A Year of Thermal Pollution from Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant

[Fledermaus]

A Year of Thermal Pollution from Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNVLr01dEeI

Abstract
Over longer time-scales there is no net heat inflow to Earth since incoming solar energy is re-emitted at exactly the same rate. To maintain Earth’s thermal equilibrium, however, there must be a net outflow equal to the geothermal heat flow. Performed calculations show that the net heat outflow in 1880 was equal to the geothermal heat flow, which is the only natural net heat source on Earth. Since then, heat dissipation from the global use of nonrenewable energy sources has resulted in additional net heating. In, e.g. Sweden, which is a sparsely populated country, this net heating is about three times greater than the geothermal heat flow. Such thermal pollution contributes to global warming until the global temperature has reached a level where this heat is also emitted to space. Heat dissipation from the global use of fossil fuels and nuclear power is the main source of thermal pollution. Here, it was found that one third of current thermal pollution is emitted to space and that a further global temperature increase of 1.8 jC is required until Earth is again in thermal equilibrium. D 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://www.ltu.se/polopoly_fs/1.5035!nordell%20gpc%20vol%2038%20issue%203-4.pdf

[TheWraith]

1. Calling warm water "pollution" waters down the term, no pun intended. nt

[DCKit]

2. Unless your species evolved in that water. Silly human. n/t

[TheWraith]

3. What you say makes no sense. nt

[madokie]

4. Does a nuke plant have to use more cooling water than say a coal or gas plant?

Overall does a nuke plant require more cooling? I seem to think so but I'm not sure. I've asked this question before and have gotten answers that to make x amount of electrical energy takes x amount of cooling water no matter the type of plant. I think the core of a nuke plant uses much more cooling water to keep it from melting down than the others use, is that so?

[joshcryer]

6. Proportionately to energy usage, no. Any power plant can produce warming in the locality.

And yes it can mess up the local environment. But this is a local problem, and it *can* be mitigated.

[madokie]

9. What I'm asking is does a nuke plant use more cooling water than say a coal or gas plant

I'm thinking because of the intense heat of the reactor that they have a bigger cooling load, is that true?
What part of a coal or gas plant that has the level of heat produced by the reactor?

[joshcryer]

12. You have to look at it from an energy production standpoint.

Oyster Creek produces 619 MWe, yet there are *many* coal plants that produce significantly more than that (and likewise must be cooled, accordingly).

Any steam power plant is going to be inefficient, so, to carefully answer your question, no, the load is not significantly different.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/cooling_power_plants_inf121.html

[madokie]

14. I think you're missing what I'm asking

I'm not asking about efficiencies I'm asking is the cooling load larger for the nuke plant. Seems to me like it would have to be because of the extreme temperatures in the reactors. Looks to me like when I see a picture of a nuke plant that there is a much larger cooling towers etc. I don't mean to be obtuse but I think we're not on the same page.
I'm talking about the reactor, the burn pot if you will and its seeming to be high temps.

thanks

[Salviati]

69. Actually running at high temperatures could lead to less waste heat per watt of usable power.

The maximum possible efficiency of any heat engine (anything that turns heat into useful work, e.g. electricity) is given by the equation 1-Tc/Th where Tc is the "cold" temperature, i.e. the temperature of the output into the surroundings, and Th is the "hot" temperature that you are using as the source of power.

We really don't have too much control over the output temperature, the best we can do is to get it as close to ambient as possible. What we can do to increase the efficiency is to run te heat engine with a really hot input source.

Granted, this is just talking about the maximum efficiency possible, not the real efficiency of any given heat engine, but there is good reason to want to run it hot.

[kristopher]

76. Does that really apply?

There is an upper limit on the use of heat in steam turbines (whether coal or nuclear) that is imposed by material constraints that limit the temperature/pressure they system can operate at. This limit to the use of supercritical steam applies equally to both systems; therefore any heat generated that exceeds what is needed to heat the fluids used for heat transfer to this level is wasted.

The variable that hasn't been defined is the temperature of the two heat sources.

What temperature is produced by the typical fission reaction in most operating nuclear plants.
What temperature is produced in burning coal under the condition used in most coal plants.

The ratio would explain the difference and answer the original question.

[bananas]

17. Nuclear plants generally use more water, and the difference can be very significant

From Nuclear Engineering International Magazine:

Cooling of plants: a constraint on growth?
02 July 2008

An important economic and environmental consideration that needs to be taken into account when planning for new nuclear plants is their method of cooling. By Steve Kidd

<snip>

Nuclear plants currently being built have about 34-36% thermal efficiency, while one of the new reactor designs boasts up to 39%. In comparison, a typical new coal plant runs at 36%, while some new coal-fired plants approach 40%. In determining the cooling requirement, these distinctions are not insignificant. For example, any power plant running at 33% thermal efficiency must discharge about 14% more heat than one at 36% efficiency. Coal plants have a slight edge over nuclear plants and a correspondingly reduced need for cooling water.

<snip>

Because combined-cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plants release much of their heat to the air in the turbine exhaust, they require only about one third as much cooling as normal thermal plants, and this is commonly done through dry cooling. Hence they can achieve thermal efficiencies in the 60-70% range.

<snip>

[joshcryer]

18. Thanks bananas

[madokie]

19. Thanks

[benEzra]

66. Ummmm...

Because combined-cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plants release much of their heat to the air in the turbine exhaust, they require only about one third as much cooling as normal thermal plants, and this is commonly done through dry cooling. Hence they can achieve thermal efficiencies in the 60-70% range.

Ummm...that heat released to the air still heats the atmosphere, just as much as emitting that heat through a cooling tower does. Just because the turbine doesn't have to be cooled by radiators doesn't mean it's not producing just as much heat; it's just dumping that heat out an exhaust pipe instead of a cooling stack.

And given that thermodynamic efficiency is limited by the temperature delta, which is in turn limited by materials limits in both combustion and steam plants, I think that "60-70%" figure is referring to using the turbine's waste heat for industrial heating, and is NOT referring to its thermodynamic efficiency in power generation. Waste heat from nuclear and coal plants can also be used for industrial heating, if you want to compare apples to apples, instead of apples to coconuts. For power generation, both combustion and nuclear are going to top out around 40%, but if you use the waste heat for something productive, the waste heat is not all wasted, so your de facto efficiency can be higher.

And running natural gas instead of nuclear is not only going to produce waste heat, it is also going to produce CO2, and it is CO2 that appears to be the main culprit.

[bananas]

96. Ummmm...

Ummm...that heat released to the air still heats the atmosphere, just as much as emitting that heat through a cooling tower does. Just because the turbine doesn't have to be cooled by radiators doesn't mean it's not producing just as much heat; it's just dumping that heat out an exhaust pipe instead of a cooling stack.

The question was about cooling water.

And given that thermodynamic efficiency is limited by the temperature delta, which is in turn limited by materials limits in both combustion and steam plants, I think that "60-70%" figure is referring to using the turbine's waste heat for industrial heating, and is NOT referring to its thermodynamic efficiency in power generation. Waste heat from nuclear and coal plants can also be used for industrial heating, if you want to compare apples to apples, instead of apples to coconuts. For power generation, both combustion and nuclear are going to top out around 40%, but if you use the waste heat for something productive, the waste heat is not all wasted, so your de facto efficiency can be higher.

No, the "60-70%" figure is referring to thermodynamic efficiency in power generation. As explained in post #86 below:

Gas combined cycle (combined cycle gas turbine - CCGT) plants need only about one third as much engineered cooling as normal thermal plants (much heat being released in the turbine exhaust), and these often use dry cooling for the second stage.*

* CCGT plants have an oil or gas-fired gas turbine (jet engine) coupled to a generator. The exhaust is passed through a steam generator and the steam is used to drive another turbine. This results in overall thermal efficiency of over 50%. The steam in the second phase must be condensed either with an air cooled condenser or some kind of wet cooling.

And running natural gas instead of nuclear is not only going to produce waste heat, it is also going to produce CO2, and it is CO2 that appears to be the main culprit.

The first wave of new reactors in the US won't come online for about ten years, and there will only be about three of them. The second wave might take another ten years. So realistically new nuclear means twenty years or more of burning coal. We can start replacing coal with gas, wind, and solar today, gas produces about half the CO2 of coal, wind and solar produce none, so we can start significant reductions in CO2 immediately instead of waiting twenty years. In ten years, solar can be bought off the shelf cheaper than new nuclear.

[TheWraith]

32. On a kilowatt to kilowatt basis, no.

The "average" nuclear plant will use more water than the "average" coal plant, but that's because the average nuclear plant is much larger and produces more electricity. Proportionally, they're about the same.

[joshcryer]

7. Did some digging for this particular video, there are several floating around.

One has the ocean as a white backdrop, this one has the ocean as a blue backdrop. There's no way to know 1) how much the temperature variance really is or 2) how they've decided to display the information and where they acquired the data.

.1 degree differentiation can make a good video but is arguably insignificant.

