Back again with another Monday Message Board.
Post comments on any topic. Civil discussion and no coarse language please. Side discussions and idees fixes to the sandpits, please. If you would like to receive my (hopefully) regular email news, please sign up using the following link
http://eepurl.com/dAv6sX You can also follow me on Twitter @JohnQuiggin, at my Facebook public page and at my Economics in Two Lessons page
John Quiggin 
No its not one of many goals. Its cannot be any sort of goal because it comes out of Uranus and not out of a rational strategy that effortlessly deals with all the threats AT THE SAME TIME. This goal is also an attempt to alter the laws of physics and its callous as to cost imposition in a way that shows the advocate has always lived off other people.
Do you have “an overall strategy”?”
Of course I do. But its no use me casting pearls before swine and not getting a pork chop back in return. Either you are going to turn over a new leaf and start thinking in holistic terms or you cannot be reasoned with.
If you wanted to get on the same page you’d go to Bill Mollison for agricultural policy. Alan Savoury for herding policy, Leon Krier for settlement policy, Bill Still for intermediate monetary policy, Henry George for ultimate tax policy, Lee Kwan Yew for intermediate housing policy to father in eventual Georgism, Barry Brook for nuclear and artificial reef policy …. You are going to need a lot of education to start thinking holistically. I’m not holding my breath over it. Makes more sense trying to convince people willing to learn. People whose learning curves aren’t flat.
Huritau Hurai Kino,
It seems to me you spew forth much personal abuse, which suggests to me you have very little if anything constructive to offer on this subject.
You state:
“…a rational strategy that effortlessly deals with all the threats AT THE SAME TIME.”
If, as you assert, the “rational strategy” that you claim you have, is so EFFORTLESS at dealing with “all the threats AT THE SAME TIME”, then why isn’t it being implemented?
I don’t see anything from you dealing with:
* climate change;
* resource depletion;
* population;
* pandemics…
Hardly dealing with ALL the listed threats simultaneously, is it? Or perhaps you think these other threats are mere trifles?
I could go on, but it seems to me you are full of empty bluster and ‘hand waving’, and when challenged to expand on your apparent grand claims, resort to rudeness and deflection instead, like: “But its no use me casting pearls before swine and not getting a pork chop back in return.”
You have nothing to contribute. Since these problems can all be dealt with easily with an integrated strategy its stupidity that is the main problem. Stupidity overrules all these threats and becomes the main threat since these other threats are easily manageable.
But stupidity wouldn’t be an obstructionist threat if the truly stupid understood their condition. So for example a 5 year old is stupid as compared to his Mother or his teacher. But hopefully he accepts that he has things to learn.
So don’t let your condition get in the way. If you accept that you are a real dummy I shall teach you.
“An ultimate goal is to end the combustion of all fossil fuels.”
First things first. We need your admission that your sub-goal is a monumentally idiotic idea. Particularly as I don’t take you for a nuclear advocate. And I need you to confirm that electricity is a FORM of energy rather than a source of energy. Can you confirm that? Or did you not get that far in school?
Everyone has the right to be a bit myopic from time to time. But comrade Geoff is abusing the privilege. Since far from addressing all these problems this dictate isn’t so much as even addressing the CO2 problem. Since its not taking into account half of the CO2 balance sheet.
It does not take into account the carbon rain in the ocean that can be increased, the carbon that may be locked up in the soil, nor any kind of energy efficiency. And Geoff is so retarded that my point that electricity is really coal burning in our country appears to have been dismissed as a minor issue. When reality becomes water off a ducks back in this way, then you know you are dealing with a real clown.
Huritau Hurai Kino,
You state:
“Since these problems can all be dealt with easily with an integrated strategy its stupidity that is the main problem. Stupidity overrules all these threats and becomes the main threat since these other threats are easily manageable.”
