|
Post by radiant on Sept 2, 2009 22:13:03 GMT
I have asked several times for some basic scientific observations to support this theory. There must surely be some basic scientific experiments and observations to show how C02 insulates the earth after daily heating compared to how different water concentrations insulate the earth after daily heating, compared to how different plant products insulate the earth after daily heating so i can see the basic science behind this theory. There must be somewhere some wonderful graphs of the data to show how this theory was observed to be acting in a simple environment somewhere on earth. Somebody somewhere must have done this experiment. Radiant: When you find those please be sure and share them with the rest of us. I have never seen what you are asking either. Of course, that would require scientific study outdoors, kinda like the Woods study. Very few of those actually. I like the idea of doing the study in a desert. It does get humid in a desert sometimes and it does get particularly dry and it does get hot during the day and the cooling can easily be measured. Also deserts can be far from plant products like gums which must have some influence upon absorption - they certainly blue the air. If you can find those studies please let me know. thanks
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 2, 2009 23:48:59 GMT
[/a] The earth’s climate (in contrast to the climate in current climate GCMs) is dominated by a strong net negative feedback. Climate sensitivity is on the order of 0.3°C, and such warming as may arise from increasing greenhouse gases will be indistinguishable from the fluctuations in climate that occur naturally from processes internal to the climate system itself. But this assumes that Lindzen's estimate on feedback is correct and that is a pretty big assumption. From the same post, Lindzen writes For example, if one simply doubles the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature increase is about 1°C.Basic AGW theory suggests a warming of ~1 deg per CO2 doubling. Exactly as I said. There were no "weasel words" just the plain scientific fact. Feedback is a separate issue. Lindzen (and Spencer) believe it's negative. Others think it's positive. [/quote] Lindzen and Spencer are the only ones? ;D Yep, more weasel words and obfuscation. You made it appear Lindzen et al agree with your prediction the globe will warm 1 degC as a result of 2XCO2. As I recall, you have said on several occasions surface temperatures will rise above 1998 levels within the next two years on what basis? Is that also in agreement with Lindzen? Is it by coincidence it is Met O's predictions as well? So what about the other part where you said "no-one" says CO2 is the main driver of climate? Was that also a misunderstanding? What part of this statement is not well understood? tinyurl.com/rxjtowOn the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE dataResults show the feedback in ERBE is mostly from shortwave radiation while the feedback in the models is mostly from longwave radiation.
That is based on observations, not what Lindzen "thinks". Lindzen's exact words are What we see, then, is that the very foundation of the issue of global warming is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Sept 3, 2009 1:03:25 GMT
If the the CO2 content of the Martian atmosphere is = 95%, then why isn't the atmospheric temperature at the surface of Mars 1.5 times greater than the atmospheric temperature at the surface of the Earth?
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 3, 2009 1:27:11 GMT
Sheesh, things had been quiet for a while, but in the last few days there have been several AGW, gloom and doom stories per day on the BBC website and others. Hopefully it's not a change in the AGW news climate and is "just weather"
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Sept 3, 2009 2:31:27 GMT
Sheesh, things had been quiet for a while, but in the last few days there have been several AGW, gloom and doom stories per day on the BBC website and others. Hopefully it's not a change in the AGW news climate and is "just weather" Copenhagen is a large piece of weather.
|
|
|
Post by sentient on Sept 3, 2009 2:46:20 GMT
As we all should anticipate, the number, shrillness and most alarming "studies" and articles should be imminent as we move from summer on the road to Copenhagen. I find it remarkable that polls are recently showing a swing towards disbelief in wholly anthropogenic climate change, as this would seem to be averse to the nine times rule. In your own mind, resolve whether or not a prediction bears more resemblance to an accredited fact or a rumor based on a recent model run.
Many say for example that the models cannot be proven without actually going there. Perhaps. But maybe not. Some think that the past bears no relevance to the voluble anthropogenic future and ever more sophisticated and resource intense population. Again, perhaps.
A large number of ice core researchers have definitively shown that the relatively abrupt warmings of the ice age terminations into interglacials were lagged by from 800 to 1,300 years. Higher pixel resolution studies of D-O events, stadials and interstadials of just the last ice age from the Greenland cores substantiate the GHG lag but narrow it to the range of sometimes 50 years.
There are indeed periods found in the paleoclimate record where GHGs indeed led climate change events. Some are explained by rapid cycling on a finer scale than the complex earth equilibria can respond, and some remain unexplained. But they are far and away the minority.
We can go from the basic laboratory and theoretical aspects of GHGs, particularly CO2, which strongly suggest a cause and response concern to the chaotic multivariate dynamo of ocean, land, life and atmosphere interactions where not even the modelers themselves will admit that they have it all down yet. The evidence clear where we apply them to the proxy data, and anomalous when confronted with just the past decade of hi-resolution surface and satellite data.
And then there is that pesky Sol. Gone all quiet. Solar cycle 24 or 25, polarity discussion anyone? Study after study showing effects and no effects. The night and day of it all somehow not being fully appreciated.
