Thanks, it seems to me the information from GRACE is so valuable that it's sad it won't be continuous. Will the GRACE follow-on be built to have a longer lifetime or is it more practical just to keep replacing them periodically.
Yes, consensus is not science however it's the exceptions that get all the press. When a consensus is not overturned you never hear about it. If I were a betting man I would bet on the consensus all of the time and I would come out way ahead in the long run.
Regarding the consensus on climate science it has been studied intensely since the 1950's and the consensus position does a pretty good job of explaining what is observed. If the consensus was egregiously wrong you would expect there to be instances where observations didn't match up with the science to the point where it'd be obvious they were missing something big. That hasn't happened.
That's kind of a rambling reply that's hard to get much out of. I think about the only human power use that doesn't eventually devolve to waste heat is probably the visible light we produce that is not blocked by the atmosphere on its way off planet.
My original point still stands, the 0.028 W/m^2 of forcing from human waste heat is so miniscule compared to the average insolation of 250 W/m^2 that the Sun puts on the surface of the Earth and 2.9 W/m^2 of additional forcing from the greenhouse gases that humans have added to the atmosphere that it can be ignored for all practical purposes. But I will stipulate that human waste heat can have some local effects where there is a constant source of it.
There is obviously a lot of valuable information from the GRACE satellites that continues to change over time. How much longer are the GRACE satellites expected to last? Are there any plans for replacements once they die?
Sorry, I didn't read your GP comment close enough. The forcing of waste heat is 0.028 W/m^2. I double checked and I got it right in my OP but in my reply to your reply I dropped the zero. My fault, I'm sorry for the confusion.
But that drops your calculation to 3360 GW compared to 16000 GW of world power use. But I think you just used the land area of the globe. According to Wikipedia the surface area of the Earth is 510,072,000 km^2 which would give about 14300 GW of waste heat at 0.028 W/m^2 which comports well with the 16000 GW of world power use. Most of the power we use ends up as waste heat eventually.
Calling people with money to invest "job-creators" is a misnomer. The real job creator is someone with money in their pocket who's willing to spend it creating demand. There's tons of money lying around right now looking for some place to be invested but as long as this economic downturn lasts it won't be because there's not enough people out there willing to spend their money. Jobs will be created when there is demand regardless of whether there are wealthy people or not.
Sorry, not even close. Where did you get your numbers? To quote the Wikipedia article on solar energy:
The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year.[7] In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year.
Here's another link that says humans use as much energy in a day as the Sun delivers to Earth in 4 seconds.
But it's also true that the power load is highest during the day, right when solar panels are producing their power. Solar panels work well for that daytime bump above the baseload power. Think about solar panels in Texas, right when your AC is running at maximum the solar panels are producing at maximum.
How much of that $1/Watt would you have spent on fossil fuel power sources. The increment in your cost over what you pay for current energy is way less than $1.
What you leave out of your analysis is how long it will take to install all of that solar power. If you spread $200 billion over 40 years it's only $5 billion per year. Also you can expect solar prices to drop even more as production is ramped up so the cost gets cheaper over time anyway.
Washington State (and Oregon where I live) have the advantage of lots of hydropower. Also we have plenty of wind power. We won't need to depend on solar panels as much as some other areas of the country. East of the Cascade Mountains it's pretty dry, they get plenty of sun and there's lots of room for solar panels.
Maybe so but I've never seen any counter-evidence for the 0.28 W/m^2 number. Maybe you could do the work and publish a paper that disproves it..
However, the fact that the Sun shines more energy on the surface of the Earth in less than 12 hours than humans use in an entire year makes me think the orders of magnitude in Flanner's paper are in the right ballpark.
Could you please cite papers describing that the Earth has cooled and warmed for thousands of years on a 150 year (on average) cycle? That's not something I've ever heard of.