At most this shows us LANDSAT is very good at measuring temperatures.

[madokie]

10. Did you forget the link?

[joshcryer]

13. Here's the one I was talking about:

http://www.vimeo.com/2604369

Really brings out the difference.

[madokie]

15. Thanks I'll check it out

Add: I've seen that but it doesn't cover my question, thanks anyway

[Fledermaus]

25. Heres an image with some numbers.

Thermal pollution in the south Dade area is from two fossil fuel and one nuclear power plants at Turkey Point; The fossil-fuel units require 1,270 cfs of cooling water and raise the water temperature 12°F. The nuclear unit requires 4,250 cfs and raises the water temperature 16°F.

[madokie]

28. That indicates that my worry was right on

Nuke plants require more water for cooling than coal

[joshcryer]

29. I hadn't realized nuclear was so inefficient at thermal diffusion.

Thanks for the inquiry and sorry if I misled you.

[madokie]

34. You didn't mislead me

but we did find out what I was wanting to know and for that I thank you. :toast:

[Fledermaus]

37. I don't think that wold be a fair analysis from that one image.

We don't know what size the plants are.

[madokie]

49. I'm not having any luck in locating that info either

do you have any idea where I may find the size of those plants? I'm not having any luck with the google

[Fledermaus]

55. I would start with thermal efficiency. Are nuclear plants less efficient.

That's what the question boils down to.

Thermal pollution certainly adds to the "thermal island effect" in and around large cities. It most certainly adds to the temperature in highly congested areas where cities run together in a larger geographical area. However, its global effects are still debatable.

[benEzra]

68. If you compare plants of the same output, not so much.

Thermal efficiencies of newer coal plants and newer nuclear plants are pretty comparable, high thirties generally. You don't have to dump the waste heat into bodies of water, either (regardless of what type of plant you are running); that is merely once design choice.

If you compare a 1000 MWt coal plant to a 5000 MWt nuclear plant, of course, the nuclear plant will shed 5 times as much heat. But if you compare a 5000 MWt coal plant to a 1000 MWt nuclear plant, the coal plant will shed 5 times as much heat. For a given electricity output, the heat outputs will be pretty comparable.

[madokie]

74. I'd really like to see a link to that

Can you show me where this info is coming from???

[benEzra]

89. Fundamental physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot%27s_theorem_(thermodynamics) (the parenthetical part is part of the link, cut and paste to get the page)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency

The maximum possible efficiency of a steam turbine system depends on the difference in temperature between the boiler or gas generator and the cooling system. Max temp for both nuclear and coal fired plants is limited by available materials; minimum temp is driven by cooling requirements; so for two similarly sited plants, the thermodynamic efficiency will be similar. Some older nuclear plant designs (boiling water reactors) were less efficient because they ran cooler than coal plants and therefore at a lower efficiency. Real-world efficiency is always less than the theoretical maximum because of friction in the turbine, generator losses, etc.

But that efficiency percentage (say 40% for a hypothetical plant) means that for every 1000 megawatts of heat generated, 400 megawatts (40%) is delivered as electricity, and the other 600 megawatts are shed to the atmosphere (if cooling towers are used) or to a body of water (if water-to-water heat exchangers are used).

For a coal-fired and a nuclear plant of the same electrical output, the thermal output is going to be comparable because the efficiencies are comparable, so the amount of heat needed to generate that electricity is comparable.

[kristopher]

86. here is an interesting read

2. Cooling to condense the steam and surplus heat discharge
The second function for water in such a power plant is to cool the system so as to condense the low-pressure steam and recycle it. As the steam in the internal circuit condenses back to water, the surplus (waste) heat which is removed from it needs to be discharged by transfer to the air or to a body of water.

This cooling function to condense the steam is normally done in one of two ways:

* If the power plant is next to the sea, a big river or large inland water body it may be done simply by running a large amount of water through the condensers in a single pass and discharging it back into the sea, lake or river a few degrees warmer and without much loss from the amount withdrawn<5>. That is the simplest method - "once-through" cooling. The water may be salt or fresh. Some small amount of evaporation will occur off site due to the water being a few degrees warmer.
* If the power plant does not have such abundant water, it may be done by passing it through the condenser and then using a cooling tower, where an updraught of air through water droplets cools the water. Occasionally an on-site pond may be sufficient for this. Normally the cooling is chiefly through evaporation, with simple heat transfer to the air being of less significance. The cooling tower evaporates up to 5% of the flow and the cooled water is then returned to the condenser. The 3 to 5% or so is effectively consumed, and must be continually replaced. This is the main type of recirculating cooling.

In either of these set-ups, there is no basic difference in water consumption or use between a nuclear and a coal plant. Apart from size, any differences between plants is due to thermal efficiency, ie how much heat has to be discharged into the environment, which in turn largely depends on the operating temperature in the steam generators.

A nuclear or coal plant running at 33% thermal efficiency will need to dump about 14% more heat than one at 36% efficiency.<6> Nuclear plants currently being built have about 34-36% thermal efficiency, depending on site (especially water temperature). Older ones are often only 32-33% efficient. The relatively new Stanwell coal-fired plant in Queensland runs at 36%, but some new coal-fired plants approach 40% and one of the new nuclear reactors claims 39%.

In Europe (especially Scandinavia) low water temperature is an important criterion for power plant location. For the planned Turkish nuclear plant, there is a one percent gain in output if any particular plant is sited on the Black Sea coast with cooler water (average 5°C lower) than on the Mediterranean coast.

According to a 2006 DOE report discussed in the Appendix in the USA 43% of thermal electric generating capacity uses once-through cooling, 42% wet recirculating cooling, 14% cooling ponds and 1% dry cooling (this being gas combined cycle only). The spread for coal and for nuclear is similar. This distribution is probably similar for continental Europe and Russia, though UK nuclear power plants use only once-through cooling by seawater, as do all Swedish, Finnish, Canadian (Great Lakes water), South African, Japanese, Korean and Chinese plants.

Gas combined cycle (combined cycle gas turbine - CCGT) plants need only about one third as much engineered cooling as normal thermal plants (much heat being released in the turbine exhaust), and these often use dry cooling for the second stage.*

* CCGT plants have an oil or gas-fired gas turbine (jet engine) coupled to a generator. The exhaust is passed through a steam generator and the steam is used to drive another turbine. This results in overall thermal efficiency of over 50%. The steam in the second phase must be condensed either with an air cooled condenser or some kind of wet cooling.
Combined heat and power (CHP) plants obviously need less engineered cooling provision that others since the by-product heat is actually used for something and not dissipated uselessly.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/cooling_power_plants_inf121.html

[joshcryer]

5. Bo Nordell is a crackpot. The contribution of humanities waste heat is insignificant at best.

All energy usage produces waste heat. Typing on this forum produces heat. Breathing produces heat.

In the end humanity uses 1/10,000th the energy that we get from the sun on a daily basis.

ie, the whole, absolute, waste heat of human energy usage is 0.0001% that of basic sunlight.

We are nothing.

[kristopher]

8. Crackpot?

Not a very convincing rebuttal. And your comparison of human energy use to insolation (not that I accept the numbers) is completely beside the point. All it shows it that you haven't read or don't understand the argument being offered.


GLOBAL WARMING IS GLOBAL ENERGY STORAGE

Bo Nordell and Bruno Gervet
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Luleå University of Technology
SE-97187 Luleå, Sweden,
[e-mail]; [e-mail]




ABSTRACT
The global air temperature increase is an inadequate measure of global warming, which rather should be
considered in terms of energy. The ongoing global warming means that heat has been accumulating since
1880, in air, ground, and water. Before explaining this warming by external heat sources the net heat emissions
on Earth must be considered. Such emissions, from e.g. the global use of fossil fuel and nuclear power, must
contribute to global warming.

The aim of this study was to compare globally accumulated and emitted heat. The heat accumulated in air
corresponds to 6.6% of the global warming, while the remaining heat is stored in the ground (31.5%), melting of
ice (33.4%), and sea water (28.5%).

It was found that the net heat emissions 1880-2000 correspond to 74% of accumulated heat, i.e. the global
warming, during the same period. The missing heat (26%) must have other causes; e.g. the greenhouse effect,
natural variation of the climate, and/or underestimation of net heat emissions. Most measures already taken to
combat global warming are beneficial also for current explanation, though nuclear power is not a solution but
part of the problem.

Proceedings of the Global Conference on Global Warming-2008 (GCGW-08)
6-10 July 2008, Istanbul, Turkey
Paper No. 454

[joshcryer]

11. Waste heat is an insignificant contributor.

http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/05/global-warming-is-not-from-waste-heat.html

[kristopher]

16. That isn't established.

This is an area still being debated. This is the response your blog cite was referencing. Note that it is a response to a 2003 article, and Nordell has taken a different tack in the 2008 paper that incorporates the criticisms offered to his 2003 paper.

