Global wind power and photovoltaic (PV) installed capacities are growing at very high rates (20% per year and 60% per year, respectively). These technologies require large, ‘up-front’ energetic investments. Conceptually, as these industries grow, some proportion of their electrical output is ‘re-invested’ to support manufacture and deployment of new generation capacity. As variable and intermittent, renewable generation capacity increases grid penetration, electrical energy storage will become an ever more important load-balancing technology. These storage technologies are currently expensive and energy intensive to deploy. We explore the impact on net energy production when wind and PV must ‘pay’ the energetic cost of storage deployment. We present the net energy trajectory of these two industries (wind and PV), disaggregated into eight distinct technologies—wind: on-shore and off-shore; PV: single-crystal (sc-), multi-crystalline (mc-), amorphous (a-) and ribbon silicon (Si), cadmium telluride (CdTe), and copper indium gallium (di)selenide (CIGS). The results show that both on-shore and off-shore wind can support the deployment of a very large amount of storage, over 300 hours of geologic storage in the case of on-shore wind. On the other hand, solar PV, which is already energetically expensive compared to wind power, can only ‘afford’ about 24 hours of storage before the industry operates at an energy deficit. The analysis highlights the societal benefits of electricity generation–storage combinations with low energetic costs.
"A new study by the University of Pennsylvania’s Irina Marinov and Raffaele Bernardello and colleagues from McGill University has found that recent climate change may be acting to slow down one of these conveyer belts, with potentially serious consequences for the future of the planet’s climate."
"“Our observations are showing us that there is less formation of these deep waters near Antarctica,” Marinov said. “This is worrisome because, if this is the case, we’re likely going to see less uptake of human produced, or anthropogenic, heat and carbon dioxide by the ocean, making this a positive feedback loop for climate change.”" Source.
New paper finds global sea level rise has decelerated 31% since 2002 along with the 'pause' of global warming
New paper attempts to explain the 'pause' in sea level rise
A paper published today in Nature Climate Change finds that global sea level rise has greatly decelerated 31% since 2002 from 3.5 mm/yr to 2.4 mm/yr. According to the authors, "This decreasing Global Mean Sea Level [GMSL] rate coincides with the pause observed over the last decade in the rate of Earth’s global mean surface temperature increase, an observation exploited [very unscientific choice of words] by climate sceptics to refute global warming and its attribution to a steadily rising rate of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." [Apparently, the authors think that any skeptical scientist who points out an obvious inconsistency between datasets is exploiting the observational data.]
GMSL rate over five-year-long moving windows. Figure 2a (top) shows a 31% deceleration in global mean sea level rise since 2002 This observation, of course, is a crisis for CAGW alarmism and therefore must be solved by a computer model. The authors simply create a hydrological model programmed to say that the reason why sea levels have decelerated is because it must be raining more over land due to ENSO and therefore the land ate the 31% decrease in sea level rise [No mention why ENSO also didn't cause more rain over the oceans]. The authors admit there is no data to support land water stores prior to GRACE since ~2003, therefore they just fabricate estimate the comparison data for the period 1994-2002 of how much sea level rise was ameliorated by land precipitation. Abracadabra, the land must have more than eaten the sea level rise from AGW, allowing it to decelerate, and the AGW "missing heat" is still very much alive somewhere in the ocean.
The authors also find that even with this huge adjustment to sea level rise, there is no evidence of acceleration over the past 20 years, which means there is no evidence of a human influence on sea levels.
The authors redeem themselves a bit in the conclusion and appear to contradict their earlier statements in the paper: "Although progress has been achieved and inconsistencies reduced, the puzzle of the missing energy remains, raising the question of where the extra heat absorbed by the Earth is going. The results presented here will further encourage this debate as they underline the enigma between the observed plateau in Earth’s mean surface temperature and continued rise in the Global Mean Sea Level [GMSL]."
Climate science has sunk just like the 'missing heat' to the depths of the ocean trying to explain away the "pause" of both global warming and global sea level rise, using synthetic data generated by climate models that can be programmed to obtain any result one desires.
