of clouds is so rudimentary that we need an observational basis to check the model conclusions.” The data from Spencer et al. and Norris should help to provide this lacking observational basis to check the model conclusions.
As you point out, superparameterization is still in its infancy, but I am also looking forward to the first model outputs that replace the current crude approximations on clouds with something better, such as superparameterization.
Will all these improved result in model outputs show a net negative feedback from clouds?
I guess we’ll have to wait and see (despite any paleo-climate studies that may speak against it).
But, as a rational skeptic, I’ll still place my bets first on actual physical observations, second on paleo-climate reconstructions and third on model outputs, which, in themselves, provide no empirical evidence as they are only as good as the assumptions made.
And I do agree with you that carrying on this conversation any further at this time “is pretty much pointless”.
Max
“But, as a rational skeptic,”
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. [moderator – some of our readers may not get the reference]
Hi Hank (913), thanks for asking.
Tarnocai et al made estimates for a number of different depths. The number I cited relative to atmospheric GHG increase potential (over 1000 Petagrams) was for the top 3 meters from the entire permafrost region (16% of global soil area). The per meter values that I compared to S-N old growth were from the top meter only of peat soils (gelisols) and histosols, which have the highest carbon contents in the permafrost zone. (Tarnocai et al. estimate that such soils comprise about 19% of the all permafrost soils, or about 3% of global.) If I were to include their numbers down to 3 meters depth, the cited 32 to 70 kg m^-1 value would increase to 150 to 200 kg m^-1 (1500 to 2000 tonnes/ha; Tarnocai et al’s Table 5)). Furthermore, these numbers are almost certainly under-estimates of total, because as they note, there’s no observable dropoff in [C] at the 3m level. These are absolutely ENORMOUS numbers, exceeding total (above and below ground) carbon storage almost anywhere known.
Per area estimates of forests or any other vegetation are figured the same way, so they include all open spaces (and keep in mind that the forests I cited are anything but open–they’re very dense now in most cases, due to fire suppression). The essential difference is that although the forest is much thicker in the vertical, the permafrost soil is much denser per cubic meter.
manacker concludes after all this:
“But, as a rational skeptic, I’ll still place my bets first on actual physical observations, second on paleo-climate reconstructions and third on model outputs, which, in themselves, provide no empirical evidence as they are only as good as the assumptions made.”
A “rational” skeptic would respond to, or in some way acknowledge and try to learn from, the counter-arguments made by professionals in the field. Instead, you’ve offered nothing here but a series of repeated assertions and falsehoods about climate models, climate data, and the carbon cycle. You don’t appear to understand the nature of the relationship between models and data, and have made false statements regarding the relationship between CO2 and radiative forcing, a relationship well constrained by both paleoclimatic and model output results. Instead you prefer to believe unpublished data from a known skeptic, fitted within the framework of your own prioritization of what constitutes legitimate evidence. You have also made outrageously false errors of omission and commission regarding the carbon cycle and the likely future time course of atmospheric carbon dioxide (the lack of time preventing me from responding to). All of which shows that Peter Martin’s assessment of you, above, is correct.
Thanks Jim Bouldin.
Do you know any good summary of what became of the carbon from the atmosphere that shows up in the paleo documents (around 2000 ppm over the time span 100-200 million years ago; around 5000 ppm over the time span 400-500 million years ago).
I know the the evolution of deep ocean plankton and shallow water reef- and shell-building organisms changed biogeochemical cycling, but not in detail. (And yes, when I get home next time I will look it up, I bought a text to try to get better educated on this on my own too)
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/thumb/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png/350px-Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
assertion
Mr Roberts:
“Do you know any good summary of what became of the carbon from the atmosphere that shows up in the paleo documents (around 2000 ppm over the time span 100-200 million years ago; around 5000 ppm over the time span 400-500 million years ago).”
No. But I would look at mountain building and concommittant weathering in those periods.
400-500 Mya: Early Appalachian, Taconic, Caledonian
100-200Mya: Nevada, Sevier, Java, Rajmahal
Max – “But, hey, if solar power really can compete on its own long-term (without a bunch of taxpayer-funded subsidies), it will undoubtedly do so.”
