Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Recent Comments

Comments 1 to 50:

barry at 19:54 PM on 19 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Skeptical Science asks that you review the comments policy. Thank you.

Moderater your quote

[PS] Obviously not but it is not "my figure" but jacobson, I am only quoting. Since Jacobson comes up with sensible no.s, a better interpretation is needed. If you believe Jaconson's source to be wrong, then perhaps you can supply a better one for mining and waste area use?

So Jacobson is using data that is not traceable. Therfore it should not be admissible. or Abbott should have put in an explanation, but he has not.

So I will give you my estimated number for Hinkley of up to 0.5 km²

moderator it is you that has quoted Jacobsons number. You justify it!

barry at 19:44 PM on 19 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Energy in Germany is sourced predominantly by fossil fuels, followed by nuclear power, biomass (wood and biofuels), wind, hydro and solar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany

Mr Sweet sre you aking us to depend on Brown Coal?

nigelj at 13:37 PM on 19 June 2019

New Research for Week #24, 2019

Oh whew, its back. Much appreciated.

scaddenp at 11:28 AM on 19 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

With discussions touching economics, I have added links to the two studies of LCOE that I know of which include nuclear to the article.

michael sweet at 11:11 AM on 19 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Barry:

You posted "The industrial group Uniden said that the [France's] proposed 2015 wholesale price of €44/MWh would be €14 higher than Germany’s." my emphasis

That I must agree with. Higher prices for nuclear are not generally considered a positive trait. In the USA we prefer lower prices.

As of April 2018 there were 449 reactors operating in the world with a total power rating of 394 GW source. The same source lists all plants by country and location. There are 7 locations with 6 or more reactors operating. A total of 46 reactors. There are 46 locations where a single reactor is operating. You can hardly claim that 6 is normal. Both Hinkley and the cancelled Wales reactor stations only had 2 reactors. Your photo must be at Gravelines, the only location in France with 6 reactors.

It is my understanding that locations with only one reactor lose money even faster than locations with multiple reactors. The 46 locations with only one reactor are probably all on the chopping block.

Just for fun I worked out how much cooing water 6 1000 MW reactors need. (If this was your question about Abbott it is answered). The World Nuclear Organization says a 1600MWe nuclear plant in the UK uses 90 m3/sec. (In warmer locations more water is needed). To generate 6000 MWe you would need 340 m3 per second. The average flow of the Thames river is only about 97 m3/sec so you could not even cool one 1600 MWe reactor during the dry season from the Thames. France had to shut down at least 4 reactors last summer and France, Spain and Germany in 2003 , and Illinois and Michigan 2006, and France 2009, and Browns Ferry USA in 2011 because high water temperatures and drought meant enough cooling was not available. So much for "on demand power".

With six colocated plants only ocean front and a few very large lake locations are practical. Low lying areas like Florida, Louisiana, Bangladesh and the Nile delta are threatened by sea level rise and unsuitable. Please describe where you woud find sufficient locations for 4,000 plants in the USA that are not near a city, are on beach front and not threatened by sea level rise. The enormous thermal pollution would require that the plants were not too close together or the 9,000 GWth of heat from one location would prevent cooling at the nearby plants.

Renewable wind and solar are cheaper than new build gas and coal in 2/3 of the world today. Even with no subsidy or carbon tax. Joe Rohm does not even bother to mention nuclear because it is so expensive.

nigelj at 11:08 AM on 19 June 2019

Ocean advocates are increasingly concerned about climate change

3-d construct @3

Well said except the amoc has already slowed but not so much because of melting ice yet, but this will happn increasingly in the future. It's more because of the decreasing temperature differential from equator to poles.

3-d construct at 10:53 AM on 19 June 2019

Ocean advocates are increasingly concerned about climate change

Sorry about the drift and some characterizations in the previous post. I can understand your postion.

Informed and appropriate national policy along within a global framework is essential to implementing adequate responses. Unfortunately there is a lot of backsliding instead of needed cooperation. Certainly this is now so in the U.S.

Outside of the U.S. 500 coal plants are about to be and another 1000 are slated to be constructed globally. The stated total is down 100 plants from two years ago. Perhaps the 350 organization and others, working to promote alternatives are having a crucial positive effect. I have read some that were started in India have become stranded assets. The new Australian President wants to build more. Without adequate energy storage or other national resource alternatives, Germany, unwisely, is replacing nuclear with coal for base load and load following for its misapplied solar technology. Following Fukushima, Japan is replacing its nuclear with coal. On top of wind and solar strides, China and India are domestically building more coal plants. The national government claims that these are local departures from national intentions. Disturbingly, two large Chinese companies are promoting outdated technology, coal fired plants to other developing regions under the aegis of Xi Jinping’s One Belt One Road’s commercial expansion. The new Brazilian president has pledged to increase the destruction of the Amazon rainforest.

This is crazy stuff that promotes warming and changes in the oceans. Thermohaline (temperature and salinity) mixing and overturning currents in the oceans have significant systematic influence. Wind driven currents producing cyclonic and anticyclonic gyres, also, play an important role in determining local climate aberrations. The Coriolis Effect has a role in shaping some of these currents. As water cools or salinity increases it becomes denser. Historically, there are flushing areas in the North Atlantic and off the coast of Antarctica where these qualities are abundantly present and large columns descend to the ocean floor and continue to flow down to deeper waters directed by topographical features there. Similarly, this water eventually ascends to the surface, circuitously, flowing back to flushing points. Coldest water temperatures occur in the high latitudes and it’s there that salinity can be increased when sea ice freezes, ejecting brine into local sea water. Less freezing ice and injections of fresh water from melting ice or rivers can reduce salinity and retard flushing. Such haloclines currently determine other local stratifications and will reinforce future widespread oceanic stratification. Similar mechanisms in the Antarctic will more directly affect circulation in other oceanic basins. The occurrence of these factors are now increasing and noticeably reducing the strength of north AMOC. It is projected to reduce the strength of the Gulf Stream and subsequently, produce local cooling of climate in areas now warmed by it. Congruently, colder North Atlantic and warmer South Atlantic sea surface temperatures resulting from the overall disruption of the AMOC by the above described fresh water input could have remote consequences. This could indirectly promote increased annual additions of CO2 of about 0.3 ppm up to a total of 40 ppm as happened 16,000 years ago. Intensified circumpolar wind pushed closer to Antarctica by a restructured pressure gradient would dredge up CO2 from deep southern oceanic waters to the atmosphere. Generally a slowdown of deep ocean circulation will affect the all oceanic basins ability to absorb and store heat and CO2 long term. Also, as formerly stated, uptake of these important factors will be diminished by reducing the active sink volume. Expanding areas of stratification will develop and support eutrophic conditions. Deep water oxygen depletion will also increase.

