244 Responses to "Unforced Variations: Sept. 2015"
Jerry Tomansays
@JIM #145
“The point here is to try to prove the environmental benefit of the design in order that public and/or private sector investment will be forthcoming.
I am prepared to try and make that case to the experts.”
If you can’t provide a Process Flow Diagram (PFD), included in any (every) basic engineering package for the surface facilities, I would say you’re NOT prepared to made a case to the “experts”, if there are any who would listen to this.
Whether the design is for 10MW or 100 MW, the process conditions would be virtually the same, with the only difference being a factor of 10 in the flows (and ultimately the duty and size of the evaporator).
I’ve tried to follow your links, and all I get is *not found* or some circular reference to something of your own writing which is devoid of the necessary information.
No one will invest money without being able to examine a smaller, working prototype, even if it’s not large enough to be *economic*.
At least for the Atmospheric Vortex Ventilator, nature has provided what could be considered a working model for moving excess heat contained in surface waters from there up into the troposphere.
is still small, but at least it exists. That too needs to be scaled up by a factor of about 20-40 before it could impress the “experts”.
Killiansays
Why, pray tell, is naked denial allowed here at this late date? Did we travel back to 2007? False equivalence, anyone?
Re: Russel.
Chuck Hughessays
I do not imagine the list of extinct species in this planet’s 6th mass extinction event will include the name “homo sapiens sapiens” as I don’t think we are quite that stupid.
Comment by MA Rodger — 14 Sep 2015
You forget that we named ourselves “homo sapiens”. Factor in arrogance, ego and the fact that the stupid far outnumber the most intelligent and I’d say we have a serious problem on our hands.
Also, I think you’re assuming that the most intelligent among us will survive. Don’t count on that. Intelligence doesn’t always win out over greed and stupidity. Check out the GOP debates and mull over our list of Presidential candidates and pick out the smart ones. It’s the Donald Trumps of the world that tend to come out on top. In other words, if you’re depending on humans to save themselves from their character flaws you’re going to be sorely disappointed.
In another paper Vega shows in Figure 6 the Capital Cost Estimates for Single-Stage OTEC Plants which range between $26000/kW for less than 10 MW to $4000/kW for a 100 MW plant. The table from the MIT thesis linked to in comment 146 also shows that for each doubling of the plant size over 100MW the capital cost declines by about 30 percent.
I have a pfd for heat pipe design in a You Tube A more authoritative source however is US patent 2007/0289303 A1 to Melvin Prueitt of Los Alamos. It is for a heat pipe design and in the application he has a table based on a program OTEC.exe which shows a 59.4MW unit uses only 4.66MW for pumping for a net output of 54.7MW. I believe this goes to your comment at 127.
(OTEC.exe appears to be proprietary to the DOE and thus is no doubt more authoritative than my unfunded effort.)
I tried to respond to this previously but the comment was either lost or edited out, which I hope was not the case because it would be a little unfair not be able to answer a challenge even though the editors of this blog have every right to post what they like.
In this regard I had a similar problem trying to respond to another of your comments.
The Prueitt case and your 127 use ammonia as the working fluid. This works best when the evaporator and condenser are close together, as is the case with the cold water pipe design. When these are separated by 1000 meters and the condensed fluid has to be pumped up that distance it is probably better to use CO2 as the working fluid due the similar densities between the fluid and vapor at the working temperatures. Also the higher pressure of these systems works to counteract the pressure on the heat pipe at depth allowing for thinner wall thicknesses and better thermodynamics.
Unfortunately it is based on the cold water pipe design.
Nature moves heat to the troposphere through the phase changes of water. Unfortunately most of this heat is returned to the surface in the rain that condenses out of the clouds shown in the water spout visual in 147 and from cyclones. This happens pretty rapidly, whereas heat moved to 1000 meters by a similar process would take a couple of centuries to return.
I am also not sure how receptive the public would be to enough of these vortex engines to make a difference. Again OTEC is out of sight thus probably out of mind. I concur however with Glen Reese -120 “we need all hands on deck.”
The NOAA temperature report for August is showing the hottest August on record by quite a margin, +0.09ºC above last year (the previous record August) and +0.18ºC above 2009 which is now in third spot. August 2015 is also the third hottest anomaly for all months. All eight 2015 months so far fall in the top twenty and the rolling 12-month average now sits at +0.82ºC which compares with the 2014 annual average (the record year) of 0.736ºC. “Mucho scorchio!!!
and scroll down. Lots of hot temp. records broken, all over the place.
Be interesting to see how Watts and Delingpole et al. try to ‘rubbish’ that lot!
AICsays
In case you have not seen it, Inside Climate News has a series:
Exxon’s Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels’ Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
Top executives were warned of possible catastrophe from greenhouse effect, then led efforts to block solutions.
Included are internal reports from 1977, 1978, and 1980.
If Exxon had followed the suggestions of its science team and worked to diversify the company, research renewable energy and end fossil fuel combustion, instead of endlessly pursuing profit, we would be living in a different world.
DrivingBysays
@Kevin McKinney #125
— I just saw your response, thanks. Is there a way to be notified when one’s comment receives a response?
153 is a non sequitur because another post appears to have gone missing. In response to Jerry at 148, I wanted to point out that OTEC is currently producing power per the following headline OTEC plant plugs in to Hawaii island grid
Unfortunately this test bed is of the cold water pipe design.
It is also my understanding that most of the heat evaporated from the surface by vortex events like cyclones, tornadoes and water spouts is returned to the surface relatively quickly by convection and in part in the precipitation.
This would not be the case with heat moved to an ocean depth of 1000 meters, where the return rate is on the order of 4 meters/year.
Jerry Tomansays
@ Jim #151
I give up…you keep moving the goal post. Before, it was ammonia to be used as the working fluid in the heat pump–and now 1000 meters is too far–(probably) CO2, apparently operating close to it’s critical pressure, would be a better choice. Why didn’t you make this claim in the first place?
You realize, of course, that the heat of evaporation of CO2 under these conditions is roughly an order of magnitude less than ammonia, which means it’s necessary to circulate ~ 10 times as much fluid through the system per unit of heat removed from the surface to the depths?