I couldn’t possibly keep up with all the back-and-forth here and still produce any contributions of real value, but I’ve browsed a sampling of your points and – this may not matter to you at all, but:
Are you against an emissions tax, or an analogous cap-and-trade (and don’t tell me yes, because of China and India – promoters of tax/caps – well, at leat this one – are quite aware that there are trade issues (see Ike Solem’s comment about feed-in-tariffs above for an example) and that CO2 spreads – nonetheless China will have to produce ~ 4 times the CO2 that the U.S. produces before we would have a ‘right’ to complain (assuming equal standards of living and … etc, aside from migration and third parties in trade), and even then not quite because of past emissions – point being, the U.S. is in a position to lead (we can make China produce 4 times the CO2 of the U.S. by cutting U.S. emissions), and we should not give the rest of the world the bird as in some years past)? If you are against that, than subsidies make sense as an alternative to correct for the externality. If you don’t want subsidies, try taxes or caps.
But even with a tax justified by perfect market principles, an initial subsidy may make sense because supply-demand curves can have kinks (mass market advantages).
Hank (931): other than a vague hand waving about the rise of a significant vegetation component about 400 mya, that’s out of my league. Numerous long term interactions, including the geologic sinks mentioned by sidd.
Here’s something of an answer: coccolithophores evolved, and they changed the world climate around 220 million years ago:
http://www.sb-roscoff.fr/Phyto/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=338.
Origin and Evolution of Coccolithophores: From Coastal
Hunters to Oceanic Farmers
—-excerpt follows—-
“… In the Cretaceous, when they started proliferating in the open oceans, the coccolithophores
were responsible for switching the major site of global carbonate deposition from shallow seas to the deep ocean for the first time in the history of the Earth (Hay 2004), thus revolutionizing the regulation of ocean carbon chemistry (Ridgwell and Zeebe 2005). Since this time, coccoliths have been the prime con-
tributors to the kilometers-thick accumulation of calcareous ooze covering ∼35% of the ocean floor. This carbonate deposit is one of the main stabilizing components of the Earth system via the mechanism of carbonate compensation (Broecker and Peng 1987); its fate is eventually to be subducted into the mantle of the Earth, thus depleting carbon from its surface for millions of years.
Overall, the evolutionary and ecological success of coccolithophores for the last 220 Ma have literally transformed the fate of inorganic and organic carbon in the Earth system ….
…
… Over the last years, several studies have demonstrated the rapid impact of rising anthropogenic CO2 on the carbonate system in the oceans. The surface ocean is acting as a sink for CO2 (Sabine et al. 2004), where the water pH and concentration of CO2− ions are predicted to drop by respectively 0.4 units and 50% by the end of this century.
Carbonate is thermodynamically less stable under such conditions. In addition, Orr and collaborators have recently predicted, using a range of models of the ocean-carbon cycle an imminent and dramatic shoaling of the carbonate compensation depth (Figure 1) by several hundreds, if not thousands, of meters (Orr et al. 2005). Surface waters at high latitudes will become undersaturated with respect to aragonite within decades, and calcite undersaturation will only lag that of aragonite by 50 to 100 years, which may lead to massive extinction of pelagic calcifiers, including the Calcihaptophycidae.
…
… their biomineralization was originally
selected in a high CO2, low pH, aragonite ocean (Figure 5), whose conditions may actually resemble the future Anthropogenic world after 2100. They radiated into an astounding morphological diversity of highly productive species in the Cretaceous Calcite II Ocean, which was relatively acidic under a high CO2 atmosphere (Figure 5). And they were bigger than ever, producing thicker and large coccoliths across the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (probably the best geologic analogue for future global change), when a massive increase in atmospheric CO2 over a 10,000-year period caused rapid CaCO3 dissolution at the seafloor ….
—-end excerpt—-
Gavin, Reur comments attached to my 914 concerning evapo-transpiration:
E-T or the rates thereof can be the variable consequence of many things such as atmospheric pressure and humidity and has a wide range of temporal and spatial variation. However, regardless of the drivers, such as SST and advection that you mention, there IS a cooling effect because of the process of E-T taken alone. (as in any phase-change from liquid to gas).
This can be explained at the quantum level;
At any given temperature, water contains a bell-curve distribution of molecules of low to higher energy levels. The higher kinetic energy molecules are better able to escape into the “lower potential” air than the lower energy molecules. Thus, the ratio of low energy molecules increases, and the temperature (heat content) of the water drops.
