Posts by rich2201 14 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Aug 2012
It will be more than the Ref author did. Previous estimates of potential wind power range from 58 TW to 400 TW. The 4.3 W/m2 is a theoretical upper limit. Keith refines it to not much more than 1W/m2. While cautioning that global capacity cannot easily be calculated, Lewis' implication that wind potential is maybe 1% to 3% of global demand (30TW) is NOT based on the research.
Apple has their phones in two major carriers representing something like 20% of the Chinese market. So, there's 5x the potential. 0.15% x 5 = 0.75%.
Maybe they really do dig the iPhone.
The largest carrier however, does have less 3G coverage and lower smart phone penetration. So, upside is a little limited for a couple years until they get their LTE network deployed.
The other CO2 impacts are important too.
In higher CO2 concentrations, the trees reduce the size of the stomata on their leaves. Why is this important? Trees release moisture when the stomata are open. This is an important source of moisture, especially in the rain forests. This is predicted to cause the Amazon to become a desert over the decades.
Ocean acidification from increases in CO2 is a rather significant threat. The increased acidification will kill off the plankton that are the anchor of the food chain for the fisheries we depend on.
The greenhouse effect is no joke either.
Developed countries are reducing their carbon intensity. Emissions reductions are more than possible.
The natural processes that sequester carbon take an awful long time. These involve mountain making events (orogenies) that expose new basalt and granite to weathering processes that absorb carbon, as well as excess production of algae and plankton that are not consumed by other life forms, fall to the ocean floor, are covered with sediment, and become fossil fuels over a period of millenia.
N2O emissions are largely from fossil fuel burning and agriculture (excessive fertilization and excessive tilling).
CH4 has many sources, the largest human contributions so far are from rice cultivation as well as raising sheep and cattle (not so much seafood, chicken, and hogs).
There is a tipping point approaching for CH4 emissions from thawing permafrost, thawing methane hydrates/clathrates, and loss of arctic summer sea ice.
Here's a chart comparing actual global temperature to predictions.
They're pretty much spot on.
For a bit more up to date view, see comment #585 here
Also, see the Skeptical Science site, Myth #6, "Climate models are unreliable." The Intermediate tab gives a fairly detailed view of the scientific state of the art.
(Sorry if the links are messy; maybe I haven't met the 100 post threshold yet.)
Two pluses of this approach are:
1. Increasing Earth albedo (reflectivity) would more solar energy back to space, reducing what the boffins refer to as the "energy imbalance" and
2. A cooler ocean will store more carbon dioxide and will keep methane clathrates frozen, reducing the threat that warm oceans will release a lot of carbon dioxide and massive amounts of heat-trapping methane gas.
But storing even more CO2 in the oceans has another result:
The oceans will become more acidic.
Why does this matter?
Geological history shows that when CO2 concentrations rise to high levels, most shellfish and other invertebrates (lobsters, crabs, etc.), become extinct. Their shells are eaten away by the acidic waters faster than they can build them. This process goes on, leaving calcium carbonate (limestone) deposits on the ocean floor, until a new balance (equilibrium) is reached.
Not only will humans miss out on centuries if lobster and shrimp, many of the larger fish that dine on shellfish will not survive. The impact on the food chain humans depend on could be severely disrupted.
It's a worthy study, but don't be lulled into a false sense of comfort. The level of CO2 in the air almost certainly still needs to come down to between 280ppm and 350ppm.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