Also, you show a map that shows the “sweet spot” for energy utilization to be near China–it’s still thousands of miles away from the shore, and doesn’t prove it would be even feasible to gather the electric energy and bring it on shore.
And I’m not impressed that you’re citing thesis from MIT as your sources (even though I, too, am an MIT graduate.) Furthermore, many patents are granted that have claims that aren’t (necessarily) true.
What’s with showing your work in a video that nobody could possibly follow or verify?
I still don’t know what your estimate of the the heat transfer coefficient might be, which would be controlled by the velocity of sea water passing around the outside of the tubes–it’s critical in knowing the surface area of the exchanger and configuration.
As far as the AVV is concerned, of course not all the heat that goes up into the upper levels of troposphere via the vortex escapes into space, but even if (say) just a third of it does, it’s very cheap to send a lot of buoyant fluid up there, and the clouds it creates may be more effective in reflecting sunlight back into space than current methods which acidify the ocean.
Before the AVV is built over the ocean, since a different cold-sink is used, it’s possible to build one on the shores of a place like Lake Maracaibo, the Eastern Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf, or even better, at man-made hot-spots like a power plant, where you could replace conventional cooling towers with AVV-based ones, while increasing the efficiency of the plant.
Tony Weddlesays
Euan Mearns is flogging an old horse:. Now concentrating on the satellite data showing different trends from the the surface data. The linked article is the second of a pair. Although they measure different things (though Mearns doesn’t realise this), has there been more work (other than this one), by other than Spencer and Christie, about the differences between satellite data sets and ground-based data sets?
Steve Fishsays
Re- Comment by Jim Baird — 17 Sep 2015 @ 10:46 AM, ~#155
Jim, your comment- “Nature moves heat to the troposphere through the phase changes of water. Unfortunately most of this heat is returned to the surface in the rain that condenses out of the clouds…” is incorrect.
Jerry 163 I don’t believe I ever said ammonia had to be the working fluid. The fact is I do not know which would be best nor what the best plant configuration should be. Among a group of five of us interested in the heat pipe design we have never been able to come to a consensus on either a design or appropriate working fluid and don’t have the resources to run the models that might resolve the matter. Two of them however, one a PhD in physics and the other an engineer with years of experience with OTEC, think that CO2 is the way to go. I know it takes considerably more working fluid with CO2 but the offsets are density and better thermodynamics at depth. I also no longer believe in the design I used when I made that video and flow diagram. As I said earlier my interest has always been in OTEC’s environmental potential and I don’t really care which design best capitalizes on that potential. When I started on this it was estimated the oceans could produce only 3TW of power due to the potential effect on the thermohaline. Martin Hoffert and his student Gerard Nihous made this point to me so I thought a counter-current flow system that could return some of the heat back to the surface (as happens with cyclones etc) to be recycled could overcome this problem and that a coil design at the base could counter the crushing forces on the vapor channel. Subsequently Nihous has admitted his assessment was wrong because it was based on a one dimensional model of the ocean. A newer 3D model bumps his assessment of the oceans potential to 14TW and thus the need for the counter-current flow used in that computer program are no longer necessary, nor maybe was it the best approach in any case.
Prueitt also tested a bunch of different working fluids and the knowledge of global warming is effecting the planet has also evolved over the years. The hiatus being one unforeseen element that I still believe should be seen as the best reason for OTEC, particularly the heat pipe design.
If you don’t like this approach fine, I concur with Glen Reese at 120 that all hands on deck are required. I think though that you might have some difficulty convincing the public that man-made tornadoes or water spouts are the way to go.
August was the warmest month ever recorded, as has been this summer and the last eight months. It is time to start taking action that will work and I believe this approach would. The details however are yet to be worked out. I am content to let the climate experts weigh in or whether not it is an approach worthy of pursuing.
OK Jim,
The most cost-effective way for now is still CO2 emissions reductions via conservation–yet American’s are still full-throttle on the automobile “meme”–cars roads, bridges, etc.
It seems that half the television ads I see, especially during sports events, are for vehicles that are either large or high powered. Some actually believe the “self-driving” car is the next big thing on the horizon!
Unless and until we realize how damaging and inefficient this auto-centric transportation actually is, all other “damage-control” efforts, including ours, will be for naught.
All it would take for the AVV (or AVE) to take flight would be for a single entity that would be willing to put up about $50 million for a large-scale prototype (50-75 m in diameter).
Good luck in your search for 10 times that amount for a working OTEC device.
Edward Greisch @ 129: Thanks for the link to that study that claims to connect GW with the drought that contributed to the Syrian conflict. A friend of mine looked it over and noted that they are using ‘p values’ in an unusually way, essentially cherry picking what is and isn’t statistically significant to suit their purpose. Perhaps you or someone else here with the proper mathematical chops (and full access to the article) could look it over for a second opinion? I’d appreciate it.
Chuck Hughessays
Best of luck on your efforts.
Comment by Jim Baird — 18 Sep 2015
I don’t really understand what you think anyone here at Realclimate can do to further your project with heat pipes. It may be a great idea but you need funding and financial backers to implement it. I don’t see how presenting it here is going to help other than getting feedback from other experts. Most of the responses I’ve read don’t sound encouraging. None of the moderators have offered any advice that I’ve seen and it’s eating up a lot of real estate.
I think you’ve reached a dead end, at least here on RC. Just my opinion of course.
#171–Wili, I hope someone with serious stats chops will take up your question. I looked at the paper, and note that there are indeed a couple of instances in which ‘non-standard’ P values are reported–specifically, 0.1 (not so unusual, though not standard) and, maybe more tellingly, 0.06. But I don’t think that that necessarily amounts to ‘cherry-picking’–there can be reasons for using different significance standards, as has been discussed on RC previously. (For instance, particle physics usually uses 5 standard deviations, IIRC, because the number of observations needed is really, really big.)
There’s much more to the paper than the stats. It’s worth a read just based on its value as a case study in climate change, agricultural policy (which they discuss at some length), and conflict. (Link goes to the main paper, if I’ve done this right.)
