Paper That Blames The Sun For Climate Change Was Just Retracted From Major Journal
But begs the question - why on earth did they publish it to begin with?? Seems like a failure of the peer review process.
Printable View
Paper That Blames The Sun For Climate Change Was Just Retracted From Major Journal
But begs the question - why on earth did they publish it to begin with?? Seems like a failure of the peer review process.
Bloody hell, that seems like a fundamentally stupid mistake!Quote:
Originally Posted by RossM
I'd like to see the numbers crunched on that. How would the extra methane (another greenhouse gas) produced by that many horses compare to the exhaust gases of as many cars?Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
I know it's an unfair comparison, but still...
If the numbers were even remotely comparable, I suspect the world would've taken action long before now, even if only because having to continually scrape pooh off your boots is much more... personal.
Unfortunately, it is only in the early days of laboratory research.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
Full Page Reload
Remember, less than 1% of university research ever gets to commercial projects.
Reminds me of this Hypothetical: Great horse manure crisis of 1894 - WikipediaQuote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
GraemeQuote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
Yes indeed. From the last paragraph of that article:
“It will take time to figure out the exact combination of electrolyte, cathode, and anode,” Pol says. “It might take another 15 years from now to get to the market.”
Regards
Paul
I guess it worked, just a bit slower than it should. Normally, gross errors and mistakes should be picked up by the magazine's reviewers, leaving readers to comment/dispute/confirm the conclusions without having to worry about mistakes.Quote:
Originally Posted by RossM
Perhaps, rather than produce electricity for the purposes of inputting it into the grid - they could become a bitcoin mining operation.
Plonk down a massive solar grid in the middle of nowhere (cheap land!) and pop in a few coin miner machines (automated!) and a satellite uplink....
Minting money the modern way :)
Bloomberg - this-utility-heats-new-york-state-and-mines-its-own-bitcoin
Mine saffron. It's worth twice the price of gold....at Woollies anyway.
One of my offspring ran a cryptocurrency mining operation for a while. He lives in the world of high end graphic processing, so has the know how on the required technologies.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
Three issues concerned him; you get paid in the cryptocurrency and that is a gamble, returns for miners halve periodically, and, most significantly for him, the energy they consume is profligate in a world challenged with reducing its emissions.
Yes, a solar farm in the desert will not be adding to emissions, but that renewable energy should be put to better use than enabling Darknet trading and unproductive investing.
slightly tangential, but a lot of the global discussion seems well captured in the most recent xkcd...
Here is a rather interesting report/read about the uptake of CO2 in Biomass.
Biomass fuels can significantly mitigate global warming | EurekAlert! Science News
I wonder if, with the plague shutting everything down everywhere, whether this has had a recordable, measurable impact to the positive to world already?
Not just in one region, but are the atmospheric people saying "well, gee whizz, look at THAT"....
Airborne Nitrogen Dioxide Plummets Over ChinaQuote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
Italy's coronavirus response dramatically reduces air pollution emissions, satellites show | Space
See? Get rid of human activity and the planet will heal itself.
:minigun:
Who's first then eh?
:russian:
Aircraft contrails & associated albedo impacts will be affected. Whether or not this will have a measurable impact on weather is debatable. The changes from the grounding of planes after the 911 attacks were measurable, but impacts are still being analysed and initial claims of effects on weather have been refuted in some studies.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
Short term changes in travel & consumer activities are not going to have a climatic impact. However if this virus were to result in long term behavioral change (such as far fewer commuters, significantly less international travel etc) then I suspect it could have a positive benefit for climate.
Seeing as how you have been the most vocal about it, lead on McDuff......Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Yes. It took 150 or so years for the weather to be (noticeably) affected, so a few weeks/months off won't have any real affect at all. Certainly, just like in the weeks leading up to the Beijing Olympics, a few weeks off has an immediate affect on pollution, which can be seen. (it's like the old having a plaster cast verses poor mental health...nothing to see so it isn't real.)Quote:
Originally Posted by RossM
Nah, some noble soul has to be last :russian:Quote:
Originally Posted by rwbuild
Its was just a question :)
No need for executions. The WuFlu will fix that given time.