In the Arctic ocean , the rapid loss of sea ice there is a major concern. Albedo loss and precipitous reduction of the endothermic summer melt will greatly add to SSTs there. Without the ice, looping feedbacks will ensue. Rapid warming of the water and subsequent discharges of CO2 and added evaporation will increase the greenhouse effect. This will oppose the Polar high pressure down flow. Subsequently, with major regional impacts the Polar Weather Cell may shift 15 degrees south to a colder high pressure center over Greenland as long as there is sufficient remaining land ice present. This will wrack both the Polar and Ferrel Cells and further derange both the Polar Jet and Vortex, while impacting the most heavily populated areas of the Earth, the north mid-latitudes. If there is no shift, it will weaken to the point that both the jet and vortex will become extremely deranged and ineffectual, further impacting both the Arctic and mid-latitudes. This will accelerate CO2, methane and nitrous oxide emissions with further feedbacks and will have warming impacts extending all of the way to the South Pole. Greenland would lose its ice and Antarctica’s loss would accelerate.

Oceans are becoming more stratified so that areas of deep water are becoming more hypoxic or anoxic. The Baltic Sea has long presented expanding areas of hypoxia associated with nutrient inputs and eutrophic phytoplankton blooms. 70,000 square kilometers were affected including areas of severe hypoxia, anoxia and euxinia in 2018, four times that of 1950. Eight thousand square miles of the Gulf of Mexico and an average of about 7 % of the Chesapeake Bay present large seasonally enhanced hypoxic, anoxic and euxinic dead zones. These water bodies do not emit hydrogen sulfide to the atmosphere. Their affected bottom waters are capped by a metal ion strengthened chemocline layer. Numerous aquatic areas are now being similarly challenged globally in roughly 400 maritime locations, largely at river mouths and in numerous fresh water bodies.

Recent emergence of purple surf along parts of Oregon’s coastline is indicative of purple sulfur bacteria thriving at the base of the surface waters on a source of hydrogen sulfide that is developing within deeper benthic zones. Occasionally, there are discharges of the highly toxic hydrogen sulfide gas. In a similar fashion, the only other oceanic location where this also occurs is along the coast of Namibia. The Oregon emissions are likely enhanced by the stalling polar jet and associated weather systems to be later discussed. The affected area is large, 40 by 200 km (8,000 sq. km) that has in recent years become seasonally more and less hypoxic containing areas of anoxia on the continental shelf along the Oregon and Washington coastline. There may be some association to numerous recently discovered methane hydrate seeps at about 500 meters depth in the same area as methanotrophs, also, consume oxygen in order to oxidize methane until shifting to sulfate reduction and promoting euxinia. However, it is reported that low oxygen, nutrient bearing, upwelling caused by more persistent northerlies is there promoting depleted benthic oxygen levels compounded by aerobic microbes there consuming the organic matter that descends from phototropic plankton blooms at the surface.
With some interruptions, deep water in meromictic lakes, certain fiords and the Black Sea have been completely euxinic for a long time (7,500 hundred years without hydrogen sulfide emissions for the later), but this is due to morphological and halocline peculiarities.

barry at 08:32 AM on 19 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

I gravlines

I seem to be able to count six reactor buildings, mr Sweet how many do you count? some where in France

Moderator Response:

[PS] Over the line. Note comments policy on No inflammatory line. You have pushed this hard enough.

barry at 08:06 AM on 19 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

If you want to talk economics talk to the French

The low cost of French nuclear power generation is indicated by the national energy regulator (CRE) setting the price at which EdF’s electricity is sold to competing distributors. In 2014 the rate is €42/MWh, but CRE proposed an increase to €44 in 2015, €46 in 2016 and €48 in 2017 to allow EdF to recover costs of plant upgrades, which it put at €55 billion to extend all 58 reactor lifetimes by ten years. In November 2014 the government froze the price at €42 to mid-2015. This Arenh re-sale price has represented a long-term floor price for EdF’s power, and is nominally based on the cost of production. The industrial group Uniden said that the proposed 2015 wholesale price of €44/MWh would be €14 higher than Germany’s.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx

Moderator Response:

[PS] Fixed link. Please learn how to do this yourself with the link editor in the comments editor.

barry at 08:01 AM on 19 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

It demonstrates prefectly why nuclear is being abandoned: nuclear is not economic.

we are not talking about the economics sweet

Moderator Response:

[PS] in interests of productive discussion, please note that commentator's handle is Michael Sweet. And the economics of nuclear is absolutely up for discussion.

barry at 07:49 AM on 19 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

PS] As indicated, I am cutting and pasting the numbers directly from Jacobson to save people looking it up and to give the complete picture about what Jacobson is stating. The units are ha yr/GWh. Ie the consumption of land per year for each GWh of electricity produced. Jacobson is also simply using numbers from other studies.

So Hinkley C is 3.2 GW (

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station

a year is for production say 270 days at 24 hours = 6480 hours,

at 3.2 GW the station in one year produces 6480x3.2 = 20736 Gwh

so in one year you /Abbott and Jacobson are saying that at 0.08 ha we get 0.08 x 20736 =1658.9 ha

and for say 40 years of operation we get 40 x 1658.9 = 66 000 hectares

Is this your figure?