I’m starting to glimpse your thesis: Everyone is stupid, except supposedly you, and you, with allegedly uncanny insights into all our woes can swoop in and save the day by dealing “easily with an integrated strategy”, but you won’t reveal what the strategy is. Have I got that right? What breathtaking hubris!!!
https://johnquiggin.com/2020/09/07/sandpit-162/comment-page-2/#comment-227667
You also state:
““An ultimate goal is to end the combustion of all fossil fuels.” … We need your admission that your sub-goal is a monumentally idiotic idea.”
Who’s “We”? Your statement suggests to me you must think people like Professor Penny Sackett and Professor Will Steffen (and many others) are “monumentally idiotic”, eh?
Former Australian Chief Scientist (2008-2011) and physicist Professor Penny Sackett stated in a presentation to the Independent Planning Commission NSW (IPCN) on Jul 23 at a public hearing (from transcript page 46-53):
“At present, about 85 to 90 per cent of the CO2 that’s primarily responsible for this warming comes from the burning of fossil fuels – coal, gas, and oil. Not only does fossil fuel emit CO2, but it also emits methane, and I mention that particularly because, over a 20 year period, methane is 84 times more effective than CO2 in trapping heat, and 28 times more effective over a 100 year period.
…
Right now, in order to meet these targets, we have to transition from coal to something with literally no or very, very view emissions. That is, we need to convert to hydro, wind, and solar. And, luckily, these are the cheapest forms of new energy. So that’s the good news. That’s what makes possible, if we have the will to do it.”
See: https://www.ipcn.nsw.gov.au/resources/pac/media/files/pac/projects/2020/03/narrabri-gas-project/public-hearing/transcripts/200723-day-4-narrabri-gas-project-public-hearing.pdf
Climatologist Professor Will Steffen stated in a presentation to the IPCN on Jul 3 at a public hearing (from transcript pages 27-28):
“This really is our last chance coming out of COVID-19 to get on the right pathway. If we don’t do that, I just hate to think of what future my daughter is going to have and what future her children is going to have. We’re basically – if we keep investing in fossil fuels, we’re basically throwing our children and grandchildren under the bus. So that’s my comments on what the science is saying.”
See: https://www.ipcn.nsw.gov.au/resources/pac/media/files/pac/transcripts-and-material/2020/vickery/200703-vickery-extension-project–public-hearing-day-2-transcript.pdf
“Particularly as I don’t take you for a nuclear advocate.”
Yep. Overwhelming compelling evidence I see indicates nuclear fission technologies are:
* Too expensive;
* Too slow to deploy;
* Rely on finite fuels that are not long-term sustainable;
* Increase the risk of weapons proliferation;
* Have a toxic waste problem that will long outlast any energy benefits gained.
I’d suggest you read John Quiggin’s Submissions (#016) or mine (#096)
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Environment_and_Energy/Nuclearenergy/Submissions
I suspect you perhaps would be a nuclear fission (and fossil fuels) proponent? Am I right?
“An ultimate goal is to end the combustion of all fossil fuels.” …
We STILL need your admission that your sub-goal is a monumentally idiotic idea. We did not get it.
You somehow managed to pivot from the threats you mentioned before to more mindless bureaucratic sub-goals. So you repeated the error over again even after it was pointed out to you.
Admit that you are an idiot. Then you can become a student. I will teach you.
“I suspect you perhaps would be a nuclear fission (and fossil fuels) proponent? Am I right?”
You aren’t an advocate of nuclear fission. Thats the important point here. What this means is that you are basically insane. Its already been pointed out to you that solar energy is just coal in disguise. Brown coal burnt in China. Did I go too fast for you? Unless we can make the solar panels in France thats just coal in another form. Same with wind. So you are basically insane. You probably would say that you know the difference between an energy source and an energy type. But you cannot really put this knowledge into practice. Being fundamentally a lunatic.
For the near term it becomes kind of obvious that net CO2 improvements have to come from other areas in the balance sheet. Energy efficiency, ways of being affluent with less fuel consumption, and getting more carbon internment in the ocean and the soil.
Huritau Hurai Kino,
You state:
“We did not get it.”
Again: Who’s “We”?
You won’t.
You state:
“You aren’t an advocate of nuclear fission. Thats the important point here. What this means is that you are basically insane.”
