This month’s open thread.
Seed topics: The genealogy of climate models, how to compare different greenhouse gases, whether a 2 deg C temperature target makes sense (Stoat has already weighed in), or reflections on the Nenana Ice classic (which has just concluded for this year). But you decide.
RE: 244. SecularAnimist — my point exactly. The more we establish actual costs for various energy sources, the more investment we’ll see in the “better, faster and cheaper” renewables, as you have said. Add to that increased focus on efficiency.
I must agree with Didactylos (for once). The government should not subsidize industries like nuclear and the like, but confine itself to oversight. Let the private sector determine the most efficient method(s), and have the government ensure safety. That said, if the government would remove artificial barriers and preferences, industry could determine the best mix of source(s) to power the country. This would be constantly changing with new developments, and should not be swayed by which industries reside in whose Congressional district. We may see more investment Secular, if the investors are not worried about changing government policies. That would decide which means of energy production espoused by Edward, Ron, Secular, or some combination in between would prevail.
Folks, if you could provide harsh but constructive criticism, on a
6m20s audio interview (my first) with Ben Santer, about how citizens
can get reliable information on climate change, it would be most
appreciated.
http://www.archive.org/details/Dr.BenjaminSanterClimateScientistOnHowToGetCredibleClimate
It’s meant for listeners of a small town community radio station.
Good suggestions so far: add some music for intro/extro, put Santer’s
“anyone who has children, or grandchildren…” quote at the front, &
do something about my plosive P’s.
#241, John E. Pearson–
Delighted to help!
I disagree that “the government” should not subsidize energy technologies.
First, the fossil fuel and nuclear industries have already benefited from many decades of massive subsidies, and they dominate our energy system as a result of that. Wind and solar have never had that kind of support, and they still don’t. So, to cut subsidies for all energy technologies now, including wind and solar are facing the inevitably high up-front costs of the early deployment stage, most certainly does NOT create a “level playing field”.
Second, government policies such as tax credits, loan guarantees, renewable portfolio standards, feed-in tariffs and so on, are crucial to rapidly scaling up deployment of wind and solar. If we had forever for the “free market” to do its thing, I don’t doubt for a moment that wind and solar and other renewables would come to dominate the energy sector on their merits, eventually — perhaps in a few decades.
But we don’t have that long. We need to stop the growth of GHG emissions and begin steep reductions within just a few years. Scaling up renewable energy generation as rapidly as possible is crucial to achieving that.
And appropriate government policies have demonstrated their effectiveness at stimulating rapid growth of renewables. Look at how Germany’s feed-in tariffs have stimulated an explosion of distributed PV generation — in a country which does not even enjoy anything like the truly vast solar energy potential of the USA.
Conversely, inconsistent government policies have hindered the growth of renewables — as in the USA, where meager and inconsistent and unreliable support (e.g. short-term tax credits which the industry cannot count on for more than a year or so) has slowed investment in wind and solar infrastructure.
I have no “ideological” objection to government subsidies in principle. For me it’s about “what works”.
I support subsidies for wind and solar because I think they are a good investment in solutions that will work. I oppose subsidies to nuclear power because I think they are a bad investment that won’t work.
I thought I would post my response to raypierre’s comment at dotearth here as well: http://community.nytimes.com/comments/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/wishful-wedges-and-the-energy-quest/?permid=15#comment15
raypierre (#15),
You are mistaken. Kharecha and Hansen (2008) have probably looked in most detail at low emissions scenarios. In each case where stabilization of carbon dioxide concentration is achieved, it happens when emissions fall to about half the 2000 emissions level. Compare figures 3 and 4 here: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Kharecha_Hansen.pdf
While ocean buffering may eventually give out on a mixing timescale, ongoing emissions at half of 2000 level emissions will not raise the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration until much more ocean mixing has occurred.
Socolow and Pacala do actually solve the climate problem (modulo too high a stabilization target) and Andy’s interpretation is off base.
JimInMpls (#218),
> Every penny wasted on nuclear power is a dollar not invested in realistic
> solutions: Improved energy efficiency and renewables.
I buy the cost efficiency argument, up to a point. But at some point, when we’ve invested in the most cost efficient renewable projects, might not some nuclear plants offer cheaper carbon displacement than any of the remaining renewable options? I don’t know where on the abatement curve that will be, and I doubt it should be as early as McKinsey puts it[1] but I’d hazard a guess that it will be long before we’ve cut enough carbon. And given how long it takes to get those things running, if we think we’re probably going to think by 2030 that they offer value for money, we’d need to get started pretty soon.
