Global warming crowd takes a break

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Yeah, 38,8% wind energy is so dumb that I not even read the article. Solar energy and geothermal energy is available everywhere and every time, but wind? Also where should we install such much wind turbines without harming the nature and negatively affect the humans.

To this topic I already wrote before:

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

To wind farms: It´s not that good to use them on land because it changes the overall appearance of the landscape, endangers wildlife (birds) and is not reliable enough as the wind strength changes a lot (although there are areas with very constant wind conditions).

The better way for wind farms is to make them offshore. The advantage: Very constant wind conditions, less danger of killing wildlife (if the wind farms are build far enough away from the coast) and the landscape is not so much affected (even here it´s important to construct them far enough from the coast, that you can´t see them).

.
.
.

Furthermore it´s anyway impossible to satisfy the demand of energy only with wind farms and therefore shenanigans to build too much of them. So wind farms should be understood as addition to the renewable energy mix.

But in this chart it´s said to be the main energy supply?

Remember this:

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

Yeah, 38,8% wind energy is so dumb that I not even read the article. Solar energy and geothermal energy is available everywhere and every time, but wind? Also where should we install such much wind turbines without harming the nature and negatively affect the humans.

To this topic I already wrote before:But in this chart it´s said to be the main energy supply?

Remember this:

Yuck...give me a coal-fired plant on 1/100th of the same area.

[wmbwinn]

1)Agreed that it would take millions of wind turbines to add significantly to our source of power.
2)Disagree that they are ugly. They actually are pretty neat. They are currently used a lot in Wyoming and Iowa (I at least have seen a lot of them in those places).
3) Why not put a lot of the wind turbine units in the ocean off the coast out of sight?
4)Agree that it will probably never account for 38% of our power.
5)time to accept nuclear power

[GermanDunk]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

Yeah, 38,8% wind energy is so dumb that I not even read the article. Solar energy and geothermal energy is available everywhere

True, but count the electric energy to pump the liquid into the earth and up again...

But solar energy is a hot button. It makes sense in AZ or CA... folks should consider purchasing such a plant for their home, definately.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

2) I think this depends on the number of wind turbines. Also if you live near those, it´s not fun because of the noise and shadow of the rotating propeller.

3) I wrote this before and think this is the best way to handle wind turbines.

And yes I can´t imagine how it could be possible to cover 38,8% of the whole world energy demand.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

2) I think this depends on the number of wind turbines. Also if you live near those, it´s not fun because of the noise and shadow of the rotating propeller.

3) I wrote this before and think this is the best way to handle wind turbines.

And yes I can´t imagine how it could be possible to cover 38,8% of the whole world energy demand.

Is it not true that the real weakness of wind turbine energy is the storage of energy (ie, batteries )?

Do you see any signifiant battery technologies changing the math to favor wind turbine energy?

I believe, that in reality, even coal and nuclear driven power plants store electricity in battery form and then that system is "wired" to the grid. Is that not true?

I think the next great technology leap in energy is battery improvement.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by GermanDunk

True, but count the electric energy to pump the liquid into the earth and up again...

But solar energy is a hot button. It makes sense in AZ or CA... folks should consider purchasing such a plant for their home, definately.

Heat pumps are meanwhile very efficient (you get about 5kWh heating energy for 1kWh consumption of current).

Also you can spud hot springs and use the heat of the water flowing to the surface (without spending any electricity).

Another way is to use the terrestrial heat to evaporate water and use the steam to heat and generate electricity.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Is it not true that the real weakness of wind turbine energy is the storage of energy (ie, batteries )?

No, the energy is not stored in batteries, it´s fed directly into the grid. Why use batteries? You get more energy losses and also have additional costs. The weakness of a wind turbine is, that only 59% of the energy which the wind contains can be used (an aerodynamic flow problem: Betz´law). Another problem is the losses during the generating (for example frictional losses, heat losses,...). And last but not least the wind speed is not constant, and a lot of days there is no wind. The efficiency of wind turbines is at about 45-50% at the moment.

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

I believe, that in reality, even coal and nuclear driven power plants store electricity in battery form and then that system is "wired" to the grid. Is that not true?

No, also here the electricity is fed directly into the grid. Same explanation as above.

[dude1394]

Battery or storage technologies will have to be created for both solar/wind to be viable. There are some very large-scale batteries that are being developed for this as well as an innovative system of compressing air and then releasing it to generate power on command.

The grid cannot operate with intermittant supplies. I would expect that all solar powered homes have a very large (probably more expensive than the panels) battery system that is required.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

You don´t need batteries as a buffer. All you need is a DC-to-AC converter.

[wmbwinn]

I can re-call that there was a windmill in Texas at a place that I used to deer hunt. The windmill was a wind turbine unit and the energy was stored on a battery. There was a well and a trough. The battery powered a pump that pulled water to the trough for the cattle. We ran a water hose off of it for own purposes.

I know that recently where I lived (last winter) there were some bad storms (snow/ice/wind) and the power grid was down. I know that some of my friends on farms did the same thing. They had old fashioned windmills powering well pumps for cattle and to pull water to "pivot" irrigation systems. Some of them diverted power from the battery to their house to run only the dishwasher and then only the laundry washing machine.

Now, I know that the farms/ranches also use natural gas to power the pivots. It is possible that some of them diverted natural gas electrical generators to run parts of their house for a while.

Anyway, I think it is possible to run wind turbines and store electricity to batteries.

I understand your point that energy is loss in the battery storage idea.

Batteries are a large idea in the wave of new vehicles that are fully electric or are hybrid combinations.

Would not a battery system have the advantage of being more capable of a continuous supply to a grid?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

You don´t need batteries as a buffer. All you need is an DC-to-AC converter.