As a side note, I notice that they regressed precipitation against CO2 concentrations. There was a denialist blog post discussed at Tamino’s site that did something like that. One might indeed wonder about that.
I think this article is correct, human migration will be the defining issue of this century as global warming and sea level rise create hardship and governments react with military precision (that’s an ironic oxymoron, btw). Syria and the current flow of refugees to Europe is the current wave and the tide is rising. The socio-political situation is complex, but I think the root cause of the current migration of climate refugees is global warming. There are intervening variables between the drought and heat in Syria and the decision by individuals and families to “vote with their feet” as Mr. Reagan put it, but the driver is global warming and our collective inability to respond appropriately to it, either with drastic emission cuts or with services and support to members of our species who are feeling the impact of the sixth great extinction. This is big picture stuff and I don’t expect a lot of folks to see the big picture. I just keep pointing it out because it’s so obvious to me.
Jim: The details however are yet to be worked out. I am content to let the climate experts weigh in or whether not it is an approach worthy of pursuing.
RC: I think engineers and materials scientists are more important for OTEC, and it’s a problem that might be unsolvable at reasonable cost. Space elevators are theoretically way cool, too. But if it can be built, one could say, “OTEC: Air Condition the World.” Of course, OTEC could also be thought of as stealing cool water from our descendants. We’d be dumping a lot of heat into “their” surface water. Jerry’s AVV solution would avoid that moral dilemma.
I don’t really understand what you think anyone here at Realclimate can do
This group has no qualms about calling for the elimination of carbon emissions. It was my hope that presented with a solution to the problem you might support it or in the alternative point out its shortcomings.
I have faith that climate scientists can be as loud and influential in support of solutions as they have been in raising alarms? The alarm message has pretty much gotten through. Solutions, not so much.
More about less warmth for Europe:
Response of Atlantic overturning to future warming in a coupled atmosphere-ocean-ice sheet model
Paul Gierz, Gerrit Lohmann, Wei Wei
DOI: 10.1002/2015GL065276
…
We utilize a climate model in combination with a dynamic ice sheet model to investigate changes to the AMOC and North Atlantic climate in response to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scenarios for RCP4.5 and RCP6.
… inclusion of an ice sheet component results in a drastic freshening of the North Atlantic by up to 2 practical salinity units, enhancing high-latitude haloclines and weakening the AMOC by up to 2 sverdrup (106 m3/s).
Incorporating a bidirectionally coupled dynamic ice sheet results in relatively reduced warming over Europe due to the associated decrease in heat transport.
The direct impact of human land cover alteration is minimal in comparison to the more recent twentieth century increase in the occurrence of catastrophic erosion linked to overall wetter conditions that favor high erosion rates and more easily trigger landslides during periods of extreme precipitation.
Andysays
Hank: there’s no better laboratory in the world to show the link between climate and erosion rates than the Gulf Coast of the U.S. Lots of good studies showing how warmer climates caused greater drought and flooding. Both inland sediment source climate as evidenced by Austin area cave deposits and coast sediment sink studies. See Blum and Aslan, 2012 I think for this.
Daily Kos has article about subglacial lakes in Greenland. I don’t think anyone is really going to take SLR seriously until roadways near the beaches are under sea level at normal high tides and maybe not then. This article makes it sound like there was a lot of water in these lakes and then it disappeared (presumably to the Atlantic, but that is strictly conjecture)yet Miami and Manhattan are still high and dry, so just how important is the melting of Greenland, really? After all, compare the Greenland risk to the risk posed by ISIL or to tourists Phillipines or Egypt. It’s pretty clear where the true risk lies, right?
Chuck Hughessays
After all, compare the Greenland risk to the risk posed by ISIL or to tourists Philippines or Egypt. It’s pretty clear where the true risk lies, right?
Comment by Mike — 22 Sep 2015
I can’t tell if you’re being serious or sarcastic.
Edward Greischsays
174 Mike: Agreed that migration is a huge problem and that GW is causing it. I don’t know an ethical way to solve it, but I am pretty sure it will be solved with military precision. Rubber bullets have been asked for. Live ammo I can’t put a date on, but I think it will happen.
Edward Greischsays
Can anybody explain how RICO applies to fossil fuel companies?
Vendicar Decarian @178.
Steady now. As stupid as what?
The quote @153 referred to my comment @130 which ended thus:-
“Of course, in the long run, there have been mass extinctions before. In the final analysis all species will come to the end of the road at some point in time, sooner or later. Mind, whatever we do manage to inflict on ourselves, I do not imagine the list of extinct species in this planet’s 6th mass extinction event will include the name “homo sapiens sapiens” as I don’t think we are quite that stupid.”
The hubris in naming ourselves “Wise wise man” wasn’t lost on me when I wrote that line. I do believe naming ourselves “Wise wise man” was a pretty stupid thing to do, just as collectively stoking AGW continues is a pretty stupid thing to do. Sadly I have always found stupid collective behaviour more ease to understand.
The naming of our species origninated with Carl Linnæus in his scheme for naming all species.
Of particular interest is the fact that Linnaeus classified the human species in the animal kingdom. In different editions, he made numerous modifications to the details, but “man” was now part of the natural world, though distinguished by “his” soul. The term “homo sapiens” to describe our species (literally: “know thyself”) is due to Linnaeus, in the third edition.
•In the first edition (1735), Linnaeus placed “homo” in the class of “quadrupeds”, along with the apes and curiously, the sloth.
•In the second edition (1740) Linnaeus added ant-eaters to this group, and much more significantly (since sloths and ant-eaters would drop out in later editions — sloths in the 3rd and ant-eaters in the 6th), he divided humans as a species into four sub-categories, or “varieties” — the first formulation in modern science of what would soon become the “race” concept. We will return in later discussions to the significance and development of this idea. The four geographical/racial divisions were: ◦”Europaeus albus” — white Europeans
◦”Americanus rubescens” — red Americans (native Americans)
◦”Asiaticus fuscus” — yellow Asians
◦”Africanus niger” — black Africans
•Ultimately, Linnaeus placed humans in the grouping of “primates”, along with the apes, and these, along with other animals that bore their young alive and whose females suckled them, in the order of “mammals” (his term). Interestingly, what linked humans to nature was this female trait of live birth and suckling of the young, while what separated humans from their co-inhabiters of the class of “primates” and the order of “mammals” was the mind, indicated in the motto for humans and our scientific name, “homo sapiens” (“know thyself”)
The ‘Wise man’ translation of the Latin is down to William Turton’s 1802 English translation of Linnæus, apparently.