I’m not endorsing nuclear, just probing the options and arguments — of which cost efficient CO2 abatement is only one, albeit a very big one from my perspective.
[1] McKinsey global greenhouse gas abatement cost curve v. 2.1, p. 8.
Edward Greisch,
209 Anne van der Bom: There is something that was discussed first in RC that you missed that is crucial: Like it or not, we have a date with destiny in the 2050s. The date is in “Preliminary Analysis of a Global Drought Time Series” by Barton Paul Levenson, which is not yet published. We humans will probably be extinct by 2060 because of GW. Agriculture could collapse any time between 2050 and 2055 due to drought. You don’t want to be alive then. That is how hard times will be if we don’t stop GW.
We have differing opinions about what technologies are most effective in reducing CO2 emissions. If find it offending that you suggest that my preference for renewable energy over nuclear is somehow because I am ignorant about the consequences of climate change and/or don’t care about it.
204 Edward Greisch,
Your credentials in physics are not well demonstrated by your statement that power lines 1500 miles long cause energy to radiate into space.
You show that you can correctly calculate wavelength at 60 Hz, take half of that, and assume this means radiation will occur. You would be almost correct if there was not a return line. (Actually, you would get a quarter wave radiator for a 600 mile single line.)
It is easy to slip up and not think such things through when writing a comment.
Otherwise, what you say about the need for physics and engineering education is very appropriate.
160 Anne van der Bom,
The ‘informative’ page is a little less informative than it might be if it were in English.
By deduction I suppose ‘eolica’ means wind and ‘Resto reg.esp.’ then must mean solar. Except, it is quite impressive, though bordering on the unbelievable, that solar storage is that effective.
We also might wonder if all of Spain’s natural gas systems are CCGT as the chart would have us believe. We also might wonder that the Spanish CCGT systems would accomplish 60% efficiency at any time, that being a bit too close to ideal for most of real life.
Maybe some good soul with Spanish skills would care to elaborate.
204 Edward Greisch,
Reading more of your very zealous support of nuclear, I would suggest that you also strive for veracity in your discussions.
160 Anne van der Bom
More on your ‘informative’ link to Spanish data:
Though still looking for validation of this data, it rather clearly points out that the Spanish dispatcher is allowed the full benefit of ‘hold-back-hydro’ whereby that resource is completely turned off some of the time. That makes excellent sense.
The thing that is especially interesting is that we do not seem capable of this level of thought in California, where we would rather build peaking natural gas electric generating systems that achieve about 28% thermal efficiency, heat to electricity that is. This has been recent practice even though hydro continues to put out significant energy during night hours.
…(as I wonder how becoming an expert on statistical analysis via work on tree rings would reset my moral compass and show me more problems with solar power (last quip on that))…
Re 255 SecularAnimist , re 252 Dan H-
I accept the logic that uncertainty in government actions can hinder economic activities. I don’t think this can always be blamed on the support for government action, as those who want to eliminate that action or take some alternative option are also adding uncertainty.
I accept the logic that subsidies and selective taxation can distort the market and reduce the overall wealth that could be achieved. However, the market, especially when combined with physics (and maybe psychology and some other things), may also distort itself, and so some of the distortion by government could actually be corrective distortion. For example, a CO2eq tax or equivalent (and good policies on Hg, mining practices, coal ash, oil spills, etc.). Now, a CO2 tax without a corresponding proportionate CH4 tax would also be a distortion, as would having different taxes in different countries, or even with the same tax, taxing the CO2 at different points in the chain (ie at the well/mine vs at the pump/utility vs etc.), and plugging those holes could get somewhat complicated, and at some point we may have to accept some imperfections, but we have to weigh that against the costs of not doing it. Etc.
It may be argued that we can’t change the past and so subsizing coal then can’t justify subsidizing solar now (though of course we could stop susidizing coal and oil now); however, other justification may still exist; there is a logic to subsidizing R&D and deployment/demonstration of emerging technologies yet to reach mass market level and with potential for cost reductions, etc.
Re 233 flxible – thanks for that link! – (to be fair to Greisch, evaporative cooling is of course more efficient in water usage, and does use air, but also still uses water).
