You can see that actual global temperatures have flattened out since about 1998. The “spaghetti” on the graph represents predictions of 44 models and the black line is the average of model predictions.

Spencer presents three possible explanations for the divergence:

“1) the real climate system is not as sensitive to increasing CO₂ as the models are programmed to be.” (His preferred explanation).

“2) the extra surface heating from more CO₂ has been diluted more than expected by increased mixing with cooler, deeper ocean waters (Trenberth’s explanation)”

The oceans have a high heat capacity and can absorb great quantities of heat. But have they? The subject is controversial. Anthony Watts discusses the problem here. He notes a recent study which says that between 1955 and 2010, the temperature of the global ocean, between the surface and a depth of 2,000 meters increased in temperature by 0.09 C. That’s not much and Watts wonders if we can even measure to that precision.

“3) increased manmade aerosol pollution is causing a cooling influence, partly mitigating the manmade CO₂ warming.”

However, a 2007 satellite-based NASA study shows that aerosols have been decreasing steadily since 1992. In particular, sulfate aerosols have been greatly decreasing since establishment of the 1970 Clean Air Act in the U.S. and similar measures in Europe.

Explanations #2 and #3 seem to have problems. That leaves #1: the climate is not very sensitive to carbon dioxide and is much less sensitive than models assume. The forcing effect of carbon dioxide, if any, is apparently easily overcome by stronger natural forces.

If Spencer’s first explanation is correct, the political war on fossil fuel emissions is futile and will have little or no effect on global temperatures, but that war will cost us dearly by raising energy prices and making our electric grid less reliable.

See also:

Global warming theory fails again

Failure of the Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis

]]> http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2013/04/19/global-temperature-continues-divergence-from-model-predictions/feed/ 2 http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2013/04/12/methane-hydrates-could-fuel-the-world/ http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2013/04/12/methane-hydrates-could-fuel-the-world/#comments Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:33:31 +0000 Jonathan DuHamel http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/?p=1779 Methane hydrate is a solid substance in which methane (natural gas) is trapped in the crystal structure of ice. Methane hydrate occurs in marine sediments and crops out on the ocean floor where the pressure is sufficiently high and the temperature is sufficiently low. Technically, methane hydrate is called a clathrate which means that water molecules freeze into a lattice-like structure capable of trapping gas inside. These compounds can also occur in permafrost. The methane is produced from microbial decomposition of plankton which sinks to the ocean floor. See a short explanation from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) here. See also an article at Geology.com here. The map below shows the estimated global distribution of methane hydrates.

Estimates of the total resource vary widely. Gas units are often given in units of one trillion cubic feet (TCF). The USGS says that resources estimates from studies over the last 15 years vary from one million- to fifty million TCF of natural gas. The lower estimate is more than 4,000 times the annual US consumption of natural gas. The lower estimate is also at least twice as much as all other fossil fuels combined.

The big question now is: can these resources be technically and economically recovered?

Last year, the Department of Energy partnering with ConocoPhillips and Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corp. produced a steady flow of natural gas in the first field test of the new method that injects carbon dioxide into Alaskan permafrost. The carbon dioxide replaces the methane in the clathrate structure.

Last month, Japan became the first country to extract natural gas from methane hydrates in the sea bed. (See story in The Asahi Shimbun here.) According to that story, Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corp. was able to extract natural gas from a layer 330 meters below a 1,000-meter-deep floor of the Pacific Ocean. Water was pumped out of the methane hydrate sediment layer causing a drop in pressure which liberated the gas. Methane was collected by pipes. The Japanese government plans to establish production technology by fiscal 2018 and then begin production. “The seas around Japan are estimated to hold enough methane hydrate to produce as much natural gas as Japan consumes in 100 years.”

This is still emerging technology that could hold great promise, similar to the vast new resources made recoverable by the “fracking” revolution in shale oil and gas.

See also:

Geologic History: PETM when it really got hot

Methane hydrates probably played a part in the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) which was a global temperature spike that happened about 55 million years ago.

A study published earlier this year asked: “Do alternative energy sources displace fossil fuels?” The answer is “not much.”

Richard York of the University of Oregon studied the use of alternative energy in 130 countries to assess the contribution of various forms of non-fossil fuels. The study showed “that the average pattern across most nations of the world over the past fifty years is one where each unit of total national energy use from non-fossil-fuel sources displaced less than one-quarter of a unit of fossil-fuel energy use and, focusing specifically on electricity, each unit of electricity generated by non-fossil-fuel sources displaced less than one-tenth of a unit of fossil-fuel-generated electricity.”

Nuclear and hydro generation were the best of the alternatives to fossil fuels. Each kilowatt-hour (kwh) of nuclear generation of electricity displaced about 0.2 kwh of fossil fuel generation; hydro displaced about 0.1 kwh. Wind and solar generation did not displace any fossil fuel generation.