Edward Greischsays
I have started reading “Climate Shock” by Gernot Wagner and Martin L. Weitzman. Wagner and Weitzman are economists. They talk about climate/economic models by William Nordhaus. The economists have no idea what the cost of global warming may be, so they figure 6 degrees C of warming or any amount of warming will do no more than cost a percentage of GDP.
We need to inform them that 6 degrees C of warming is the extinction point for humans and that even the .8 degrees C that we have now is already causing bad weather to be worse. Since Weitzman and Nordhaus are professors, their email addresses are easy to find. They are mweitzman@harvard.edu and william.nordhaus@yale.edu. Couldn’t some of you who are professors inform your economist colleagues while at the faculty cafeteria?
Is there more information about this instrument? I realize it was built 15 years ago and only going into use now. How is data about the night side radiation balance collected? Does that need to be added to this instrument’s data, and does a polar point of view contribute anything you can’t get from the full daytime plus nighttime view?
Chuck at 184: I have decided being serious about global warming is just too much work, so I have decided to kick back and enjoy the ride. Part of enjoying the ride is engaging in a little satire to keep myself amused.
I don’t think global warming can make the headlines in the US unless it washes Tyler Swift or a Kardashian out to sea. Infotainment Tonight! Don’t miss it. Brian Williams or somebody equally photogenic and lightly informed. How can a prudent, careful scientist compete with somebody like that covering important stuff like shark attacks or beheadings somewhere on the planet?
Personally, I think the only way to compete with that kind of stuff is to think about Yes Men type actions, but that’s also a lot of work.
The main point of 183 was to see if anyone is following the story about subglacial lakes of Greenland. I did a quick search on RC and did not find anything to match to the Kos article. The Kos article does have links to some science, but I don’t think it has the weight and gravity of a kardashian event. It might have some connection to deglaciation and that will make the “news” cycles some day.
S.B. Ripmansays
#186 Ed Greisch:
In 1999, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) sued several major tobacco companies for fraudulent and unlawful conduct and reimbursement of tobacco-related medical expenses. The circuit court judge … allowed the DOJ to bring its claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The DOJ then sued on the ground that the tobacco companies had engaged in a decades-long conspiracy to (1) mislead the public about the risks of smoking, (2) mislead the public about the danger of secondhand smoke; (3) misrepresent the addictiveness of nicotine, (4) manipulate the nicotine delivery of cigarettes, (5) deceptively market cigarettes characterized as “light” or “low tar,” while knowing that those cigarettes were at least as hazardous as full flavored cigarettes, (6) target the youth market; and (7) not produce safer cigarettes.
Outcome:
On August 17, 2006 Judge Kessler issued a 1,683 page opinion holding the tobacco companies liable for violating RICO by fraudulently covering up the health risks associated with smoking and for marketing their products to children. “As set forth in these Final Proposed Findings of Fact, substantial evidence establishes that Defendants have engaged in and executed – and continue to engage in and execute – a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public, including consumers of cigarettes, in violation of RICO.”
Speaking as part of a forthcoming Radio 4 documentary series “Climate Change – Are we Feeling Lucky?”, she asserted that the earth had cooled in the last 13 years by 1F. And she said no evidence would persuade her of man-made warming.
She also rejected the theory of evolution. Scientists say her views are “complete nonsense”.
Why no comments here about the Pope? Upstaged? His comments on AGW are not new, but the recent publicity, associated with his USA visit, is very important.
Pretty decent coverage of the Valley fire destruction of Harbin Hot Springs by the Washington Post. I read it quickly and did not see any mention of global warming or climate change in the piece.
The scale of these things is hard for humans to parse unless they are involved in the large mathematical analysis of the events. So, in that situation it is very difficult to tell if events like the west coast fire season or the greenland subglacial lakes filling and emptying are significant. I do think coverage of a story like the Harbin Hot Springs fire demands mention of global warming, to refrain is journalistic malpractice imho, but journalism is not an ethical endeavor by and large, it has been overrun by the infotainment industry, a branch of disaster capitalism, inc. On the 5 point kardashian scale of poor journalism, I would give this piece 4 kardashians. It avoids the 5 kardashian rating by giving good basic coverage of the history of this somewhat unique forest attraction.
Nothing to see, keep moving…
Shelamasays
Does anybody have an informed opinion on the “Science of Doom” website? Thanks.
Chuck Hughessays
I think this is relevant to the topic of Climate Change. This is how the Right Wing Loonies are welcoming Pope Francis:
Wondering when (or if) there is been a paper explaining the salinity levels and seasonal sea ice extent? Remember record amounts of land ice and glaciers have melted, this has changed the Salinity levels of the arctic and antarctic oceans. Fresh water freezes sooner and at higher temperatures. That is why we put salt on roads during a snow storm…
Dears Stefan and Mike. Hi. Aren’t you guys writing a post on the AMOC slowdown and the record low temperatures in the North Atlantic? I’m really eager to read more on this topic.
@JIM #145
“The point here is to try to prove the environmental benefit of the design in order that public and/or private sector investment will be forthcoming.
I am prepared to try and make that case to the experts.”
If you can’t provide a Process Flow Diagram (PFD), included in any (every) basic engineering package for the surface facilities, I would say you’re NOT prepared to made a case to the “experts”, if there are any who would listen to this.
Whether the design is for 10MW or 100 MW, the process conditions would be virtually the same, with the only difference being a factor of 10 in the flows (and ultimately the duty and size of the evaporator).
I’ve tried to follow your links, and all I get is *not found* or some circular reference to something of your own writing which is devoid of the necessary information.
No one will invest money without being able to examine a smaller, working prototype, even if it’s not large enough to be *economic*.