Re 257 CM
…I’d hazard a guess that it will be long before we’ve cut enough carbon. And given how long it takes to get those things running, if we think we’re probably going to think by 2030 that they offer value for money, we’d need to get started pretty soon.(distinguishing between original and quoting italics not preserved)
That is a good point. Or if we need to have some additional nuclear available, and for that matter solar, options, etc. (ie thorium power, CZTS and zinc phosphide solar PV or others, etc.), then we shouldn’t wait to boost R&D for those either. (Of course you should have to have some level of apparent potential any order to qualify for some level of subsidies.)
…”taxing the CO2 at different points in the chain (ie at the well/mine vs at the pump/utility vs etc.), ” …
refering to trade between nations with differing tax structures (if one nation sells electricity to another which sells fuel to the first…)
#252 “Let the private sector determine the most efficient method(s)” – a common misconception. The private sector determines the most “profitable” (for itself) methods, that is the only interest it has in the matter. Unfortunately making ever greater profits out of energy resources is probably not the most efficient way to save the planet.
This may be worth cross-posting from dotearth as well (see my #256 above).
raypierre (#15),
You may also want to reread Solomon et al. (2009). There they explore emission scenarios which are not so realistic but are mathematically illustrative. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.full.pdf
In their scenarios, emissions rise at a 2% rate until they are suddenly cut to zero. The atmospheric concentration response is to drop rather than stabilize. In fact it takes a few hundred years for the concentration to stabilize at a much lower level than the peak (their fig. 1). If the peak concentration is 800 ppm, it falls to about 500 ppm after 600 years or so. It is the point of the paper that it does not return to the pre-industrial value, but it does drop and by a lot.
Given this, it is clear that if we just wanted to stabilize at some target concentration higher than present (rather than going to zero emissions (as you incorrectly propose) and dropping as shown in Solomon et al. ), we can continue to emit a substantial amount of carbon dioxide beyond the point in time when we reach that target.
If you consider the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to be a load driving carbon dioxide into the ocean it is basically capable of driving half of what ever emissions rate brought it to its current level into the oceans. It can therefore continue driving that (half the rate of current emissions) until the oceans start to saturate, which takes several hundred years or more owing to mixing.
It may not be wise to store that much carbon dioxide in the oceans but that is how the system behaves so far as we know.
Patrick 027, your #250 depends on the context. You not only need LTE but there can be no relaxing via collision. If there is relaxing via collision there can be tons more absorption than emission. Pretty much how GW works.
SecularAnimist @ 10:16 AM
David Horton @ 9:33 PM
Seconded.
But clean alternatives should not only be given subsidies equal to that which has been doled out annually for decades to dirty energy (although if we were fair that amount alone applied retroactively to clean energies would be a very large sum), the issue of climate change is so important that we should take the “Swords into Plowshares” approach.
As I’ve said in the past we should divert money going to the continued manufacture of WMDs, bombers, tanks, guns and the war machine as a whole. For just one years worth of weapons we’d have almost a trillion dollars available to outfit the United States in clean alternatives! Hopefully other countries would follow suit. I’ve long puzzled about the hundreds of billions that are poured annually into the DOD as if they simply cannot get by with last year’s weapons or the year before that or the year before that etc. We must really have a s**tload of this stuff piling up somewhere. How many times over do we need to destroy the world?
Swords into Plowshares.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budget_for_2010
http://www.greenbiz.com/sites/default/files/GreenScissors2010.pdf
Re 267 Rod B says:
20 May 2011 at 11:12 PM
Patrick 027, your #250 depends on the context. You not only need LTE but there can be no relaxing via collision. If there is relaxing via collision there can be tons more absorption than emission.
If there is excitation by collision there can be emission. Emission balances absorption if the incident photons are in thermodynamic equilibrium with the non-photons, which are in thermodynamic equilibrium with each other (or if the disequilibria between photons and non-photons for photons of particular frequencies, directions, and polarizations all happen to balance out for the optical properties etc.). If the photons are not in equilibrium with the non-photons, but interactions among non-photons are sufficient to hold them nearly in thermodynamic equilibrium amongst themselves (LTE), then emissivity (emission as a fraction of the Planck function for the temperature of the emitting material and absorptivity (absorption as a fraction of incident intensity) (at least for a particular time, place, direction (emission toward and absorption from), frequency, and polarization) are equal.
I am however ignoring any scattering that doesn’t preserve photon energy (such as Raman).