Discussion
Comment on “Thermal pollution causes global warming”, by B. Nordell

Curt Coveya, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Ken Caldeiraa, Martin Hoffertb, Michael MacCrackena, Stephen H. Schneiderc and Tom Wigleyd

aL-103, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550, USA

bNew York University, New York, NY, USA

cStanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

dNational Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA

Available online 19 March 2005.

Thermal pollution causes global warming
Global and Planetary Change, Volume 38, Issues 3-4, September 2003, Pages 305-312,
Bo Nordell
PDF (228 K)
Article Outline

Acknowledgements
References

The recent paper “Thermal Pollution Causes Global Warming” (Nordell, 2003) reminds us that heat dissipation from nonrenewable energy sources has now become comparable to natural geothermal heat flow. This paper's conclusion, however, contradicts decades of research (beginning with Manabe and Stickler, 1964) and in our view is demonstrably wrong.

Nordell points out that the global average of thermal pollution is about 0.02 W m−2. He compares this number with recent estimates of geothermal heat flow, about 0.09 W m−2. But a more relevant number for comparison is the total radiative energy forcing created by the accumulation of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases in Earth's atmosphere as a result of fossil fuel burning and other human activities since the industrial revolution. This number is 2.4 W m−2 with about a 10% uncertainty (Ramaswamy et al., 2001). It is simply not credible that thermal pollution, more than two orders of magnitude smaller, would produce a greater climate response.

The radiative forcing quoted above is defined as the decrease in net tropopause energy flux from the climate system that would occur if the greenhouse gases increased without any change in atmospheric temperature, moisture, clouds, etc. Of course the real system begins to respond immediately to a change in energy flux, and in that sense radiative forcing is a hypothetical quantity, but it is well defined and firmly established by both spectroscopic observations and theory for CO2 and other trace gases.

Nordell concludes from a simple model of radiative transfer that a 1.8 K increase in global mean surface temperature is to be expected eventually from thermal pollution. His model divides the atmosphere into a number of layers, each of which is assumed to radiate as a blackbody. Although such a model can be useful in qualitatively discussing Earth's climate (Goody and Walker, 1972), it neglects both atmospheric convection and the extreme variations in optical depth as a function of wavelength that the real atmosphere exhibits. Use of this model to precisely infer small (<0.1 W m−2) changes in outgoing longwave radiation and thereby deduce equilibrium global warming is not appropriate.

To sum up, if 0.02 W m−2 from thermal pollution will eventually warm Earth's surface by 1.8 K, then anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing to date (2.4 W m−2) will eventually warm Earth's surface by not, vert, similar200 K. Despite the thermal inertia of the oceans, etc., which as Nordell points out slows the warming, it seems obvious that the small (not, vert, similar0.6 K) warming observed to date rules out the author's theory. There are many good reasons for society to invest in renewable energy sources–including reducing the greenhouse effect of fossil fuel generated energy–but worry about global mean thermal pollution is not one of them. We hasten to add that local effects of thermal pollution can be significant and warrant further study.

I'm not saying that Nordell is right, but he is looking at the problem with fresh eyes and his work is going through an appropriate process. If his is ultimately proved wrong, it is still a valid contribution to our body of work on climate. He isn't a "crackpot".

[joshcryer]

20. No, he is not looking at the problem with fresh eyes.

This guy is basically a crackpot and it's embarrassing that you're giving him much weight.

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/08/the_wilder_shores.php#more

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/10/turkish_delight.php

[kristopher]

21. What is "embarrassing" is the weight you give to blogs...

[joshcryer]

22. You dismiss William Connolley's statements because it's written on a 'blog'?

It sure does seem that way.

WC was a RealClimate.com editor, and former climate model engineer. Yes, I give weight to his comments over someone who is making extraordinary arguments which would completely destroy any real (see: scientific) climate models if his numbers were taken seriously.

[kristopher]

23. No

I dismiss your remarks that someone pursuing an idea in a legitimate manner is a "crackpot". Using a blog as a validation for a character attack is something I'd expect from a dumb ass. Are you a dumb ass?

In 1995 a fellow named Cavallo wrote of the economics of long distance transmission of renewable energy. His work was widely rejected by the energy community of the time, however now it forms the backbone of our emerging energy policy. In the late 90s another researcher, Willett Kempton came up with the idea of using electric vehicles or plug in hybrid vehicles as a means of energy storage for the current and future renewable energy grid. His work too was basically ignored or dismissed as irrelevant for nearly 10 years. However, it too is now one of the cornerstones of our emerging energy policy.

The point is that new ideas take time. I haven't supported Nordell's conclusions because I'm not qualified to evaluate them. However I don't dismiss his ideas at this stage because it is premature. He has answered his critics both at the time of the first article and in the follow up paper presented at conference. Instead of answering his arguments with valid analysis of his calculations, all I've seen from your blogs were totally unconvincing "shoot the messsenger" type criticisms of the conference where his 2008 paper was apparently very well received.

[joshcryer]

24. I wonder if this is the same Bo Nordell:

The Dowsing Reaction Originates From Piezoelectric Effect In Bone

http://www.google.com/search?q=THE+DOWSING+REACTION+ORIGINATES+FROM+PIEZOELECTRIC+EFFECT+IN+BONE

http://www.ltu.se/polopoly_fs/1.5014!dowsing.pdf

His numbers were debunked in the first link (in a link in that link and in the various links mentioning him). You don't really think that these blog postings I have shown you are unsubstantiated do you? It's one thing to just dismiss someone, it's another thing entirely to address their non-sense and then dismiss them, which is what WC et al are doing here.

There's a reason sites like RealClimate don't write these long rebuttals to these kinds of people; they are essentially huge wastes of time.

You dismiss so many scientists who do take the time to respond to this guy so easily. It's hilarious.

Perhaps you also dowse.

[kristopher]

26. No, his numbers were not "debunked".

They were argued against, that isn't the same thing. By your standards the two researchers I mentioned (Cavallo & Kempton) are also crackpots. I'm not at all surprised you fail to see the difference since you don't seem to grasp the basic idea of how science actually works. Instead you seem to be from the school of thought (and I use the term loosely) that the best way to address information or ideas you don't like is to rely on schoolyard popularity metrics as a measure of validity.

I reject that as do most other people who aren't dumb asses. A good example is your ridicule of an examination of dowsing. The paper Nordell wrote looks to meet the basic requirements of good science, so it is not a particularly good example with which to discredit Nordell.** What your sneering boorishness does do is to paint for readers an accurate picture of how you evaluate data based almost exclusively on your own preconceived beliefs; anything conflicting with those beliefs is rejected out of hand with no regard to the evidence proffered..

I found a BLOG review of some research on the topic of dowsing, just for you. It is worth noting that Nordell works primarily in the area of water resource engineering: http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-60054.html

[joshcryer]

27. No, they were debunked. He claims that waste heat accounts for some 75% of global warming.

It is easily shown that waste heat is 1/80th that of simple CO2 forcing. CO2 forcing which is proven by this thing we call physics.

The only "preconceived notions" that I have are thatthings like the laws of thermodynamics don't just go away because someone magically makes something up to fit their own preconceived notions.

No doubt waste heat contributes something, I mean, back to that whole laws of thermodynamics thing, but it certainly does not under any circumstances contribute "75%" of global warming heating. Sorry, it doesn't.

If it did then we would have to figure out why the fuck CO2 under Bo Nerdell's model actually doesn't behave the way it does in the laboratory. Until he explains why it doesn't, then his theory is clearly incomplete, and scientifically wrong.

[kristopher]

30. Almost there...

Let's look at the evidence for your understanding of the process of science.

You wrote: "If it did then we would have to figure out why the fuck CO2 under Bo Nerdell's model actually doesn't behave the way it does in the laboratory."

Yes, that is precisely the point it raises. The presumption is that existing models are correct, and Nordell is challenging that. He is providing evidence that: The question of whether there is some sort of fundamental mistake should be asked. The paper is a first step and it will prompt examination of the validity of the assumptions behind our modeling in this area.

Until and unless something is found to be wrong with the existing modeling, his discussion will not be accepted as a component of how we see the problem. Conversely, unless and until such an examination of the modeling assumptions is accomplished, then his ideas have not been shot down.

That doesn't make him a crackpot, that makes him a valid contributor to the process of learning about climate change.

It does, however, make you a ....

[joshcryer]

31. Bo Nerdell is not challenging CO2 radiative forcing.

He's hand waving and saying it is not as relevant as laboratory studies have shown it to be. He makes *absolutely no statement* about why the forcing is incorrect under current models, he just claims that we should view "global warming" as "the accumulation of waste heat," because the "numbers match pretty well."

Hey we had guys say the same thing about solar radiance...

I guess they're legitimate contributors too.

That doesn't make him a crackpot, that makes him a valid contributor to the process of learning about climate change.

No, he is misleading people and legitimizing the "waste heat" myth. It is obfuscation of the process. And since the vast majority of scientists are not accepting his theory (since it doesn't actually challenge current science and instead handwaves), the end result is that people like you happily accept his theories as valid, when they clearly are not, and clearly cannot hold up to any sort of scrutiny.