Moderator Response:

3-d construct at 05:25 AM on 19 June 2019

Ocean advocates are increasingly concerned about climate change

On the face of it Bernie is the whole package. He is said to be too old, and seems to lack the command of many younger Democratic contenders who have over time demonstrated a commitment to effectively handling our climate issue as well. However, freeing governance from the toxic, persistent and mounting dire effects of big money is something that, as far as I know, only he alone has been striving for from within the government. Hopefully, others are doing so as well. More has to be exposed about this. In order to produce change that spans across election cycles this issue is at the very core of our current very distressing predicament. Otherwise, insidiously, we will continue to be controlled by sellouts who are only truly responsive to avaricious perceptions of a miniscule but powerful minority. They so act while manipulating to instill illusions that the vital concerns of their voter base are being served when just the opposite is in fact being played out. By ignoring the noise it is easy to see and the proof is in the pudding.

Here in the U.S. compulsive attention to budget sapping preparations and adventures of international interference, falsely being represented as national security operations, are disabling our ability to adequately respond to the very real and rapidly mounting monumental global threat of climate change.

Apart from this, in our winner take-all electoral system we are always being controlled by a minority. Many are compelled to vote defensively, not in accord with individual preferences. Therefore, the winner gains support from those whose heart lies elsewhere. Many despondently do not vote or are inhibited from voting. Therefore, with even an apparent large majority bringing candidates into office, they only, in spoken promises, represent a small minority.

Furthermore, reactive voting resonates to polarize us and drive the persistent two-party duality and inherent unresponsiveness. This is bad enough, but the foregoing is unacceptable.

Let me know if you consider others to be viable candidates.

Moderator Response:

[PS] Please be careful with political comments. It is not appropriate for this thread to degenerate into a discussions of US 2020 election candidates.

One Planet Only Forever at 03:05 AM on 19 June 2019

Planetary health and '12 years' to act

My comment @7, and earlier presentations of my developing understanding (seeking feedback to improve it), may appear to require 'almost impossible expectations of humans' because of incorrect beliefs about the fundamentals of human nature.

An improved awareness and understanding of the nature of humans is that the behaviour of each human is based on a 'potential diversity of starting dispositions initially present in varying degrees (selfish, altruistic, inquisitive, cautious, reflective, impulsive, and so many more)' that their experience (especially education, formal as well as personal pursuits) can significantly alter (through learning choices).

What I point out being required can be learned by every human. The wealthier or more influential they are, the more they should be expected to understand it and act accordingly as Good Helpful Altruistic Examples - acting with Humanity (the poorest can be excused if they act more selfishly trying to survive). It is the basic requirements of a responsible professional engineer, and any other responsible person applying their better understanding to helpfully govern and limit what is going on, even if it angers a client.

Constant pursuit of improved awareness and understanding of all areas of application of understanding is essential to the sustainability of that activity and its helpfulness (non-harmfulness), to the future of global humanity. Governing and limiting potentially more popular or more profitable, but harmfully incorrect, interests is essential to the future of any culture or institution.

Increasing that awareness and understanding to the point where Good Helpful Altruism effectively Governs and Limits potentially harmful more selfish short-term interests is a requirement for Humanity, or any subset of humans, to have a future. Without that being the ruling consideration, devolution to Harmful Divisive Competition for Perceptions of Status (defence of understandably unacceptable aspects of the Status Quo or desired Status Quo) can be expected.

Tragically, in supposedly more advanced societies, Humanity can be seen to be significantly challenged by the incorrect over-development of many harmful activities and attitudes. The improvement of awareness and understanding and the required corrections face powerful resistance due to incorrectly and unsustainably developed perceptions of prosperity, opportunity and status that are the result of Too Much Winning of Status through understandably harmful actions.

The incorrect continuation of over-development of fossil fuel abuse through the past 30 years proves that point rather conclusively. It has gotten so bad that many people in supposedly more advanced nations now vote to support 'protection of harmfully incorrectly developed perceptions of prosperity, opportunity and status' that would have to be given up if the harm being done to the future of humanity was to be responsibly limited. The result is irresponsible harmfully misleading leadership increasing their chances of winning by appealing for votes of harmfully correction resistant people.

Many nations, businesses or people who are 'supposedly more advanced' especially dislike the following points of the fundamental understanding that was established more than 30 years ago as the basis for the corrective Climate Actions. The more developed and wealthier nations, businesses or individuals:

owe a debt for the harm done by the impacts of their 'advancement through the harmful use of fossil fuels'.
must lead the correction (curtailing their benefit from fossil fuel use) and provide the good example of ways of behaving that the less developed can aspire to develop towards.
must help the less fortunate more directly develop in the correct direction, limiting how far they follow the incorrect harmful development paths of the current day Winners.

My MBA education in the 1980s included the awareness that misleading marketing can be a powerful way to temporarily attract support and appear to be successful. It is clear that international abilities to penalize misleading marketing will probably become a requirement (international penalties on wealthy and powerful nations, corporations and individuals for failing to properly Govern marketing). It would be best if everyone simply chose to improve their awareness and understanding and helped rather than harmed the achievement and improvement of the Sustainable Development Goals, especially the wealthier and more influential. But that clearly will not 'naturally develop' as long as misleading marketing can be gotten away with uncorrected.

None of this is new understanding. What is new is the growing popularity of resistance to improving awareness and understanding which is incorrectly encouraged by people who support things that do not deserve to be supported because they desire something that does not deserve to be desired.

Among the most harmful are the voters who harmfully like a Political Party because of One Main Personal Interest that over-powers their awareness of all the other harmful things they actually also support by supporting the Party. They may be aware of the need to do something about climate change impacts, but they will have a more powerful excuse to vote for a Party that resists those corrections. And in some cases that incorrect excuse is a desire to support Free Market Economics (without including the understanding of the importance of every aspect of that activity being Governed and Limited by Good Helpful Altruism).

One Planet Only Forever at 00:42 AM on 19 June 2019

Planetary health and '12 years' to act

Mal Adapted @6,

You appear to be missing the majority of my point.

Improving awareness and understanding and striving to help develop a sustainable and improvable future for humanity includes everything 'helpful'.

And helpful things include any and all actions that help achieve any of the Sustainable Developoment Goals (SDGs) and not supporting any group that tries to impede achieving and improving on any of the SDGs:

no longer considering voting for a political party that has a history of some of its members incorrectly resisting the improvement of understanding regarding climate science.
Understanding what economic activities are harmful and no longer supporting them.
helping others increase their understanding that achieving and improving on the SDGs is the only viable future for humanity.
Being willing to Govern and Limit the behaviour of Others even if they angrily resist being corrected.