===========
The rate of sea-level rise
Anny Cazenave, Habib-Boubacar Dieng, Benoit Meyssignac, Karina von Schuckmann, Bertrand Decharme & Etienne Berthier AffiliationsContributionsCorresponding author
Nature Climate Change (2014) doi:10.1038/nclimate2159 Received 16 October 2013 Accepted 04 February 2014 Published online 23 March 2014 [note bolding, italics, and comments added] Abstract: Present-day sea-level rise is a major indicator of climate change1. Since the early 1990s, sea level rose at a mean rate of ~3.1 mm yr−1 (refs 2, 3). However, over the last decade a slowdown of this rate, of about 30%, has been recorded4, 5, 6, 7, 8. It coincides with a plateau in Earth’s mean surface temperature evolution, known as the recent pause in warming1, 9, 10, 11, 12. Here we present an analysis based on sea-level data from the altimetry record of the past ~20 years that separates interannual natural variability in sea level from the longer-term change probably related to anthropogenic global warming. The most prominent signature in the global mean sea level interannual variability is caused by El Niño–Southern Oscillation, through its impact on the global water cycle13, 14,15, 16. We find that when correcting [using the magic of models and unwarranted assumptions] for interannual variability, the past decade’s slowdown of the global mean sea level disappears, leading to a similar rate of sea-level rise (of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm yr−1) during the first and second decade of the altimetry era. Our results confirm the need for quantifying and further removing from the climate records the short-term natural climate variability if one wants to extract the global warming signal10.
• Methods• References• Acknowledgements• Author information• Supplementary information Precisely estimating present-day sea-level rise caused by anthropogenic global warming is a major issue that allows assessment of the process-based models developed for projecting future sea level1. Sea-level rise is indeed one of the most threatening consequences of ongoing global warming, in particular for low-lying coastal areas that are expected to become more vulnerable to flooding and land loss. As these areas often have dense populations, important infrastructures and high-value agricultural and bio-diverse land, significant impacts such as increasingly costly flooding or loss of freshwater supply are expected, posing a risk to stability and security17, 18. However, sea level also responds to natural climate variability, producing noise in the record that hampers detection of the global warming signal. Trends of the satellite altimetry-based global mean sea level (GMSL) are computed over two periods: the period 1994–2002 and the period 2003–2011 of the observed slowdown (Fig. 1a). GMSL time series from five prominent groups processing satellite altimetry data for the global ocean are considered (Methods). During recent years (2003–2011), the GMSL rate was significantly lower than during the 1990s (average of 2.4 mm yr−1 versus 3.5 mm yr−1). This is observed by all processing groups (Fig. 1a). The temporal evolution of the GMSL rate (computed over five-year-long moving windows, starting in 1994 and shifted by one year) was nearly constant during the 1990s, whereas the rate clearly decreased by ~30% after ~2003 (Fig. 2a). This decreasing GMSL rate coincides with the pause observed over the last decade in the rate of Earth’s global mean surface temperature increase9, 10, an observation exploited [very unscientific choice of words] by climate sceptics to refute global warming and its attribution to a steadily rising rate of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It has been suggested that this so-called global warming hiatus11 results from El Niño–Southern Oscillation- (ENSO-) related natural variability of the climate system10 and is tied to La Niña-related cooling of the equatorial Pacific surface11, 12. In effect, following the major El Niño of 1997/1998, the past decade has favoured La Niña episodes (that is, ENSO cold phases, reported as sometimes more frequent and more intensive than the warm El Niño events, a sign of ENSO asymmetry19). The interannual (that is, detrended) GMSL record of the altimetry era seems to be closely related to ENSO, with positive/negative sea-level anomalies observed during El Niño/La Niña events2. Recent studies have shown that the short-term fluctuations in the altimetry-based GMSL are mainly due to variations in global land water storage (mostly in the tropics), with a tendency for land water deficit (and temporary increase of the GMSL) during El Niño events13, 14and the opposite during La Niña15, 16. This directly results from rainfall excess over tropical oceans (mostly the Pacific Ocean) and rainfall deficit over land (mostly the tropics) during an El Niño20event. The opposite situation prevails during La Niña. The succession of La Niña episodes during recent years has led to temporary negative anomalies of several millimetres in the GMSL (ref. 15), possibly causing the apparent reduction of the GMSL rate of the past decade. This reduction has motivated the present study. From seasonal to centennial time scales, the two main contributions to GMSL variability and change come from ocean thermal expansion and ocean mass. Owing to water mass conservation in the climate system, sources of global ocean mass variations are land ice masses, land water storage and atmospheric water vapour content. Studies have shown that ENSO-driven interannual variability in the global water cycle strongly impacts land water storage12, 13, 14,15 and atmospheric water vapour21, hence ocean mass and GMSL.