I sometimes think a "climatedebatedaily" style site with a time based expandable pro and con lodgement of critical studies might go a long way to daylighting the debate. Anybody interested? We could do it right here with the right format and moderation. Think about the hits attraction and advertiser base......
From what I have seen we have a small but fairly clued up population, which just might grow. Well moderated and focused on specific aspects of the debate, perhaps even with sidebars into such esoterica as alternative energy, this could become quite the resource for knowledge gleaned as well as classical debate.
Pardon me while I digress for a moment into just such a sidebar. Regardless your opinion on AGW, alternative energy can be a good idea even on the personal level. I have been experimenting for about 7 years now with solar panels, windmills and storage systems. PVs and windmills are mostly commercially procurable items, but the third rail of alternative energy is storage. To this end I have already built 3 portable power packs consisting of thin-plate lead-acid powerful batteries in Pelican cases with several tiers of power accessibility (DC and AC). Actual operational research has proven that recharging these devices from such intermittent, relatively low power sources suffers from the rates at which such massive batteries can be recharged, wasting at times more than 50% of the available power generation. I keep thinking of front-end capacitors that charge rapidly and could bleed to the batteries at the rate that they can electron saturate, to superconductor magnetic bearing spun flywheels that can react and store power far faster than the batteries can accept it. This would have instantly useable value to everyone. I power my entire living room at present with three 120 pound portable storage modules linked to 120 watts of solar and 400 watts of wind generated power (when the wind blows). I am writing this from a DC powered laptop with the lights and TV powered from these systems. I can easily kill 50% of storage in an evening. It usually comes back the next day, but strip charting the current generated against the current absorbed shows well over 50% does not get stored during the recharge cycle. alone. Above that everything is lost.
So where we expend a lot of energy arguing about what the heck causes climate change, we could bend our efforts towards documenting it and things we personally can do about it regardless of whatever it is that causes it. At the end of the day it probably does not matter one whit whether we believe in AGW or not. Energy costs will probably rise, if only even from carbon taxation (regardless of the mechanism). My systems represent a colossal investment I doubt I will live to see paid back.
Anybody interested in working these angles?
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 3, 2009 4:18:06 GMT
I grew up in a solar heated home and am actually a proponent of alternatives where feasible. I took a few hours several months back to crunch some VERY rough numbers and found some important things
We CANNOT use batteries to store our power. The US alone uses 11 terawatts of power per day! Even storing 10% of this energy (and we'd certainly need to) would require a staggering, BILLION, 1kw/hr RV batteries ...just putting it in terms that normal people can visualize. The toxicity of the materials required to make a billion batteries not an acceptable option.
I also noticed the same efficiency issues with batteries that you did. Flywheels are too expensive. Pumped storage and compressed air take up too much space. Hydrogen would be nice but fuel cells are also inefficient and costly...and then you end up needing enough inverters to output many gigawatts of power.
In the end I found that inefficiency was something we were just stuck with and that the key criteria were cost, how toxic they were and how much space they took up. Only one option made any sense. Convert excess power to hydrogen. Store it in large underground tanks cut into rock with tunnel boring machines. To convert it back into power...just set it on fire in a regular, high efficiency plant. Its a solution that offers low pollution, tolerable efficiency (about 40%), longer term storage, good energy density, low material costs and price tag, ability to retrofit many existing plants, and no real issue with availability of materials (lead for batteries), etc. Seems like it would be perfect for solar-thermal plants.
Now there may be other options but that was just the most balanced and realistic option I could find. Oh, that and closer to existing hydroelectric plants they could vary the flow more and beef up generating capacity.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 3, 2009 5:26:13 GMT
from the basic laboratory and theoretical aspects of GHGs, particularly CO2, Could you please provide me with a few links on studies of the basic science of C02 as a greenhouse gas in test atmospheres?
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Sept 3, 2009 6:01:36 GMT
"Alternate" energy will remain a myth until an alternate, abundant, energy source is found or created, and used almost immediately by the entire population. Were one to spend a billion dollars building a hamburger stand, the first hamburger would cost one billion dollars. Marginal cost always negates the most interesting and naive ideas.
The answer to our energy issues may lie in the nationalization of oil companies, read cartels, and with the resulting excess prosperity our nations could develop clean, abundant, alternate energy.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Sept 3, 2009 11:47:54 GMT
....................... My systems represent a colossal investment I doubt I will live to see paid back. Interesting post. I think your statement above says it all. I'm curious what you're estimated "life-cycle" cost is if you've figured that in (maintenance/replacement parts, disposal of toxic materials, etc. ). There's generally little discussion of that aspect - people tend to focus on the initial investment & ignore the maintenence part of the equation. Which leads to all those unintended consequences that tend to bite us down the road. One other question: Have you estimated the total system reliability in terms of the usual Weibull function ( bathtub curve ) or other appropriate statistical/engineering methods? And what would the expected failure rate be over the expected life time of the system?