At least for the Atmospheric Vortex Ventilator, nature has provided what could be considered a working model for moving excess heat contained in surface waters from there up into the troposphere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za46Rmc5hxI
The latest AVE prototype
http://vortexengine.ca/Physical_Models_LM-9.shtml
is still small, but at least it exists. That too needs to be scaled up by a factor of about 20-40 before it could impress the “experts”.
Why, pray tell, is naked denial allowed here at this late date? Did we travel back to 2007? False equivalence, anyone?
Re: Russel.
I do not imagine the list of extinct species in this planet’s 6th mass extinction event will include the name “homo sapiens sapiens” as I don’t think we are quite that stupid.
Comment by MA Rodger — 14 Sep 2015
You forget that we named ourselves “homo sapiens”. Factor in arrogance, ego and the fact that the stupid far outnumber the most intelligent and I’d say we have a serious problem on our hands.
Also, I think you’re assuming that the most intelligent among us will survive. Don’t count on that. Intelligence doesn’t always win out over greed and stupidity. Check out the GOP debates and mull over our list of Presidential candidates and pick out the smart ones. It’s the Donald Trumps of the world that tend to come out on top. In other words, if you’re depending on humans to save themselves from their character flaws you’re going to be sorely disappointed.
Jerry 148,
A process flow diagram is presented in the paper First Generation 50 MW OTEC Plantship for the Production of Electricity and Desalinated Water by Luis Vega and Dominic Michaelis. They have pfds for both open and closed cycles but not for a heat pipe design.
In another paper Vega shows in Figure 6 the Capital Cost Estimates for Single-Stage OTEC Plants which range between $26000/kW for less than 10 MW to $4000/kW for a 100 MW plant. The table from the MIT thesis linked to in comment 146 also shows that for each doubling of the plant size over 100MW the capital cost declines by about 30 percent.
I have a pfd for heat pipe design in a You Tube A more authoritative source however is US patent 2007/0289303 A1 to Melvin Prueitt of Los Alamos. It is for a heat pipe design and in the application he has a table based on a program OTEC.exe which shows a 59.4MW unit uses only 4.66MW for pumping for a net output of 54.7MW. I believe this goes to your comment at 127.
(OTEC.exe appears to be proprietary to the DOE and thus is no doubt more authoritative than my unfunded effort.)
I tried to respond to this previously but the comment was either lost or edited out, which I hope was not the case because it would be a little unfair not be able to answer a challenge even though the editors of this blog have every right to post what they like.
In this regard I had a similar problem trying to respond to another of your comments.
The Prueitt case and your 127 use ammonia as the working fluid. This works best when the evaporator and condenser are close together, as is the case with the cold water pipe design. When these are separated by 1000 meters and the condensed fluid has to be pumped up that distance it is probably better to use CO2 as the working fluid due the similar densities between the fluid and vapor at the working temperatures. Also the higher pressure of these systems works to counteract the pressure on the heat pipe at depth allowing for thinner wall thicknesses and better thermodynamics.
Small working OTEC prototype – Makai Builds Ocean Thermal-Energy Demo Plant in Hawaii.
Unfortunately it is based on the cold water pipe design.
Nature moves heat to the troposphere through the phase changes of water. Unfortunately most of this heat is returned to the surface in the rain that condenses out of the clouds shown in the water spout visual in 147 and from cyclones. This happens pretty rapidly, whereas heat moved to 1000 meters by a similar process would take a couple of centuries to return.
I am also not sure how receptive the public would be to enough of these vortex engines to make a difference. Again OTEC is out of sight thus probably out of mind. I concur however with Glen Reese -120 “we need all hands on deck.”
The NOAA temperature report for August is showing the hottest August on record by quite a margin, +0.09ºC above last year (the previous record August) and +0.18ºC above 2009 which is now in third spot. August 2015 is also the third hottest anomaly for all months. All eight 2015 months so far fall in the top twenty and the rolling 12-month average now sits at +0.82ºC which compares with the 2014 annual average (the record year) of 0.736ºC. “Mucho scorchio!!!
=17 … 2014 – 9 … +0.78ºC
=17 … 2014 – 10 … +0.78ºC
=53 … 2014 – 11 … +0.69ºC
=9 …. 2014 – 12 … +0.83ºC
=12 … 2015 – 1 … +0.81ºC
=1 …. 2015 – 2 … +0.89ºC
=1 …. 2015 – 3 … +0.89ºC
=17 … 2015 – 4 … +0.78ºC
=7 …. 2015 – 5 … +0.85ºC
=5 …. 2015 – 6 … +0.86ºC
=13 … 2015 – 7 +0.80ºC
=3 …. 2015 – 8 … +0.88ºC
I probably should have said most of the heat used to form a vortex is returned to the surface. Not necessarily in rain however.
It remains though, it would take a lot longer for heat moved to the abyss to return.
Re # 152, this is really important stuff. There’s a comprehensive summary with some extra country reports on ‘Weather Underground’: see this page …
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=3116
and scroll down. Lots of hot temp. records broken, all over the place.
Be interesting to see how Watts and Delingpole et al. try to ‘rubbish’ that lot!
In case you have not seen it, Inside Climate News has a series:
Exxon’s Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels’ Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
Top executives were warned of possible catastrophe from greenhouse effect, then led efforts to block solutions.
Included are internal reports from 1977, 1978, and 1980.
By Neela Banerjee, Lisa Song and David Hasemyer
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming
If Exxon had followed the suggestions of its science team and worked to diversify the company, research renewable energy and end fossil fuel combustion, instead of endlessly pursuing profit, we would be living in a different world.
@Kevin McKinney #125
— I just saw your response, thanks. Is there a way to be notified when one’s comment receives a response?
153 is a non sequitur because another post appears to have gone missing. In response to Jerry at 148, I wanted to point out that OTEC is currently producing power per the following headline OTEC plant plugs in to Hawaii island grid
Unfortunately this test bed is of the cold water pipe design.
It is also my understanding that most of the heat evaporated from the surface by vortex events like cyclones, tornadoes and water spouts is returned to the surface relatively quickly by convection and in part in the precipitation.