Nah...you can't have the grid going up and down at peak power times, it won't work that way unless you want to have rolling brown-outs.

Let's say for the sake of fantasy (from the prior article that started this) that 38% of the energy is provided by wind. Well wind stops...38% (or more like 20%) of the energy is now gone. You either don't have it or you have to have another power plant ready to kick in to supply it.

Can you imagine your industries working with rolling brown-outs, I can't, no high-tech industry could stand that.

What are some common effects of Brown-outs?

Brown-outs are the mother of all sorts of Bad Stuff.

Power supplies in some electronic equipment may fall out of regulation. Errors, due to erratic power supply performance, may creep into computer operations.Other electronic equipment may function poorly - or not function at all.

Marginally performing devices (electronic or electric) will probably cease operation entirely.

Motors will overheat. Some motor types will slow down.

Electrical interference will greatly increase. Increased interference may affect computer and communication operations.

Off-line UPS units (the vast majority of lower cost units) continuously cycle between power line and internal battery operation. UPS batteries (generally sized to provide only 5 - 10 minutes back-up) will soon be discharged, unable to generate additional Back Up power. You are out of business. If system has not been shut-down, the entire system (UPS & computer) may snap back to life when power rises slightly, only to again shut down when the power line voltage falls back into the Brown-out zone. Such "ON-OFF" operational cycling is unhealthy for UPS, batteries and connected electronics. For Brown-out correction see our Voltage Regulator Page.

Spikes generated by electrical machinery also greatly increase. Air conditioners, refrigerators and other motorized devices generate local spikes. Industrial machinery (often miles away) create additional spikes which may find their way unto the electrical distribution system, and into your sensitive, valuable equipment.

[wmbwinn]

Again, I am only asking questions like a classroom setting:
Diesel trains have one or two or more large diesel engines. The diesel engines do not drive the train's power train. The diesel engines directly power electrical engines. The electrical engines are the direct power source to the drive train at the drive wheels.

Why are they designed that way?

[dude1394]

I'm not sure wmbwinn, but I would hypothesize that it's easier to design the drive train for an electrical motor than it is for a diesel engine that's generating the power? But not really sure. It may have something to do with the shear power required for a train, or that there are multiple engines on the train. All three for example may not have generating capabilities.

Man the web is quite amazing.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/diesel-locomotive.htm

Why Hybrid? Why Diesel?
The main reason why diesel locomotives are hybrid is because this eliminates the need for a mechanical transmission, as found in cars. Let's start by understanding why cars have transmissions.

[wmbwinn]

Exactly, Dude1394. Trains have several diesel engines and several electrical engines. Diesel trains are hybrid. The hybrid design has existed for a very long time in that setting.

I don't know if the idea can be applied to the electrical grid. I don't know if it is practical to go through an electrical battery or even engine between the original wind turbine and the eventual grid.

[GermanDunk]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Again, I am only asking questions like a classroom setting:
Diesel trains have one or two or more large diesel engines. The diesel engines do not drive the train's power train. The diesel engines directly power electrical engines. The electrical engines are the direct power source to the drive train at the drive wheels.

Why are they designed that way?

It makes sense, because you don´t need a transmission shaft or a gearbox, because the power is "generated" at the point where it´s needed. It works steepless. In addition to this you don´t need conservative breaking systems. Speed is shut down by el. induction.

[GermanDunk]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

I don't know if the idea can be applied to the electrical grid. I don't know if it is practical to go through an electrical battery or even engine between the original wind turbine and the eventual grid.

It already is. The so called block-heating compound. It´s one or more truck engines driven in lower rotation speed. They provide both - electrical- and heating energy. It works for small villages, hospitals or larger farms.
Storing electricity in batteries is by far too expensive. It has to be produced and consumed or sold immediately.

[dude1394]

Energy storage is a big deal with respect to solar/wind power. As usual wiki has it all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage
Grid energy storage lets electric energy producers send excess electricity over the electricity transmission grid to temporary electricity storage sites that become energy producers when electricity demand is greater, optimizing the production by storing off-peak power for use during peak times. Also, photovoltaic and wind turbine users can avoid the necessity of having battery storage by connecting to the grid, which effectively shifts demand to or takes demand away from other generating units. It does not, however, in any way "store energy" since it uses load shifting and relies on the load following capability of other generating units.

[dude1394]

Man those climate-change guys can really tell the future can't they!

http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2008/0...ears-hath.html

Climate change: What 20 years hath wrought
By TigerHawk at 7/03/2008 08:59:00 PM

Twenty years ago, NASA scientist James Hanson warned the United States Congress of the threat of anthropogenic global warming, and he has continued to do so in more strident terms ever since.

Ironically, the global temperature in June 2008 was lower than in June 1988. For what it's worth.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com...0-years-makes/

Recently, Dr. James Hansen of NASA GISS gave his 20 year anniversary speech before congress, in which he was restating the urgency of the global warming crisis we now face. Warnings of tipping points, and a call for putting “energy executives on trial for crimes against humanity and nature” were parts of that speech.

Here are the just published global temperature data sets for UAH (University of Alabama) and RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) and the 20 year time-line. Dr. Hansen if you are reading can you kindly point out where in the time-line the crimes occurred and tipping points are?

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by GermanDunk

It already is. The so called block-heating compound. It´s one or more truck engines driven in lower rotation speed. They provide both - electrical- and heating energy. It works for small villages, hospitals or larger farms.
Storing electricity in batteries is by far too expensive. It has to be produced and consumed or sold immediately.

That is cool. I figured there was a way to do it...

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Energy storage is a big deal with respect to solar/wind power. As usual wiki has it all.

