No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds

ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.

However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.

Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.

To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters.

 

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

There's a 99% chance aliens won't attack earth, but we may as well build massive defenses against an invasion.

It is no conspiracy that we burn things that are most efficient to generate the energy we need. A good analogy might be a community of 100 people who survive on fish. A small number can go out and get a few large fish and feed everyone, leaving the rest to go to blazers games or post on message boards. But when fishing for large fish becomes politically incorrect and people are convinced they need to eat small fish, it takes all 100 people to catch enough fish to feed everyone. This is true of energy and efficiency - burning oil, 1 in 40 people are needed to gather the energy, while the best (I've seen) of the alternatives require 1 in 3.

I would also ask for an answer to this question: why did Obama and the Democrats talk about a Manhattan Project for energy for years, then when they have full control over the government they spend $trillions on anything but?

 

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

I think that must have been said in the late 40s, not the late 60s.

Edit - oh, maybe I misunderstood. I was thinking of speculation that one day the world might have a use for 10 or 12 computers, max. Pretty sure someone said something like that somewhere along the line. But maybe you were referring to speculation on consolidation of existing computers into supercomputer sites?

barfo

 

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol

ScienceToday.com

Sounds corporate.

 

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

I think the logic is the same, regardless of the so-called consensus.

 

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

The trend is to putting all the processing power in few places and people accessing those systems via light-weight netbook like things.

If you want to consider thoughts from decades ago, it's been 35 years since Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the roof of the white house and the efficiency of them are still so bad that it makes no sense to spend huge amounts of money installing them anywhere. That's with huge govt. subsidies around the world.

 

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

Interesting article about Solar Energy costs in the Albuquerque newspaper by a guy who has several energy related patents:

http://www.abqjournal.com/opinion/guest_columns/15920553228opinionguestcolumns01-15-09.htm

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Free Solar Power Is Hoax

By James P. O'Loughlin
Placitas Engineer

The article “N.M. Solar Energy Plan Expanded,” about the state Public Regulation Commission's promotion of grid-tied photovoltaic (PV) power generation states that homes and commercial establishments that invest in PV installations will have “free” electricity.

I evaluated such an installation for our house using Public Service Company of New Mexico PV information on its Web site. I checked the results against more sophisticated resources and found the PNM results to be in good agreement.

For my house, the required system has a DC rating of 4kw to accommodate a match to our average energy consumption of 475kwh per month. The PNM Web site states that a PV system's cost is about $10,000 per kw, or for our case about $40,000.

This is consistent with the numerous PV system components and integrated packages available, plus the installation, fees, periodic inspections, maintenance, taxes, insurance and other incidentals. Based on a 20-year life and 6 percent cost of money, this comes to a monthly cost of $286.57. The monthly cost for the same amount of energy from PNM service is $42.75 — where is the “free” electricity?

There is an insurmountable fact of nature that forces photovoltaic to be several times more expensive than conventional power generation: The sun doesn't shine for 24 hours a day. This requires that a PV generation installation must have a power rating that is about six times higher than a continuously running convention installation for the same energy output.

At this time, PV panels account for around 50 percent of a system's cost, or $5,000 per kilowatt. The other part of the PV system is based on mature technology, the cost of which cannot be reduced. The only way to reduce the PV power generation cost is to reduce the cost of the panels. Even if we take the most extreme, totally unrealistic case of reducing the PV panel cost to zero, the immutable factor of six in power rating still dominates and results in a cost of $143.29 for $42.75 worth of electricity.

The cliché about investing in research and development to decrease the cost of panels and make PV power generation competitive is an unachievable myth that is fanatically pursued by the government and other groups having various and peculiar reasons.

When reality is not acceptable, the government can fix it with political alchemy. Through the influence of pressure groups and lobbyists, state and federal governments decree that photovoltaic power generation must be implemented. To fix the inherently expensive PV power generation problem, governments provide tax credits, incentives and other forms of subsidy to cover up the excessive cost.

This does not reduce the actual cost; it just transfers it to the general taxpayer or ratepayer.

There are both state and federal incentives. PNM has a PRC approved plan that pays 13 cents a kilowatt-hour for grid tied PV power. Actually PNM doesn't pay it. It is charged to rates paid by their regular customers to help subsidize PV power. Even with this money shuffling, those who buy into PV power installations still pay considerably more for electricity and will never recoup their investment cost. The rest of us get stuck for the subsidized difference.

 

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

http://www.etforecasts.com/products/ES_pcww1203.htm#1.1

Looks to me like (US) 25% increase in server sales, 25% decrease in desktop sales, and over 70% increase in those cheap netbook like devices by 2013.

 

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

10,000 years ago the great lakes were covered with glaciers. Where did they go? Seems to me the melting has been going on since the end of the ice age.

I would expect the glaciers to melt faster and faster over time if only from the earth's surface having less white surface to reflect sun/heat back to space. There's also the matter of the earth's precession which logically explains why over time glaciers would grow south of the equator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

BTW, glaciers are growing in lots of other places.

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/200...ffers-between-hemispheres/UPI-70561241550410/

NEW YORK, May 5 (UPI) -- U.S. scientists say that while the majority of the world's glaciers are retreating as the planet becomes warmer, glaciers south of the equator are growing.

Glacier Growth Caused by Climate Change?

India's Mystery Glacier Growth

 

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

That all seems a little shortsighted. Does that guy think we will never run out of oil? Won't oil get more and more expensive as there gets to be less and less of it? How many wars will we need to fight to maintain our supply of sunshine? Does he think we are paying the true cost of power when we pay our power bill? Conventional energy is tax-subsidized in many ways also.

I have no doubt that solar energy costs more today. But if you want to make the argument it will always cost more, you have to consider a few more factors than the charges on today's power bills.

barfo

 

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

How about a solid argument that there's enough oil to last us for 300 years?

I'm not suggesting we don't invest in research for alternative energy sources, but rather that we don't go throwing $trillions at ones that make no sense.

If we cut our oil consumption by 50% by generating electricity with coal, that 300 years is even further out in the future. And that's one efficient and not costly alternative, though it's not at all my preference; nuclear power is.