That last one is the hardest part, but is essential. It requires an end of believing that compromising and pragmatism are helpful. It also requires the open admission that without altruism governing and limiting what is going on harmful unsustainable activity will become popular and profitable and develop powerful resistance to correction.

Compromise and pragmatism can harmfully excuse resistance to correction of harmful unsustainable beliefs and activities. The Green New Deal more directly addresses the problem, with little compromise or 'pragmatism'. It is very helpful at raising awareness of the unacceptable reality that has been developed, even though it jarringly angers the harmfully correction resistant. The worst of that group are determined not to change their minds. But many supporters of that political attitude are just 'harmfully naive'.

The USA Republicans and Democrats have compromised and pragmatically given over degrees of leadership of their party to harmful correction resistance. The Republicans have almost completely abdicated helpful leadership. The elderly among the Democrats coyly limit how much they allow helpful altruism to Govern and Limit their political marketing and actions.

The understandable threat to the future of Humanity is Limited Altruistic Governing. And the major cause of that developed problem is a lack of penalty for developing and delivering misleading marketing appeals that encourage correction resistance, are harmful to achieving and improving on any of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Misleading marketing produces harmful unsustainable results in competitions for status where value or worthiness is not effectively evaluated based on Helpful Altruistic Merit. That is especially true of competitions for popularity and profitability that do not have effective penalties for misleading harmful correction resistant marketing, particularly political marketing, resulting in powerful resistance to correction of harmful developments.

Everyone familiar with what has been happening regarding improvement of awareness and understanding of climate science and the required correction of developed beliefs and actions in the global population (those wanting to improve understanding as well as those who are correction resistant), can see what I am pointing out. But some people will resist accepting the understanding because of a powerful developed liking for something that does not deserve to be liked so much.

MA Rodger at 21:12 PM on 18 June 2019

Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle

bruce @70,

May I add some numerical bones to the comment from Eclectic @71,

DMI Arctic Sea Ice plots the 2016 minimum as being 1.7cukm below the average minimum 2004-13. Using PIOMAS monthly data the 2016 minimum sits 2.2cukm below th 2004-13 average, this not a great difference given the measurements being undertaken. So your assertion that one of these must be wrong requires some explanation.

You further assert that 2007 provides the lowest annual minimum for Arctic Sea Ice Extent in JAXA, DMI, NSIDC & MASIE when all these show the minimum year as being 2012. A plot of rolling 12-month averages (as per the graph in the OP above) shows a reasonably constant reduction in Arctic Sea Ice Extent, from 12.3M sqkm in 1979 to 10.3M sq km today. The lowest annual average Arctic SIE occurred in 2016.

You assert solely on the basis of IPCC FAR Fig 7,20a (below) that 1979 saw "probably the highest extent since about 1910." Fig 7.20a does show a downward wobble in 1974 prior to the satellite era (as does the graph in the OP above) but this is small relative to the reduction in SIE over the satellite era. The 1974 dip, all of 0.3M sqkm, is shown in the graph in the OP above which also shows the reduction in SIE over the satellite era, something not well set out in Fig 7.20a.

IPCC FAR Fig7.20a

Finally, while values for the AMO does have reasonably uncontroversial sources, this is not the case for all sources of 20th century Arctic SIE records. Perhaps you could thus be clear as to your source of 20th century Arctic SIE data.

Eclectic at 19:39 PM on 18 June 2019

Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle

Bruce @70 ,

I presume you are talking about Arctic sea ice volume. Ice volume is distinctly more important than ice extent, in showing which way things are trending ~ particularly the summer minimum (for obvious reasons!).

PIOMAS shows a huge decline in summer ice volume over 40 years.

DMI shows the summer minimum volume for 2015 thru 2018 as being below the 2004-13 average. And 2019 YTD is also below the average.

( Sea ice extent in the 1920's and prior, was poorly monitored, for obvious reasons! We won't mention the war . . . or the Titanic. )

Bruce, I must confess I don't see what point you are aiming towards. Please go into details, if possible. Were you leading towards a Pacific oscillation?

bruce at 17:51 PM on 18 June 2019

Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle

Japanese (JAXA), Danish(DMI), US (NSIDC) and US MASIE data show minimum Arctic ice extent has not decreased since 2007.

DMI shows minimum Arctic ice volume has not decreased since 2003 when readings first began, however PIOMAS shows a decrease. One is obviously wrong.

The first IPCC report in 1990 showed sea ice extent from the early Nimbus satellites from 1973 to 1990. (Observed Climate Variation and Change chapter 7) Ice extent grew 500,000 square kilometres from 1973 to 1979 which was probably the highest extent since about 1910.

Ice decreased significantly in the 1920's through to the 1950's and increased until 1979. The current satellite monitoring started in 1979 but if it had started in in the 1920's, it would probably would be about the same as now.

If you look at the Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation index, you will see that there is a close correlation with Arctic ice

Mal Adapted at 13:34 PM on 18 June 2019

Planetary health and '12 years' to act

OPOF:

People should choose to improve their awareness and understanding and strive to help develop a sustainable and improvable future for humanity. The alternative is Harmful. There is no compromise space. A person being less helpful than they can be is being harmful.

WRT climate, anyone who transfers, or causes to be transferred, any fossil carbon to the atmosphere is being harmful. But how many people are prepared to go wholly off grid and be self-sufficient in all their requirements? In economic terms, AGW is a Drama of the Commons, that has already turned tragic for multitudes. Individual, voluntary internalization of marginal climate-change costs may detectably reduce fossil carbon emissions, but can't overcome the free-rider problem. Only collective action can. Collective actions on multiple scales are implemented by government. In the USA, nominally, you and I would muster a voting plurality for an effective national carbon price. How do we do that?