I don’t see you debating the points I’ve articulated with compelling counter-evidence in support of nuclear fission technologies and why these would be an affordable, rapidly deployable, safe, long-term sustainable solution to mitigate dangerous climate change; only more personal abuse.
Are you suggesting John Quiggin is insane? JQ stated on his blog on 23 Aug 2019:
“First, anyone who seriously believes that nuclear power should be adopted as a response to climate change. That’s a small, but non-empty set, since most nuclear fans are climate deniers. But for those people, it should be obvious that nuclear power is never going to happen except with a carbon price high enough to wipe out coal, and compete with gas.”
https://johnquiggin.com/2019/08/23/what-price-nuclear-power/
JQ stated on his blog on 2 Sep 2019:
“As I’ve said previously, anyone who seriously believes that nuclear power should be adopted as a response to climate change ought to endorse this proposal. I find it hard to imagine that the nuclear boosters in the LNP are in this category, but if they are, here’s their chance to put their hands up.”
https://johnquiggin.com/2019/09/02/a-nuclear-grand-bargain/
You state:
“For the near term it becomes kind of obvious that net CO2 improvements have to come from other areas in the balance sheet.”
Which part of Professor Sackett’s statement: “85 to 90 per cent of the CO2 that’s primarily responsible for this warming comes from the burning of fossil fuels – coal, gas, and oil”, do you not understand? Rapidly reduce production and combustion of coal, fossil gas and petroleum oil fuels and a major proportion of human-induced GHG emissions are eliminated.
How many other blogs have you been barred from for offensive behavior? Do you think JQ’s discussion policy doesn’t apply to you here?
https://johnquiggin.com/discussion-policy/
You haven’t come up with any evidence for anything you clown. I’ve checked all over the net and I find your frantic short-termism everywhere. On every occasion you show yourself to a a short-termer, in a panic, and unwilling to think. And also hopelessly naive about any utterance you agree with coming from the public sector. So you consider a verbal statement of a public servant to be evidence. No that doesn’t pass any data hurdle to become evidence. Our hiring and promotion procedures have become so moronic that our chief scientist advocates compressing and transporting hydrogen. Thats how bad things are. So sort yourself out as to what “evidence” means because you have no clue.
I read your submission and clearly you are a crank. One of these crazies that write submission after submission and waste everyone’s time with your know-nothing stupidity. Talking about billions of years of radiation pollution. Good gravy. In the real world Chernobyl has become this marvellous ecological zone. Even the wolves have come back. Your submissions are crazy stuff. You even got CO2 history all wrong. Believing with a leap of faith that the ice core samples represented sea level CO2 readings. You are a real dummy. Stop wasting the governments time with all your foolish submissions.
Lets keep going over this again and again until you get it. Wind energy requires coal. These gigantic short-lived turbines are not made in France with nuclear electricity. They are not yet forged down river with direct energy from one of our hydro-dams. Do you understand this? The short-lived solar panels are made in China with Chinese brown coal. They require a lot of heat, and a lot of rare earth elements. Do you understand that? They require a lot of energy to transport them here, to erect them, to maintain them, and to get rid of them after their very short useful life. Is that clear to you?
Now slow down. Admit that you are a moron. Then you can learn something. Its this panic, short-termism, and unwillingness to learn, that has turned all your submissions into worthless speed-bumps.
Hi Huritau Hurai Kino
Your statement that solar panels not made in France are “…just coal in another form,” is wrong.
See this now outdated study:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610217305015
Current figures are lower — perhaps 20 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour for silicon PV.
So, Huritau Hurai Kino, you are either lying or ignorant. As you have access to the internet and could look this up for yourself I would say that, at best, you are lying through negligence. But note not everyone categorizes behaviour the same way I do.