I hope in the future you defend guys like Miskolczi or Moltz with such fervor, as "contributing to the process" and "not crackpots."

BTW, your response was clearly formulated to basically "win the argument," as you failed to address the physical fact that his numbers simply cannot work. Indeed, you delude yourself that Nordell is challenging *any* aspect of AGW research, when he most assuredly is not.

[kristopher]

33. You routinely and deliberately mis-state my words.

At no time have I said his theories are valid - only that they have a right to their place at the table. And I'm not the only one you do it with. I challenge you to show me where you got the quotation you claim for Nordell: "we should view "global warming" as "the accumulation of waste heat," because the "numbers match pretty well."

I've done a search of the 2003 and 2008 paper and that phrase isn't in there. There is also no evidence at all that Nordell is motivated by anything except desire to nail down the truth about something of interest.

So to recap this post as evidence of a pattern with your 'methods', you have falsely stated my position, you have falsely stated Nordell's position, and you have attacked Nordell's motives.

If your basic position is valid, why do you need to lie and back-stab?

To answer your one substantive point yet again: the "fact" that his numbers don't work is no such thing. The proof being offered that his numbers don't work contain fundamental *assumptions*. These assumptions have earned their place by being consistently valid in all the applications where they have been used. However as your previous post notes the gap between laboratory and an actual complex system exists, in varying degrees for many different relevant variables. Nordell's validity is related to the way his work doesn't depend on these assumptions, therefore it serves as a check on the accepted work. That doesn't mean his work invalidates anything, just that the results of the two methods are not in harmony. Simply pointing to this disharmony isn't evidence that either side is wrong.

Nordell's 2008 conference paper presented at the Global Conference on Global Warming 2008 (GCGW-08) where:

2) Best Paper Awards: Three best paper awards were given to the papers selected from the accepted and presented papers at GCGW-2008.
The selection criteria are:
a) its strong contribution to the key fields of the Conference,
b) its technical content, quality and originality, and
c) communication of its results in an exemplary style with strong organization, appropriate discussion of prior works, and general clarity and integrity.

The selection was made by a panel formed from some of the International Advisory Committee members with a double-blind peer review process. The awards were presented during the conference banquet.

The award winning three papers for GCGW-2008 are:
• “OPTIMAL PATHS OF CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION AND
ADAPTATION UNDER CERTAINTY AND UNCERTAINTY”, T.
Felgenhauer, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
USA

• “CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON REGIONAL MAIZE YIELDS AND
POSSIBLE ADAPTATION MEASURES IN ARGENTINA”, M. I.
Travasso, G. O. Magrin, G. R. Rodríguez, S. Solman, M.
Núñez, Instituto de Clima y Agua, Argentina

• “GLOBAL WARMING IS GLOBAL ENERGY STORAGE”, B. Nordell, B.
Gervet, Luleå University of Technology, Sweden

Overview
Conference Topics

The primary themes of the conference are global warming and climate change, not only in engineering and science but also in all other disciplines (e.g. ecology, education, social sciences, economics, management, political sciences, and information technology). It covers a broad range of topics on energy and environment policies, energy resources, energy conversion technologies, energy management and conservation, energy security, renewables, green technologies, emission reduction and abatement, carbon tax, sustainable development, pollution control and measures, policy development, etc. Therefore, papers on related topics are solicited from all relevant disciplinary areas, ranging from current problems, projections, new concepts, modeling, experiments and measurements, to simulations. The topical areas of interest include, but are not limited to:


* Acid precipitation
* Aerosols
* Atmospheric changes
* Biofuels and alternatives
* Carbon sequestration
* Carbon tax
* Clean technologies
* Climate change and heath issues
* Climate change modeling and simulations
* Climate networks (oceans, regions, forests, etc.)
* Climatic events
* Coupled ocean-atmosphere system
* Deforestation
* Earth sciences
* Ecology
* Ecosystem and biodiversity
* Energy policies and strategies
* Energy quality and security
* Energy technologies
* Engineering tools
* Environment policies and strategies
* Environment quality and security
* Environment technologies
* Environmental education and training
* Exergy
* Food and agriculture
* Forestry
* Global earth observations
* Global economics
* Global environment
* Global policies
* Global warming modeling and simulations
* Green design and manufacturing
* Green energy
* Greenhouse gases
* Human health and welfare issues
* Hurricanes and catastrophic events
* Hydrogen and fuel cell technologies
* Hydrological cycles
* Information technology
* Measurement techniques and data management
* Nuclear energy and technologies
* Oceans and global warming
* Policy and strategy development
* Renewables
* Smog
* Solid and municipal wastes
* Space and atmospheric applications
* Stratospheric ozone depletion
* Sustainable development
* Sustainable environment and health
* Thermal pollution
* Urban and regional planning
* Volcanoes and volcanic events
* Waste management
* Water and water issues
* Weather forecasts and scenarios

Keynote speakers: http://www.gcgw.org/ocs/index.php?conference=gcgw&schedConf=gcgw08&page=schedConf&op=keynote
(Includes a past Chair of the IPCC)

From Conference Chair:

MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR
On behalf of the conference organizing committee it is my great pleasure to invite you to contribute to the Global Conference on Global Warming.

Let’s first look at the common definitions of global warming and climate change. Global warming is an average increase in the Earth’s temperature due to greenhouse effect as a result of both natural and human activities. In common usage, "global warming" often refers to the warming that can occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities. e.g., carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, and fluorinated gases, which act like a greenhouse around the earth, trapping the heat from the sun into the earth’s atmosphere and increasing the Earth’s temperature. Climate change refers to any significant changes in climate through, temperature, precipitation, wind, etc. for an extended period (decades or longer) as a result of natural processes (e.g., sun's intensity, ocean circulation), and human activities causing changes in the atmosphere's composition through e.g., burning fossil fuels and deforestation.

The term climate change is often used interchangeably with the term global warming, but above definitions clearly indicate that if we want to focus on the impact of human activities, we should use the definition global warming. Sometime ago I posed the following question in various platforms: Is it global warming or global warning? Unprecedentedly catastrophic recent climatic anomalies are clearly global warnings through blazing hot summers, brutal winters, hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones from North America to Africa and from Asia to Europe. It is now considered by the overwhelming majority of scientists that global warming is the most important threat to humanity! It is becoming more apparent that humanity may be facing more drastic problems in the near future as a result of global warming which will be unavoidable unless great measures are taken very soon.

I define six primary targets (so-called: six main pillars) from system level to global level in whatever we can do in order to achieve better future as follows:

• better efficiency,
• better cost effectiveness,
• better use of energy and resources,
• better energy security,
• better environment, and
• better sustainability.

We have been in a fossil fuel era and ended up with such a desperate picture! The key question here is: how to cure this problem! While people all over the world are coming together to tackle global warming, tactics/methods are still being used to try to divide the scientists and the public opinion by diverting us from the major source of the problem. In a simple but effective analogy, the patient is about to die. Therefore, It is now the time to change our diet from junk food to healthy diet and our habits and life style from extravagant/wasteful altitude to conscious behavior. This is very crucial in combating the global warming individually. Large scale and long term solutions require infrastructural changes, unlike some try to change the cover or wrapping paper to green and claim that they contribute to the solution. Some try to take a kind of pain killer type pill and claim that he/she is curing the illness! It is not! Because the patient needs a surgery! In this token the infrastructural changes are crucial! Each day we fail to take the essential responsibility for the most important problem and compromise our communities and our future.

There is a lot of information out there, each adding to the understanding of global warming and climate change issues! There have been many conferences, symposia, workshops, meetings, etc. Yet, I wanted to come up with something which will perceive the issues, problems and effective solutions from a wider perspective and more consensus forming position. That’s why I decided for the Global Conference on Global Warming. Why it has a wider perspective? Because aim is to bring all disciplines together from engineering to sciences and from business to social sciences and art! Why it is more consensus building? The area has been a kind of unique to scientists only. But what we know is that the solutions in practice are driven by engineers and decision makers. So far engineers have not really been part of this important issue. It must be our ultimate objective to build a better consensus by bringing engineers face to face with all other disciplines in a broad range of issues yet to be tackled for ultimate solutions.

If you wish to discover more and do more about global warming, come and join us to make difference and to be part of solution to this global crisis! I like to modify the well-know slogan to “THINK BOTH LOCALLY AND GLOBALLY! AND ACT BOTH LOCALLY AND GLOBALLY”.

It is now my privilege to invite researchers, scientists, engineers, practitioners, policy makers, even politicians to this global event on global warming from all over the world to exchange information, present new technologies and developments, and discuss the future direction, strategies and priorities in the field of global warming and climate change.

I look forward to receiving your abstract(s) and welcoming you to Istanbul next July.

