Milankovitch Cycles dishonestly used as argument against man made climate change

[repoman]

I have read quite a lot about the Milankovitch Cycles and climate and it is truly interesting stuff. In fact if humans were not facing an immediate crisis of Global Warming we would probably be thinking long term about how to safely tweak these cycles to prevent or forestall future glaciations.

Ok, now on to the point. The best source for ideas for me about climate change is the Skeptical Science website - which is skeptical of skeptics and shows that climate change is happening. The comment section is extremely useful as well as a jumping off point for further research.

The comments in this article are very interesting:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

Comment #13 is very good especially part (iii):

Note that it's worth distinguishing the interglacial and glacial periods here, since the shift of atmospheric CO2 down to around 170-180 ppm during glacials is similarly part of the short term carbon cycle that relates to the distribution of carbon between the terrestrial biosphere, oceans and atmosphere. In this case it's the temperature-dependent element of the cycle and its response to very slow insolation variation (Milankovitch cycles).

So we can talk about being "near equilibrium" or "more or less in balance" in quite explicit terms:

(i) On the timescale of 1000-10,000 years, the relatively fixed amount of ACCESSIBLE carbon distributing between the atmosphere, oceans and biosphere has maintained an atmospheric CO2 concentration that has undergone relatively little variation (the overall variations during 1000's of years of the order of the changes now occurring in about a decade).

(ii) on the timescale of 10 million years the longer term carbon cycle involving the sedimentation of carbon as carbonates in the deep oceans and the slow release of carbon from ocean plate subduction and volcanic activity has also been more or less in balance. The atmospheric CO2 record of the last 10 million years suppoorts that conclusion.

(iii) On top of the equilibrium carbon distributions of the carbon cycle on the millions of years timescale, insolation variations (Milankovitch cycles) cause very slow requilibration of CO2 between the atmosphere and ocean/terrestrial environments.

Compare this to what is really happening now:

Now something quite different is happening. A massive store of excess carbon inaccessible to the carbon cycle for many 10's of millions of years is being rapidly reintroduced into the system in an extraordinarily short time period. Not surprisingly the atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising very rapidly indeed. The atmospheric CO2 concentration is out of equilibrium (there's a large nett flux into the atmosphere from previously long-sequestered sources), and the atmospheric CO2 concentration is being driven up towards some new equilibrium concentration.

So if I can boil it down myself, it seems that the way that the Milankovitch cycles are being misrepresented is that they are suggesting that when the CO2 decreases/increases in the atmosphere that it also does the same in the terrestrial volume and oceans. While the comment is suggesting that oceans and terrestrial volume absorbed the "short term carbon" that decreased in the atmosphere - the short term CO2 budget was close to balanced. As any chemically literate person knows, colder water absorbs more CO2 in all its forms so that makes sense.

They Milankovitch cycles are basically a red herring compared to what we are doing now with all the fossil fuel combustion. That is not to say that there is not good science to be gleaned from its interaction with geochemical history.

 

[Kharakov]

Come up with inexpensive solutions to CO2 emission problems that do not look as if they are designed to take power away from those who have benefited most from the fossil fuel industry.

 

[bilby]

Come up with inexpensive solutions to CO2 emission problems that do not look as if they are designed to take power away from those who have benefited most from the fossil fuel industry.

We did that in the 1950s. The greenies went nuts about it in the 1960s and '70s, partly because it was new and unknown; partly because of the links to the military. After 50+ years of propaganda, the solution is now politically unthinkable, despite being pretty much ideal on every other basis than political attitudes.

Most people are morons. That stupidity may kill us all. But they don't care, because nuclear=scary. FFS, we even had to re-name NMR to MRI, because patients were unwilling to consent to a procedure with the N-word in its name.

 

[barbos]

I can't believe people are still pushing nuclear as an answer. Solar (I know, I know, without storage) is cheaper than coal now. In 10 years it will be cheaper than dirt and people still talk about nukes.
As for Milankovitch cycles I always wonder what is worse - global warming or ice age. And I suspect that ice age is worse, certainly for Europe and Canada.

 

[bilby]

I can't believe people are still pushing nuclear as an answer. Solar (I know, I know, without storage) is cheaper than coal now. In 10 years it will be cheaper than dirt and people still talk about nukes.
As for Milankovitch cycles I always wonder what is worse - global warming or ice age. And I suspect that ice age is worse, certainly for Europe and Canada.

Solar doesn't work at night. You can't just ignore the question of storage; it makes all the difference in the world.

Sure, we might develop some effective large scale storage with enough capacity to meet all demand during times of low sunlight; but we haven't gotten close yet, so I won't be holding my breath.

The best we can do right now is pumped storage hydro. There are not enough mountains suitable for such schemes in the world though, so we need something else. 'Something else' could be days away, or it could be centuries. Meanwhile, we burn coal. That needs to stop, and we can't afford to wait for 'something else'.

Nukes are vastly superior to coal; and anything is superior to nothing. You may find it odd that people talk about nukes; I find it odd that they don't talk about nukes.