At best to find global temperatures as high as they are now you have to go back to the Medieval Warm Period around 1,000 years ago and more likely you have to go back to the Holocene Optimum 8,000 years ago when the state of the Milankovitch Cycles favored a warmer planet. You might even have to go back to the previous interglacial period over 100,000 years ago when sea level was 20-40 feet higher than it is now. Also you need to show how what is happening now matches the patterns of earlier warming cycles. Hint, it doesn't much. If it did scientists would have a better handle on how things will change as the current warming period progresses.
I did a quick search and found this FAQ answer that discusses current changes in relation to past ones.
Well then, you need to do the work and publish a paper that proves the vulcanologists wrong. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke. Good luck. And what are these greenhouse gases you're talking about that humans don't release but nature does? Perhaps you're talking about methane but humans do cause that to be released as well.
Without the CO2 and the warming it produces the level of water vapor would drop so far that the average temperature on the surface of the Earth would be below freezing. Ever notice how colder air is dryer air?
Peer review is merely the first step on the road to scientific validity. It verifies that there aren't any egregious mistakes and that the paper is worth disseminating to a wider audience. After it is published it gets scrutinized by others in the field and gets accepted or rejected.
You seem convinced that AGW is a power grab by the left and the science is perverted to support that end. The problem with that hypothesis is that science is all about the search for objective truth. Scientists who knowingly pervert their science away from that objective truth will be found out sooner or later and most of them are smart enough to realize that. It makes no sense that a majority of scientists for over more than 30 years now would be willing to disgrace their scientific reputations that way. Any scientist who followed the objective truth and completely overturned the current understanding of climate would make their name in the annals of science.
If it's truly a conspiracy then it's got to be the most successful in history but I just don't believe a conspiracy of that magnitude could hold together for so long.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks, it seems to me the information from GRACE is so valuable that it's sad it won't be continuous. Will the GRACE follow-on be built to have a longer lifetime or is it more practical just to keep replacing them periodically.
Yes, consensus is not science however it's the exceptions that get all the press. When a consensus is not overturned you never hear about it. If I were a betting man I would bet on the consensus all of the time and I would come out way ahead in the long run.
Regarding the consensus on climate science it has been studied intensely since the 1950's and the consensus position does a pretty good job of explaining what is observed. If the consensus was egregiously wrong you would expect there to be instances where observations didn't match up with the science to the point where it'd be obvious they were missing something big. That hasn't happened.
That's kind of a rambling reply that's hard to get much out of. I think about the only human power use that doesn't eventually devolve to waste heat is probably the visible light we produce that is not blocked by the atmosphere on its way off planet.
My original point still stands, the 0.028 W/m^2 of forcing from human waste heat is so miniscule compared to the average insolation of 250 W/m^2 that the Sun puts on the surface of the Earth and 2.9 W/m^2 of additional forcing from the greenhouse gases that humans have added to the atmosphere that it can be ignored for all practical purposes. But I will stipulate that human waste heat can have some local effects where there is a constant source of it.
I read recently that the oceans are absorbing heat at a rate of over 2 Hiroshima's a second.
Well, the IPCC was formed 1988 so it's 24 years old. Two more years?
That works up until the Dew Point equals your body temperature. After that you're in trouble.
And attack from below with laser equipped sharks.
There is obviously a lot of valuable information from the GRACE satellites that continues to change over time. How much longer are the GRACE satellites expected to last? Are there any plans for replacements once they die?
One definition of climate is the statistical accumulation of weather data over long time periods.
Is Google acting like the TSA?
Sorry, I didn't read your GP comment close enough. The forcing of waste heat is 0.028 W/m^2. I double checked and I got it right in my OP but in my reply to your reply I dropped the zero. My fault, I'm sorry for the confusion.
But that drops your calculation to 3360 GW compared to 16000 GW of world power use. But I think you just used the land area of the globe. According to Wikipedia the surface area of the Earth is 510,072,000 km^2 which would give about 14300 GW of waste heat at 0.028 W/m^2 which comports well with the 16000 GW of world power use. Most of the power we use ends up as waste heat eventually.