Best wishes,


Dr. Ibrahim Dincer
Conference Chair

http://www.engineering.uoit.ca/people/dincer

[joshcryer]

36. He says it in the damn abstract.

The global air temperature increase is an inadequate measure of global warming, which rather should be considered in terms of energy.

It was found that the net heat emissions 1880-2000 correspond to 74% of accumulated heat, i.e. the global warming, during the same period.

---

His paper has no basis in reality, and contributes nothing to the process. It contributes about as much as the solar radiance people contribute, eg, nothing of relevance. The fact that you continue to defend him as "serving a check on accepted work" is hilarious at best. His whole premise is based on invalidating proven science without experimentation, it is unscientific. Period.

[kristopher]

40. Another lie?

You quoted Nordell as writing "numbers match pretty well."

Now you write that "it was in the damned abstract".

No where does this quote you attributed to him appear in the papers, including the abstract.

And apparently the International Advisory Committee and the who people who attended the Global Conference on Global Warming 2008 (GCGW-08) consider the import of Nordell's efforts differently than you:

2) Best Paper Awards:
Three best paper awards were given to the papers selected from the accepted and presented papers at GCGW-2008.
The selection criteria are:
a) its strong contribution to the key fields of the Conference,
b) its technical content, quality and originality, and
c) communication of its results in an exemplary style with strong organization, appropriate discussion of prior works, and general clarity and integrity.

The selection was made by a panel formed from some of the International Advisory Committee members with a double-blind peer review process. The awards were presented during the conference banquet.

The award winning three papers for GCGW-2008 are:
• “OPTIMAL PATHS OF CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION AND
ADAPTATION UNDER CERTAINTY AND UNCERTAINTY”, T.
Felgenhauer, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
USA

• “CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON REGIONAL MAIZE YIELDS AND
POSSIBLE ADAPTATION MEASURES IN ARGENTINA”, M. I.
Travasso, G. O. Magrin, G. R. Rodríguez, S. Solman, M.
Núñez, Instituto de Clima y Agua, Argentina

• “GLOBAL WARMING IS GLOBAL ENERGY STORAGE”, B. Nordell, B.
Gervet, Luleå University of Technology, Sweden

While it isn't the Nobel Prize or anything, I still have to ask, have you ever garnered such recognition for one of your papers?

[joshcryer]

41. I didn't quote him literally and you know it (but being obtuse is expected of you).

And I think you should know that I am well aware that he got "awarded" for his paper. That proves nothing, and you *still* have not addressed the *fact* that his paper is simply unscientific.

[kristopher]

44. Then why did you put quotes around the phrase and attribute it to him?

What I see is that you attempted to make him sound like he is as dumb as a stump by using an idiotic phrase and passing it off as a quote.
And as noted, that is just one in a long line of similar misrepresentations and bogus arguments. For example, now you are acting as though nothing has been said to answer your claim that "his paper is simply unscientific", when in fact this entire exchange has shown very, very clearly that you lack even a fundamental grasp of how the scientific process works as an ongoing endeavor. So for you to claim his work is unscientific is (especially in the face of the award placed into evidence) is nothing short of lunacy. On the one had we have: Double blind, peer review process... strong contribution... technical content... quality... originality... communication in exemplary style... strong organization... general clarity and integrity...

And on the other hand we have: Crackpot... simply unscientific... blog...

Best Paper Awards: Three best paper awards were given to the papers selected from the accepted and presented papers at GCGW-2008.
The selection criteria are:
a) its strong contribution to the key fields of the Conference,
b) its technical content, quality and originality, and
c) communication of its results in an exemplary style with strong organization, appropriate discussion of prior works, and general clarity and integrity.

The selection was made by a panel formed from some of the International Advisory Committee members with a double-blind peer review process....

“GLOBAL WARMING IS GLOBAL ENERGY STORAGE”, B. Nordell, B.
Gervet, Luleå University of Technology, Sweden

[joshcryer]

45. Hmm, I thought it was pretty clear that I wasn't quoting him explicitly.

I explain why it is not scientific and you reiterate some award he receives without explaining how he is in fact scientific. "Because I say so" is not an answer. "Because he got an award" is not an answer.

Where is the CO2 forcing data and experimentation? It doesn't exist. He is making an invalid claim not supported by any evidence whatsoever, in fact, it contradicts known science, known theory, without any legitimate explanation whatsoever.

I do find it amusing that you again reiterate the award aspect here, even though the first few links I gave you had the award in the comments (with real climate scientists making similar statements as me in said comments).

Hey, I'm well aware that he got an award. OK? It has no relevance on the science. (Or in this case, his pathetic attempt to be scientific but falling quite short.)

[kristopher]

46. You haven't explained anything.

All you've done is make hyperbolic unfounded character attacks and proven that you don't know what science is.

I'd suggest that you grab a copy of Int. Jour. Global Warming, Vol. 1, Nos. 1/2/3, 2009, and read "Global energy accumulation and net heat emission". Then sit down and write out your argument that you claim disproves Nordell's work ad send it in to them. I've already said I haven't the expertise to evaluate his claims, and from the evidence it is crystal clear that you don't either. However, if you want to prove me wrong, just respond to the IJGW with your "proofs" and let us know when your contribution is accepted for publication. So far, his work has made it through peer review a number of times so that puts his status as a legitimate scientist far above your own (which is actually nearer the "crackpot" category).

[joshcryer]

47. Why do that when W.C. and others already have?

Are you stupid? Why would I do the science when it has already been done? Do you think that just because someone has been published that means it is automatically canon and truth and such?

Perhaps you should read this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/peer-review-a-necessary-but-not-sufficient-condition/

Nordell has been sufficiently rebutted.

[kristopher]

48. You point to links with no proofs.

I posted the most legitimate refutation of Nordells 2003 paper upstream, and apparently it failed to convince other, informed reviewers at the conference and at the IJGW, or they wouldn't have given the paper the platform that it occupies.

Do you understand that? Your "rebuttal" fails to convince a large number of highly qualified people. These people seem to feel that the "rebuttal" fails. So do I.

Now go try to figure out another misrepresentation or baseless claim to post since you obviously aren't competent to make the judgment on Nordell's paper that you are now making.

[joshcryer]

50. Um, you have refuted nothing.

You post from a position of authority, ie, "they said it's OK so it's OK." I post basic math. It's really simple, actually. You have failed to address a single thing I have said except for reiterating, at least 3, possibly more times, the same garbage, "they said it's good."

RC.com shows how "they say it's good" is still *not good enough.*

You are an idiot and simply do not grasp the scientific process. Thankfully it does *not* work the way you're attempting to illustrate.

[kristopher]

51. I'm not trying to refute anything, Mr. Moran.

Yes I'm appealing to legitimate authority - because that is precisely how the system works.

You on the other hand have been all over the map; telling lies and using every other method of illogical assault that the school of Rush Limbaugh has taught you.

I'm still waiting for your answer about whether or not you think nuclear energy is the answer to our climate change problem. It is a simple question. I ask it because it of this from the Sedgemore blog

Snoopy – it’s not about the magnitude of solar irradiance of the Earth in direct comparison with the energy produced by humans. What matters is how the heat produced by us affects the planet’s atmosphere on local, regional and global scales. I too cannot accept Nordell’s contention that “thermal pollution” is largely responsible for global warming, but I’ll listen to anyone who argues that it could be a contributory factor.

It’s interesting how any discussion of Nordell’s science quickly degenerates into an ideological argument about nuclear power. A cursory Google search reveals that Mr Heath spends his time on various web forums expressing contempt for wind power, and praising nuclear.

And here is Mr. Heath's post:

Warren Heath

Wednesday 15 July 2009 at 02:32 BST

What utter nonsense. Once again anti-nuclear fanatics inventing some ridiculous pseudo-science.

The total power production of humans on this Earth is 16 TW. The Solar Energy received by the Sun is 174,000 TW ! . Just Radioactive Decay in the Earth supplies 30 TW of heat energy.

Try heating up your local region on a cold winter day by idling thousands of vehicles and heating thousands of homes. Might make the whole city one or two degrees warmer – no effect whatsoever on a larger region.

The heat wasted by thermal power plants (can be used in CHP and Desalination Power Plants), is insignificant in its effect on global climate. And will remain so
by idling thousands of vehicles and heating thousands of homes. Might make the whole city one or two degrees warmer – no effect whatsoever on a larger region.

The heat wasted by thermal power plants (can be used in CHP and Desalination Power Plants), is insignicant in its effect on global climate. And will remain so.

He sounds an awful lot like you, and is just as obviously spouting bullshit.

[joshcryer]

52. Heh, I'm pleased that your biases show in this response.

Presumably before you saw my other statement in the other thread (and obviously without knowledge of my arguments with NNadir in the past).

[Fledermaus]

38. Its his theory. However, it is accepted that anthropomorphic heat adds to the "heat island effect".

[joshcryer]

39. He says it accounts for 75%.

I'm not debating that there's an effect from heat waste. But it's not 75% by any means.