This is a FACTUAL consequence of evaporation, regardless of any of the many amb ient conditions that can promote it.
Thus, if the current E-T HEAT loss from the surface is ~46% of the terrestrial budget, and E-T were to increase by say 1%, then there would be an increased cooling effect of the order of 0.46% as a consequence of E-T alone.
What the net thermal global outcomes might be when added to that of increased water vapour and clouds from GW, etc, is something else, and cannot be scientifically used to deny the cooling effect of E-T
[Response: Who are you arguing with? You started off claiming that E-T was a neglected feedback. I pointed out that it wasn’t a feedback. You came back with the fact it is an important energy flux. I agree. Time to move on, no? – gavin]
On rock formation, here’s an image and link that may show a change around the time the coccolithophores evolved, tho’ I’m just eyeballing and speculating:
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/carbon_cycle/image003.gif
“… the concentration of CO2 has varied over a large range in our atmosphere in the geologic past. When volcanic activity is high the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is also high due to the release of CO2 from volcanoes into the atmosphere. Large, single volcanic eruptions today have much less effect …. CO2 concentrations have been limited over geologic time to a range of about 200 – 6000 ppm in the atmosphere due to weathering of rocks and the formation of carbonate minerals…. Once in the oceans the calcium and bicarbonate are combined by organisms to form calcium carbonate, the mineral that is found in shells. This calcium carbonate mineral is buried in the sediments, where eventually it comes under great temperature and pressure ….”
— that’s from:
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/carbon_cycle/carbon_cycle_new.html
Well, pursuing _that_ took me immediately into petroleum geology; there’s a huge literature on how sedimentary basins full of biological material form and fill and eventually get capped by different materials. I wonder if Peter Ward’s looked at that.
One sample to perhaps catch the attention of someone who knows more:
Marine and Petroleum Geology
Volume 25, Issue 8, September 2008, Pages 778-790
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2008.02.004
The relationship between petroleum, exotic cements and reservoir quality in carbonates – A review
“… Here we present and discuss petrographic and fluid inclusion data from a number of petroleum systems. These have had different geological histories but a common factor is the presence of exotic mineral cements and late stage dissolution….”
Sounds like this occurs either when some of the aragonite dissolves or when some outside event washes in a lot of different minerals. Hmmmm ….
Still no totals for coal/petroleum versus carbonate; I think the distinction would use the terms “organic” versus “inorganic” carbon. Onward …
Gavin — You certainly have been extraordinarily patient with Max Anacker (who seems to having a learning disability).
#926 Manacker:
“Non-photovoltaic solar thermal was not even shown.”
A major oversight.
I recently constructed a solar hot water panel constructed mostly of mud (well, mortar, but it looks like mud and has basically the same thermal transfer properties; mud would do as well) and a modest quantity of tubing.
Roughly, the result is about 70% efficient in full sunlight, will still raise the temperature of water to over 90 fahrenheit on a cloudy day. If we don’t succumb to neurosis by insisting on achieving our finish temperature 100% via solar we can get most of the heat we need into the water from sunlight from something like this, even on a cloudy day, virtually all of it when sunny.
We struggle to obtain 20% efficiency with PV panels, incidentally mushrooming the price as part of that misguided improvement.
The size of panel I made yields about 750 watts of effective power in sunlight, a bit over 200 under cloud. The cost of the materials for this monstrosity once cased up was less than $200 at retail prices for the materials. Add in low-skilled labor to do the work and the cost to build these things works about to 1/5th the price of equivalent PV output.
See “drainback collector” for remaining details, which involve plumbing parts that are far cheaper and unfortunately boring than an off-grid or gridtie PV system.
Knowing all this, where should we spend our first dimes on solar power? PV or heating water?
Domestic hot water represents about 20% of residential consumption, a huge bunch of low-hanging fruit to pluck from our energy budget. But we don’t choose to do that.
Solar hot water is technologically so old, so deadly dull that it is as exciting as dirt and deeply uninteresting to business-minded geeks and investors looking to capture markets with proprietary inventions. Aside from hobbyists and their similarly affected perfectionist vendors we’re not doing a thing to capture this low grade heat and use it here in the U.S. The hobbyists– driven by perfectionism– have pushed solar hot water vendors to compete on efficiency where mere existence with the crudest materials would get 80% of the return we need. We thus are making solar hot water unaffordable to purchase for the person who just wants hot water out of the tap and can’t contort their way to justifying a 10 or 15 year payback.