One Planet Only Forever at 00:53 AM on 18 June 2019

Ocean advocates are increasingly concerned about climate change

In your efforts to identify people needing to be corrected regarding their position on climate science, including what political parties a claimed supporter of climate science would consider supporting, I suggest the following connection to Ocean concerns:

If you encounter an Ocean-liker, especially someone who agrees with this concern about climate change impacts on the Ocean systems, ask them if they are aware of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). And help them understand that the SDGs connect the corrections of developed attitudes and activities that are harmful to the future of Humanity, including protecting the Oceans and addressing Climate Change impacts.

Then ask them which political parties they 'consider voting for'.

Be familiar with all the Political Party positions related to all of the SDGs and point out the Parties they are considering that have actually resisted, claimed the need to harmfully compromise, the required corrections that would reduce the harm done to the Oceans, including resistance to climate change impact corrections.

Then ask them if, based on their improved awareness and understanding, they would still consider supporting the Parties that are understandably harmful regarding those 2 of the 17 SDGs.

If they still would consider those parties ask them specifically why. They may not initially offer the answer, but they may offer a main issue that they 'like' the parties position on.

This is when being familiar with all of the Sustainable Development Goals and the corrections of developed harmful popular and profitable attitudes and activities is important.

Knowing the Party positions regarding all of the Sustainable Development Goals you can probably point out that their main reason for considering the harmful Party is actually a harmful impediment to achieving another of the integrated Sustainable Development Goals that undeniably need to be achieved collectively for humanity to have a better future.

Even if they will not offer up 'their main reason' for continuing to consider voting for the Ocean harmful parties, you can point out that the Ocean concern they have is one of the integrated Sustainable Development Goals. And you can point out how many other ways the Ocean-harming Party they are willing to still consider voting for is deliberately and misleadingly harmful to the achievement of other Sustainable Development Goals.

My developed understanding is that the Populist United Right movements growing popularity around the world abuse the power of misleading marketing to prey on people who are easily impressed to support an actually harmful attitude or action, people who will incorrectly apply confirmation bias and motivated reasoning to try to justify their interest in supporting that understandably harmful development that requires correction.

Increasing and improving awareness and understanding of the harmfulness of political leadership, like the people who have taken over Conservative Parties and turned them into harmful United Right correction resistant parties, is a required correction of what has developed. And the SDGs are a robust basis for pointing out the harmful unacceptability of popular or profitable attitudes or actions, particularly for pointing out which groups, political parties or businesses, should not be considered to be potentially acceptable winners/leaders.

Climate Action can only grow leadership action support if people who understand its importance are educated to keep them from being easily tempted to have a poor excuse for considering supporting a harmful political or business group.

MA Rodger at 23:32 PM on 17 June 2019

Climate's changed before

TVC15 @745,

Your denier is of course spouting nonsense. But perhaps it would be helpful to know how to respond to him other than just asking him to generally explain his nonsense.

I would ask your denialist troll how long he expects the effects of AGW to last. Does he expect CO2 levels to remain for ever? That would be very wrong. Or perhaps only a few tens-of-thousands of years which would be more correct? That, of course, is the time-scale that ice-ages operate on.
Ice ages are, of course, mainly driven by changing albedo (due to the changing levels of ice reflecting changing amounts of sunlight back into space). CO2 is not the primary driver.

For a bit more background, we can look back at those ice-age CO2 levels.

During the last interglacial (the Eemian) the measured peak-CO2 was 287ppm back 128,400 years before present. (This is from EPIC Dome C ice core data.) From this peak, CO2 dropped to 262ppm in the following 1,240 year, a drop which was the first part of a set of oscillations measured between 280ppm and 260ppm that continued for 15,000 years after the peak. It was only following those oscillations that CO2 began to fall back towards 200ppm, the bulk of this decline (a drop to 230ppm) taking 7,500 years.

We can compare the drop from that ice-age driven CO2 pertubation with the expected future of our own CO2 anthropogenic pertubation. That ice-age pertubation was (287 - 195 =) +102ppm over 8,000 years while out anthropogeinc pertubation is so-far (410 - 280 =) +130ppm over roughly 100 years.
The likes of Archer et al (2009) 'Atmospheric Lifetime of Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide' suggest that roughly 80% of an instant CO2 pertubation would be absorbed into the oceans in roughly 1,000 years. (Lord et al 2016 Fig 4 suggests it would be a little higher for our present 600Gt(C) level of emissions, perhaps 87%.) About 55% of our anthropogenic pertubation has already been absorbed so if our CO2 emissions stopped we would expect today's CO2 levels to drop roughly 70ppm over 1,000 years or so, being absorbed mainly within the oceans. But the rise of the ice-age pertubation of the Eemian was far slower than our pertubation (8,00y against 100y) so we can simplistically assume that all the +102ppm represents that remainng 20% of the actual ice-aged-forced emissions. (In reality, much of the CO2 in the ice-age pertubation has been driven from the oceans so will not be re-absorbed there over such timescales.)

That remaining 20% (& bulk of the Eemian +105ppm) is expected would slowly be absorbed over following millennia, but surely not as quickly that 7,500 year Eemian period which saw perhaps a 10% drop (of the assumed total ice-age pertubation). This would concur with the proposed reversal of much of the pre-Eemian ice-age driven CO2 increase as the new ice-age develops, when the oceans begin to re-absorb CO2, along with a whole lot of other mechanisms that operate on CO2 through the ice-age cycles.

michael sweet at 20:20 PM on 17 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Barry:

So nothing peer reviewed to support nuclear power. Your inability to find anything peer reviewed to support your claims tells me a lot.

My handle is Michael Sweet. It is disrespectful to use something different.

You have made approximately 13 posts on the subject of reactor station area. Your claims hinge on your interpretation of a single line of Abbott 2012. We differ in our reading of Abbott.

Frankly, I have never before seen anyone argue that nuclear power plants occupy too much land. Even Jacobson, who does not like nuclear, only counts land area as 3% of his rating system. Examining figure 6 of Jacobson 2009

jacobson graph

I see that area is only an issue for biogenic ethanol. Nuclear area is small. If this is the most important issue you can find I think we can all reach a conclusion.

You have made your point, I have made mine. Everyone reading will be able to judge our arguments. It is long past time to move on to new issues.