I read John’s submission. Its a very good submission. It talks about the new model Westinghouse as probably the only appropriate design ready to get started on. That sounds plausible. In the preamble to your own submission you emphasise the necessity of energy itself. Thats good. But you don’t talk like you believe this, since in reality it is not possible to get away from hydrocarbons in a hurry. It literally cannot be done since the new energy sources take hydrocarbons to manufacture or at least in the setup costs. So in order to get away from this panic business we are going to need to find ways for the natural world to inter the carbon in soil. In other words we need strategic thinking to deal with all the threats AT THE SAME TIME. This is a point that you aren’t able to get because of your myopia.
Now I read one of your submissions that seems to suggest you are quite fond of CSP. I am fond of CSP also. Because we can go about it cost-effectively and slowly. And we have an area either side of the Gann railway above Alice that could over a couple of centuries be turned into a very cost-effective CSP energy corridor. Using debt financing would kill this. Because of the reality of exponential growth of debt. So to do it right we should get started slowly as soon as the budget is in surplus. Just one reflector at a time.
From John’s submission:
“The only plausible contender is the Westinghouse AP-1000, along with possible
modifications of this design. Even for this design there is no prospect of deployment in Australia before 2040.”
Thats great. So if we started negotiations with Westinghouse now, and started buying up possible sites for the location of these reactors, then we could launch one once both the state and Federal governments were both in surplus. We’d want the construction to go slowly and at low cost, and with a lot of hard work we would have our first nuclear power happening maybe in 2050. So thats a start.
“Suggestions that more advanced designs (including Gen IV reactors, small modular reactors,
fusion reactors, and thorium-based reactors), might be available within a relevant time-frame
are fanciful. These designs have so far not implemented even in prototype form. I have
developed this point further.”
That certainly sounds right to me. And given the author it will be a well-considered point of view. But there is a flaw here: “within a relevant time-frame” ….. When we are talking about energy we are talking about decades, quarter-centuries, half-centuries, centuries and millennia. Nothing happens quickly in energy. So I think we can trust basically everything in John’s submission. Certainly it all fits well with my own attempts to come to grips with the problems here. But the time-frame considerations are wrong. We want to get our feet wet in a low-cost low-risk way with all these technologies. Years of preparation. We have our CSP site in South Australia. Made with foreign debt, in the wrong place and with foreign expertise. The idea is to take what we learn from this and slowly gear up to reproduce this technology without debt, in a better location and in an ongoing fashion. Surplus budgets are key here. Getting good at making liquid metal batteries, that require molten salts but that don’t require rare earth elements ought to be twinned up with CSP. Molten salt experience will be necessary for thorium. So the one chain-links to the other but only over many many decades if you want to do things debt free and keep costs low.
In terms of soil-building. Thats something we can get started with cheaply right away. But even that is a decades and centuries long process to do it right. The long-term vision needed to deal with these problems is in the nature of reality. Its not something that anyone can change.
Huritau Hurai Kino,
You state:
“You haven’t come up with any evidence for anything you clown.”
I don’t see any compelling evidence from you supporting any claims you make. It seems anywhere you show up on the internet as far as I can see appears to be full of abuse, apparently hiding behind a pseudonym.
You state:
“In the real world Chernobyl has become this marvellous ecological zone.”
Looks like the perfect place for you (and your ilk) to live there then? How soon can you get there?
You state:
“You even got CO2 history all wrong. Believing with a leap of faith that the ice core samples represented sea level CO2 readings.”
It seems to me you are a rabid pro-nuclear, pro-fossil fuels, climate science denier troll, trotting out the same tired old bogus discussion points interspersed with lashings of personal abuse. Evidence is irrelevant for people like you.
It’s about time climate science deniers are denounced as threats to humanity.
https://johnquiggin.com/2020/01/05/climate-deniers-are-worse-than-antivaxers-but-get-treated-better/
“Your statement that solar panels not made in France are “…just coal in another form,” is wrong.”
No I’m not wrong. They require a lot of energy to make. They have a short life-span. They are subsidised which implies a probable energy sink. At best, unsubsidised, they would be a force-multiplier for coal because of their short-lived nature. So when you see them think coal-burning or a potential force-multiplier for coal-burning. Now what are you claiming here? Are you claiming a 2 times force multiplier? A 10 times force multiplier? I think they will be negative at the moment since they are subsidised. We don’t want to take marketing hype and get too excited about it. If they had the durability of granite then I’d agree with you straight away. Currently since they are being put on the grid, in error, they require even more hydro-carbon usage because of the spare capacity needed to accommodate them.