This would not be the case with heat moved to an ocean depth of 1000 meters, where the return rate is on the order of 4 meters/year.
@ Jim #151
I give up…you keep moving the goal post. Before, it was ammonia to be used as the working fluid in the heat pump–and now 1000 meters is too far–(probably) CO2, apparently operating close to it’s critical pressure, would be a better choice. Why didn’t you make this claim in the first place?
You realize, of course, that the heat of evaporation of CO2 under these conditions is roughly an order of magnitude less than ammonia, which means it’s necessary to circulate ~ 10 times as much fluid through the system per unit of heat removed from the surface to the depths?
Also, you show a map that shows the “sweet spot” for energy utilization to be near China–it’s still thousands of miles away from the shore, and doesn’t prove it would be even feasible to gather the electric energy and bring it on shore.
And I’m not impressed that you’re citing thesis from MIT as your sources (even though I, too, am an MIT graduate.) Furthermore, many patents are granted that have claims that aren’t (necessarily) true.
What’s with showing your work in a video that nobody could possibly follow or verify?
I still don’t know what your estimate of the the heat transfer coefficient might be, which would be controlled by the velocity of sea water passing around the outside of the tubes–it’s critical in knowing the surface area of the exchanger and configuration.
As far as the AVV is concerned, of course not all the heat that goes up into the upper levels of troposphere via the vortex escapes into space, but even if (say) just a third of it does, it’s very cheap to send a lot of buoyant fluid up there, and the clouds it creates may be more effective in reflecting sunlight back into space than current methods which acidify the ocean.
Before the AVV is built over the ocean, since a different cold-sink is used, it’s possible to build one on the shores of a place like Lake Maracaibo, the Eastern Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf, or even better, at man-made hot-spots like a power plant, where you could replace conventional cooling towers with AVV-based ones, while increasing the efficiency of the plant.
Euan Mearns is flogging an old horse:. Now concentrating on the satellite data showing different trends from the the surface data. The linked article is the second of a pair. Although they measure different things (though Mearns doesn’t realise this), has there been more work (other than this one), by other than Spencer and Christie, about the differences between satellite data sets and ground-based data sets?
Re- Comment by Jim Baird — 17 Sep 2015 @ 10:46 AM, ~#155
Jim, your comment- “Nature moves heat to the troposphere through the phase changes of water. Unfortunately most of this heat is returned to the surface in the rain that condenses out of the clouds…” is incorrect.
Steve
Jerry 163 I don’t believe I ever said ammonia had to be the working fluid. The fact is I do not know which would be best nor what the best plant configuration should be. Among a group of five of us interested in the heat pipe design we have never been able to come to a consensus on either a design or appropriate working fluid and don’t have the resources to run the models that might resolve the matter. Two of them however, one a PhD in physics and the other an engineer with years of experience with OTEC, think that CO2 is the way to go. I know it takes considerably more working fluid with CO2 but the offsets are density and better thermodynamics at depth. I also no longer believe in the design I used when I made that video and flow diagram. As I said earlier my interest has always been in OTEC’s environmental potential and I don’t really care which design best capitalizes on that potential. When I started on this it was estimated the oceans could produce only 3TW of power due to the potential effect on the thermohaline. Martin Hoffert and his student Gerard Nihous made this point to me so I thought a counter-current flow system that could return some of the heat back to the surface (as happens with cyclones etc) to be recycled could overcome this problem and that a coil design at the base could counter the crushing forces on the vapor channel. Subsequently Nihous has admitted his assessment was wrong because it was based on a one dimensional model of the ocean. A newer 3D model bumps his assessment of the oceans potential to 14TW and thus the need for the counter-current flow used in that computer program are no longer necessary, nor maybe was it the best approach in any case.
Prueitt also tested a bunch of different working fluids and the knowledge of global warming is effecting the planet has also evolved over the years. The hiatus being one unforeseen element that I still believe should be seen as the best reason for OTEC, particularly the heat pipe design.
If you don’t like this approach fine, I concur with Glen Reese at 120 that all hands on deck are required. I think though that you might have some difficulty convincing the public that man-made tornadoes or water spouts are the way to go.
August was the warmest month ever recorded, as has been this summer and the last eight months. It is time to start taking action that will work and I believe this approach would. The details however are yet to be worked out. I am content to let the climate experts weigh in or whether not it is an approach worthy of pursuing.
Steve 164, I realized that after I had sent the post and tried to qualify it at 157.
“Is there a way to be notified when one’s comment receives a response?”
– See more at: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/09/unforced-variations-sept-2015/comment-page-4/#comment-635974
If so, I’m not aware of it.
OK Jim,
The most cost-effective way for now is still CO2 emissions reductions via conservation–yet American’s are still full-throttle on the automobile “meme”–cars roads, bridges, etc.
It seems that half the television ads I see, especially during sports events, are for vehicles that are either large or high powered. Some actually believe the “self-driving” car is the next big thing on the horizon!
Unless and until we realize how damaging and inefficient this auto-centric transportation actually is, all other “damage-control” efforts, including ours, will be for naught.
All it would take for the AVV (or AVE) to take flight would be for a single entity that would be willing to put up about $50 million for a large-scale prototype (50-75 m in diameter).
Good luck in your search for 10 times that amount for a working OTEC device.
Jerry there already is a working OTEC device 155 and 161.
I am glad to see that other Canadians like Louis Michaud and Naomi Klein are trying to take up the enormous environment slack left by our government.
Best of luck on your efforts.
Climate (and much else) visualization:
http://ecowest.org/about/what-is-ecowest/
Edward Greisch @ 129: Thanks for the link to that study that claims to connect GW with the drought that contributed to the Syrian conflict. A friend of mine looked it over and noted that they are using ‘p values’ in an unusually way, essentially cherry picking what is and isn’t statistically significant to suit their purpose. Perhaps you or someone else here with the proper mathematical chops (and full access to the article) could look it over for a second opinion? I’d appreciate it.
Best of luck on your efforts.