Pretty much how GW works. – well, you could build a greenhouse effect with scattering, or even fluorescence, or phosphorescence, but on Earth it’s mainly absorption and emission and it’s essentially all very close to LTE.
section redone: If the photons are not in equilibrium with the non-photons, but interactions among non-photons are sufficient to hold them (sufficiently nearly) in thermodynamic equilibrium amongst themselves (LTE) …
(where disequilibrium with the photons, even if only in certain directions, frequencies, and polarizations, would allow interactions with non-photons, with varying optical properties and multiple possible forms of energy, to drive non-photons out of equilibrium with each other, between different populations or within the same population – interactions among the non-photons can tend to restore equilibrium among different populations and for the distribution of energy in different forms and amounts, etc.)
…, then emissivity (emission as a fraction of the Planck function for the temperature of the emitting material and absorptivity (absorption as a fraction of incident intensity) (at least for a particular time, place, direction (emission toward and absorption from), frequency, and polarization) are (nearly) equal.
It seems like we’ve moved on, but this is too funny (if you’ve never been hit by a wind turbine or ice) not to post:
On wind turbines throwing ice and nacelles falling down: Presumably the rate of falling debris goes quickly back to the natural background amount shortly after such an incident.
(Not to discount the risks of such events, but just saying…)
Nuclear plant workers release unknown amount of radioactive tritium into Mississippi River
http://www.naturalnews.com/032303_tritium_nuclear_power_plant.html
Adam R, the naturalnews website is an extremely unreliable source (antivaccine, etc), best to cite the original article at the Natchez Democrat which gives a more complete account. For example: naturalnews said large amount of tritium, Natchez Democrat says unknown.
And on another front, forest fires may be worrisome to some scientists, not so much to some politicians – even “sustainability ministers”.
Thousands of nuclear plant workers suffer internal radiation exposure from visiting Fukushima
Many people seem to assume either that all environmental concerns are justified, or that none are. As I tell my contrarian friends, some are justified, and some aren’t.
Apparently some people are concerned about an alleged crisis in atmospheric oxygen levels. Which category does this fall in?
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2008-08/15/content_6937226.htm
Is the following comment posted on that page valid?
“Humans level of consciousness is affected below 16%. If there were 15% O2 as estimated by this article, people would be dropping like flies.
I am a professional diver and use an O2 meter on a daily basis. Calibrated w/100% oxygen and air daily, and have not had ANY change in O2 % over 25 years of diving….20.9%.
This is fear mongering and the article is VERY misleading.”
Patrick 027, from your #270 I have a couple of clarifications. By non-photons (molecules in this case I assume) in thermodynamic equilibrium amongst themselves I assume you’re talking of a Boltzmann distribution not the each molecule has identical energy to all others.
The emission from a relaxing molecule is not a Planck function. However neither is it totally separate and the mathematics seem to work, so this might be a purist point. But, getting back to the main point, Sphaerica (Bob)’s poser, I think emission equals absorption only if collisional relaxation is ignored which in this area is not a helpful concept.
I was having difficulty following your posts, so I could be way off the mark or your point. If so, sorry.
Does anyone have a counter to the presentation by Prof. Richard Muller that shows that tree ring data carried through the present year would not show a rise in global temperature? He says that the data is spliced to shift to other measurement data sources in recent decades, whereby a warming that is not consistent with tree ring data is demonstrated.
[Response: I don’t know what you’re citing or what Richard Muller said exactly, but you’re talking about the divergence phenomenon, which is very well known and an active research topic.–Jim]
[Response: Actually, Muller has been caught in what appears to be an intentional effort to mislead audiences about this. See one of Peter Sinclair’s recent crocks of the week featuring Muller’s prevarications on this issue. In fact, “skeptical science” has a whole series debunking Muller now. See in particular #1 and #2 with respect to this particular issue. –Mike]
For Jim Bullis On the ‘Divergence Problem’ in Northern Forests from Science Direct, 2007
[Response: See my reply to Jim Bullis below. As far as Muller’s credibility on this stuff is concerned, see Peter Sinclair’s recent crock of the week and several of the Muller-debunking “skeptical science” articles: #1 and #2 with respect to this particular issue. –Mike]
So it is, indeed. My apologies for the careless cite.
Re 276 Richard Palm – yes, atmospheric O2 depletion is not a serious concern, at least not in the forseeable future.