Of course fierobear cites a propaganda blog that adds their own bias to the authors study. It's rather revealing the propaganda blog tries to selectively hype certain aspects of the study and downplay/discredit others.
Sorry climate deniers, you don't get to line item veto scientific studies with your political bias.
What's interesting is the IPCC predicted 2.0mm/year of sea level rise. The average from 1993-2011 was 3.5mm/year - 60% faster than predicted. 2.5mm/year is still faster than predicted. Source.
Yet despite still faster than predicted rise, the study attributes the slow down to natural variability.
Study: The rate of sea-level rise "We find that when correcting for interannual variability, the past decade’s slowdown of the global mean sea level disappears, leading to a similar rate of sea-level rise (of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm yr−1) during the first and second decade of the altimetry era."
This is a good time to revisit advise from American Meteorological Society Executive Director Keith L. Seitter, regarding the twisting of facts by climate deniers: Going to the Source for Accurate Information
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 03-25-2014).]
The WMO posted their annual report yesterday. Surprise, 2013 was tied to the warmest on record. (Sorry Arn.)
Blurb from their release statement:
quote
The report confirmed that 2013 tied with 2007 as the sixth warmest on record, continuing the long-term global warming trend. It provided a snapshot of regional and national temperatures and extreme events as well as details of ice cover, ocean warming, sea level rise and greenhouse gas concentrations – all inter-related and consistent indicators of our changing climate.
Thirteen of the fourteen warmest years on record have all occurred in the 21st century, and each of the last three decades has been warmer than the previous one, culminating with 2001-2010 as the warmest decade on record. The average global land and ocean surface temperature in 2013 was 14.5°C (58.1°F) – 0.50°C (0.90°F) above the 1961–1990 average and 0.03°C (0.05°F) higher than the 2001–2010 decadal average. Temperatures in many parts of the southern hemisphere were especially warm, with Australia having its hottest year on record and Argentina its second hottest.
But the WMO, i'm sure, is also part of the conspiracy. Right?
I wish that the otherwise very intelligible FlyinFieros would put the "murder rap" to bed. It was kind of silly for Arns85GT to refer to the Old Testament stoning of false prophets in relation to scientists and others who have distressing global warming projections for the remainder of the current century. It was kind of silly for Fierobear to say something (even in jest) about executing people who are on the opposite side of his views in the global warming debate. And it was kind of silly for a newspaper or news site to publish (as Fierobear recently observed) a cartoon that suggested that icicles from this winter's cold streak across much of the U.S. could be used like knives to cut down people who don't accept the IPCC's predictions about global warming.
How about all those involved silently acknowledging their mea culpa(s) and putting the murder issue to rest? It's become rather tedious.
Originally posted by rinselberg: I wish that the otherwise very intelligible FlyinFieros would put the "murder rap" to bed.
I did not expect it to drag out this long.
However, personally being in the context of fierobear's calls for murder, I am honestly concerned. As such, your post comes across to me as victim blaming.
Is it too much to ask for him to apologize? He knows it's wrong, he complained about other people doing it. Yet for some reason he's following the "do as I say, not as I do" nonsense.
I feel its perfectly reasonable to hold him accountable for his calls for murdering innocent people especially considering the fact he defended it twice.
Notice the temperature spread in the chart is only 0.09 degrees C. and, there is no upward pattern. 1998 is 0.63 and 2013 is 0.62. In other words, there is no demonstratable increase in the past 15 years as per the chart. As has been pointed out, there is no measurable increase over the past decade. Your point?