If I understand that, basically when the wind isn't blowing, then the grid reverts to coal/nuclear/other source of energy.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

If I understand that, basically when the wind isn't blowing, then the grid reverts to coal/nuclear/other source of energy.

Correct...but that's the inherent problem. You have to have the coal/nuclear/other source of energy running full-out to be as efficient as possible, or at least running enough to supply the electricty that "might" not be there from wind/solar.

Definitely if we moved to predominantly solar/wind...the other power generating plants wouldn't be online, there would have to be an extensive energy storage mechanism.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Again, you don´t need batteries to come to grips with the fluctuating consumption of current!

Operating principles of

a) Power stations:

Batteries are in this area of electricity generation meanwhile obsolete and usually not used. And till not better battery systems will be developed, there will be no change.

Battery storage was used in the very early days of direct-current electric power networks, but is appearing again. Battery systems connected to large solid-state converters have been used to stabilize power distribution networks. For example in Puerto Rico a system with a capacity of 20 megawatts for 15 minutes is used to stabilize the frequency of electric power produced on the island. A 27 megawatt 15 minute nickel-cadmium battery bank was installed at Anchorage Alaska in 2003 to stabilize voltage at the end of a long transmission line.[7] Many "off-the-grid" domestic systems rely on battery storage, but storing large amounts of electricity in batteries or by other electrical means has not yet been put to general use. Batteries are generally expensive, have maintenance problems, and have limited lifespans.

Link

The fluctuation of consumption is compensated thru a complex interaction of different power stations. There are three types:

(1) Base load power stations (e.g. nuclear, brown coal, geothermal): Those work around the clock at full load. This is, because of the low dynamic of this kind of power stations, which means that it´s too complicated and lasts too long, to regulate the delivery power (the control is slow).

(2) Medium load power stations (e.g. hard coal): These are also not very dynamic, but can be regulated at a wide power output range. Those power stations regulate their delivery power according to a schedule.

(3) Peak load power stations (e.g. gas power stations, pumped storage hydro power station): Those have a very high dynamic, which means the regulation of the delivery power works incomplex and quick. These power stations usually work for a few hours a day and are used to cover the peak-hour consumption and unexpected fluctuations of consumption (as for instance temporary failure of power stations). An adjustment of the delivery power is possible within minutes.

In the following, graphics of the interaction of power stations:

Legend:

Kraftwerksleistung = power plant capacity
Zeit = time
Grundlast = base load power
Mittellast = medium load power
Spitzenlast = peak load power

Link

Typically progress of consumption during a day (more detailed, proportioned in the different types of power producer):



Legend:

Anteil in % = share in %
Uhrzeit = time
Pumpstrom = current of pumped storage hydro power stations
Spitzenstrom = current of pumped storage hydro power stations, hard coal power stations and gas power stations
Steinkohle = hard coal
Erdgas = gas
Braunkohle = brown coal
Kernenergie = nuclear power
Wasserkraft = water power

Link

If there is a shortcoming of energy consumer the following will happen:

In many places, pumped storage hydroelectricity is used to even out the daily generating load, by pumping water to a high storage reservoir during off-peak hours and weekends, using the excess base-load capacity from coal or nuclear sources.

Link

Another way to balance the off-peak hours is following:

The energy provider sell their current to large-scale consumer cheaper (i.e. chemical industry, steel industry,...). In reward the provider is permitted to reduce or increase the power consumption of those companies when needed. Also the consumption in off-peak hours is balanced by those consumer, which draw the cheaper night current (for e.g. storage heater).


b) Additional power producer (e.g. wind energy, photo-voltaic energy, combined heat and power units): Those are all power producer, which are operated by private people alternatively companies, and can´t be controlled by network operator. There are two different types of those:

(1) Off-the-grid domestic systems: Here the current is produced exclusively for the operator. To do this, you need batteries to store the energy and use it when it´s needed.

(2) Grid feeding systems: Here the current is fed into the grid directly. For example, most photo-voltaic systems in Germany work this way. The current which is produced will be transformed by a DC-to-AC converter and fed into the grid directly. Why not use batteries to store the energy and use it? Because in Germany you get more money for the current you fed into the grid, than current you buy from a provider costs. So you sell your current to the provider, who exonerates the power stations, and rake in the difference of your sold and bought current.


And I completely agree. At the moment the energy storage technology is not good enough for alternative energy technologies, to supply the demand at it´s own. It´s only possible as off-the-grid domestic systems, or as addition to the fossil or nuclear energy mix.

[wmbwinn]

"And I completely agree. At the moment the energy storage technology is not good enough for alternative energy technologies, to supply the demand at it´s own. It´s only possible as off-the-grid domestic systems, or as addition to the fossil or nuclear energy mix."

Thanks for the above article. Even the parts I can't read (I presume German language) were understandable as to concept.

I think it would be nice to have an "off the grid" wind turbine/solar system for my own use.
And, I like the idea (if I understood correctly) of using wind/solar to pump water "uphill" to a tank or behind a dam to use as an energy storage mechanism. The water is then allowed "downhill" when needed to drive a hydroelectric generator for electricity production. That is a neat idea. I don't know if it is more/less effective than battery storage. But, it should be cheap, simple, low maintenance, and completely effective....

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Thanks for the above article. Even the parts I can't read (I presume German language) were understandable as to concept.

I think it would be nice to have an "off the grid" wind turbine/solar system for my own use.
And, I like the idea (if I understood correctly) of using wind/solar to pump water "uphill" to a tank or behind a dam to use as an energy storage mechanism. The water is then allowed "downhill" when needed to drive a hydroelectric generator for electricity production. That is a neat idea. I don't know if it is more/less effective than battery storage. But, it should be cheap, simple, low maintenance, and completely effective....