Again, my apologies for the confusion.
It can. By the time we need it to we should have the storage problem solved.
Calling people with money to invest "job-creators" is a misnomer. The real job creator is someone with money in their pocket who's willing to spend it creating demand. There's tons of money lying around right now looking for some place to be invested but as long as this economic downturn lasts it won't be because there's not enough people out there willing to spend their money. Jobs will be created when there is demand regardless of whether there are wealthy people or not.
Sorry, not even close. Where did you get your numbers? To quote the Wikipedia article on solar energy:
The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year.[7] In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year.
Here's another link that says humans use as much energy in a day as the Sun delivers to Earth in 4 seconds.
But it's also true that the power load is highest during the day, right when solar panels are producing their power. Solar panels work well for that daytime bump above the baseload power. Think about solar panels in Texas, right when your AC is running at maximum the solar panels are producing at maximum.
The salts most commonly used are sodium nitrate, potassium nitrate and calcium nitrate. We don't lack for any of those ingredients.
Lame to rely to myself but I have to add:
How much of that $1/Watt would you have spent on fossil fuel power sources. The increment in your cost over what you pay for current energy is way less than $1.
What you leave out of your analysis is how long it will take to install all of that solar power. If you spread $200 billion over 40 years it's only $5 billion per year. Also you can expect solar prices to drop even more as production is ramped up so the cost gets cheaper over time anyway.
Washington State (and Oregon where I live) have the advantage of lots of hydropower. Also we have plenty of wind power. We won't need to depend on solar panels as much as some other areas of the country. East of the Cascade Mountains it's pretty dry, they get plenty of sun and there's lots of room for solar panels.
Maybe so but I've never seen any counter-evidence for the 0.28 W/m^2 number. Maybe you could do the work and publish a paper that disproves it..
However, the fact that the Sun shines more energy on the surface of the Earth in less than 12 hours than humans use in an entire year makes me think the orders of magnitude in Flanner's paper are in the right ballpark.
Could you please cite papers describing that the Earth has cooled and warmed for thousands of years on a 150 year (on average) cycle? That's not something I've ever heard of.
At best to find global temperatures as high as they are now you have to go back to the Medieval Warm Period around 1,000 years ago and more likely you have to go back to the Holocene Optimum 8,000 years ago when the state of the Milankovitch Cycles favored a warmer planet. You might even have to go back to the previous interglacial period over 100,000 years ago when sea level was 20-40 feet higher than it is now. Also you need to show how what is happening now matches the patterns of earlier warming cycles. Hint, it doesn't much. If it did scientists would have a better handle on how things will change as the current warming period progresses.
I did a quick search and found this FAQ answer that discusses current changes in relation to past ones.
Well then, you need to do the work and publish a paper that proves the vulcanologists wrong. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke. Good luck. And what are these greenhouse gases you're talking about that humans don't release but nature does? Perhaps you're talking about methane but humans do cause that to be released as well.
Without the CO2 and the warming it produces the level of water vapor would drop so far that the average temperature on the surface of the Earth would be below freezing. Ever notice how colder air is dryer air?
Peer review is merely the first step on the road to scientific validity. It verifies that there aren't any egregious mistakes and that the paper is worth disseminating to a wider audience. After it is published it gets scrutinized by others in the field and gets accepted or rejected.
You seem convinced that AGW is a power grab by the left and the science is perverted to support that end. The problem with that hypothesis is that science is all about the search for objective truth. Scientists who knowingly pervert their science away from that objective truth will be found out sooner or later and most of them are smart enough to realize that. It makes no sense that a majority of scientists for over more than 30 years now would be willing to disgrace their scientific reputations that way. Any scientist who followed the objective truth and completely overturned the current understanding of climate would make their name in the annals of science.
If it's truly a conspiracy then it's got to be the most successful in history but I just don't believe a conspiracy of that magnitude could hold together for so long.