There are two reasons for that last result. First, wind and solar generation, while increasing, still represent a very small part of the generation capacity compared to consumption. But the main reason for lack of impact of solar and wind generation is that they are unreliable, intermittent sources that require backup generation, and that is usually by fossil fuels. Furthermore, because the fossil fuel backup generation must be on-call, it cannot run efficiently and therefore it actually uses more fuel than it would had it been the primary source. And incidentally, the backup generation also produces more carbon dioxide emissions than it would have had it been run efficiently as primary generation.

York concludes: “These results challenge conventional thinking in that they indicate that suppressing the use of fossil fuel will require changes other than simply technical ones such as expanding non-fossil-fuel energy production.”

See also:

The scale problem for solar and wind generation of electricity

Renewable energy mandates raise electricity costs

Renewables receive bulk of tax preference subsidies

Electricity generated by wind power may raise temperatures and costs

Wind farms raise local and regional temperatures

Blowing in the Wind, a look at green jobs

EIA says Clean Energy program will increase electricity costs 29%

The graph below shows the relative costs of producing electricity by various means.  The data are from the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook for 2011. (Link).  The data were graphed by Willis Eschenbach.  The costs are in cents per kilowatt hour. The blue part represents capital and transmission costs; the red part represents fuel, operation, and maintenance costs.

As you can plainly see, solar energy is much more expensive and would not be considered for utility-scale electricity generation were it not for government mandates and subsidies.  Another problem with solar generation is that it requires backup power because even in Arizona, the sun doesn’t shine all the time.  Solar plants typically produce just a fraction of their rated capacity.  For instance, TEP operates one of the largest solar PV arrays in the United States, a 5-MW system. But over two years of operation, the capacity factor for that generator has averaged 19%, meaning it produced only 19% of its rated capacity most of the time.

One of the rationales for using solar (and wind) energy is that it is supposed to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions, but that isn’t necessarily so if the backup generation comes from fossil-fuel powered plants.  A study in the Netherlands shows that the intermittent generation by wind actually increases carbon dioxide emissions because the fossil fuel-run backup generators have to cycle up and down constantly rather than being run efficiently at a constant output.  That cycling uses more fuel. (Note, the study was specific to wind power, but it could be applied to intermittent solar power also due to variable generation on cloudy days.)

Some may argue that the cost of solar cells is rapidly falling.  But, the cost of the cells themselves is a small part of what goes into a utility scale power plant.

Our modern society depends upon having a reliable source of electricity.  Wind and solar generation are not reliable.  As we increase our dependence of these unreliable sources we increase the risk of electrical brownouts or blackouts which disrupt vital services and commerce.

Perhaps our corporation commissioners think they are doing the right thing for the planet, but their benighted mandate may actually be doing the opposite because it ties up money and resources that could perhaps be put to better use to help solve real problems.  Again, who benefits?

Our state legislators should repeal the renewable energy standards mandate and let the utility companies produce electricity by less expensive and more reliable means.

Then we will see whether or not the utilities employ solar energy voluntarily.

See also:

APS wants electric energy efficiency to cost more

Arizona Corporation Commission May Ration Electricity

Smart Grid may ration electricity

Will you let the power company control your air conditioner?

The book is about ideas and solutions to our energy problems. “Any solution or group of solutions will be based on total energy systems. The systems involved include power-grid stations, transmission lines, fuel procurement and manufacture, waste disposal, local power generators, vehicles and vehicle power systems, transportation and distribution systems for fuels, and maintenance and repair facilities.”

Johnson laments that we don’t develop more of our own domestic resources. “America has a virtual sea of oil within its borders and around its shores. Thanks to what I believe to be misdirected effort to influence elected officials by some overzealous environmentalists, the most accessible of our known oil fields are off limits to American oil companies.” At the same time, he proposes to transition away from our use of fossil fuels for transportation and electrical power. This reduction in fossil fuel use is not because of any concern over carbon dioxide emissions, rather, Johnson resents our having to give our dollars to unfriendly or despotic foreign countries. He has a section devoted to the global warming issue.

To transition away from fossil fuels, Johnson advocates more use of biofuels, made from non-food sources, and use of geothermal energy. He explains each in detail.

Johnson has a chapter on politics and expresses some well-placed cynicism. “The reality of politics and political ideologies means that many politicians and bureaucrats, who know virtually nothing about energy, energy systems, and the economics of energy, will be making many of the decisions on what systems we use, the vehicles we drive, and how we create and pay for the new infrastructure.”

All in all, this book is a good primer for anyone wanting to learn about energy systems, their potentials and problems.

The book is published by Senesis Word Publishing and is available from Amazon.