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Sept 3, 2009 12:24:38 GMT
"Alternate" energy will remain a myth until an alternate, abundant, energy source is found or created, and used almost immediately by the entire population. Were one to spend a billion dollars building a hamburger stand, the first hamburger would cost one billion dollars. Marginal cost always negates the most interesting and naive ideas. The answer to our energy issues may lie in the nationalization of oil companies, read cartels, and with the resulting excess prosperity our nations could develop clean, abundant, alternate energy. Maybe you are not kidding, but you are telling a huge, disgusting joke. Nationalizing oil companies assures that the assets and revenue gets wasted. Look at the billions flushed away on AGW: $50 billion and rising by the second,a nd not one thing to show for it.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 3, 2009 12:52:35 GMT
....................... My systems represent a colossal investment I doubt I will live to see paid back. Interesting post. I think your statement above says it all. I'm curious what you're estimated "life-cycle" cost is if you've figured that in (maintenance/replacement parts, disposal of toxic materials, etc. ). There's generally little discussion of that aspect - people tend to focus on the initial investment & ignore the maintenence part of the equation. Which leads to all those unintended consequences that tend to bite us down the road. One other question: Have you estimated the total system reliability in terms of the usual Weibull function ( bathtub curve ) or other appropriate statistical/engineering methods? And what would the expected failure rate be over the expected life time of the system? What is the MTBF for the electicity provided by power companies? Storms and downed poles seem to be the main culprits. Although I like tinkering and new technology, windmills and solar panels are a very expensive experiment. An individual in the Detroit, Michigan area spent something on the order of $35,000 US for a solar array and batteries at his home. That does not include maintenance costs etc. He's very proud of this accomplishment, but considering the average electric bill for consumers is under $100/month, one has to wonder where the line is drawn between labors of love and insanity. Perhaps the pinnacle of lunacy is Mike Strizki's US $500,000 "investment" to be 100% energy self sufficient. I'm no economist, but there is no way on this green earth that cost will come down to any marketable number. Add to that he has basically constructed a hydrogen bomb in his back yard with all those hydrogen storage tanks. Search his name on YouTube. www.ecofriend.org/entry/americas-first-private-hydrogen-powered-house-paves-the-way-for-free-home-energy-dream/ I've looked into solar and wind power. The numbers just don't add up......ever. Geothermal may be the only reasonably logical alternative to conventional heating (natural gas, propane etc.). Initial costs have come down in recent years mostly due to economic circumstances and government subsidies (your neighbor pays for it:) ). I currently heat with corn, but have used wood from our land. Both are cheaper than propane, but in the process they become a ball-and-chain- don't plan on taking a vacation during winter months! The other consideration is the intense labor involved in storing/loading the corn and obviously the back breaking work involved in cutting wood will render one permanently physically impaired at some point (back problems)......guaranteed. Here is my current consideration for "alternative" heat. www.waterfurnace.com/Because I have equipment to dig the required trenches for the water lines, it will save $2000-3000. The furnace itself is ~$7500, but the warranty is voided if the installation is not done by the factory authorized installers. The total out-of-pocket cost would be around $11,000. I figure the ROI would be 5-7 years; not a bad proposition. The wrench in the works would be Obama's promise that electricity rates will sky rocket if his cap-and-tax scheme becomes reality. Nuclear is the logical choice for power generation.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Sept 3, 2009 13:31:52 GMT
@ Magellan: We both know that the only way to really account for external factors (stroms, etc. )causing a system failure is thru redundancy, so I'm assuming your MTBF question is rhetorical. Although, I have to wonder if the folks getting "off the grid" have factored that in, or if they are simply relying on the existing power dist. system for the needed redundancy. I suspect the later. In any case it would be a interesting exercise to work up a formal system reliability on the typical homeowner system.
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Sept 3, 2009 14:31:53 GMT
See where the rubber meets the road there are quite a bit of alternatives to "fossil fuels". But the issue is the current obsession with CO2. Only combustion provides the power efficiently enough to create real power.
Anyone hear of gasification? works great, is proven over 100 year old technology, can be done nearly pollution free. But it wont be accepted because it's principle output is CO2. There was a story a while back about a company in Conn. USA that bought a foundry plant, it is electric. They are converting house hold trash into producer gas by heating it in the foundry's crucible. All the heavy metals sink to the bottom of the pot producing a clean burning gas. Mostly comprised of methane, hydrogen, and CO. All are flammable. The gas is collected and burned in a generator. The plant produces an EROI of 40%.
Coal, wood, hay, or any organic can be used in a producer gas facility. So fuel would be abundant.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 3, 2009 16:13:18 GMT
I've looked into solar and wind power. The numbers just don't add up......ever. And the numbers on microgeneration for wind power don't get remotely close to adding up. The ONLY way to go with wind power is to make 100+KW units...preferably higher than a megawatt. As someone pointed out once, solar and wind energy may be free...but so is coal, oil and natural gas. All the costs are in extraction, storage, transportation and materials. The economies of fossil fuels currently outperform "alternatives" across the board and involve unimaginable up-front costs to completely replace existing infrastructure.
|
|