Like the grounds around Chernobyl and Fukushima, I'd be keen to see if we (as in, The Entire World) locked away in our caves for 4 or 8 weeks, will lead to a good chunk of global change in some highly measurable, non-esoteric measure.
Its one thing to look at India, Iran and China and bzzzztttt, 2 billion gone... but since we arent driving and belching into the air..... well, how long until Nature aserts itself.
Will we see a blip?
If so, those conservatives are going to have a collective coniptive hernia and stroke!
almost certainly no.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
atmospheric CO2 has a half-life of 100 years. (I believe the scale is logarithmic so 100 years is probably more an approximation than an exact figure.) What that means is that in 500 year's time, call it the year 2500, 3% of the CO2 added in just 2019 will still be floating around in the atmosphere. Factor in the 50 years since just 1970 and the amount of carbon dioxide to be broken by solar radiation down is huge.
BTW
atmospheric CH4 (methane) has a half life of 12 years (same caveat as for CO2) so for a person born today, by the end if their life-time most of the methane will be gone. The only little problem being with current temperatures the permafrost is melting and the continental shelf methane clathrate deposits are potentially unstable. Methane has a global warming potential (compared to CO2) of 86 over 20 years and 34 over 100 years.
General air pollution (nitrogenous oxides, sulfur oxides, etc) on the other hand will most likely show a very obvious temporary decline.
Well, here is some bad news for the emerging tech companies....
WTI (the good stuff) is now down to $23.35 a barrel.
The poor old Aussie Dollerydoo is getting it in the neck too, but that price will translate into raw input costs of 1/4 of what was previously. Are we looking at 80c a litre fuel?
Even RBOB (essentially fuel) is down from 3.000 to 0.6698.... a 77% drop from the top.....
This is bad, bad, bad.
Not bad from a price perspective, but bad from an environment one.
The helicopter money will start very soon. What a schite-show this is......
Im tired. Its 2:30am and the markets are going mental. Bed time!
Attachment 470140
Interesting reports from CAMS (the Euro space agency satellite monitoring service), where they have been monitoring NO2 - noticeable declines over Italy & China. Also PM2.5 declines of 20 - 30% over ChinaQuote:
Originally Posted by ian
As Ian says, this will only be a temporary blip.
Homepage | Copernicus
https://youtu.be/6DWBhp-oKOI
-
...unless COVID 19 ensures that we are just a temporary blip.Quote:
Originally Posted by RossM
According to Bronwyn Bishop it’s all going to plan:oo:
There is actually some other news out there besides Covid 19! :D
But it's not good.
From Nasa this morning:
Greenland, Antarctica Melting Six Times Faster Than in the 1990s – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
and here is one to completely bugger up my arguments!
Traces of ancient rainforest in Antarctica point to a warmer prehistoric world
Not sure which arguments you mean?
I'm just guessing here but it might be this bitQuote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Quote:
Lead author Dr. Johann Klages, from the Alfred Wegener Institute Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, said: "Before our study, the general assumption was that the global carbon dioxide concentration in the Cretaceous was roughly 1000 ppm. But in our model-based experiments, it took concentration levels of 1120 to 1680 ppm to reach the average temperatures back then in the Antarctic."
the possibility that the atmospnere 90 million years ago - pre industrialisation - might have been well over 1000ppm and we are currently not even half of that level today and everyone is saying ity is unprecedented.
Those pesky coronaviruses are melting the ice !Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Oh dear - I'm not sure where to even begin. This study has no relevance to contemporary climate change debate. The Cretaceous is more than just a LITTLE bit "pre" in the context of industrialisation. Precedent doesn't even enter into it - the periods are just not comparable.Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
During the Cretaceous, the continents were in very different positions than they are today. Sections of the supercontinent Pangaea were drifting apart. The Tethys Ocean still separated the northern Laurasia continent from southern Gondwana. The North and South Atlantic were still closed, although the Central Atlantic had begun to open up in the late Jurassic. By the middle of the period, ocean levels were much higher; most of the landmass we are familiar with was underwater. The Cretaceous Thermal Maximum is estimated to have had equatorial sea temperatures about 10C higher than today. It would NOT have been conducive to humanity. But why stop there with our "precedent"?? Perhaps we should include the Hadeon eon - the temperatures there were likely a balmy 200C - 300C. Or maybe that's too warm? Well, lets fast forward to one of the Proterozoic glacial periods - sea ice from the poles to the equator. Somewhat problematic for us humans.
