Tuesday, June 30th, 2009

Energy@Berkeley: Solutions for Global Warming

Dr. Steve Chu
1997 Nobel laureate Physics
Director, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
UC Berkeley Professor of Physics and of Molecular and Cell Biology

Presented by Berkeley Club of London with the generous support of Accenture, AXA Insurance, Cisco Systems and OpenLink Financial

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 Dorchester Hotel

Over 100 distinguished alumni and guests gathered for a discussion with Nobel laureate Steve Chu on the latest research on global warming. The discussion was chaired by Berkeley Club of London leader Mr. Richard Simmons CBE.

Video is courtesy of CFrancis Ware www.fware.com.uk with cameramen Robert O’Hara and Frank Morgan.

Duration : 1:9:54


[youtube HbjJxXgyxGE]

This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 30th, 2009 at 6:23 pm and is filed under professor berkeley. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

25 Responses to “Energy@Berkeley: Solutions for Global Warming”

bbjornst07 Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 6:23 pm

Brain dead is a …
Brain dead is a very purile thing to say don’t you think? Isn’t Berkeley the place where about a half a dozen chemicals were discovered and currently on the periodic table? Isn’t Berekely ranked as the 3rd best University on the planet only so to Stanford #2 and Harvard #1? I have never seem someone with so much temerity as you. Sure we can’t always prove something but to sit while something might happen and our grandchildren may suffer for it. I want to prevent it.

bbjornst07 Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 6:23 pm

Sure it would take …
Sure it would take one so much faster then we have now. But we can model each component individually. LBNL is working now to develope a software that can accurately calculate the energy efficiency of buildings. The file is enormous and has been in development for some time. We are currently working with the University of Minnesota on this project to make what you imply is impossible now quite realistic.

RocketManF4 Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 6:23 pm

nigelelsass
You …
nigelelsass
You say your are from Germany but you sure sound like a brain dead person from Berkeley, did you study there? Stop all the big talk and talk like a normal person. Bottom line co2 always follows temp by an average of 800 years. When you use higher contractions of co2 aka 100% it has nothing to do with real life and that is where I live. And by the way I also have “paper” but I do not rub it in everyone’s face

nigelelsass Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 6:23 pm

As with the …
As with the tropospheric cooling observed from satellites we know that less CO2 is reemitted to higher layers of the atmosphere. This is a measured effect of CO2.

So at least you recognize the greenhouse effect of CO2.

Why then don’t you trust experimental spectral absorbtion for its quantification? Especially with your claim that positive feedbacks are not relevant, you should prefer linear models, shouldn’t you?

What about placing two bottles in the sun? 1 filled of CO2, 1 with N2?

nigelelsass Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 6:23 pm

This is how physics …
This is how physics is told and is accurate enough. Spectrophotoscopy focuses on the effect of specific gases.

There is nothing wrong with isolating the effect of a single gas to outline its effect.

nigelelsass Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 6:23 pm

This replicate the …
This replicate the isolated effect of CO2 as non greenhouse gases do not anyway react with IR. To represent the likelihood of an interaction of a photon on IR length with an IR gas you need to have a sufficient amount on CO2 molecules on the path. A tube with 280 ppm but 1m length would not represent the kilometers of atmosphere. For this reason, a higher concentration is a first better approximation.

nigelelsass Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 6:23 pm

I would be very …
I would be very interested where you found this statement. We are here speaking about models which are for a first approximation linear up to the quantity of steam in the atmosphere. Nothing complicated here. This is a simple energy balance model. We are here only speaking of a first result of the climate sensitivity based on the main greenhouse gases.

RocketManF4 Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 6:23 pm

nigelelsass
your …
nigelelsass
your “home solved ” model is worthless.
a tube 100% full of co2 is not what our air is made up with. try it with a nix of 280 parts then a nix of 380 parts and guess what NOTHING different

RocketManF4 Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 6:23 pm

nigelelsass
The …
nigelelsass
The truth is computer models are able to include only two out of 14 components that make up the climate system. To include the third component would take a computer a thousand times faster than we now have. To go beyond the third component requires an increase in computer power that is so large only mathematicians can comprehend the numbers. So your computer models are not “ROBUST”

RocketManF4 Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 6:23 pm

nigelelsass
Your …
nigelelsass
Your “living example” is wothless

1. Venis has 95.6% co2
2. Earth has .036% co2

So your example make no sense to a normal person, but to a AGWer who is despertate to find any proof it will work for you

nigelelsass Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 6:23 pm

Actually you do not …
Actually you do not even need a model as the equations can be “home solved” by physics students.
All you need is a spectrophotometer to measure the IR scattering.
If you are not convinced by the effect of CO2 on IR rays, try looking at a flame through a tube filled with air. Then retry the same experiment with the same tube filled with CO2. Then you will understand what we are talking about very visually. Any high school might have the equipment for that.

nigelelsass Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 6:23 pm

For the calculation …
For the calculation of the climate sensitivity based on experimental data (what you are asking), “Rahmstorf Stefan” published a study in 2008.