Notice the temperature spread in the chart is only 0.09 degrees C. and, there is no upward pattern. 1998 is 0.63 and 2013 is 0.62. In other words, there is no demonstratable[sic] increase in the past 15 years as per the chart. As has been pointed out, there is no measurable increase over the past decade. Your point?
If you start at year 1997, you get a 0.10 C increase over 16 years. If you start at year 1999, you get a 0.16 C increase over 14 years. If you start at year 2000, you get a 0.19 C increase over 13 years.
See where I'm going with this?
1998 is the obvious outlier. If you use any other year besides 1998, there's still an obvious warming trend.
It's hard to argue with a brick wall, Arn. I've called out the so called "no measurable increase" you keep referring to as garbage and you have yet to respond.
The chart conveniently leaves out 1999, 2000 and 2001 which were all well below 0.5 however, to be more concise,
On that chart there are only 2 years above 0.63, (the 1998 figure) and 0.62, (the 2013 figure). This places the rest of the years below the start and finish values on the chart.
In fact, all the years, including the excluded years, are below the 0.63 except for two.
This cannot be construed in any way as an increase in temperature.
There has been no net gain in global temperature since 1997. Hence the statement that there is no increase in Global Temperature in 17 years is true.
Now about linking Global Temperature to CO2 emissions. In that same time period, CO2 content has gone up from 360 to 400 ppmv. Yet there is no corresponding bump. (in Temperature averages)
Arn
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 03-28-2014).]
For more than a decade, the Heartland Institute has tried to explain to the public, in courteous terms, that the idea of a human-caused global warming catastrophe is a delusion, and that its proponents should not be allowed to waste the world’s economic resources through arrogant efforts to alter the planet’s climate.
Tim Ball, Ph.D., takes up the issue with strong words in his new book, The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science. He argues, with overwhelming evidence, that in fact the global warming debate in the halls of science has been an unmitigated fraud perpetrated by people who no longer have the right to be called scientists. Their collective goals have been to alter society radically while enriching themselves, he argues.
Each of the book’s 13 chapters opens with a picture of a major player in this historical drama of the corruption of climate science. A few are heroes, such as Richard Lindzen, Michael Crichton, and Vaclav Klaus, but most are villains, such as Maurice Strong, Paul Ehrlich, James Hansen, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, and Al Gore.
The book is a history of the people and groups who used unwarranted fear of human-caused climate change to undermine science by influencing governments and the private sector to spend vast sums of money on scientists who agreed to climb aboard the global warming gravy train. It also describes the character assassination and dearth of support directed toward those who resisted.
Ball begins correctly at the modern beginning of stifling environmentalism, Paul Erhlich’s egregious and fallacious 1967 book, The Population Bomb, followed by the 1972 Club of Rome report, both of which preached population growth must be stopped or our world was doomed. Then the 1992 UN Rio Conference, led by Canadian tycoon Maurice Strong, developed Agenda 21, a bureaucratic justification for tying population growth to other perceived evils such as global warming.
Strong ultimately conceived of and implemented the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which essentially was engineered to determine that mankind controls the climate. Designating carbon dioxide as an evil, the IPCC created an agenda for stifling economic growth wherever it was occurring. As with so many of our worst politicians, the IPCC is well-described by journalist H. L. Mencken’s famous quote, repeated by Ball: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety), by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
Ball explains the many mathematical climate models and the surprising fact that despite all their failures at prediction, governments have been quick to implement actions based on them. He notes the scientists who make the models eliminate many variables from their equations to make it possible for supercomputers to reach a conclusion in less than an eon. These choices just happen to skew the models in the desired direction of predicting disastrous global warming.
Nowhere is Ball more instructive than in his explanation of how the IPCC always releases its Summary for Policymakers well ahead of each session’s full report and then makes sure the full report agrees with the pre-written summary. The summaries never admit to any uncertainty or counter-evidence that may appear in the full reports.