Preindustrial CO2 was somewhere around 280 ppm. Atmospheric O2 is about 20 %. These are by volume and thus by molecules. Each ppm of CO2 added by combustion/oxidation thus *would* remove one ppm of O2 from the atmosphere (in the approximation that changes are small enough that the total number of molecules doesn’t change much, which is a very good approximation for the amounts of C involved). Of course, some O2 can come out of the ocean (I have no idea how much; I don’t think O2 and N2 dissolve as well as CO2 for the same partial pressure; not sure how that works out for the partial pressures in Earth’s atmosphere but you could probably find that information somewhere); meanwhile, as CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the increase in partial pressure puts some more into the ocean – at first the shallow ocean, and then, over longer time periods, the deep ocean (via oceanic circulation) – meanwhile changes in ocean chemistry (dissolution of carbonate minerals) can allow the ocean to take more CO2 out the atmosphere, and on very long timescales, enhanced chemical weathering can take supply additional Ca ions to the ocean (from non-carbonate minerals as well as carbonate minerals) and this can allow the formation of solid carbonate minerals without causing the ocean to release CO2. But also, some H in the hydrocarbons or organic matter that is oxidized will also remove some O2. But at least in terms of order-of-magnitude, O2 removal and C burning will be similar – so you could double or quadruple or increase atmospheric CO2 eight-fold with very little effect on atmospheric O2, because there is so much more atmospheric O2.
Oxidizing all organic C in the vegetation and soil would also not do much to atmospheric O2, so far as I know. However, continual erosion and exposure of rocks which contain fossil C (outside of fossil fuels, there is a large amount of more dispersed C in some rocks) and I would think that oxidation of ferrous Fe to ferric Fe, will remove O2 over very long time periods. But free O2 can also be very slowly supplied, in net, by H escape to space. I won’t attempt to calculate or look up the rates of these things at this time (going back to the end-Permian mass extinction, I’m not aware (I could be wrong, though) of an atmospheric O2 crisis associated with that – if there was not an O2 crisis then (in the atmospheric; oceanic O2 is another matter), then I would guess that whatever humans do to the planet, biological activity would return to levels sufficient to sustain O2 soon enough to prevent an O2 crisis).
Re 277 Rod B
Patrick 027, from your #270 I have a couple of clarifications. By non-photons (molecules in this case I assume) in thermodynamic equilibrium amongst themselves I assume you’re talking of a Boltzmann distribution not the each molecule has identical energy to all others.
Yes, exactly; perhaps I should have said “populations of non-photons (of statistically sufficient size)” – refering to a thermodynamic equilibrium distribution of energy among the non-phonons, and among different forms of energy and energy levels. Which is a state refered to as LTE.
The emission from a relaxing molecule is not a Planck function. However neither is it totally separate and the mathematics seem to work, so this might be a purist point. But, getting back to the main point, Sphaerica (Bob)’s poser, I think emission equals absorption only if collisional relaxation is ignored which in this area is not a helpful concept.
If the collisional relaxation process is occuring while at LTE, I would assume collisional excitation is occuring at a sufficient rate that, for a given frequency (and if necessary, direction (emission toward and absorption from) and polarization) absorptivity (absorption as a fraction of incident intensity) and emissivity (emission as a fraction of the Planck function) are still equal.
“Apparently some people are concerned about an alleged crisis in atmospheric oxygen levels. Which category does this fall in?”
CO2 has increased from ~280 ppmv preindustrial to ~390 ppmv today. Absent the biological carbon cycle(but see http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/), this would subtract 100ppmv (O2+C -> CO2, mole for mole) from the 20% oxygen in the atmosphere. I leave it as a small step for the reader to convert 20% to ppmv, and subtract – which will put them a giant mathematical leap ahead of Professor Ian Plimer.
It falls into the category of comic relief.
RE 282 Patrick 027
If radiation (of proper wavelength, etc) from an outside source enters a system of atmosphere or CO2 that is in LTE, some of that radiation will be absorbed with no simultaneous equivalent emission. The CO2 system is now out of LTE but recovers not by emission but by collisional relaxation. If nothing else changes (ignoring. for the sake of discussion, the continual exchanges within the CO2 that net out to zero differential), the CO2 system has absorbed a photon and emitted nothing. Is this not correct?
Re 284 Rod B – if the CO2 at LTE can absorb that radiation then it can also emit radiation (of the same frequency). It may emit less or more than it absorbs depending on amount of incident radiation and temperature. If it emits less than it absorbs and LTE is maintained (or at least restored), the temperature will rise and so emission will increase. etc.