[Fledermaus]

42. Its not my theory. He may not be 100% correct on this issue, but I don't think he's a crackpot.

http://www.ltu.se/forskning/1.16009?l=en&pureFamily=dk.atira.pure.families.person.shared.model.Person&pureId=1826

[joshcryer]

43. Being off by an order of magnitude, and not providing evidence for ones claims...

...makes you a crackpot in my mind. For instance, those who talk about solar radiance being the "reason" for global warming, are crackpots when we know the upper atmosphere is not heating correspondingly (ie, it's a heat trapping effect, not a solar fluctuation effect).

[Fledermaus]

56. Its clear you disagree with his results. Do you believe that thermal pollution has no global effect?

Thermal pollution certainly adds to the "thermal island effect" in and around large cities. It most certainly adds to the temperature in highly congested areas where these cities run together in a larger geographical area.

Here are some images of past future light pollution. I'm using these images to graphicaly represent the growth of these areas.



I think its reasonable to ask what effect thermal pollution has globally.

[joshcryer]

57. It's also necessary to determine how much effect GHGs have with regards to trapping waste heat.

I am by no means saying there's no effect. I am saying that it is not an "alternative theory" for global warming.

[Fledermaus]

58. I tend to agree with your statement. However, I don't know of anyone else trying to put a number to ...

[joshcryer]

59. Actually, the models do take into effect urban heat island effects.

And as the models improve I am sure that they will consider more of this waste heat. What is interesting about Nordell's paper is that he says all of the models are wrong, except he doesn't explain why.

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

The models do get better, and perhaps Nordell can get some credit for bringing the subject up, but he's by no means unique in his observations, except that he posits that thermal pollution is the primary cause for global warming, while rejecting basic physical laws of nature.

[kristopher]

60. There you go stretching the truth *again*

He doesn't say any model is wrong. He focuses on proving that his measurements, methods and conclusions are valid. Period. There are ramifications but you are once more substituting your foolishness and attributing it to him.

[joshcryer]

61. Again, I didn't say he explicitly said that.

It is obviously implied, by your own admission in the other thread.

[kristopher]

62. Do you fucking speak English??

"What is interesting about Nordell's paper is that he says all of the models are wrong, except he doesn't explain why."


HE SAYS means HE SAYS.

[joshcryer]

64. OK, change "he says" to "he basically says."

Oh golly.

[benEzra]

53. Most of which is due to changing the albedo by paving over the land with dark-colored stuff

like asphalt. Solar panels do the same thing.

All forms of power generation, renewable or not, produce waste heat; it is a fundamental law of thermodynamics. But heat production as a byproduct of power generation isn't the cause of global warming; higher atmospheric CO2 concentration is.

[joshcryer]

54. Indeed, GHGs cause global warming, not waste heat.

Waste heat can be a contributing factor, but it is by no means the 75% figure that Nordell wants to claim. He has failed to show otherwise.

[kristopher]

63. You obviously haven't read the paper.

[benEzra]

65. You mean the paper by GREENHOUSE GAS SKEPTICS peddling an alternate theory?

http://www.ltu.se/polopoly_fs/1.5035!nordell%20gpc%20vol%2038%20issue%203-4.pdf

Even though there is a scientific consensus about
an ongoing global warming, there is no consensus
about its cause. Most studies, however, assume that it
is a result of the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations
into the atmosphere, i.e. the greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse explanation is based on the fact that
the global mean temperature increase coincides with
increasing emissions of carbon dioxide (and other
greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere, which has
been increasing since 1800, from about 275 to 370
ppm today (CDIAC, 2002). It is presumed that
increases in carbon dioxide and other minor greenhouse
gases will lead to significant increases in
temperature. It is generally believed that most of this
increase is due to the increased burning of fossil fuels.
This theory is adopted by international environmental
politics though there is a growing scientific scepticism
about the greenhouse explanation.

Yes, I read it. I also noticed this fallacy:

What can we then do to put a stop to global
warming? Today’s policies are aiming at reducing
the CO2 emissions. There are also ideas of storing
CO2 in deep deposits. Some countries plan to expand
their nuclear power industry. All these ideas would
reduce the CO2 emissions but would not reduce the
global net heat generation. In the case of nuclear
power, it would become even worse because of the
large amounts of heat generated by nuclear power
production. There are also visions of importing clean
energy from space. Even if this energy would be
renewable on Mars, it would cause global warming
since such systems would release net heat on Earth.
The only sustainable way is to use our own renewable
energy. With renewable energy systems, it is not even
possible to disturb the energy balance of Earth.

This makes me question if the paper was even subjected to peer review. He says that beaming clean energy down from space (which he bewilderingly connects with "Mars") would cause global warming, but that using renewables within the atmosphere would not. He speaks as if nuclear plants are the only ones that produce waste heat (all thermodynamic systems do). He dismisses waste heat from renewables with so much handwaving.

FWIW, my comment in the post above was referring to the urban heat island effect, which *is* primarily albedo related, not power plant related. But I don't believe the paper in the OP is particularly rigorous.

[joshcryer]

67. It's not, there are plenty of objections that Nordell fails to address.

He starts by rejecting GHGs and using a very poorly thought out understanding of radiative emissions. Perhaps in 2001 he thought that there was no consensus about GHGs with regards to global warming, but we know that now the consensus does most assuredly exist.

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

[kristopher]

71. There you go lying again.

he doesn't reject GHG emissions as a factor in warming and his understanding of radiative forcing is arguably superior to your own.

[joshcryer]

72. No it's not.

It was a nice attempt to provide a correlation but it falls quite short, like solar irradiance objections.

[kristopher]

70. I don't follow your reasoning

I'm fairly familiar with legitimate GW discussion and there is a persistent unease related to the evidence that GHG emissions are the primary *cause* of our current situation and the ice core data showing CO2 concentrations trailing warming. There is no argument that the increase in GHG emissions results in corresponding increases in warming, but the attribution of the current trend in warming to GHG accumulation is to some degree based on a lack of alternative *possible* explanations.

What Nordell's work shows is that there is, in fact, an alternative scenario that needs to be explored. To my knowledge no one to date has bothered to calculate the actual amount of heat (over and above the planet's long term state of thermal equilibrium) we, as a species, have been responsible for. Since 1880 humans have increasing engaged in large scale recovery and release of geologically stored solar energy and since the 1950s we've done the same with the accelerated release of stored nuclear energy. Prior to Nordell's examination the idea that our activities in this area were sufficient to affect climate have been dismissed without actually looking at the issue from the perspective of a body in long term thermal equilibrium.

You also say there is a "fallacy" in the second quote. I fail to see it. The point seems logically consistent and valid; Using CO2 as a metric misses the contribution of 'sequestered' energy emissions. Therefore policies crafted around that metric will not be as effective as we might wish.

If there is a fallacy involved it appears to lie in your attempted use of snark. This makes me question if the paper was even subjected to peer review. He says that beaming clean energy down from space (which he bewilderingly connects with "Mars") would cause global warming, but that using renewables within the atmosphere would not. He speaks as if nuclear plants are the only ones that produce waste heat (all thermodynamic systems do). He dismisses waste heat from renewables with so much handwaving."

He said nothing about "beaming" clean energy down from space and he certainly did not propose to ship energy in any form from Mars to Earth. His remarks are clear and unequivocal. Related to an Earth in thermal equilibrium with its external environment he wrote that "There are also visions of importing clean energy from space. Even if this energy would be renewable on Mars, it would cause global warming since such systems would release net heat on Earth."

Were is the fallacy? A closed system at equilibrium will have that equilibrium disturbed if new inputs into the system are created.

If you object to the use of Mars as an example of a source that is clearly outside the our balanced system I'd say that goes to your reading, and not the author's point.

Perhaps you then are talking about the "hand waving" in this sentence? "The only sustainable way is to use our own renewable energy. With renewable energy systems, it is not even possible to disturb the energy balance of Earth."

While the statement may not be literally true, in a practical sense it is extremely difficult to argue with. You could say that if we cover sufficient areas of the surface with artificial materials then we would change the albedo and consequently "disturb the energy balance of Earth", but given the known areas that would be needed to provide for our energy needs, that extremist compalint would amount to nothing more than nit-picking.

Nordell gives readers such as yourself an invitation to verify or disprove his work and provides you with clear assistance regarding his method. That method, I should add, is rather simple. What I find EXTREMELY telling is that to date no one has published ANYTHING (in the academic literature or in the blogosphere) that finds any fault whatsoever with his work.

If he is wrong, prove it. Snark just proves you have nothing of substance to add.

[joshcryer]

73. Look up infrared absorption tables from the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.

Until you understand basic greenhouse warming, which Nordell does not under any circumstances address, you simply lack proper understanding of this issue.

[kristopher]

75. Is that supposed to prove something?

Sounds like a false appeal to authority to me. In all of these posts you have yet to show where Nordell's work itself is wrong. If you are as informed as you claim, then please relate the idea that he doesn't understand forcing and the data from your reference to a specific assumption that he uses or a specific piece of data he inputs and show how this invalidates his work. If you're correct, it should be possible to do that and explain it in words even an idiot like me can at least get a slim grasp of.