So take them off the grid, find a better encouragement then a straight subsidy, which is welfare for the Chinese, and maybe they could multiply our coal by some factor. But currently they should be considered coal-burning. If they beat ten to one as a coal energy multiplier I of course would think they were great and they would not require any assistance from me. We’d all be scrambling for them.
If they were as groovy as you say the Chinese would greedily hoard them.
Huritau Hurai Kino, what you have stated is impossible. Solar panels are around 19 US cents per watt. In a solar farm in Australia they can easily generate over 40 kilowatt-hours of electrical energy over their lifetime. If if the 19 cents a solar panel is sold for was all spent on coal and then burned solar PV would still have lower emissions than coal power.
Disregard any figures you cannot check the assumptions of.
You should know that these figures are nonsense. You take the solar panel out of the box and it begins to degrade with usage. You have to see how this solar panel works over a lifetime before you can put that 19 cents per watt figure on it. So its marketing hype. Because you can only do the calculation retrospectively. You were taught as a 12 year old to show your working. So we want to see some of these assumptions before getting all excited about what is only a calculation by a self-interested Chinese marketing department. Or from ideologue who is trying to guild the lilly. Whatever the cost of another energy source the solar crowd can be relied on to put forward a lower figure without any audit trail.
Supposing it works out at 40 cents per watt in a rain shadow near the equator? Its not going to be the same figure in Tasmania so even the very idea that you have fixated a 19 cent per watt cost in your head is deeply suspicious. Since the number of assumptions that go into that costing have to be in the dozens. Very many opportunities to fudge the calculations.
“You even got CO2 history all wrong. Believing with a leap of faith that the ice core samples represented sea level CO2 readings.”
That still stands. I’ve seen you elsewhere on the net talking nonsense about historical CO2 levels. Nonsense that could only have come from ice core sample data. Which is not the same as CO2 levels in the air at sea level.
Huritau Hurai Kino, there is nothing suspicious about the 19 cents per watt figure. That’s about what solar panels cost. The manufacturers sell the panels in return for that amount of money. Here’s a page on PV pricing:
http://pvinsights.com/
Chinese manufacturers do not spend all the money they receive from selling solar panels on coal, burn it, and then spend additional money buying more coal and then burning it just to make their panels as emission heavy as coal power. That’s absurd.
By the way, one watt of solar PV in a solar farm in Hobart will generate around 30 kilowatt-hours over a 25 years and around 35 over a 30 years.
No its completely suspicious for the reasons I’ve already mentioned. Its a projection 30 years ahead of time without the assumptions being clearly listed. I see I’m amongst people who like to swat inconvenient truths away with a bit of verbiage and keep moving. The problem is that this denial can go on for years.
But you did link an article I found interesting for this reason. The Chinese study, with the solar cells in the Gobi desert, got the best results. I can assume a pretty strong force multiplier for the following reasons… The brown coal is dug up and used in the same country as the manufacture of the solar panels. They are then used in a place where the space is easily justified. So much so that the panels could actually make it easier to reclaim the land. When you are trying to work with desert land shade is all important. So we have this favourable logistics that almost guarantee a force multiplier from the original brown coal. The whole supply chain within the same country and possibly even the same area. As well as no land wastage. How can I not fall this sort of thing head over heels? Better still if they weren’t attaching this to the grid but had some other way of using the electricity. Like on-the-spot hydrogen.
Now imagine if 90% of the worlds population lived within 400m of a canal wharf? Just for the sake of illustration? Most people living in spacious 3-5 story apartments close together? You see under this extremist excellence in energy efficient logistics, the coal then gets turned into solar panels and transported efficiently to wear it can be used, that being every available roof, or desert, or anywhere that its not using up land in a wasteful fashion. Now thats when things get really good. For starters if we are going to subsidise something, and supposing they give us a ten to one advantage with our coal … why can we not make these panels here? And if we can’t make these panels here there are plenty of other things we can do locally that deserve the funds.