Comment by Jim Baird — 18 Sep 2015
I don’t really understand what you think anyone here at Realclimate can do to further your project with heat pipes. It may be a great idea but you need funding and financial backers to implement it. I don’t see how presenting it here is going to help other than getting feedback from other experts. Most of the responses I’ve read don’t sound encouraging. None of the moderators have offered any advice that I’ve seen and it’s eating up a lot of real estate.
I think you’ve reached a dead end, at least here on RC. Just my opinion of course.
#171–Wili, I hope someone with serious stats chops will take up your question. I looked at the paper, and note that there are indeed a couple of instances in which ‘non-standard’ P values are reported–specifically, 0.1 (not so unusual, though not standard) and, maybe more tellingly, 0.06. But I don’t think that that necessarily amounts to ‘cherry-picking’–there can be reasons for using different significance standards, as has been discussed on RC previously. (For instance, particle physics usually uses 5 standard deviations, IIRC, because the number of observations needed is really, really big.)
There’s much more to the paper than the stats. It’s worth a read just based on its value as a case study in climate change, agricultural policy (which they discuss at some length), and conflict. (Link goes to the main paper, if I’ve done this right.)
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3241.full
As a side note, I notice that they regressed precipitation against CO2 concentrations. There was a denialist blog post discussed at Tamino’s site that did something like that. One might indeed wonder about that.
human migration will be the defining issue of this century.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/20/migrants-refugees-asylum-seekers-21st-century-trend?CMP=ema_565
I think this article is correct, human migration will be the defining issue of this century as global warming and sea level rise create hardship and governments react with military precision (that’s an ironic oxymoron, btw). Syria and the current flow of refugees to Europe is the current wave and the tide is rising. The socio-political situation is complex, but I think the root cause of the current migration of climate refugees is global warming. There are intervening variables between the drought and heat in Syria and the decision by individuals and families to “vote with their feet” as Mr. Reagan put it, but the driver is global warming and our collective inability to respond appropriately to it, either with drastic emission cuts or with services and support to members of our species who are feeling the impact of the sixth great extinction. This is big picture stuff and I don’t expect a lot of folks to see the big picture. I just keep pointing it out because it’s so obvious to me.
Here’s a link to the full article that Greisch referenced above and that I made a query about at 171: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/273060165_Climate_change_in_the_Fertile_Crescent_and_implications_of_the_recent_Syrian_drought
Supplemental materials here:
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2015/02/23/1421533112.DCSupplemental/pnas.201421533SI.pdf
Jim: The details however are yet to be worked out. I am content to let the climate experts weigh in or whether not it is an approach worthy of pursuing.
RC: I think engineers and materials scientists are more important for OTEC, and it’s a problem that might be unsolvable at reasonable cost. Space elevators are theoretically way cool, too. But if it can be built, one could say, “OTEC: Air Condition the World.” Of course, OTEC could also be thought of as stealing cool water from our descendants. We’d be dumping a lot of heat into “their” surface water. Jerry’s AVV solution would avoid that moral dilemma.
Chuck Hughes 172
I don’t really understand what you think anyone here at Realclimate can do
This group has no qualms about calling for the elimination of carbon emissions. It was my hope that presented with a solution to the problem you might support it or in the alternative point out its shortcomings.
I have faith that climate scientists can be as loud and influential in support of solutions as they have been in raising alarms? The alarm message has pretty much gotten through. Solutions, not so much.
“I don’t think we are quite that stupid.” – 153
Donald Trump.
Richard 176, “Stealing cool water from our descendants”
For as long as the Arctic and Antarctic freeze in the winter and melt in the summer the cold sink is replenished.
More about less warmth for Europe:
Response of Atlantic overturning to future warming in a coupled atmosphere-ocean-ice sheet model
Paul Gierz, Gerrit Lohmann, Wei Wei
DOI: 10.1002/2015GL065276
Extra para. breaks added for online readability
I’ve been urging people for years to look at the paleo record that shows a big increase in erosion events with climate change.
the transient hyper-greenhouse climate of the PETM may represent a major geomorphic ‘system-clearing event’13, involving a global mobilization of dissolved and solid sediment loads on Earth’s surface.
Some areas in recent millenia haven’t shown a change: 10Be-derived paleo-erosion rates recorded in the Fish Creek-Vallecito basin, California since 4 Ma indicate no increase across the Plio-Pleistocene climate transition
Other sites show an erosion increase has begun happening in the past century:
Research Letter — Contrasting human versus climatic impacts on erosion
Hank: there’s no better laboratory in the world to show the link between climate and erosion rates than the Gulf Coast of the U.S. Lots of good studies showing how warmer climates caused greater drought and flooding. Both inland sediment source climate as evidenced by Austin area cave deposits and coast sediment sink studies. See Blum and Aslan, 2012 I think for this.
Sudden drainage, via massive chasm, of Subglacial lakes in Greenland described as catastrophic
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/22/1421761/-Sudden-drainage-via-massive-chasm-of-Subglacial-lakes-in-Greenland-described-as-catastrophic
Daily Kos has article about subglacial lakes in Greenland. I don’t think anyone is really going to take SLR seriously until roadways near the beaches are under sea level at normal high tides and maybe not then. This article makes it sound like there was a lot of water in these lakes and then it disappeared (presumably to the Atlantic, but that is strictly conjecture)yet Miami and Manhattan are still high and dry, so just how important is the melting of Greenland, really? After all, compare the Greenland risk to the risk posed by ISIL or to tourists Phillipines or Egypt. It’s pretty clear where the true risk lies, right?
After all, compare the Greenland risk to the risk posed by ISIL or to tourists Philippines or Egypt. It’s pretty clear where the true risk lies, right?
Comment by Mike — 22 Sep 2015
I can’t tell if you’re being serious or sarcastic.
174 Mike: Agreed that migration is a huge problem and that GW is causing it. I don’t know an ethical way to solve it, but I am pretty sure it will be solved with military precision. Rubber bullets have been asked for. Live ammo I can’t put a date on, but I think it will happen.
Can anybody explain how RICO applies to fossil fuel companies?
Vendicar Decarian @178.
Steady now. As stupid as what?