Moderator Response:

[PS] Standing back for a moment. Barry, I believe you are trying to dispute the validity of Abbott's objections. Abbott raises the land area issue (and especially the need for a particular type of land) using Jacobson's figure for area based on plant, buffer zone, mining and waste requirements. Abbott states a figure of as much as 20km2 per plant (ie a maximum of 20km2). Abbott is not disproved by showing some plants are smaller (especially if your examples fail to account for mining and waste area as well). Furthermore, as Michael Sweet has pointed out, the land area is a rather trivial issue in the context of Abbott. I would prefer to see more substantive issues addressed if there is to be a case made for nuclear energy.

barry at 18:43 PM on 17 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

moderator, your units for appear not to make sense

are you able to convert and show how to convert your figure of 0.08 ha yr Gw h^-1

yr h-1 is a trivial number the number of yearsper hour ie 1/8760

then when we put this into the unit we are left with 0.08/8760 ha Gwatt.

ha Gwatt does not mahe sese.

I would be pleased if you could solve this riddle, putting it as ha per GW h

comes out with a ridiculous answer 500 km^2

Moderator Response:

[PS] As indicated, I am cutting and pasting the numbers directly from Jacobson to save people looking it up and to give the complete picture about what Jacobson is stating. The units are ha yr/GWh. Ie the consumption of land per year for each GWh of electricity produced. Jacobson is also simply using numbers from other studies.

bozzza at 16:08 PM on 17 June 2019

Climate's changed before

TV- he's using flawed logic from word one... your denier pal is not entertaining complexity and (supposedly, lol) thinks the world works in straight lines. Just a rich idiot who does know better because when it comes to money all of a sudden he understands there are multiple factors at play...

bozzza at 16:00 PM on 17 June 2019

State of the climate: Heat across Earth’s surface and oceans mark early 2019

" A typical summer now has nearly half as much sea ice in the Arctic as it had in the 1970s and 1980s"

The above is simply not correct.

Roma at 15:37 PM on 17 June 2019

How could global warming accelerate if CO2 is 'logarithmic'?

My intuition on the source of “greater then exponential curve” would be to investigate the role that the loss of the soil/carbon sponge Is playing.

TVC15 at 11:21 AM on 17 June 2019

Climate's changed before

Thank you Scaddenp! I will read it!

scaddenp at 10:13 AM on 17 June 2019

They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'

yes they do. It is an accurate term. Lukewarmers and deniers to CAGW (catastrophic AGW) for strawman arguements. Scientists never this term.

scaddenp at 09:37 AM on 17 June 2019

Climate's changed before

TVC15 - if are you continuing to engage with deniers, then please, please take the time to read the IPCC WG1 report so you have a grounding in what the science says. At very least, read SPM.

scaddenp at 09:33 AM on 17 June 2019

Climate's changed before

Deniers favourite tactics are strawman and cherry pick. In case, a strawman. Just because your denier doesnt understand the science of how glacial and interglacial feedback cycles work, doesnt mean that scientists dont either. Insist that your denier quotes the actual science that he is supposedly refuting. The missing link here is suppression of natural methane and CO2 emissions as land (especially eurasian wetland) becomes frozen; and importantly, the increased solution of CO2 in oceans as they cool. Of course, scientist do the hard yards of measurement, modelling (check numbers work), and cross-checking, whereas denier are only interested in hand-wavy dismissal.

TVC15 at 09:26 AM on 17 June 2019

They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'

Do climate scientists use the term Anthropogenic Global Warming?

Is this the proper term used in climate science? If not what is the proper term for human caused climate change?

TVC15 at 09:23 AM on 17 June 2019

Climate's changed before

LOL the denier is back with his silly statments.

The entire global warming hypothesis is nonsense.

If there was any truth to it, then Inter-Glacial Periods would never end.

The CO2 that supposedly accumulates and causes temperatures to rise ending a Glacial Period should continue to cause temperatures to rise, except it doesn't.

No matter how much CO2 accumulates, you always end up right back in a Glacial Period.

Is there any truth to anything this denier is stating?

barry at 09:08 AM on 17 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

PS] Sweet is pointing out that Abbott says "as much as" which establishes a maximum in my understanding of English. Examples of smaller sites do not refute Abbott.
[DB] Please limit image width,

well actually no in here Sweet claims that reactors cannot occupy a small area and ie 20 km^2

now as we can see hinkley is 1/20 th of that abbott and sweet are misleading.

work you lecture us what we should think. Abbott is correct, no citation needed.
"Abbott correctly describes the footprint of a nuclear plant to counter incorrect industry propaganda that nuclear plants only occupy a small area." sweet

anything up to 20 km^2 well that could be anything even a small area.

Very good, how can any size up to 20 km^2

barry at 08:59 AM on 17 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

PS] Sweet is pointing out that Abbott says "as much as" which establishes a maximum in my understanding of English. Examples of smaller sites do not refute Abbott.

let us see what Jacobson says "for the average plant world wide this translates to a total land requirement oper nuclear facility plus mining and storage of about 20.5 km^2" Clearly those people who approved Hinkley point did not hear of this and built one of 2 km^2 and used a planning map, which is actually very much peer reviewed.

Moderator Response:

[PS] I can find no evidence that your Hinkey plant includes mining and waste storage. In the interests of clarity for all commentators, the exact quote from Jacobson 2009 is:

"The land required for nuclear power also includes that for uranium mining and disposal of nuclear waste. Estimates of the lands required for uranium mining and nuclear facility with a buffer zone are 0.06 ha yr GWh−1 and 0.26 ha yr GWh−1, respectively, and that for waste for a single sample facility is about 0.08 km2. For the average plant worldwide, this translates into a total land requirement per nuclear facility plus mining and storage of about 20.5 km2. The footprint on the ground (e.g., excluding the buffer zone only) is about 4.9–7.9 km2."

scaddenp at 07:47 AM on 17 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

i created this article largely to prevent nuclear energy discussions from derailing other threads. It is a highly unusual experiment for Sks and I rather hoped it might become a useful resource where references to authorative published papers might be collected. It is most certainly not a place for expressions of opinion without supporting evidence, and frankly not a place for strawman rhetoric ("peer-reviewed must be correct"). Discussions like this must find another venue.