By now you are probably aware of Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” fantasy, but you will be amazed at the full story of how prestigious scientists conspired to hide its obvious flaws. Ball recounts the release of thousands of emails from East Anglia University in the United Kingdom, whose climate center was behind a plot to undermine any real science in the climate change debate. Phil Jones is known to have been the primary figure in this, and Ball lashes him to the mast by reprinting email after email in a chronological manner that leaves no doubt regarding this terrible conspiracy to deceive.
biggest deception is the total ignoring of the low sun spot = weak out put dip by the nut-con deniers and expecting the predictions made before to hold true with the new sun state data that was totally unexpected
in fact under normal conditions we should have a cooling period not just a temperature pause but a big drop the lower sun output with a steady temperature is a major proof of CO2 warming effect
arctic waters will be ice free soon the trend is clear once that happens the tipping point is past the perma-frost goes the methane is released and the proof will be clear even to blind nut-con's as miami sinks
While flyinfieros bloviates about an obvious tongue in cheek comment on a CAR FORUM, the REAL WORLD calls from the media and government officials to stop free speech and jail or kill those who DISAGREE or are simply skeptical, continue.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will be releasing a 5-year study on climate impacts at the end of March. We will be visiting climate change deniers on April Fools Day to show them how foolish being a denier really is.
And repeating the New York Times, a major media outlet, suggesting skeptics be STABBED IN THE HEART
Originally posted by fierobear: While flyinfieros bloviates about an obvious tongue in cheek comment on a CAR FORUM
Yet your first reaction was to justify your calls for murder as a rational and serious solution, twice, only later to change your story to try and downplay your extremism.
For the record, obvious 'tongue in cheek' is using icicles as 'temporary doorstops' or a murder weapon in a cartoon.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: the REAL WORLD calls from the media
Oxymoron.
You feign outrage at what doesn't matter to distract from your abysmal failures at producing any evidence to support this thread title.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: government officials
Citation needed.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: to stop free speech and jail
There are limits on free speech. You cannot harm people with your speech.
For instance, climate change deniers have been wrongfully harassing Penn State scientist Michael Mann for years. Even going so far as to call him the "Jerry Sandusky of climate science…[who] molested and tortured data", spawning a defamation law suit. Source.
This is an interesting point for discussion though. Climate change denial is a self fulfilling prophecy. Deniers fear government regulation. Who will be left hung out to dry when the worlds richest and most powerful find out their precious material world is threatened? One way or another, regulation will come. Climate change denial, through prevention or slowing action, practically guarantees a future 'totalitarian' state.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: or kill those who DISAGREE
Originally posted by ray b: biggest deception is the total ignoring of the low sun spot = weak out put dip by the nut-con deniers and expecting the predictions made before to hold true with the new sun state data that was totally unexpected
Among radiative forces, the minor fluctuations in solar output one of the least significant. The difference is 1W/m², 0.1%. Source.
Among radiative forces, the minor fluctuations in solar output one of the least significant. The difference is 1W/m², 0.1%. Source.
normal variation in a normal sun spot cycle is low yes but we are NOW in a very non-normal weak cycle but the devil is in the details and some parts of the radiation vary far more esp the UV part and have a far bigger effect esp in the current low output period nobody really totally understands all the effects yet
Originally posted by fierobear: Well, at least they are starting to be HONEST about their LIEING
All the more reason to pay attention to the science rather than the media and special interest groups, like Climate Depot.
First sentence in the abstract: "It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change." Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 04-04-2014).]
Study: Even if emissions stop, carbon dioxide could warm Earth for centuries Even if carbon dioxide emissions came to a sudden halt, the carbon dioxide already in Earth's atmosphere could continue to warm our planet for hundreds of years, according to Princeton University-led research published in the journal Nature Climate Change. The study suggests that it might take a lot less carbon than previously thought to reach the global temperature scientists deem unsafe.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 04-04-2014).]
Adams co-authored a study published this week in the journal Global Change Biology that found that six of the 15 salamander species involved in the study showed significant reduction in body size over the last 55 years. The salamanders have a lifespan of about 15 years, meaning the size reduction has taken place over 13-15 breeding generations, a change that Adams called “very fast.”
Like other small animals that live for only two or three years, these birds had until now been thought to die in large numbers during cold winters. But new research suggests that warm weather during spring instead holds the key to their survival.