I wrote a translation (Legend) for the German words below the graphics.

And yes, you understood it right, the big energy provider use this to buffer the off-peak hours and use this stored energy during peak-hours. You can also do it at off the grid systems, the way you mentioned. This system is really efficient (about 75-80% of the used energy will be regained again).

The losses accrue:

(a) at the pumps which convey the water "uphill".
(b) at the generators.
(c) in the piping (frictional losses).

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

I wrote a translation (Legend) for the German words below the graphics.

And yes, you understood it right, the big energy provider use this to buffer the off-peak hours and use this stored energy during peak-hours. You can also do it at off the grid systems, the way you mentioned. This system is really efficient (about 75-80% of the used energy will be regained again).

The losses accrue:

(a) at the pumps which convey the water "uphill".
(b) at the generators.
(c) in the piping (frictional losses).

Well, this sounds like a completely workable solution for the issue of needing to store energy (in this example kinetic energy is stored as water "uphill"). It would seem that wind turbines and solar panels could power water pumps to move the water uphill. If it is a cloudy day with no wind, then there is no water pumped "uphill" that day.

Sounds to me like an excellent way to add electrical production capacity for peak time consumption. It might even be usable to handle some of the midway increase below peak time consumption (Mittellast) (thanks for the translation keys).

So, is there any good reason to not use this idea as a solution for the weaknesses of wind turbines and solar panels? In many places in the USA, we have no shortage of usable waterways and bodies of water...
Heck, you could use the idea in the ocean which is where wind turbines might be best anyway.

I can see it in my mind:
wind turbines offshore out of sight. Silo style cylinder structures above the water.
Pumps powered by the wind turbines pump water "uphill" to the water containers.
The water is released "downhill" to the ocean again to drive hydroelectric generators which are attached to the power grid.

Many of the ideas for hydrogen as a fuel have been postulated using ocean/sea waters as a source for hydrogen. Might be able to build hydrogen production plants offshore out of sight that drive generators attached to the power grid. The main problem with hydrogen production and use is safety. If a hydrogen power plant blows up, what better place than offshore out of sight? There is no environmental hazard that I am aware of when a hydrogen production/power plant blows up.

[dude1394]

Very interesting post...It shows the amount of ice cover in the Arctic and the Antartic regions.
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=8829

Note the volumes again of both the ice concentration (up 35% since 1980) and ice extent (21% larger than 1980).

Arctic - same
Antartic - increased by 30% or so.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

I think it´s a misinterpretation of scientifically data, as this blogger doesn´t know the background of assessment. Maybe he should let the scientists from which he has his graphics from, interpret the data (The National Snow and Ice Data Center). Here a look at the data and graphs, the blogger has his informations from:

June 3, 2008
Arctic sea ice still on track for extreme melt


Arctic sea ice extent has declined through the month of May as summer approaches. Daily ice extents in May continued to be below the long-term average and approached the low levels seen at this time last year. As discussed in our last posting, the spring ice cover is thin. One sign of thin and fairly weak ice is the formation of several polynyas in the ice pack.


A note on satellite update and intercalibration

The DMSP F13 satellite that has been central to our Arctic sea ice analysis for the past several years is nearing the end of its mission. As is standard data practice, we have transitioned to a newer sensor, in this case the DMSP F15. The DMSP F15 has the same type of sensor as the DMSP F13.

NSIDC has done preliminary intercalibration to assure consistency with the historical record. Further calibration and processing will be necessary, which may slightly affect final reported ice extent values (on average +/- 30,000 square kilometers or 11,600 square miles per preliminary number reported).


Overview of conditions

Arctic sea ice extent for May stood at 13.18 million square kilometers (5.09 million square miles), which is 0.28 million square kilometers (0.11 million square miles) greater than May 2007, but is still 0.42 million square kilometers (0.16 million square miles) less than the 1979 to 2000 average for the month.




Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for May 2008 was 13.18 million square kilometers (5.09 million square miles). The magenta line shows the median ice extent for May from 1979 to 2000. Data information
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center


Conditions in context

Although ice extent is slightly greater than this time last year, the average decline rate through the month of May was 8,000 square kilometers per day (3,000 square miles per day) faster than last May. Ice extent as the month closed approached last May’s value.

Average Arctic Ocean surface air temperatures in May were generally higher than normal. While anomalies were modest (+1 to 3 degrees Celsius, +2 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit) over most of the region, temperatures over the Baffin Bay region were as much as 6 degrees C (11 degrees F) above normal. The atmospheric circulation in May was highly variable. The first half of the month saw strong winds blowing from east to west over the southern Beaufort Sea. This wind pattern probably contributed to polynya formation near Banks Island and along the northwestern coast of Alaska.





Figure 2. Daily sea ice extent; the blue line indicates 2008; the black line indicates extent from 1979 to 2000; the dotted line shows extent for 2007. —Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center


More on the sea ice-atmosphere connection

The more we study the Arctic's shrinking sea ice cover, the more we appreciate the key role of clouds and water vapor. Our colleague, Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University, has linked changes in the ice edge northwest of Alaska to variations in springtime cloudiness and in the water vapor content of the lower atmosphere. She has observed an increase in springtime cloud and water vapor over the last three decades that can be clearly linked to retreat of the ice edge.

What is the nature of this link? More clouds act like an umbrella, shading the sea ice surface from the sun's rays, also called solar radiation. At the same time, clouds act like a warm blanket, transferring heat in the form of long-wave radiation from the atmosphere to the ice surface. More water vapor in the atmosphere contributes to the blanket-like effect. Whether the umbrella or blanket effect dominates determines how much radiation is absorbed at the surface, which in turn influences the rate of ice melt. In spring, solar radiation is still relatively weak. Because of this, the blanketing effect of increased clouds and water vapor wins.