Michael Sweet @14 provides an excellent example of how a scientific discussion is conducted. Please follow that guideline. The thread cannot be moderated 24/7.

nigelj at 07:19 AM on 17 June 2019

Planetary health and '12 years' to act

Wol @3, yes things are like that, but we have to break through and OPOF is just proposing a few ideas. Its really important to get across to people that quoting the constitution to inhibit change is not what the document intends. The constitution is about limiting government over reach, (and fair enough) not limiting all that governments should do. This should be obvious in the articles, and the most probable intent of the writers. I hope that people can see this.

barry at 07:05 AM on 17 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Here is link to a map of Hinkley point C a 2 reactor site, grid lines are present on the map and we can see a site of 2km^2 this is 1/20 the are that you are claiming mr Sweet

https://www.tunneltalk.com/images/Hinckley-Nuclear-Point/Hinckley-Point-design.jpg map of nuclear power plant under construction in UK

Moderator Response:

[PS] Sweet is pointing out that Abbott says "as much as" which establishes a maximum in my understanding of English. Examples of smaller sites do not refute Abbott.

[DB] Please limit image widths to 450.

barry at 06:21 AM on 17 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Sweet

You say that a

"From Abbott 2012:
"each nuclear power plant draws upon a total land area of as much as 20.5 square kilometers." My emphasis
Abbott is correct."

No it is utter rubbish

Wylfa Newydd footprint is under4 km^2 for 2 reactors!

references have been posted earlier MODERATOR Mr sweet is now denying actual source material,.

barry at 04:35 AM on 16 June, 2019

barry at 09:03 AM on 16 June, 2019

Go and look at the UK documents the footprint of Wylfa newydd is less than 2 km^2.

Now Sweet, this is not a paper it is actual original source material.

you clearly have not bothered to open it

Wylfa newydd is bounded by the grid squares SH 3594, SH 3593, SH3493 and SH3693, which makes the footprint less than 4 km^2

have a look at this one

https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/plans-clear-300-acre-site-14019871

N power footprint

Moderator Response:

[DB] Links to images found elsewhere only work when another site is hosting the image with a fixed URL. Simply pasting the image into a comment will not work (which is why your image does not show).

Activated URL.

Eclectic at 05:48 AM on 17 June 2019

Welcome to Skeptical Science

JasonChen @55 ,

the 3 sentences you quote are a succinct summary of the "denialist" mindset. The words derive from a decade or more of close study of the speech & actions of a large number of "denialists" (i.e. not deriving from a few minutes of stage-show telepathy ).

And not just from study by John Cook, but also by a considerable number of psychologists and by (informally) a vast number of everyday citizens.

JasonChen, you should educate yourself about the powerful influence of Motivated Reasoning on the human mind ~ on the human mind that is preferring to follow its emotional bias rather than striving for an objective scientific assessment of the situation.

You are welcome to suggest an amended wording, and to suggest alternative analysis of the behavior of those who reject the overwhelming amount of evidence regarding anthropogenic climate change.

JasonChen at 03:01 AM on 17 June 2019

Welcome to Skeptical Science

climate denialism is closed minded. It thinks it knows the truth and wants to interpret the evidence to suit that. It has a preferred answer and wants to look at everything in that light.

John, you might want to reconsider this language on the newby page. This is a mind reading claim, something one expects from a zealot rather than a scientist.

michael sweet at 02:26 AM on 17 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Barry:

From Abbott 2012:

"each nuclear power plant draws upon a total land area of as much as 20.5 square kilometers." My emphasis

Abbott is correct.

Your link to Jacobson 2009 supports Abbott's claim:

"In the case of nuclear power, a buffer zone around each plant is needed for safety. In the US, nuclear power plant areas are divided into an owner-controlled buffer region, an area restricted to some plant employees and monitored visitors, and a vital area with further restrictions. The owner-controlled buffer regions are
generally left as open space to minimize security risks. The land required for nuclear power also includes that for uranium mining and disposal of nuclear waste. Estimates of the lands required for uranium mining and nuclear facility with a buffer zone are 0.06 ha yr GWh−1 and 0.26 ha yr GWh−1, respectively, and that for
waste for a single sample facility is about 0.08 km. For the average plant worldwide, this translates into a total land requirement per nuclear facility plus mining and storage of about 20.5 km2. The footprint on the ground (e.g., excluding the buffer zone only) is about 4.9–7.9 km2"

I am astonished that your only peer reviewed citation contradicts your claims. Your claim that the calculation is hidden in the references directly contradicts the scientific method which Abbott follows. You need to understand the scientific method before you make comments.

Even if there was a problem with Abbott's area claim, you cannot expect to be able to say you do not like Abbott's entire paper and you want to substitute your personal opinion, without any data, for all the facts.

You have cited no papers that support the use of Nuclear power in the future. I have cited at least 6 papers that support phasing out nuclear in the future.

If you cannot find peer reviewed papers in the future I will stop treating your posts as serious. To date you have not presented any argument beyond you think your opinion should be accepted by everyone, apparently because you are smarter than everyone else on the planet. I am surprised you have not been warned by the moderator since you have provided no new information to the discussion.

I am astonished that you continue to refer to the cancelled nuclear plant in Wales. It demonstrates prefectly why nuclear is being abandoned: nuclear is not economic.

It is very difficult to engage with nuclear supporters because they have such a poor knowledge of the background, they insist that they know everything and they do not accept peer reviewed data. They insist that youtube videos, their personal opinion and ignorant blog posts are better than peer reviewed papers.

The opening posts on this thread are a perfect example of this type of behaviour. Nuclear supporters have used their personal opinion to argue against Abbott 2012 and have provided not a single reference to anything beyond industry propaganda to support nuclear.

One Planet Only Forever at 01:40 AM on 17 June 2019

Planetary health and '12 years' to act

Wol @3,

My 'words' were a presentation of understanding in response to nigelj's query about how to respond when someone says <the quote at the top of my response which is quoted from nigelj's comment @1>

When responding to someone all you have are 'words'.

I suggested what I consider to be a rather robust basis of understanding that can be used to formulate the 'words' used to respond to such a statement.

Reality is the result of everyone making their choices based on their understanding.