A total breakdown in pragmatism, and an example of how the market can fail us.
Meanwhile, taxation distortion certainly does not help. It just helps keep prices high for people who don’t itemize or have sufficient income for writeoffs.
Max,
Concerning peer reviewed publications of Andrew Dessler…. Water vapour positive feedback, and Roy Spencer; significant negative feedback clouds, I have the following info:
Dessler, Zhang and Yang:
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L20704, Received 13 July 2008; revised 16 September 2008; accepted 19 September 2008; published 23 October 2008.
Spencer, Braswell, Christy, and Hnilo:
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L15707,
Received 15 February 2007; revised 30 March 2007; accepted 16 July 2007; published 9 August 2007.
Is there something new, more significant, and unpublished by Roy Spencer?
Somewhat related to a sub-discussion topic here is “Tropical Rainfall Moving North”:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/090701-tropical-rain-moving-north.html
demonstrating the mobility of the ITCZ.
[reCAPTCHA pipes in with “roaster wreathe”., misplacing the final “r” in weather.]
Doug Bostrom, your mud and pipe water heater sounds nifty. You’re probably correct, though, when you say it’s not high-tech futuristic sexy enough to attract capital. Plus you would get overwhelming pushback from the populace when you explain every roof in the US needs one, and no more 120 degree water — good idea not withstanding.
Re 938 Doug Bostrom – I like the idea of solar hot water (and skylights, especially with a screen that reflects UV and solar IR in summer (or converts them to electricity or hot water)), and agree that it makes perfect sense to use solar and/or low temperature waste heat to preheat to reduce energy input.
What do you think about hybrid systems? It would be hard to convert low temperature heat into much electricity, but a 15 % efficient solar panel could sit on top of a water heating panel – cooling by water would increase solar panel efficiency (at least for most PV (photovoltaic, not potential vortcity) technologies), and some fraction (not sure how much) of the 85 % of solar energy converted to heat (assuming zero albedo) could be used for heat.
—
Hank Roberts – about the Coccolithophores, I’m curious about the pH over geologic time – I would assume long-term pH changes per unit atmospheric CO2 change would be much less severe because of the time allowed for buffering by increased dissolved CaCO3 and Ca, Mg, etc ions held in the water from millenia of chemical weathering.
David,
I agree, up to a point, with you. I just don’t know how Gavin does manage to be so patient with climate sceptics. However, it’s not so much that they have learning disabilities. I’ve known very competent people, in their own right, who believe in ‘Young Earth Creationism’ and therefore reject the fossil record. Unfortunately, it does seem that religion and politics can trump scientific considerations every time.
It’s not just confined to what I would term the political right either. The left are just as much at fault too, but maybe not quite so bad as they used to be, in their evaluation of the safety record of the nuclear power industry.
No source of energy is intrinsically safe. Just this week multiple deaths were caused in Italy after a natural gas explosion. Millions die annually in the USA alone due to particulate pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
No-one died at Three Mile Island which is pretty much the worse case scenario for a well designed nuclear power plant.
According to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
the French, who are 80% nuclear, emit less than 1/3 of the CO2, on a per capita basis, as Americans , or Australians.
It would be good if everyone could put aside their politics and look at the science dispassionately, but that’s contrary to human psychology it seems.
Rod B:
I know 120 degree water isn’t too attractive. When I rented a house in Village Homes (Davis, California) back in 1980, the solar water system was a breadbox on the roof, with the water storage in the attic. Hot water on summer afternoons, but lukewarm water for a morning shower.
So when I built my home here 27 years ago, I installed an active system. Sensors determine when the solar panels are warmer than the water stored in a large tank in the garage, and water then is circulated through the panels. From October to April, this pre-warms the water going to a small gas water heater.
But from April to October, we turn off the gas water heater and depend entirely upon the solar system. The water is so hot in the summer that we have a mixing valve to cool the water in the house to a safe temperature. The only natural gas we use is for cooking.
Also, due to lots of insulation and normally cool nighttime temperatures, we have no air conditioning. It was 110 last Sunday, but the house stayed cool all day.
It may just be some localities that can benefit from natural heating and cooling, but here in the Central Valley millions of homes and offices could be retrofitted to do so, saving lots of energy.