Are you saying he is wrong that the Earth was in a state of long term thermal equilibrium prior to the late 1800s?

Do you have an alternative explanation explaining the disposition of heat that we've created?

If you could invalidate Nordell's work legitimately you would have done so. You can't so you resort to all the lies and misrepresentations to accomplish that goal. And that begs the question: WTF motivates you to want to discredit his paper so badly. And don't give me the crap about "bad science". Bad science is posted here routinely and you don't dedicate yourself to attacking it with lies and all sorts of other sleazy tactics. No, there is something about the content of this particular paper that has your panites in a wad.

[joshcryer]

77. The reason I do not like the paper is the same reason I do not like any GHG dismissals.

Any GHG dismissals from any group, denialist, people with agendas, whatever.

Nordell's paper doesn't address observed facts of nature, like certain polluted atmospheric molecules absorbing heat and radiating that heat back out.

Now, you can say he does address it because he invents a new magical algorithm, but the magical algorithm, after much closer inspection, has absolutely no variable for GHG forcing.

While you think it is easy for me to dismiss this guys paper, you can see that I have actually read it and spent quite some time discussing it. What you then have to do is say that I am not being scientific because he doesn't have to address variables outside of his observation. Neither do solar irradiance people. But by not addressing these variables, it places his theory, like many others, in a niche of non-competitive theories that likely do not reflect reality.

When a scientist asked Nordell to address the GHG problem, he responds with his equation, which has no GHG variable in it whatsoever. In other words, he doesn't address the issue.

It seems you have attempted to minimize the effect of GHGs with Damon's paper in the other thread (but it also seems you lack an appreciable understanding of how GHGs operate, and the level at which they are being produced). It is clear that your stance is to be "accepting" of non-conventional theories even if they fail to address known physical mechanisms. And it seems that you do not believe non-conventional theories are invalidated until a peer review invalidates them. However, that is not always the case, because a theory can be invalidated simply by not being seen by scientists as competitive in the field.

Nordell will continue to be an irrelevant contributor in the field of climate change.

[kristopher]

78. That criticism is STILL absurd.

No matter how many times you repeat it, nor now many irrelevant examples contributed to the formation of your illogical bias, the fact is that your insistence that his paper address any weakness it may indicate in other theories is still illogical.

The existing theories and assumptions we accept as working tools to allow us to proceed in the face of scientific uncertainty. (If you deny that then you are simply not with having a discussion with.) While it is certainly valid to defend their use vigorously, if, in the realm of academic discussion you have to resort (as you have) to the use of sleazy tactics in that defense then you are no longer a legitimate part of the process of science.

If his data or reasoning is false then demonstrate that it is false; don't create strawman arguments or otherwise lie about his work. At no time does he dismiss GHG emissions as a factor in AGW. I understand your desire to protect valid research against the garbage introduced by a hugely powerful and well funded disinformation industry funded by fossil fuel interests, however you are guilty of over-zealous representation of your client. In this case the ramifications of Nordell being correct are very bad for both the fossil fuel and nuclear industries.



You complain that "When a scientist asked Nordell to address the GHG problem, he responds with his equation, which has no GHG variable in it whatsoever. In other words, he doesn't address the issue."

Read that conclusion carefully. You write, "he responds with his equation" and then conclude "he doesn't address the issue". I don't agree with that and think he very clearly and adequately addressed the points raised in both published critiques of his 2003 paper. I bring this up not to once again engage in a "No, he didn't/Yes, he did" exchange with you, but to ask you to apply the same standard to yourself.

I've asked you several times to explain the lag between CO2 levels and temperature increases that we see in the ice core data. What mechanism was at work that accounts for the increase in temperatures? Since you can't answer that, does it negate GHG theories or indicate than you are denying the existence of an unknown warming mechanism?

Of course not. Our understanding of the functioning of GHGs is solid, however it is clear that there are gaps in our knowledge. When you reject work like Nordell's on the basis of the criticisms you've shared you are rejecting our established mechanism for filling in those gaps.

Let me ask you a simple question: Is Nordell's work internally valid? Please limit your response to the assumptions, data and methods he uses. Once we establish that then we could discuss more rationally the implications of his work and the larger context that it must fit into.

What you are doing is jumping to those secondary issues as a means of discrediting his writings. That is false logic.

[joshcryer]

79. Is Nordell's work internally valid?

Yes.

Is Nordell's work capable of accurately explaining global temperature increase? No.

Can Nordell's work be modified to explain global temperature increase? Not without being changed so much as to not look anything like the original paper, and not without its fundamental conclusions necessitating a complete change. Not without applying CO2 forcing.

I don't agree with that and think he very clearly and adequately addressed the points raised in both published critiques of his 2003 paper.

His equations neglect simple atmospheric composition! By his own admission! (Last paragraph in reply to J. Gumbel and H. Rodhe.)

That's why he wrote the 2008 paper. We'll see what happens when someone invariably responds to it. Particularly someone like Gumbel and Rodhe who have vested understanding of thermal emissivity, and who will show how he has not advanced his theory since 2003 at all (he uses the same equation).

What you are doing is jumping to those secondary issues as a means of discrediting his writings. That is false logic.

He is the one claiming to have explained global warming with a simple equation. I am the one reminding people of known physical observations which Nordell neglects.

What you are doing is exactly what other denialists or "alternate theory" people do. Dismiss fundamental, proven aspects of science, in order to facilitate a view that is more in line with your own preconceptions (you are against nuclear, and have made this known quite well here; there is no doubt in my mind that your preconceptions have compelled you to spend so many posts debating this logic). At the same time you blame others of using "false logic."

When someone challenges previously held scientific beliefs, they have to have evidence to support their challenge. Nordell does not present any evidence as such except for a very weak correlation that only accounts for 76% of the temperature increase.

As for the whole "temperature leads carbon" stuff, look at this video, it will explain it clearer than I can (and it will show you how the argument is used by denialists to spin the truth in their favor): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8

[kristopher]

81. Yes, it is.

You wrote: "Is Nordell's work capable of accurately explaining global temperature increase? No."

Is that what Nordell is doing? Perhaps you should try reading for comprehension.

Here is the abstract:
The global air temperature increase is an inadequate measure of global warming, which rather should be considered in terms of energy. The ongoing global warming means that heat has been accumulating since 1880, in air, ground, and water. Before explaining this warming by external heat sources the net heat emissions on Earth must be considered. Such emissions, from e.g. the global use of fossil fuel and nuclear power, must contribute to global warming.

The aim of this study was to compare globally accumulated and emitted heat. The heat accumulated in air corresponds to 6.6% of the global warming, while the remaining heat is stored in the ground (31.5%), melting of ice (33.4%), and sea water (28.5%).

It was found that the net heat emissions 1880-2000 correspond to 74% of accumulated heat, i.e. the global warming, during the same period. The missing heat (26%) must have other causes; e.g. the greenhouse effect, natural variation of the climate, and/or underestimation of net heat emissions. Most measures already taken to combat global warming are beneficial also for current explanation, though nuclear power is not a solution but part of the problem.

No where is there even a hint of what you claim: "He is the one claiming to have explained global warming with a simple equation."
That is just another in an unending string of your lies.

What he did say was:
"Before explaining this warming by external heat sources the net heat emissions on Earth must be considered."

"The aim of this study was to compare globally accumulated and emitted heat."

"It was found that the net heat emissions 1880-2000 correspond to 74% of accumulated heat, i.e. the global warming, during the same period."

Now that you've admitted the obvious, let's move on a bit. You say that his equations neglect atmospheric composition. Does that affect the ability of the atmosphere to store our waste heat to a degree that impacts his findings? Since he attributes atmospheric storage with 6.6% of the total, what is the overall effect to his thesis of "atmospheric composition"?

You see yourself as "reminding people of known physical observations which Nordell neglects". Again I say you are putting the cart before the horse. Nordell doesn't neglect "known physical observations". What he does do is concentrate on a defined system and make physical observations of the flow of energy from internal sources within that system.

Let me repeat that: What he does do is concentrate on a defined system and make physical observations of the flow of energy from internal sources within that system. And I might add that you have accepted the accuracy of the observations he has made.

I am neither a "denialist" nor a proponent of "alternative theories" in the sense you obviously intend it (obviously in the vein of being a conspiracy theorist). Perhaps you should drop the name calling. I mean, I certainly have a better record of being motivated by concern over climate change than you have of being against nuclear or fossil energy. Based on your objections and methods of argumentation it would be much more legitimate for me to accuse you of being a secret plant of the nuclear industry or the fossil fuels industry.

You wrote, "When someone challenges previously held scientific beliefs, they have to have evidence to support their challenge."

That is true. And Nordell has done that. He has challenged the OMISSION of "the net heat emissions on Earth" as a factor in understanding wtf is going on with our climate.