Secondly its infrastructure investment in energy-efficiency .. … This is what makes all other energy forms more viable. Thats where the main focus should be. Particularly until we have a surplus of energy storage options.
But generally speaking I think that Northern desert CSP, with financial encouragement only going to Australian Sole traders … that to me is a more satisfying goal.
In terms of reducing CO2 output in a hurry. The fastest way to do this is to preserve our capital stock of coal by reducing coal exports. If you want fast results thats the fast results you want. Yes thats our capital stock. We ought not be running it down so quickly.
“By the way, one watt of solar PV in a solar farm in Hobart will generate around 30 kilowatt-hours over a 25 years and around 35 over a 30 years.”
A bit of soothsaying there. And in your assumptions there won’t be the extra CO2 release needed to cover for the intermittency. Amongst myriad other factors that you will be ignoring here. Not excluding the misuse of land being as Hobart is not a desert. So I must ignore this fantasy whether I like to or not.
Whereas a program to encourage soil development could begin internment of CO2 into the ground right away. The winnings being in Australian rather than Chinese hands.
Huritau Hurai Kino,
You state:
“Nonsense that could only have come from ice core sample data. Which is not the same as CO2 levels in the air at sea level.”
Wrong statement typical of a climate science denier, and without any evidence. Apparently you don’t know about wind that mixes CO2 evenly through the atmosphere, eh?
“The reason why it’s acceptable to use Mauna Loa as a proxy for global CO2 levels is because CO2 mixes well throughout the atmosphere.”
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=2&t=92&&a=55
“The oldest ice cores, from East Antarctica, provide an 800,000-year-old record of Earth’s climate. How do we know they’re that old? Each season’s snowfall has slightly different properties than the last. These differences create annual layers in the ice that can be used to count the age of the ice, just like rings inside a tree.”
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2616/core-questions-an-introduction-to-ice-cores/
“This method provides detailed records of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide going back over 650,000 years[6]. Ice core records globally agree on these levels, and they match instrumented measurements from the 1950s onwards, confirming their reliability. Carbon dioxide measurements from older ice in Greenland is less reliable, as meltwater layers have elevated carbon dioxide (CO2 is highly soluble in water). Older records of carbon dioxide are therefore best taken from Antarctic ice cores.”
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/
The history of atmospheric CO2, from 800,000 years ago until January 2019 is seen in this animation. The animation starts at the beginning of 1979 showing actual CO2 measurements at multiple measuring points around the globe, progressing to January 2019, then adding in the Keeling direct CO2 measurement data back to 1958, then the ice core data back to 800k BCE.
At altitude, where the snow which is ice is formed, the CO2 is slightly less and the air pressure makes absorption into the blood differentially more difficult for CO2. Which is why when you get altitude sickness your blood becomes alkaline. From less absorption of CO2 then O2. So thats really the end of the matter. You need three proxies to reconstruct an unknown record. And the ice core proxy differs from both the leaf stigmata and measured record.
Thats the end of the matter. I am right. You are wrong. I am okay. You are not okay. Plus you will notice that the measured record is highly unstable whereas the ice record is smooth. This is because of leakage. Gasses being light than water there is a slow leakage of the gasses in the ice and we have a kind of averaging effect beyond a mere underestimation.
Huritau Hurai Kino,
You state:
“At altitude, where the snow which is ice is formed, the CO2 is slightly less and the air pressure makes absorption into the blood differentially more difficult for CO2.”
Evidence? What’s does blood have to do with atmospheric CO2 concentrations? Your making this stuff up. What a laugh!!!
You state:
“You need three proxies to reconstruct an unknown record.”
Why three? Making stuff up again!!!