The climate sensitivity has been well established. As no increase of this scale has ever been humand triggered before the industrial revolution there is no empirical proof beside other planets.

Computer models allow builders to know whether a bridge will hold before building it. Computer models for climate forcing are as robust.

nigelelsass Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 6:23 pm

Well a perfect …
Well a perfect living example is the planet Venus where the radiation input is not twice the Earth temperature and has close to no water vapor. The absolute temperature are close to 3x those of the Earth despite the Stefan Boltzman telling us the blackbody temperature (without greenhouse effect) should be much lower. 96.5% of Venus atmosphere is CO2. Without CO2 Venus should show temperature lower than Mercury which gets 10x as much radiation per m2 as the earth… there is your proof.

RocketManF4 Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 6:23 pm

nigelelsass
show …
nigelelsass
show me any repeatable experiment that has ever proven a increase in co2 by 100 parts to 1,000,000 does anything or more than very little

nigelelsass Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 6:23 pm

If this would be …
If this would be true, a single cooling event such as a volcano with a short term cooling effect could have right away stopped the whole cooling period. This has been experimentally researched by “Soden et al” in 2002 and proven wrong.
Removing the CO2 in the greenhouse sample or adding other greenhouses leads the water vapour to stabilize at +/-1% after 50 days.
Water is not a driver as experimentally proven (also through GCM models) and not a long lived greenhouse contributor.

RocketManF4 Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 6:23 pm

nigelelsass
co2 is …
nigelelsass
co2 is a very minor trace gas water vapor is the main green house gas and it does everything co2 does only a lot more. Solar can increase clouds which can affect our climate in many ways. Orbit and Tilt are not minor effects you must be thinking of co2

nigelelsass Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 6:23 pm

TILT AND ORBIT DO …
TILT AND ORBIT DO NOT PROVIDE ENOUGH ADDITIONAL HEAT to explain pleoclimatology record. You need to come up with something… I am still waiting….

And no, no large increase in solar radiation explaining very high past temperature has been found…. You need to explain WHAT AMPLIFIED the minor effect of orbit and tilt… I AM STILL WAITING

nigelelsass Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 6:23 pm

TILT AND ORBIT DO …
TILT AND ORBIT DO NOT PROVIDE ENOUGH ADDITIONAL HEAT to explain pleoclimatology record (with temperature swings of up to 10°C) You need to come up with something… I am still waiting….

nigelelsass Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 6:23 pm

You are ignoring …
You are ignoring the melt of permafrost and change in the short carbon cycle.

But back to the problem:

TILT AND ORBIT DO NOT PROVIDE ENOUGH ADDITIONAL HEAT to explain pleoclimatology record. You need to come up with something… I am still waiting….

nigelelsass Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 6:23 pm

No I challenge you …
No I challenge you to find a phenomenon which explains clearly the temperature increase since 1880 with a clear attribution.

We know very well about orbital and tilt phenomenon. They do not explain the opening of the north eastern passage, the melting of glaciers in Switzerland or Glacier national park, etc.

RocketManF4 Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 6:23 pm

The temp in your …
The temp in your world would never stop as in your world co2 is the driver, thats why

RocketManF4 Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 6:23 pm

Easy co2 is an …
Easy co2 is an effect of temp increase as the temp goes up it takes the oceans around 800 years to warm and release co2, same on the way down co2 continues to raise when temp falls and 800 years later the oceans cool and start to absorb the extra co2 then co2 also starts to fall.

nigelelsass Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 6:23 pm

Can you just …
Can you just explain me why “temperatures would never stop going up” then? You are not making much sense.

Yourself you mention the correlation graph between CO2 and temperature… why would then be correlated so closely if they are not interacting?

Otherwise you need to bring a reason why paleoclimate reached such high temperatures if CO2 had little to do with it and why CO2 concentrations where high during this time.

Solar radiation certainly can’t explain the warmest periods…

RocketManF4 Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 6:23 pm

so you are saying …
so you are saying you are do not know about the orbit and tilt of this planet changing over time?

nigelelsass Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 6:23 pm

source please… …
source please… the sun is monitored by satellites since the late 60’s, early 70’s and no increase in solar input has been observed. If the sun would be the cause, the temperature difference between day and night would also increase… this is not the case.

For orbit and tilting, no source show anything… unless you have one…

Leave a Reply