In the summer, the situation is reversed. Clear skies allow the strong radiation of the summer sun to reach the surface and melt sea ice. Anticyclone patterns set up these clear summer conditions. We will be watching closely for the possible onset of these conditions in coming months.





Figure 3. Infrared energy that the atmosphere emits to the surface during spring shows generally positive trends. Units are change in long-wave energy transfer per decade between 1979 and 2005; yellow and red colors are positive trends; white indicates regions without data. Derived from NOAA polar-orbiting satellites. —Credit: From National Snow and Ice Data Center courtesy J. Francis, Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University


Multi-year ice continues to be low

The relative lack of thick, resilient multi-year ice in the Arctic discussed in earlier postings finds further support in the latest analysis from the United States National Ice Center (NIC). NIC uses a variety of satellite imagery, expert analysis, and other information to provide information on the amount and quality of sea ice for ships operating in the Arctic. NIC scientist Todd Arbetter suggests that much of the first-year ice is likely to melt by the end of summer, saying that despite the total ice extent appearing normal, the relative amount of multi-year ice going into this summer is very low when compared to climatological averages. NIC has found that the relative fraction of multi-year ice in the central Arctic has plummeted since the mid-1990s, creating an Arctic prone to increased melt in summer. Arbetter said, “This may be a primary reason for record summertime minimums in recent years.”

However, the unusual location of some of this year's first-year ice may help more of it survive than otherwise might be expected. This year, much of the first-year ice is farther north than normal, and those northern areas receive weaker solar radiation. So, northern first-year ice may be less vulnerable to melt than first-year ice in typical locations.




Figure 4. This United States National Ice Center analysis shows the percentage of multi-year sea ice in yellow, green, and dark blue. Light blue with red outline indicates ice extent; land and ocean are white. —Credit: From National Snow and Ice Data Center courtesy United States National Ice Center


Thinner ice already showing weakness

As mentioned, the thin ice that covers much of the Arctic Ocean is showing signs of early breakup, with large polynyas off the coast of Alaska, the Canadian Archipelago, and Baffin Bay. Coastal polynyas are not unusual, at this time of year, but the polynyas we are currently seeing appear larger and more numerous than usual. This is partly because of the thinner, weaker ice cover.

Thorsten Markus at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center has noted the size of the North Water polynya at the northern end of Baffin Bay, which typically forms in May. The polynya is much larger than normal, possibly nearing its largest area on record.

Inuit report that sea ice is starting to break up near Baffin Bay much earlier than normal this year. They have observed wide cracks in the ice already forming, according to NSIDC scientist Shari Gearheard, who lives and works in the Baffin Island hamlet of Clyde River.

Polynyas are a source of heat for the atmosphere in spring; in summer, however, they are large absorbers of solar energy. Resultant warm ocean surface waters then eat away at the ice edge, accelerating melt.




Figure 5. Open water is clearly seen near Alaska and Banks Island, and in the North Water polynya, in this visible-band satellite image mosaic on May 20, 2008. MODIS Terra and Aqua satellite data. —Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center


References

Francis, J.A. and E. Hunter. 2006. New insight into the disappearing Arctic sea ice. Eos, Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union 87,509-524.

Francis, J.A. and E. Hunter. 2007. Changes in the fabric of the Arctic’s greenhouse blanket. Environmental Research Letters 2, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/4/045011.

Markus, T. , and B.A. Burns. 1995. A method to estimate subpixel-scale coastal polynyas with satellite passive microwave data. J. Geophys. Res.100, 4473-4487.

Link

And here the latest report:

July 2, 2008
Melt onset earlier than normal


Arctic sea ice extent for June 2008 is close to that for 2007, which went on to reach the lowest minimum since at least 1979. More notably, however, satellite data indicate that melt began significantly earlier than last year over most of the Arctic Ocean. The large area of the Arctic Ocean covered by first-year ice (described in our June analysis) coupled with the early onset of melting may mean more rapid and more severe summer ice retreat than last year.


Overview of conditions

Arctic sea ice extent averaged for June stood at 11.44 million square kilometers (4.42 million square miles), 0.72 million square kilometers (0.25 million square miles) less than the 1979 to 2000 average for the month. This is very slightly (0.05 million square kilometers; 0.02 million square miles) lower than the average extent for June 2007, but not the lowest on record, which occurred in June 2006 (see Figure 3).




Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for June 2008 was 11.44 million square kilometers (4.42 million square miles). The magenta line shows the median ice extent for June from 1979 to 2000. Data information
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Figure 2 indicates that on a daily basis, sea ice extent appears slightly higher than 2007 for most of the month. This apparent contradiction arises because of the monthly averaging calculation and because some days may have areas of missing data. To be included as an ice-covered region in the monthly average, the average concentration for that region must exceed 15 percent. So if the concentration is 15 percent for 29 days, but less than 15 percent for 1 day, it will not be included in the average ice extent for the month. Also, since ice extent decreases during June, if there is slightly more missing data in the early part of the month the monthly average could slightly underestimate the sea ice extent.

June sea ice extents in 2008 and 2007 are essentially identical, and near the lowest values for June ever recorded by satellite for the Arctic.



Figure 2. Daily sea ice extent; the blue line indicates 2008; the gray line indicates extent from 1979 to 2000; the dotted green line shows extent for 2007. —Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center


Conditions in context

While sea ice extent averaged for June 2008 was similar to last year, there were pronounced differences in the spatial pattern of the retreat through the month. Last year, open water quickly developed along the coasts of the Chukchi and Laptev seas. This year, an unusually large polynya has opened in the Beaufort Sea, and there is significantly less sea ice in Hudson's Bay and Baffin Bay.