“In paleoclimatology, or the study of past climates, scientists use what is known as proxy data to reconstruct past climate conditions. These proxy data are preserved physical characteristics of the environment that can stand in for direct measurements. Paleoclimatologists gather proxy data from natural recorders of climate variability such as tree rings, ice cores, fossil pollen, ocean sediments, corals and historical data. By analyzing records taken from these and other proxy sources, scientists can extend our understanding of climate far beyond the instrumental record.”
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/what-are-proxy-data
Looks like there are more than three proxies informing the climate record.
You state:
“Thats the end of the matter. I am right. You are wrong. I am okay. You are not okay.”
You’re a legend in your own mind – clearly delusional. What supreme hubris. As if you know better than tens of thousands of scientists exploring and reporting on multiple lines of enquiry all pointing in the same direction? It seems to me you are another resident near the peak of “Mount Stupid” on the Dunning-Kruger Effect curve.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_Effect_01.svg
You state:
“Plus you will notice that the measured record is highly unstable whereas the ice record is smooth.”
Actual measurements are usually ‘noisy’. The ice record is an averaging from multiple cores so it’s not surprising it’s ‘smooth’. The trend and unprecedented rapid rise over time in the this last century is undeniable.
“Evidence? What’s does blood have to do with atmospheric CO2 concentrations?”
As you know blood is mostly water so the same absorption rules apply.
“This method provides detailed records of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide going back over 650,000 years[6]. Ice core records globally agree on these levels, and they match instrumented measurements from the 1950s onwards, confirming their reliability.”
AND THEY MATCH INSTRUMENTED MEASUREMENTS FROM THE 1950’S ONWARDS.
No they don’t. And the link doesn’t have the ice core measurements to prove it. Plus even if it were true, it would imply that the ice and the measurements differed prior to the 1950’s, which is true. These guys are notorious for putting different proxies in sequence rather than using the same three through-out the series. They mix and match with extreme tendentiousness and they deep-six the instrumental record prior to the opening of Mauna Loma, which has to be forgotten about from the start, it being next to the largest active volcano in the world.
Don’t believe me about disagreeing with the above quoted statement? From your other link by the publicist Mr Cook:
“The following graph shows atmospheric CO2 levels over the last 10,000 years. It includes ice core data for CO2 levels before 1950. For values after 1950, direct measurements from Mauna Loa, Hawaii were used”
So there you go. The ice core proxy information ends at 1950 and the Mauna Loa information takes over. Now while its true that Mauna Loa broadly concurs with the other measuring stations that data is still not allowed and cannot be taken into consideration. So what we have is an ice core record on the low side … a gap in the data … and then the rising trend of CO2 as shown by non-Mauna Loa stations.
Now in some ways this really doesn’t matter. We’ve been losing soil all the time from the 1950’s, and the CO2 has been rising in recent decades. But what matters is people stay disciplined and only use good data. In terms of combating the rise in the CO2 levels, we do want to reverse the soil loss and start building dark soil hand over fist, and we do want to reduce the coal exports. No disagreements there. But its never okay to use tainted data. No excuses. Even if the other stations agree. Even if its for a worthy cause. Angels with hearts of gold ought still never use tainted data.
“As you know blood is mostly water so the same absorption rules apply.
Graeme, past CO2 levels aren’t derived from the ice. They’re derived from the gas bubbles trapped in the ice. I’m not sure why you think absorption is relevant.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-glaciology/article/reliability-of-icecore-science-historical-insights/92910C4F70F7D55B05484DADD5C45236/core-reader
Huritau Hurai Kino,
You state:
“As you know blood is mostly water so the same absorption rules apply.”
Absorption of O2 and CO2 within blood is a function of atmospheric pressure. Atmospheric pressure is a proxy for how many gas molecules/atoms there are within a given fixed gas volume. At sea level, the atmospheric pressure is higher, where there are more gas molecules/atoms for a given volume (say per cubic metre) bumping about, compared with higher altitudes, where there are less molecules/atoms (per cubic metre) bumping about, and therefore lower pressure.