PS With a proper tax/policy on CO2(eq) emissions (and other pollutants, etc.), we could let the market work and we’d find out what’s sustainable and what’s not.
Comment by Patrick 027 — 13 May 2011 @ 7:52 PM
Your contention alone shows a lack of depth of understanding of what sustainability is. As long as people try to define sustainability in economic terms, for as long we shall be failing to achieve it.
re 285, Patrick 027: That the CO2 can also emit radiation after the absorption is certainly true. But it is not very likely as the average time between collisions is magnitudes less than the spontaneous emission average time. After restoring LTE the temperature of the system is greater, but whether that results in greater spontaneous emission is problematical. On one hand at a higher amb_ient temp more molecules will “be satisfied” hanging on to their excited state instead of relaxing through emission ala Boltzmann’s distribution. On the other hand more molecules in the excited state will reduce the half-life of spontaneous emission ala Einstein. I’ve never done the numbers (has anyone?) but it’s hard to imagine that the latter (propensity to) increase emission comes anywhere close to the massive and continual initial absorption. This though diminishes, as far as I (suspect I :-) ) know, as the altitude increases and CO2 density decreases. Though even this has asymmetrical opposing tendencies stemming from the usually lower amb_ient temp.
What do you think? And thanks for the discourse.
I have to say, I share some of his frustration with the carefully couched language chanted in unison by the chorus of science narrators.
Instead of simply pounding on the difference between weather and climate, perhaps some thought should be given to pointing out how what we’re seeing now is not entirely unexpected in light of what we know about AGW.
Re 288 Radge Havers – Instead of simply pounding on the difference between weather and climate, perhaps some thought should be given to pointing out how what we’re seeing now is not entirely unexpected in light of what we know about AGW.
Yes, of course, generally speaking, for floods and droughts and heat waves, more intense downpours also, I think. But do we expect more or stronger tornados in a warmer world – and where (entirely concievable that tornado alley could shift a little) and when (seasonality)? One ingredient to such severe weather is warm humid air. Provided flow from the Gulf is not cut off, makes sense from that alone that more or stronger severe storms could occur.
But winds are also important – particularly, strong wind shear (which generally requires a ‘clash’ of warm and cold air – the temperature difference is what’s important here) – and helicity (turning of wind with height) is also a factor (helicity in one or another direction occur in layers with warm or cold air advection, setting aside frictional effects in the boundary layers (so far as I know, helicity associated with warm air advection in the lower atmosphere (which itself is more favorable to thunderstorms) is more favorable to ‘right-movers’ – storms with cyclonic mesocyclones (an anticyclonic mesocyclone would still be a low-pressure center, as opposed to large-scale anticyclones. Actually, would those be called mesoanticyclones? Not sure…). However I think it’s possible for such storms to still produce anticyclonic tornados (cyclonic tornados dominate. The smaller you get, the more even the chances are – dust devils don’t have a general preference for direction of rotation).
Another is dry air aloft (that is not too warm – or a dry-enough elevated mixed layer – etc.) – when dry air mixes with the clouds evaporational cooling, stong downdrafts can occur (which transport momentum from higher to lower levels, thus providing ‘potential vorticity’ to the surface so that tornados can spin-up when vertically-stretched as under an updraft; also of course plays a role in straight-line winds). If RH and temperature increased evenly everywhere, then the differences in water vapor mixing ratio would increase, so that could help if that were the case.
Hail alley is farther west than tornado alley while the greatest amounts of lightning are farther southeast.
I wonder if tornado season will shift away from summer and toward winter (as storm tracks and associated frontal zones shift poleward)??
288 and 289
‘Not entirely unexpected’ is a reasonable statement.
However, I have yet to hear why global warming would cause more intensive transitions which are the mechanisms of storm formation.
For starters, warming air has a humidity reducing effect, though it subsequently would be a way for water vapor to be brought into the air and thus bringing things back to a balance.
That the CO2 can also emit radiation after the absorption is certainly true. But it is not very likely as the average time between collisions is magnitudes less than the spontaneous emission average time.