June 2008 compared to past Junes

June sea ice extent is very similar to last year and is now the third lowest on record. It lies very close to the linear trend line for all average June sea ice extents since 1979, which indicates that the Arctic is losing an average of 41,000 square kilometers (15,800 square miles) of ice per year in June. Last year, the rapid melt leading to the record-breaking minimum extent began in July.




Figure 3. Average June ice extent for 1979 through 2008
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center


Early onset of melt

Preliminary satellite data shows us that surface melt began earlier than usual over the western and central Arctic Ocean and Baffin Bay (see Figure 4). Last year was fairly typical except for significant early melt in the Laptev and Barents seas. This year, sea ice in the Beaufort Sea began to melt on average 15 days earlier than normal, and 15 days earlier than last year. Surface melt in the Chukchi and East Siberian seas was 6 days earlier than normal, and 14 days earlier than in 2007. In the central Arctic Ocean, melt began around June 9th, which was 12 days earlier than normal and 9 days earlier than the year before. In Baffin Bay, surface melt began 14 days earlier than last year and was 16 days earlier than normal. Areas where melt occurred later, compared to last year, are confined to the margins of the ice cover. These results are considered preliminary and will be updated as more data become available.

Figure 4 was updated on July 3, 2008, with data through July 1. A previous version, posted on July 2, used data from June 10, 2008.




Figure 4. The colors in the above image indicate date of onset of melt over the Arctic Ocean. Light gray indicates areas that have not yet begun to melt this year, or areas for which data is not available. Data from the SSM/I sensor; algorithm used to process the data came from Thorsten Markus at Goddard Space Flight Center.
—Credit: Natonal Snow and Ice Data Center


Why earlier melt matters

What are the implications of this year's earlier-than-normal melt onset? As melting begins, the layer of snow on top of the ice becomes wet and then disappears, leaving bare ice and ponded water. Each of these changes reduce the reflectance of the surface—increasing absorption of solar energy, further reducing reflectance, and promoting even stronger melt. This is known as the ice-albedo feedback.

Early melt onset exposes the snow and ice to more days with low reflectance. It also increases the exposure during the critical early summer season, when solar energy is at its peak. As colleague Don Perovich of the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory notes, this combination enhances ice-albedo feedback (see Figure 5). Perovich calculated that in 2007, some areas of the Arctic absorbed eight times as much heat because of the ice-albedo feedback, contributing heavily to last year’s record-breaking melt.

The combination of ice-albedo feedback and early melt onset in 2008 sets the stage for significant ice losses this summer. Three of the most important factors in sea ice losses are melt onset, cloud conditions throughout the melt season, and atmospheric circulation throughout the melt season. With melt onset having occurred earlier than usual, cloud and atmospheric conditions over the next two months come to the forefront. To learn more about cloud conditions and atmospheric circulation, read “More on the sea ice-atmosphere connection” in our June analysis.




Figure 5. This image shows the percent anomaly of ocean absorption of solar heat from January 1 to September 21, 2007, compared to the 1979 to 2005 average. Dark red and orange indicate areas with especially low albedo. Data from SSM/I sensor.
—Credit: From the National Snow and Ice Data Center courtesy Don Perovich, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory


A community sea ice outlook

The Study of Environmental Arctic Change program has released a Sea Ice Outlook for 2008. Their May report has predictions from a number of different scientific groups (including NSIDC) of how much sea ice will be left in the Arctic at the end of the melt season. The predictions range widely above and below last year’s record minimum of 4.13 million square kilometres (1.59 million square miles).


References

Perovich, D. K., J. A. Richter-Menge, K. F. Jones, and B. Light (2008), Sunlight, water, and ice: Extreme Arctic sea ice melt during the summer of 2007, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L11501, doi:10.1029/2008GL034007.

Link

[dude1394]

I have a feeling that this guy isn't on the evil oil companies payroll.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...6-7583,00.html

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

[dude1394]

Uh-oh...Lucee'' you've got some 'splainin to do!

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5675

This week a body representing 50,000 physicists has publicly declared the science of Global Warming open for debate and unsettled.

Let the debate begin, and let the facts (not hype) lead us to an answer. BTW, all this goes to show laurels and citations like the Nobel Prize don’t always convey correctness in science, and too many times only reflect political correctness in the eyes of an elite (and out of touch) few.

[purplefrog]

Not so fast.... From the American Physical Society's website:
http://www.aps.org/

APS Climate Change Statement
APS Position Remains Unchanged
The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:
"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."
An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.

Beware of anonymous bloggers, they don't always get the story right.

[dude1394]

Don't shoot the messenger here brotha'(blogger). Also from the editorial of that organization.

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newslet...807/editor.cfm

With this issue of Physics & Society, we kick off a debate concerning one of the main conclusions of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body which, together with Al Gore, recently won the Nobel Prize for its work concerning climate change research. There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion. This editor (JJM) invited several people to contribute articles that were either pro or con. Christopher Monckton responded with this issue's article that argues against the correctness of the IPCC conclusion, and a pair from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz, responded with this issue's article in favor of the IPCC conclusion. We, the editors of P&S, invite reasoned rebuttals from the authors as well as further contributions from the physics community. Please contact me (jjmarque@sbcglobal.net) if you wish to jump into this fray with comments or articles that are scientific in nature. However, we will not publish articles that are political or polemical in nature. Stick to the science! (JJM)