The quote @153 referred to my comment @130 which ended thus:-
The hubris in naming ourselves “Wise wise man” wasn’t lost on me when I wrote that line. I do believe naming ourselves “Wise wise man” was a pretty stupid thing to do, just as collectively stoking AGW continues is a pretty stupid thing to do. Sadly I have always found stupid collective behaviour more ease to understand.
The naming of our species origninated with Carl Linnæus in his scheme for naming all species.
The ‘Wise man’ translation of the Latin is down to William Turton’s 1802 English translation of Linnæus, apparently.
I have started reading “Climate Shock” by Gernot Wagner and Martin L. Weitzman. Wagner and Weitzman are economists. They talk about climate/economic models by William Nordhaus. The economists have no idea what the cost of global warming may be, so they figure 6 degrees C of warming or any amount of warming will do no more than cost a percentage of GDP.
We need to inform them that 6 degrees C of warming is the extinction point for humans and that even the .8 degrees C that we have now is already causing bad weather to be worse. Since Weitzman and Nordhaus are professors, their email addresses are easy to find. They are mweitzman@harvard.edu and william.nordhaus@yale.edu. Couldn’t some of you who are professors inform your economist colleagues while at the faculty cafeteria?
A question for anyone who has a NASA source:
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/noaas-dscovr-nistar-instrument-watches-earths-budget/
Is there more information about this instrument? I realize it was built 15 years ago and only going into use now. How is data about the night side radiation balance collected? Does that need to be added to this instrument’s data, and does a polar point of view contribute anything you can’t get from the full daytime plus nighttime view?
Pointer welcome to wherever this can be found
Chuck at 184: I have decided being serious about global warming is just too much work, so I have decided to kick back and enjoy the ride. Part of enjoying the ride is engaging in a little satire to keep myself amused.
I don’t think global warming can make the headlines in the US unless it washes Tyler Swift or a Kardashian out to sea. Infotainment Tonight! Don’t miss it. Brian Williams or somebody equally photogenic and lightly informed. How can a prudent, careful scientist compete with somebody like that covering important stuff like shark attacks or beheadings somewhere on the planet?
Personally, I think the only way to compete with that kind of stuff is to think about Yes Men type actions, but that’s also a lot of work.
The main point of 183 was to see if anyone is following the story about subglacial lakes of Greenland. I did a quick search on RC and did not find anything to match to the Kos article. The Kos article does have links to some science, but I don’t think it has the weight and gravity of a kardashian event. It might have some connection to deglaciation and that will make the “news” cycles some day.
#186 Ed Greisch:
In 1999, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) sued several major tobacco companies for fraudulent and unlawful conduct and reimbursement of tobacco-related medical expenses. The circuit court judge … allowed the DOJ to bring its claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The DOJ then sued on the ground that the tobacco companies had engaged in a decades-long conspiracy to (1) mislead the public about the risks of smoking, (2) mislead the public about the danger of secondhand smoke; (3) misrepresent the addictiveness of nicotine, (4) manipulate the nicotine delivery of cigarettes, (5) deceptively market cigarettes characterized as “light” or “low tar,” while knowing that those cigarettes were at least as hazardous as full flavored cigarettes, (6) target the youth market; and (7) not produce safer cigarettes.
Outcome:
On August 17, 2006 Judge Kessler issued a 1,683 page opinion holding the tobacco companies liable for violating RICO by fraudulently covering up the health risks associated with smoking and for marketing their products to children. “As set forth in these Final Proposed Findings of Fact, substantial evidence establishes that Defendants have engaged in and executed – and continue to engage in and execute – a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public, including consumers of cigarettes, in violation of RICO.”
from: http://publichealthlawcenter.org/topics/tobacco-control/tobacco-control-litigation/united-states-v-philip-morris-doj-lawsuit
188 EG
I urged both to read “Six degrees” by Mark Lynas. I hope the e-mails reach them, although one can never be sure.
187 MAR
At the rate we’re going, we’ll have to rename our species “Homo Stultus”.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34342808
Why no comments here about the Pope? Upstaged? His comments on AGW are not new, but the recent publicity, associated with his USA visit, is very important.
Harbin Hot Springs, N. Calif. ‘hippie’ haven, consumed by massive wildfire:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/harbin-hot-springs-nocal-hippie-haven-consumed-by-massive-wildfire/2015/09/22/573c7d38-606f-11e5-8e9e-dce8a2a2a679_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines
Pretty decent coverage of the Valley fire destruction of Harbin Hot Springs by the Washington Post. I read it quickly and did not see any mention of global warming or climate change in the piece.
The scale of these things is hard for humans to parse unless they are involved in the large mathematical analysis of the events. So, in that situation it is very difficult to tell if events like the west coast fire season or the greenland subglacial lakes filling and emptying are significant. I do think coverage of a story like the Harbin Hot Springs fire demands mention of global warming, to refrain is journalistic malpractice imho, but journalism is not an ethical endeavor by and large, it has been overrun by the infotainment industry, a branch of disaster capitalism, inc. On the 5 point kardashian scale of poor journalism, I would give this piece 4 kardashians. It avoids the 5 kardashian rating by giving good basic coverage of the history of this somewhat unique forest attraction.
Nothing to see, keep moving…
Does anybody have an informed opinion on the “Science of Doom” website? Thanks.
I think this is relevant to the topic of Climate Change. This is how the Right Wing Loonies are welcoming Pope Francis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=122&v=BBNs_6_FXc4
Interesting and good news from China
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/25/world/asia/xi-jinping-china-president-obama-summit.html?emc=edit_na_20150924&nlid=42982811&ref=cta&_r=0
Wondering when (or if) there is been a paper explaining the salinity levels and seasonal sea ice extent? Remember record amounts of land ice and glaciers have melted, this has changed the Salinity levels of the arctic and antarctic oceans. Fresh water freezes sooner and at higher temperatures. That is why we put salt on roads during a snow storm…
Dears Stefan and Mike. Hi. Aren’t you guys writing a post on the AMOC slowdown and the record low temperatures in the North Atlantic? I’m really eager to read more on this topic.