1. Which would tend to keep the CO2 near LTE (collisions more frequent than photon emissions as well as absorptions).
2. If only a very small fraction of CO2 molecules which become excited then emit a photon (corresponding to whatever type of excitation) before collisional relaxation, then you will just need a larger number of CO2 molecules over a given path to get a signifcant emissivity. At LTE, a significant absorptivity would also require such a number of CO2 molecules. Therefore, the fraction of CO2 molecules that can absorb a photon of some particular energy must be proportional to …
… Actually, this is going beyond what I know about. I just know that the second law of thermodynamics applies and therefore absorptivity = emissivity (PS accepting the 2nd law, one can work backwards to teach one’s self some other things – for example, given total internal refraction, the Planck function must be proportional the square of the real component of the index of refraction. The more familiar Planck function is specifically for a vacuum and a very good approximation for air (in Earthly conditions)).
After restoring LTE the temperature of the system is greater, but whether that results in greater spontaneous emission is problematical. On one hand at a higher amb_ient temp more molecules will “be satisfied” hanging on to their excited state instead of relaxing through emission ala Boltzmann’s distribution. On the other hand more molecules in the excited state will reduce the half-life of spontaneous emission ala Einstein. …
This is getting into some things I’m not so familiar with, but I think that Boltzmann’s distribution is for, among other similar things, translational kinetic energy of molecules or atoms in an (ideal, so far as I know) gas, where energy is not quantized. Whereas, for example, the electrons in solids/liquids follow a Fermi-distribution at LTE (maybe in a gas, too?) In LTE there is also the equipartition of energy, although this is affected by the quantized nature of vibration and rotation … this might help:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
Re 286 ccpo
First, note I said proper tax/policy and I also used etc. So the best policy, which may be a tax or may be something else or may be a tax in addition to other things.
Your contention alone shows a lack of depth of understanding of what sustainability is. As long as people try to define sustainability in economic terms, for as long we shall be failing to achieve it.
I realize there are things with very great value which are to which it is hard to assign monetary amounts. But the fact that is is worth something means that, if necessary, a person may sacrifice some amount of some other thing to keep it/get it. And that some other thing could be worth money. Ergo there is at least conceptually a basis for assigning monetary value to at least some things which are never bought or sold with money.
From the top down, what CO2eq tax (for simplicity of illustration only, considering that the only issue) would best optimize the future trajectory? For an ideal market economy, that value would imply that the public costs/risks of CO2 emissions is worth that much, in total, including biodiversity losses, scenery damage, psychological effects, etc. If the best policy were not a tax, then one could still consider what effect the policy has on prices – perhaps both from the supply and demand sides – and consider what tax would have achieved the same. But if there are some things which simply cannot be analyzed that way, then we’ll construct the best policy some other way.
“if necessary, a person may sacrifice some amount of some other thing to keep it/get it.”
Just to be clear, I’m not saying that we should assign values based on what people would pay for them if those people don’t know what they’re getting. It has to be based on a hypothetical, moral person who knows all the ways in which that thing impacts the lives of all people going out as far into the future as we can deal with – if that’s how it is to be done – otherwise the top down approach may be easier.
#288 And a similar response here http://davidhortonsblog.com/2011/05/25/dont-mention-the-weather/
259 Jim Bullis, Miastrada Company: I didn’t assume anything. Actually, what I did was rely on standard industry practice. Haven’t you noticed the 700,000 volt DC power lines for long distance transmission? Obviously I know about the return wire. But the return wire is “ground” or “neutral” and may actually be the earth itself. The industry standard limit arose because it was found by actual practice that 60 hz power lines longer than 1500 miles loose too much power.
258 Anne van der Bom: Since my attempt to help you is taken as offensive, I shouldn’t help you in the future. BPL’s comments would have been easy to miss and the opposite idea is often “official” on RC. Differing opinions are irrelevant. Only the facts are relevant. James Hansen says we have until 2015 to make CO2 production start back down. James Hansen is correct.
My opinion on nuclear vs renewables is that the government should order CO2 production reductions and allow the electric generating companies figure out how. As has been proven by the last 40 years of zero accomplishment, you can’t force the electric companies to do things that are not profitable. Nuclear must not be considered a poison pill. If the electric companies choose wind and solar, that is fine. They haven’t. In fact, the electric companies find a way to torpedo every effort to force them to use only renewables. But electric companies own 104 nuclear power plants and profit greatly from them. Why do you suppose that is?
As I said many times before: Standard Disclaimer: I do not now and never have received any money or anything else of value from the nuclear power industry except electricity which I pay for. I have never worked for the nuclear power industry or any of its advertisers. I do not own stock in any corporation. I have never owned stock in the nuclear power industry and I don’t even know anybody who does to my knowledge. My sole income is from my federal government retirement.