 

[barbos]

Nukes are more expensive than coal and coal is more expensive than solar (without storage)
And storage is only needed during night. Make people pay for night storage and they will change their habits toward not doing laundry at night. And lithium batteries are becoming viable night storage. You only need 3-5kwh per person.
Also, present nukes can not replace everything or even coal. There is not enough uranium to last long. I am assuming current technology.
Also nukes are not good politically, you can't have nukes in unstable countries, that pretty much completely excludes ME and Africa, plus some Latin America.
And frankly, I would not trust nukes in India.

 

[bigfield]

Nukes are more expensive than coal and coal is more expensive than solar (without storage)
And storage is only needed during night. Make people pay for night storage and they will change their habits toward not doing laundry at night. And lithium batteries are becoming viable night storage. You only need 3-5kwh per person.
Also, present nukes can not replace everything or even coal. There is not enough uranium to last long. I am assuming current technology.
Also nukes are not good politically, you can't have nukes in unstable countries, that pretty much completely excludes ME and Africa, plus some Latin America.
And frankly, I would not trust nukes in India.

Nukes are cheaper once you factor in the costs of negative externalities.

Lithium batteries are neither capable of providing enough energy storage, nor delivering enough power to serve base-load demands.

The most likely candidate for large-scale energy storage is hydrogen storage combined with fuel-cell power plants. As of now, the technology is a long way away from being scaled up to metropolitan and industrial requirements, which makes it absolutely useless for addressing our need for clean base-load power right now.

The Greens shit themselves over power for three bullshit reasons:
1. Toxic waste
2. Nuclear weapons
3. Plant meltdowns

Toxic waste is not a problem unless the world uses nuclear power for a very long time.

Nuclear weapons are already a problem, but apparently a problem kept in check by the nuclear-armed powers.

Plant meltdowns, being extremely rare, are far less of a problem than the death and destruction caused by the extraction, production and supply of fossil fuels.

And frankly, I would not trust nukes in India.

India already has nuclear weapons and not a single one has been used. I don't trust nukes in Russia, but there are very strong incentives for untrustworthy and corrupt governments to protect their nuclear power and nuclear arsenal.

 

[barbos]

Nukes are cheaper once you factor in the costs of negative externalities.

What exactly does that mean?
If nukes were cheap now, China would have been building them at ridiculous rate.
But that's not what is happening, instead it's solar which is growing the fastest.

Lithium batteries are neither capable of providing enough energy storage, nor delivering enough power to serve base-load demands.

That's ridiculous thing to say.
I really meant small scale when I mentioned Lithium, it is still somewhat expensive but that's the only problem.
Then there are molten salt batteries which are already used for large scale base-load.

The most likely candidate for large-scale energy storage is hydrogen storage combined with fuel-cell power plants. As of now, the technology is a long way away from being scaled up to metropolitan and industrial
requirements, which makes it absolutely useless for addressing our need for clean base-load power right now.

Large scale is molten salt batteries, and small scale (house scale) is lithium-ion.

The Greens shit themselves over power for three bullshit reasons:
1. Toxic waste
2. Nuclear weapons
3. Plant meltdowns

Toxic waste is not a problem unless the world uses nuclear power for a very long time.

I don't understand what you mean here. Are you suggesting dumping waste? or keeping it in storage forever?

Nuclear weapons are already a problem, but apparently a problem kept in check by the nuclear-armed powers.

I was talking about nuclear terrorism, Africa am ME is absolute NO for nukes.

Plant meltdowns, being extremely rare, are far less of a problem than the death and destruction caused by the extraction, production and supply of fossil fuels.

And frankly, I would not trust nukes in India.

India already has nuclear weapons and not a single one has been used. I don't trust nukes in Russia, but there are very strong incentives for untrustworthy and corrupt governments to protect their nuclear power and nuclear arsenal.

I am not talking about nuclear weapons, I am talking about terrorists and being prone to accidents.


In any case, solar is only going to get cheaper, nuclear is not.

 

[Kharakov]

Lithium batteries are neither capable of providing enough energy storage, nor delivering enough power to serve base-load demands.

That's ridiculous thing to say.
I really meant small scale when I mentioned Lithium, it is still somewhat expensive but that's the only problem.
Then there are molten salt batteries which are already used for large scale base-load.

The most likely candidate for large-scale energy storage is hydrogen storage combined with fuel-cell power plants. As of now, the technology is a long way away from being scaled up to metropolitan and industrial
requirements, which makes it absolutely useless for addressing our need for clean base-load power right now.

Large scale is molten salt batteries, and small scale (house scale) is lithium-ion.

What about some type of mechanical storage device, such as magnetic bearing supported flywheels in vacuums?

 

[barbos]

What about some type of mechanical storage device, such as magnetic bearing supported flywheels in vacuums?

Beacon Power?
I believe they went out of business. It turned out it was not such a great idea.

 

[Togo]

The most likely candidate for large-scale energy storage is hydrogen storage combined with fuel-cell power plants. As of now, the technology is a long way away from being scaled up to metropolitan and industrial requirements,

That's odd. There are small scale industrial and metropolitan fuel-cell plants right now. Hydrogen storage is more of an issue, true.

Nukes are cheaper once you factor in the costs of negative externalities.