The point is you can't look back at these geologic periods and try to use them for some sort of "normalcy" comparison to what we all are (or should be) concerned with today. Our concerns are ensuring an acceptable environment for us and our descendants to live in and thrive.
But I am reminded of the words of the late, the great and the inimitable George Carlin:
Quote:
“We’re so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. I’m tired of this sh! t. ... The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are! We’re going away. Pack your sh! t, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam … The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas..."
A very quick update for the way wholesale electricity prices are trending. This is from Saturday night (two nights ago):
Attachment 471027
The prices were similar to this for most of the night. At times they were worse with negative figures. The reason for this is threefold. Firstly Autumn (and Spring) are periods of low demand. Generally there is reduced usage of air conditioners as neither heating nor cooling is required. Secondly, it is the weekend and on a Saturday night much of industry is shut down (Sunday night was better, from a generator's point of view, as industry is beginning to start up again ready for the week). Lastly, the Covid-19 restrictions are having some effect on demand.
Power generation is regarded as an essential industry so you should be assured that we are there for you to keep the beer fridges running.
Regards
Paul
oh PaulQuote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
I remember your earlier post about lamenting the absence of a beer fridge
:wink:
Very true IanQuote:
Originally Posted by ian
No dedicated beer fridge. It has to share with veg.....tables.
Regards
Paul
In another thread on Covid-19 some participants in those discussions have pointed to how some with sympathies for policies that favour better medical outcomes over preserving the economy are likely to be also those with 'alarmist views' on climate change. They are partly right, as is the observation that many conservatives are ideologically inclined to favour and preserve the economy as it currently is against any changes that they perceive will weaken it.
The following short (8mins) podcast throws some light on this divide in the context of out discussions here on climate change.
Moving beyond 'us' and 'them' - Ockham's Razor - ABC Radio National
It is therefore not surprising that the ideology bundling referred to in the podcast has also surfaced in the Covid-19 discussions.
The far right has been steam rolled worldwide (by progressive and conservative leaders alike) with the preservation of health being given a priority over the preservation wealth... "Whatever it takes!"
One may think that there has been a fundamental shift with conservative governments taking advice from scientists and the medical fraternity on what has to be done to solve the Covid-19 threat and that this might flow over into accepting advice from scientist on climate change. However, when the pandemic subsides I expect there will be an even more tenacious pushback from the far right against policies that mitigate against climate change. It is already there, but currently drowned out by the greater concern over the pandemic.
The above podcast and the work of Rebecca Huntley (referred to in a much earlier post from me) provide some insights into how to navigate this.
And, very much appreciated Paul.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
No electricity, no ventilators!
What other thread? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by NeilS
I think that will be exactly right Neil. The cry will be "The economy is already buggered for decades to come - and you want to do more damage to it?"Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilS
Double post
I suspect the strategists in the fossil fuel industry are already working on spinning this to their advantage. It will be things like "we need more coal mines to get people back into jobs, so damn the regulations & just approve them" and "We need to export more fossil fuel to kick start the economy out of hibernation" . I would be surprised if the lobbyists are not already hard at work bending the ears of the politicians.Quote:
Originally Posted by fencefurniturei think that will be exactly right neil. The cry will be "the economy is already buggered for decades to come - and you want to do more damage to it?"Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilS
And just wait until the likes of the Alan Jones get on the bandwagon. (Who, on another note, was making dangerous assertions about the Covid-19 response, saying it was just hysteria - while hypocritically doing so while holed up & isolated in Fortress Fitzroy Falls)