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/FlyingHigh/story?id=1936770&page=1
Blood absorption of O2 and/or CO2 has nothing to do with atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
CO2 concentration is expressed as parts per million (on Sep 17 it was 411.28 ppm at Mauna Loa Observatory located at an elevation of 3,397 meters), which is a RATIO of the number of CO2 molecules compared with an overall number of all molecules/atoms within a gas volume of atmosphere. Due to wind, the gas concentrations are mixed uniformly (see the animation “Carbon Dioxide Pumphandle 2019” in my comment above showing CO2 concentrations, particularly in the southern hemisphere, at multiple sites that are at various latitudes and elevations over time).
https://sioweb.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/
The Antarctic Dome C location that provided ice core data for 800,000 years has an elevation at 3,233 m. The Antarctic Vostok location that provided ice core data for 400,000 years has an elevation at 3,488 m. So the Mauna Loa Observatory is at a similar elevation (within 170 m) to the Antarctic Dome C and Vostok sites. The Mauna Loa Observatory measurements match consistently with the ice core data over the same period.
“On the ice core question, it turns out that the ice core reconstructions overlap with the first couple decades of the South Pole record of atmospheric CO2 made by Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego scientists, and the overlap shows very good agreement. Also, ice core records recovered from different locations in Antarctica agree quite well with each other. Both of these facts demonstrate that the ice cores are recording atmospheric composition quite faithfully.”
https://sioweb.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2014/03/20/how-are-ice-core-data-and-mauna-loa-atmospheric-data-made-comparable/
The ‘noisiness’ of the direct atmospheric CO2 concentration measurements from sites, like those from the Mauna Loa Observatory, is a consequence of high resolution, certainly hour-by-hour, since March 1958, which reveals the annual oscillations in the record. The ice core data don’t have anywhere near the same resolution and so appear ‘smooth’ because the resolution is much ‘coarser’ by comparison:
“The main limitation of the ice-core data is that it is effectively a 10-year or longer running average, because air of slightly different ages is mixed together in firn layers – layers of compacted snow that falls in one year and survives unmelted to the following year – before the air is sealed off into bubbles in the ice layers below the firn. The ice-core record therefore not as sharp in time as the direct atmospheric record, but it’s plenty sharp enough to document changes decade by decade, and therefore the rise from preindustrial times towards the present.”
You state:
“So the ice record is wrong and its wrongness has been explained very clearly.”
You keep confirming you are a climate science denier. You willfully ignore the evidence. The overwhelming scientific evidence confirms you are ignorant, deluded and dead wrong. Its attitudes like yours that are already getting people killed by the consequences of escalating dangerous climate change – e.g. Australian 2019-20 bushfire crisis, US 2020 wildfires.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/yes-climate-change-did-influence-australias-unprecedented-bushfires/
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/climate-change-and-wildfires
Professor Schellnhuber discusses what humanity is facing: “We are in deep trouble…” (from about time interval 15:27).
I’m glad it’s obvious, since it’s not exactly an obscure piece of knowledge. Before you get banned again, can you explain what you meant by “the same rules apply” to “absorption into the blood”?
Also, coal price is currently 5c per kg, but 2017-2019 it was 10c per kg and solar panels were much the same price then. About 20c per watt as Ronald stated. His point was that at most only 2kg of coal per watt could have been used to manufacture them.
Coal fired power stations burn roughly 0.5kg of coal per kwh generated. Can you use your awesome math skills and tell us how many years a panel would have to be installed at a location with just 10% capacity factor to displace that hypothetical max 2kg of coal burned?
Graeme: “Secondly your solar panel lead price is a fiction. Its a calculation. Based on dozens of assumptions and leaving many things out.”
Nope. It’s quite literally the price suppliers order them for. This is just one of dozens of ads I could link you to:
https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/China-direct-factory-300W-350W-360W_62215152356.html?spm=a2700.details.deiletai6.1.724912284x62ct
Huritau Hurai Kino: Nothing more from you, please. To other commenters, sorry to have let this drag on so long – I’ve been busy and this is an old thread.
Take a load off… and chill.
Astonishingly, pre-covid19, given the many-locations presentation. And nice little joke from Ringo… the key of F-demented! 😉