Whether or not human produced carbon dioxide is a major cause of impending climate change (as is being debated in the two articles of this issue), the issue of energy “production” by our Earth-bound societies must be faced. Fossil fuel supplies may become unavailable in this century – or the next – but in a finite system, obeying the laws of thermodynamics, non-fossil energy sources will have to become available to mankind, sooner or later (within the foreseeable lifetime of our planet). One major energy resource, being much touted again, is that of the fissioning nucleus. Nuclear power faces three major drawbacks in the public eye: the possibilities of devastating accidents; the possibility of ”proliferation” – the diversion of energy resources and technology into weaponry; the problem of protecting present and future generations from “nuclear ashes”- the long-lived radioactive byproducts of power generation by nuclear fission. For the most part, our society has “stuck its head in the sand” regarding these issues, but we have spent a great deal of money exploring one possible means of dealing with the third problem – burying nuclear wastes deep underground (out of site, ergo out of mind). As the News item in this issue summarizes, the Federal government, after the expenditure of billions of dollars, seems to be ready to start sending long-lived wastes to be buried in Nevada. Many people there object – “not in my backyard”! As physicists interested in the impact of physics on society (and the converse), we are obligated to participate intensely in the public debate on this problem of waste disposal as well as the other two. The final resolutions will have to be political but hopefully they will be well informed by knowledge of the physical possibilities as well as constraints. For example, I am unaware of any public discussion about the practical possibilities of decreasing the amount of long-lived nuclear ashes via the use of fast neutron fission reactors for power generation. I hope to see much more discussion of these issues in the future “pages” of this journal. (I put quotation marks about the word “pages” since it now appears that we may no longer be communicating with you via the customary paper pages; what word(s) should we use?) We know that many of our readers are well informed on these topics and hope that they will share their physical insights with the rest of us – please submit articles, commentaries, letters, and enjoy the summer – whether its warmth is in line with past trends or represents a new climate. (AMS)

And pretty neat you can download the entire mag...
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/

the premise of the blogger is that this is not "settled" science especially in lieu of no warming in the last 10 years or so. Also this dudes' pretty savvy on this topic, not a anonymous blogger or one that I haven't grown to believe to be trustworthy.

For example he's been blasting holes in the BOH birth certificate embrolio.

[purplefrog]

strata is either misrepresenting the truth or doesn't understand the organizational structure of APS. He makes the claim that the American Physical Society and it's 50,000 members are no longer sure about the science behind climate change by referring to the newsletter of one division of APS. It's clear that articles written for The Physics and Society newsletter are not necessarily representative of the APS as a whole. This is from the editorial page of that newsletter:

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/

Physics and Society is the quarterly of the Forum on Physics and Society, a division of the American Physical Society. It presents letters, commentary, book reviews and reviewed articles on the relations of physics and the physics community to government and society. It also carries news of the Forum and provides a medium for Forum members to exchange ideas. Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum. Contributed articles (up to 2500 words, technicalities are encouraged), letters (500 words), commentary (1000 words), reviews (1000 words) and brief news articles are welcome. Send them to the relevant editor by e-mail (preferred) or regular mail.

Clearly the editor of this newsletter and the author of the article being quoted by strata want a debate on climate change. Maybe APS will eventually open a debate and revise their position. But according to the APS website this has not yet happened.

[purplefrog]

dude, I have an incredible amount of respect for you and your opinions but this strata blog is not to be trusted. Here's another reason to be a bit critical of his content. On the strata-sphere web site he gives "A Major Update" and refers to a " recent peer-reviewed analysis" with a link. You go to the link and it clearly states at the top of the article that it was not peer-reviewed. Moreover, if you go to the "comments" section of strata's site, several people point this out to him. His response: "The fact the IPCC models are failing means they weren’t peer reviewed (for real) either." But still he doesn't change his blog. I can't trust this guy if he is willing to post obviously incorrect info (and he even sort of admits it).

Here are the links so you can check it out for yourself:
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newslet...7/monckton.cfm
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index....comment-354115

Maybe I'm missing something here. Let me know if I am.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

dude, I have an incredible amount of respect for you and your opinions but this strata blog is not to be trusted. Here's another reason to be a bit critical of his content. On the strata-sphere web site he gives "A Major Update" and refers to a " recent peer-reviewed analysis" with a link. You go to the link and it clearly states at the top of the article that it was not peer-reviewed. Moreover, if you go to the "comments" section of strata's site, several people point this out to him. His response: "The fact the IPCC models are failing means they weren’t peer reviewed (for real) either." But still he doesn't change his blog. I can't trust this guy if he is willing to post obviously incorrect info (and he even sort of admits it).

Here are the links so you can check it out for yourself:
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newslet...7/monckton.cfm
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index....comment-354115

Maybe I'm missing something here. Let me know if I am.

I saw that, I expect he will revise that one, he posted that less than an hour ago.

It'll be interesting to see what he says about it. A couple comments have pointed this out. One had another take, that it hadn't bee "officially" peer-reviewed" but that at the end of the article it was "peer-reviewed".

#
# crosspatchon 18 Jul 2008 at 12:46 pm

“The article you linked in the update has NOT been peer reviewed.”

If you go to the end of the paper, there are several rather prominent individuals who HAVE reviewed the thing. It hasn’t gone through the “official” peer review process but it HAS been reviewed by peers.

but I agree, I'll be dissappointed if he doesn't address it, I expect he will. I find his and back-talk to be two of the most factually based blogs around.

[dude1394]

How rich..

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors...ush-houses.htm

Summary of the eRumor:
Descriptions of two homes, one an energy-consuming mansion and the other an energy-conserving ranch house. The eRumor says the energy-consuming one is that of Al Gore who is the champion of the environment. The other is President George Bush's Texas ranch.
The Truth:
The comparisons are fairly accurate, according to published reports.