My sole motive for commenting here is that GW is dangerous, and I want to help RC put a stop to GW.
Chicago is actually preparing for global warming, installing permeable pavement, etc. Interesting article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/23/science/earth/23adaptation.html?scp=3&sq=Chicago&st=cse
Patrick 027, when a system is pushed out of LTE there is always a tendency to get back to LTE, whatever the forcing was. When a collision transfers absorbed vibration energy to a specific molecule’s kinetic energy, the system is out of LTE — until secondary molecular collisions occur that spread the kinetic energy around per Boltzmann’s dictate.
It’s true that if there are more CO2 molecules in the system the incidence of emission will increase, since, all else being equal, Einstein coefficients say the average time to emission is linearly inversely related to the number of molecules in the excited state. But since the larger density will also increase collisions the proportion is likely not to change other than maybe trivially in the extremely short term.
In addition to determining the distribution of kinetic energy among gas molecules, another part of Boltzmann distribution determines in a given population of molecules at a Boltzmann/amb_ient temperature (from the distribution of kinetic energy), what percentage, on average, will be found in an excited electronic, vibration, or rotational state — often called the Boltzmann factor. This percentage increases with higher temperatures and is inverse to the various excited energy levels: generally calculated with % ~ e^–[E1-E0/kT] . For a quick example, taking the energy level of CO2’s 1st vibration mode and assuming (just for discussion) the 1st electronic level is 10x and the 1st rotation level is 1/10th, as a general rule, at 300K virtually none will be in an excited electronic state (~10^-12 %), ~3-4% in vibration, and ~70% in rotation — if my math is near accurate. At 200K vibration ~0.6%. Apprapos our discussion, the excited population directly affects emission rates but has no bearing on absorption. (Sorry if I sound like I’m lecturing; I don’t mean to — nor do I have the credentials to…)
At first glance it would seem that emission would be far less at 200K since there are (again and important — in general and all else being equal) ~80% fewer molecules in excited state to possibly emit (per above). But molecular density is getting much less so the probability of emission getting usurped by collision drops off quite quickly. (Though this is getting away from Sphaerica (Bob)’s poser which IIRC didn’t include density changes.)
The general law says absorptivity equals emissivity as you say. But one needs to keep emissivity and actual emission separate. Emission and absorption need not be (and often are not) equal; this violates no thermodynamics law. Though theoretically eventually — a few seconds to a few billion years depending on the system — emission and absorption will join the LTE crowd. This might be more apropos to Sphaerica (Bob)’s question — I’ve almost forgotten!
A HUGE HAT TIP IS DUE JOHN MASHEY:
I just received this AAAS policy alert:
Report Critical of Climate Science Retracted . The journal Computational Statistics and Data Analysis has retracted a 2008 study by Edward Wegman that criticized both climate scientists and climate science due to evidence of plagiarism, as the report itself contained text from Wikipedia and textbooks. The study grew from a 2006 report by Wegman that was requested by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), then Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and which received considerable congressional attention. A review by three plagiarism experts for USA Today concluded that the congressional report contained plagiarized text. In response to the retraction, Wegman said a student copied and pasted the work into the journal publication without acknowledgment.
Edward Greisch wrote: “If the electric companies choose wind and solar, that is fine. They haven’t.”
Yes, they have. You keep repeating that talking point. It is false.
Wind energy accounted for 35 percent of all new electric generating capacity installed in the USA since 2007, second only to natural gas. Solar installations in 2010 were 956 Megawatts, more than double the installations in 2009, which included multiple large-scale PV installations by electric utilities. Major utilities are also investing in concentrating solar thermal power plants.
The “electric companies” are choosing to build new wind and solar generating capacity. They are not choosing to build new nuclear power plants.
299 SecularAnimist: I think you are referring to California’s mandated percentage of renewables. California “banned” coal fired power, so California is getting coal fired power from Arizona and for a while from Mexico. California is being “decorated” with renewable sources. We have some of those decorations here in Illinois as well.
It doesn’t count as the electric power industry choosing to build new wind and solar generating capacity because it is either mandated or done by some rich person outside of the electric power industry. Look at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html
I am paying 7.5 cents per kwh. Californians are paying 15.3 cents per kwh, more than double what I am paying. No thanks! Illinois has the most nuclear power plants. CA has none.