Depends on what externalities you factor in. You can't insure a nuke, which means they're utterly reliant on government subsidy in the form of some kind of guarentee. Clearing up the site is very expensive. And wherever the toxic waste is stored can't be used for anything else for at least a few hundred years, which can be pretty expensive if you live in a crowded country.

 

[repoman]

This is a good article from same website about why there is a CO2 lag vs temperature during the start of ice age melts:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

 

[Kharakov]

What about some type of mechanical storage device, such as magnetic bearing supported flywheels in vacuums?

Beacon Power?
I believe they went out of business. It turned out it was not such a great idea.

I looked them up... still had some project up in Alaska as of August last year.

Anyway, molten salt looks good as well.

 

[bilby]

That's odd. There are small scale industrial and metropolitan fuel-cell plants right now. Hydrogen storage is more of an issue, true.

Nukes are cheaper once you factor in the costs of negative externalities.

Depends on what externalities you factor in. You can't insure a nuke, which means they're utterly reliant on government subsidy in the form of some kind of guarentee. Clearing up the site is very expensive. And wherever the toxic waste is stored can't be used for anything else for at least a few hundred years, which can be pretty expensive if you live in a crowded country.

Of course you can insure a nuclear plant. Or, at least, you can insure it to a similar extent to which you can insure other types of large-scale power generation, such as Hydro-electric. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants#Insurance

Government guarantees that never need to be paid out cost the public nothing. In 60 years of nuclear power generation there has been only one incident resulting in loss of life, and that was a poorly designed and poorly maintained plant being experimented upon by operators who didn't know what they were doing.

The only other incident worthy of note was an old design that failed to stand up to a massive earthquake and tsunami, but whose failure resulted in no loss of life nor serious injuries, in the context of a disaster that killed 16,000 people. How many other industrial facilities in Japan - for example chemical plants - suffered loss of containment of hazardous materials that resulted in deaths on 11 March 2011? We don't know, because apparently only nuclear power is dangerous, and deaths from other causes can be ignored.

The whole insurance furphy is a circular argument - people are irrationally scared of nuclear power; so they demand massive insurance that other, similarly dangerous, industries do not have to have; so the costs of nuclear power plants go up; so the scared people have an excuse to oppose nuclear plants without admitting that their real reason is irrational fear.

And any waste that is active enough to be a concern, is active enough to be useful. But if you don't want to use it, you can always just put it back into the hole the ore came out of. Uranium mines are already radioactive, so there is little harm in rendering them radioactive by storing waste there. If you live in a crowded country, pay someone in a less crowded country to take the stuff off your hands. We have a vast, empty and geologically stable desert in the middle of our country; much of which is already radioactive, either due to natural Uranium deposits or British atmospheric atom bomb tests in the 1950s. We can safely store all the waste you like at Woomera, at minimal cost. A waste facility would even create much needed work in the outback.

 

[barbos]

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

We can't replace coal with nukes right now.
There is not enough uranium and fancy breeder plants are not working well yet.

 

[bigfield]

That's odd. There are small scale industrial and metropolitan fuel-cell plants right now. Hydrogen storage is more of an issue, true.

I should have been clearer: it is the hydrogen storage that cannot (yet) be scaled up to provide energy comparable to fossil fuel plants.

Nukes are cheaper once you factor in the costs of negative externalities.

Depends on what externalities you factor in. You can't insure a nuke, which means they're utterly reliant on government subsidy in the form of some kind of guarentee. Clearing up the site is very expensive. And wherever the toxic waste is stored can't be used for anything else for at least a few hundred years, which can be pretty expensive if you live in a crowded country.

Those costs are small compared to the environmental problems caused by CO₂ emissions. Global warming will increase the costs of agriculture.

 

[repoman]

I am trying to figure out what the percentage of temperature rise between interglacial and glacial is from orbit compared to CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

[barbos]

I am trying to figure out what the percentage of temperature rise between interglacial and glacial is from orbit compared to CO2 in the atmosphere.

There were not many humans last ice age, so all was effectively due to orbit and other natural factors

 

[Togo]

Nukes are cheaper once you factor in the costs of negative externalities.

Depends on what externalities you factor in. You can't insure a nuke, which means they're utterly reliant on government subsidy in the form of some kind of guarentee. Clearing up the site is very expensive. And wherever the toxic waste is stored can't be used for anything else for at least a few hundred years, which can be pretty expensive if you live in a crowded country.

Those costs are small compared to the environmental problems caused by CO₂ emissions. Global warming will increase the costs of agriculture.

Sure, and to the extent you factor those in, you can choose your winner. If you ignore CO2, gas and coal are cheapest by far. If you price CO2 as being really the only consideration worth bothering about, then Nukes get trumped by solar and wind. Nukes only work out as the cheap option if you ignore coal and gas for being too high in CO2, and then compare nukes to renewables while ignoring CO2 entirely.

 

[repoman]

The orbit partly caused the CO2 to increase from 180 to 280 ppm. So that and decreased albedo from glaciers disappearing combined with orbital effects explain glaciations vs interglacials.

Trying to get contributing ratios of each.