An investigation by the Tennessee Center For Policy Research published in February, 2006, focused on Al Gore's 10,000 square foot house in Belle Meade area of Nashville. The former senator and former presidential candidate has been a leading voice for the environment and energy conservation. His global warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth won an Oscar for Best Documentary for 2006. In the film he urges consumers to conserve energy by reducing the amount of electricity used at home.

Using figures from the Nashville Electric service, the report says that Gore's house used 221,000 221,000 kWh of electricity in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kWh. The report says the gas usage of Gore's home is high as well and that Gore spent more than $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills in 2006.

An article in Cowboys And Indians magazine focused on the 4,000 square foot Bush ranch in Crawford, Texas. It paints an entirely different picture than that of the Gore mansion.. George Bush is described as saying that when he bought the property, he wanted something in middle America so he could "stay in touch with real Americans." Architect David Heyman was asked to design the single story home. Bush said he wanted everything on the ranch to blend with the environment. The passive-solar house is built of honey-colored native limestone and positioned to absorb winter sunlight, warming the interior walkways and walls of the 4,000-square-foot residence. Geothermal heat pumps circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground. These waters pass through a heat exchange system that keeps the home warm in winter and cool in summer," according to the article. "A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof urns; wastewater from sinks, toilets, and showers cascades into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is then used to irrigate the landscaping around the four-bedroom home. Laura Bush insisted on the use of indigenous grasses, shrubs, and flowers to complete the exterior treatment of the home.."

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Nice effort of Bush to decrease his energy consumption. But I bet Gore uses similar technologies for saving energy, even if they don´t mention it in this article. Also I can´t see any data of power consumption or the costs Bush had 2006. Why? You can get the impression the author likes to keep this a secret...

For me it would be interesting how high the energy consumption per square foot is, because this is the crucial information for the efficiency of a building. Mostly big houses are more energy efficient.

By the way, in the USA is a huge potential in lowering the power consumption. By way of comparison: The average consumption of electricity for a household in Europe is about 4,000 kWh (in Germany: 3,550 kWh).

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

dude, I have an incredible amount of respect for you and your opinions but this strata blog is not to be trusted. Here's another reason to be a bit critical of his content. On the strata-sphere web site he gives "A Major Update" and refers to a " recent peer-reviewed analysis" with a link. You go to the link and it clearly states at the top of the article that it was not peer-reviewed. Moreover, if you go to the "comments" section of strata's site, several people point this out to him. His response: "The fact the IPCC models are failing means they weren’t peer reviewed (for real) either." But still he doesn't change his blog. I can't trust this guy if he is willing to post obviously incorrect info (and he even sort of admits it).

Here are the links so you can check it out for yourself:
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newslet...7/monckton.cfm
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index....comment-354115

Maybe I'm missing something here. Let me know if I am.

It appears that there is some disagreement about the "not peer reviewed" statement above the article. From the author. This from NRO.. AJStrata in the comments himself considered the paper reviewed by the comments at the bottom I believe.

[quote]http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...U2ZjM0NjQyMWU=

By email to artieb@slac.stanford.edu

Dear Dr. Bienenstock,

Physics and Society

The editors of Physics and Society, a newsletter of the American
Physical Society, invited me to submit a paper for their July 2008
edition explaining why I considered that the warming that might be
expected from anthropogenic enrichment of the atmosphere with carbon
dioxide might be significantly less than the IPCC imagines.

I very much appreciated this courteous offer, and submitted a paper. The
commissioning editor referred it to his colleague, who subjected it to a
thorough and competent scientific review. I was delighted to accede to
all of the reviewer's requests for revision (see the attached
reconciliation sheet). Most revisions were intended to clarify for
physicists who were not climatologists the method by which the IPCC
evaluates climate sensitivity - a method which the IPCC does not itself
clearly or fully explain. The paper was duly published, immediately
after a paper by other authors setting out the IPCC's viewpoint. Some
days later, however, without my knowledge or consent, the following
appeared, in red, above the text of my paper as published on the website
of Physics and Society:

"The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its
conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the
world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society
disagrees with this article's conclusions."

This seems discourteous. I had been invited to submit the paper; I had
submitted it; an eminent Professor of Physics had then scientifically
reviewed it in meticulous detail; I had revised it at all points
requested, and in the manner requested; the editors had accepted and
published the reviewed and revised draft (some 3000 words longer than
the original) and I had expended considerable labor, without having been
offered or having requested any honorarium.

Please either remove the offending red-flag text at once or let me have
the name and qualifications of the member of the Council or advisor to
it who considered my paper before the Council ordered the offending text
to be posted above my paper; a copy of this rapporteur's findings and
ratio decidendi; the date of the Council meeting at which the findings
were presented; a copy of the minutes of the discussion; and a copy of
the text of the Council's decision, together with the names of those
present at the meeting. If the Council has not scientifically evaluated
or formally considered my paper, may I ask with what credible scientific
justification, and on whose authority, the offending text asserts primo,
that the paper had not been scientifically reviewed when it had;
secundo, that its conclusions disagree with what is said (on no
evidence) to be the "overwhelming opinion of the world scientific
community"; and, tertio, that "The Council of the American Physical
Society disagrees with this article's conclusions"? Which of my
conclusions does the Council disagree with, and on what scientific
grounds (if any)?

Having regard to the circumstances, surely the Council owes me an
apology?

Yours truly,
THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY

[dude1394]

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by dude1394

pretty much.

Bottom line...the planet has been around for a long time. The planet looks after itself. The forces acting on the planet are so ancient, strong, and so outside of our control, that it is arrogant and narcissistic of us to think we actually matter that much. The universe has cast aside most life on this planet a few times before without batting an eye, and started anew. This is no different.

This is all a blink of the eye, of the infinity that is time itself. We are insignificant. The planet does not need looking after.

We need to look after ourselves.