Do you have a source that shows this to be false? Have the net heat emissions of Earth over time been tabulated and accounted for in detail?

Finally I am not "against nuclear" except as it applies to our ability to meet goals associated with climate change. I do not consider it to be an effective way to meet our climate goals given the competition among alternatives for scarce funding. To put that in perspective, IF climate change were to be recognized by our culture as the threat you and I see it to be then the political will would be there to proceed on all fronts as quickly as possible. Under that scenario I would advocate that we proceed with deployment of nuclear at a pace limited only by safety, material and talent constraints. And by "safety" I'm not suggesting an increase in standards.

[joshcryer]

82. Selective quoting doesn't work in your favor, it might with less intelligent people.

Thus, the global thermal pollution will at steady state have increased the sea surface temperature by 1.9 C, the land area temperature by 3.9 C, and the global mean temperature by 2.5 C. Since part of this heating has already begun, further temperature increases of 1.4 C (Ocean), 2.7 C (Land), and 1.8 C (Mean) should be expected (Fig. 4).

Since 1880, the increasing use of nonrenewable energy has resulted in a thermal pollution, which today corresponds to a global heating of 0.02 W m2. This heating has so far resulted in a global temperature increase of 0.7 C. As a consequence, the net OLR has increased and in 1999 one third of the thermal pollution was emitted as OLR. The current use of nonrenewable energy requires a further global temperature increase of 1.8 C, until Earth is again in thermal equilibrium. Then the total net heat generation (0.088 W m 2) will be emitted as OLR (Fig. 5).

His conclusion is so far reaching that he accounts for 74% of all warming measured to date simply because of waste heat. But the responses he garnered showed how he did not account for greenhouse gas forcing, and indeed, all he did to explain it was to refer back to his magical OLR equation.

You ask, "Do you have a source that shows this to be false? Have the net heat emissions of Earth over time been tabulated and accounted for in detail?"

IPCC AR4 discusses it comprehensively in Chapter 3, p 244. Please read it.

And personally, if one didn't know better, your dumbing down of CO2 effects (emphasizing Damon's "if you emit that tonne of carbon dioxide, it will lead to 0.0000000000015 degrees of global temperature change" statement), and your continual hyping of this poorly thought out concept which never gained traction whose objections were dismissed by an equation, one might think you were an apologist for the fossil fuel industry.

What I think is that people look at CO2, don't see it as a big deal because its infrared absorptivity is one of the lowest of the greenhouse gasses, and they go "oh that's no big deal." But the failure starts when people don't understand just how utterly much CO2 we release on a yearly basis. I would enjoy seeing his numbers redone in 5 years (where it would account for less than 74% of warming).

[Name removed]

84. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kristopher]

90. Josh the lying is getting to be absurd.

I just spent 2 hours downloading chap 3 of the IPCC report and it does not consider waste heat emissions over time. This persistent lying marks you as an individual of not only low intellect, but also of low character.

I asked "Do you have a source that shows this to be false? Have the net heat emissions of Earth over time been tabulated and accounted for in detail?"

Your answer was, "IPCC AR4 discusses it comprehensively in Chapter 3, p 244. Please read it"

Just for the record, here is the post that elicited the lie and several poor attempts at obsfucation:

You wrote: "Is Nordell's work capable of accurately explaining global temperature increase? No."

Is that what Nordell is doing? Perhaps you should try reading for comprehension.

Here is the abstract:
The global air temperature increase is an inadequate measure of global warming, which rather should be considered in terms of energy. The ongoing global warming means that heat has been accumulating since 1880, in air, ground, and water. Before explaining this warming by external heat sources the net heat emissions on Earth must be considered. Such emissions, from e.g. the global use of fossil fuel and nuclear power, must contribute to global warming.

The aim of this study was to compare globally accumulated and emitted heat. The heat accumulated in air corresponds to 6.6% of the global warming, while the remaining heat is stored in the ground (31.5%), melting of ice (33.4%), and sea water (28.5%).

It was found that the net heat emissions 1880-2000 correspond to 74% of accumulated heat, i.e. the global warming, during the same period. The missing heat (26%) must have other causes; e.g. the greenhouse effect, natural variation of the climate, and/or underestimation of net heat emissions. Most measures already taken to combat global warming are beneficial also for current explanation, though nuclear power is not a solution but part of the problem.

No where is there even a hint of what you claim: "He is the one claiming to have explained global warming with a simple equation."
That is just another in an unending string of your lies.

What he did say was:
"Before explaining this warming by external heat sources the net heat emissions on Earth must be considered."

"The aim of this study was to compare globally accumulated and emitted heat."

"It was found that the net heat emissions 1880-2000 correspond to 74% of accumulated heat, i.e. the global warming, during the same period."

Now that you've admitted the obvious, let's move on a bit. You say that his equations neglect atmospheric composition. Does that affect the ability of the atmosphere to store our waste heat to a degree that impacts his findings? Since he attributes atmospheric storage with 6.6% of the total, what is the overall effect to his thesis of "atmospheric composition"?

You see yourself as "reminding people of known physical observations which Nordell neglects". Again I say you are putting the cart before the horse. Nordell doesn't neglect "known physical observations". What he does do is concentrate on a defined system and make physical observations of the flow of energy from internal sources within that system.

Let me repeat that: What he does do is concentrate on a defined system and make physical observations of the flow of energy from internal sources within that system. And I might add that you have accepted the accuracy of the observations he has made.

I am neither a "denialist" nor a proponent of "alternative theories" in the sense you obviously intend it (obviously in the vein of being a conspiracy theorist). Perhaps you should drop the name calling. I mean, I certainly have a better record of being motivated by concern over climate change than you have of being against nuclear or fossil energy. Based on your objections and methods of argumentation it would be much more legitimate for me to accuse you of being a secret plant of the nuclear industry or the fossil fuels industry.

You wrote, "When someone challenges previously held scientific beliefs, they have to have evidence to support their challenge."

That is true. And Nordell has done that. He has challenged the OMISSION of "the net heat emissions on Earth" as a factor in understanding wtf is going on with our climate.

Do you have a source that shows this to be false? Have the net heat emissions of Earth over time been tabulated and accounted for in detail?

[joshcryer]

91. Oh, it discusses anthropogenic waste heat, doesn't it?

If it doesn't, then oopsie, must be somewhere else in AR4.

[joshcryer]

92. Ahh, yes...

Accordingly, this assessment adds the same level of urban warming uncertainty as in the TAR: 0.006°C per decade since 1900 for land, and 0.002°C per decade since 1900 for blended land with ocean, as ocean UHI is zero.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fledermaus]

83. Gosh, he is not a global warming septic. His approach contradicts commonly held beliefs.

He is a strong believer in global warming and renewabe energy. However, he believes nuclear power and carbon sequestration will not solve global warming.

Its his critique of nuclear energy that brings the harshest criticisms.

[joshcryer]

85. It is his implication that CO2 isn't the primary issue that brings the objections from me.

Indeed, kristopher knows this which is why he made the "A New Measure of Global Warming from Carbon Emissions" thread, bolding a CO2 estimate which at first glance looked quite small, but when contrasted with our emissions exactly the global warming we have experienced.

We've gone in circles several times over this already, and it doesn't seem like I am able to get it through to him that this argument doesn't hold weight.

BTW, Nordell is wrong that renewables wouldn't add to the heat of the planet, they are large projects which would invariably change the albedo of the planet, thus resulting in a constant added heat. Given how much weight he places on an insignificant contribution to global thermal heat, I wonder if it would even help at all.

[kristopher]

87. You idiot.

I highlighted that part because it IS simple and accurate and newly released in that form. See what I mean about your preconceptions?

And I guess you missed this:
Perhaps you then are talking about the "hand waving" in this sentence? "The only sustainable way is to use our own renewable energy. With renewable energy systems, it is not even possible to disturb the energy balance of Earth."

While the statement may not be literally true, in a practical sense it is extremely difficult to argue with. You could say that if we cover sufficient areas of the surface with artificial materials then we would change the albedo and consequently "disturb the energy balance of Earth", but given the known areas that would be needed to provide for our energy needs, that extremist compalint would amount to nothing more than nit-picking.

Nordell gives readers such as yourself an invitation to verify or disprove his work and provides you with clear assistance regarding his method. That method, I should add, is rather simple. What I find EXTREMELY telling is that to date no one has published ANYTHING (in the academic literature or in the blogosphere) that finds any fault whatsoever with his work.

[joshcryer]

88. He doesn't even address the heat output of decreased albedo.

I would attempt to disprove his work in a formal manner if I felt it warranted consideration, but given that it is a niche theory I place it in a similar crackpot category as solar irradiance.

This is likely the opinion of many in the field, however, given that he only recently got published again it could take awhile before someone else wants to write a paper (which will surely demolish his spurious reasoning).

[NNadir]

35. You mean coal plants don't obey the second law of thermodynamics?

Even high T ones, like the IGCC all the dangerous fossil fuel apologists are always talking about?

Who knew?