#941 Rod B:
“Plus you would get overwhelming pushback from the populace when you explain every roof in the US needs one, and no more 120 degree water — good idea not withstanding.”
Everybody in SFO housing has a roof they control. Solar hot water panels whether too expensive or less so look like a skylight. Big deal.
As to 120 degree water, a pragmatic system does not attempt to produce water at finish temperature year ’round. It does the bulk of the heating, leaving the remainder of the work to be done by traditional means.
You need to do more work to be rhetorically effective.
#942 Patrick 027
“What do you think about hybrid systems? It would be hard to convert low temperature heat into much electricity, but a 15 % efficient solar panel could sit on top of a water heating panel – cooling by water would increase solar panel efficiency…”
A definite plus for efficiency of the PV panel, no doubt about it. My personal take is that in domestic hot water we have a clear target affording us the opportunity to eliminate a substantial amount of energy consumption at a surprisingly low cost, –if– we don’t try to over-engineer it and thereby make a system unaffordable for the typical person considering payback. Adding the PV panel adds a lot of expense and gains a relatively small amount of additional energy capture for that money.
Roll-process PV is having a difficult time getting traction in the market for the same reason that has crippled the photovoltaic industry in general, that is to say the obsessive desire to improve efficiency overlooks why we would forgo the benefit of a less efficient system when for domestic systems there is ample space for less efficient technologies.
In my business we use roll-process panels and are very pleased with the results for a number of reasons mostly to do with mechanical characteristics but the $/watt savings are not appearing, I think because of the relatively slow uptake of the technology and consequent slow payoff of the fabrication plant. But I could be wrong; it’s been known to happen before…
Doug Bostrom (938)
Your experience with solar hot water panels is interesting. I live in Switzerland. A friend who lives in the mountains here (at around 1,000 meters elevation) has had a solar hot water system for several years, which he put in himself. Works well for him for heating his home and providing hot water (winter is usually quite sunny but pretty cold where he lives). As a backup when there is no sun (or it is extremely cold) he burns wood (owns a plot of land with forest, so has plenty of firewood available).
The point I was making is not that these systems are not efficient, just that they are unlikely to become a major factor in the overall energy picture, due to two factors: first they are limited in size to local solutions where thermal energy is required and second there is no big government subsidy in the offing for profit-hungry big businesses, as there is for photovoltaic or wind in many countries.
But, if the RMI study is correct in its forecasts, local “micropower” solutions will take over a larger part of the future energy picture (and this could be a small part of that, as well).
Max
Bob_FJ
Thanks for post #939, in which you referred to studies on clouds and water vapor by Spencer et al. and Dessler et al. respectively, and asked whether I was aware of any newer publications by Spencer.
The Spencer et al. paper to which Gavin and I were referring was the original study published 9 August 2007 in GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L15707, to which you refer.
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Spencer_07GRL.pdf
The second study showing strong negative cloud feedback based on long-term physical observations was that by Joel Norris:
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/presentations/Caltechweb.pdf
This has not yet been officially published (like the Spencer et al. study), but has been put together in a slide show presentation prior to publication.
The Minschwaner and Dessler paper to which we were referring is the study, which showed that relative humidity decreases significantly with warming rather than remaining constant. This study was published 15 March 2004 in JOURNAL OF CLIMATE, VOL. 17, 1272-1282
http://www.ametsoc.org/amsnews/minschwaner_march04.pdf
The more recent study by Dessler et al., to which you refer, was published (like the Spencer study) in GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, but on 23 October 2008 in VOL. 35, L20704
http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler2008b.pdf
This study is based on later observations (2003-2008) and shows that relative humidity increases as well as decreases with temperature, so there is no clear correlation between the two as was shown in the earlier Minschwaner and Dessler study.
Spencer has summarized his findings in a more recent update in the form of a slide show, in which he concludes that the current climate models are projecting exaggerated warming from greenhouse gases by not taking the natural negative feedback from clouds into account:
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Recent-Evidence-Reduced-Sensitivity-NYC-3-4-08.pps
I have seen one or two other recent papers by Spencer, but I do not have the links.
Max
Max writes:
Any idiot can put something out on a blog, Max. Gavin meant that Spencer’s “work” hadn’t been published in a peer-reviewed science journal, which means no one checked it.