Leadership that will pursue improving understanding to increase the helpful altruistic empathetic understanding among the population would be nice.

Competitions for popularity and profit amplified by misleading marketing that can appeal to 'selfish gut reaction and related harmful correction resistant confirmation bias and motivated reasoning' rather than 'helpful thoughtful consideration to improve understanding and be more helpful, less harmful' will undeniably develop more harmfully selfish people.

The 'words' used to try to correct harmful incorrect understanding need to be as robustly defensible as possible. Motivated reasoning and confirmation bias do have limits. Some people may still be harmful after improving their understanding, but they will find fewer people they can get support from as more people develop improved awareness and understanding of how harmful some status and leadership competitors actually are.

The response I suggest to anyone you encounter who claims a constitutional right to be harmfully selfish is to point out any of the many examples of the harmful behaviours (like those motivated by greed and intolerance), that developed popularity and profit to the detriment of others. And point out the resistance to correction of that activity. And indicate that it is undeniable incorrect to claim that

"people freer to believe whatever they want to excuse doing what they please in pursuit of status relative to others, personal benefit or gratification does not develop Good results. The evidence is that harmful results that are difficult to correct get developed ... including the harmful belief that people's constitutional rights are being infringed on by any restriction on what they can get away with".

That presentation of understanding makes it rather undeniable that the United Right and anyone supporting that type of political group is the cause of harmful divisive resistance to correction of understandably unsustainable attitudes and actions that unacceptably developed popularity or profitability.

And it should be clear that compromising the required understood correction of attitudes and actions, just to get along (not upset someone), is also a very harmful thing for people to do, especially leaders in a society. A society with too many of those Winners and Leaders (people who are not excellent examples of Humanity), will not have a sustainable future.

A Good Time For a Portion of Humanity, for as long as can be gotten away with, based on Harmful Unsustainable attitudes and actions Always Ends and Never ends Well.

barry at 23:55 PM on 16 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

sweet

let us look at your assumption, that a published piece of literature is correct.

Abbott is claiming his paper applies to the world

I have already provided data that his power station footprint of 20.5 km^2 is incorrect and that a figure less than a tenth of this is acceptable in Western democracies

ie Wylfa newydd has an exclusion zone of less than 4 km^2 with currnt plans for 2 reactors making the footprint less than 2km^2.

From this it can be seen that your initial premise that a piece of literature is correct is has got misleading.

The paper in my opinion has obscured how the numbers were obtained, in burying it amoungst the references.

You can ask yourself the question did Abbott know about this discrepany . If he did why did he not correct it the second time round? was he never told? Did he not look up the footprint of other power stations? It is very easy just go to google maps. Or if you want grid lines go onto Bing maps as they show grid lines.

It is in my opinion difficult to envisage how this number of 20km^2 has got any creedence, yot you have used it in several argunents against nuclear power. To anyone who is an expert to use this number for sites outside the US to me is astonishing, especially sonce in the US multple occupancy is possible.

One cannot take a paper even peer reviewed at face value.

this was summed up by arguably the greatest American scientist Feyman who never took anything on trust but checked it out for himself.

As a further aside Enrico Fermi in the 1930s wrote a paper on the origin of the Doppler shift. His formula agreed with Doppler equation and so it was taken as read. Nevertherless in the spectroscopic community in the 1970s it was apparent that the formula given by Fermi was an approximation. the correct formula was only publish by someone from Stratchclyde only some ten years ago.

The change is subtule and does not apply to macroscopic emittors, but for particles of atomic mass measurable differnces from the Fermi equation can be observed.

Th lesson in this is that even the Great sometimes let errors go through.;

And as for me providing you with the Fermi paper and the Strathclyde paper, life's too short to pander to someone who is willing to take on trust whatever that is written and then draw completly the wrong conclusions from it.

One can therefore conclude that reliance on a paper already shown to erroneous cannot be assumed to be correct in any other parts. that is not to say that there are other errors

Moderator Response:

[PS] Irrelevant. Sweet makes no such claim (nor frankly does Abbott). Peer-reviewed papers are challenged all the time by other peer-reviewed papers. This is normal course of science.

michael sweet at 22:55 PM on 16 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

This Guardian newspaper article claims extensve cover ups of radiation sickness by the Soviet Government in the Chernobyl accident.

michael sweet at 20:17 PM on 16 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Barry,

You are not familiar with scientific discussion. In a scientific discussion I say "this paper supports my position". Then you say "this paper supports my position". Then I provide more papers to support my position and show why it is more accurate. You provide papers to support your position. Others read the papers and decide who they think has the best argument.

In this discussion I have provided a paper that supports my position, Abbott 2012. You say you do not like that paper and we should all agree with you. You have provided no reason why we should all agree with you.

Abbott was published in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists by invitation. You must provide data to contradict Abbott and not just loudly state your unsupported opinion. The argument you and DPeppigrass make that you do not like Abbott without providing support for an alternative is a waste of everyones time. Abbott 2011 was published 8 years ago. You cannot even find an industry white paper that addresses his claims. The absence of a rebuttal indicates that the Nuclear industry agrees with Abbotts assessment.

It does not matter that you do not like Abbotts claims about hafnium. Abbott claimed that rare metals used in nuclear plants do not exist in enough supply to build out nuclear plants. You have not shown that enough beryllium, vanadium, zirconium or uranium exist to build out the plants you support.

You originally claimed "halfnium as a control (which is limited to military reactors) civilian reactors use boron and some gadolinium which are far more abundant than halnium". I have provided two examples of hafnium use in civilian reactors so you have shifted the goalposts. We do not know how much hafnium is used in civilian reactors because you have provided no references to show its use is limited.

If you wish to argue that enough enough metals exist for reactors you must provide a peer reviewed report that details all the metals used in nuclear plants and shows they exist. That was done for renewables by Jacobson 2011 after nuclear supporters complained that renewables used too much steel in their construction. We know all materials exist for renewables. Provide a report that all materials exist for nuclear.

You are also confused about citations. Scientific papers are written for peope who have done their homework and understand the subject that is being discussed. Material that is accepted by everyone that is informed is not required to be cited. For example, Abbott is not required to prove the Earth is round or that all material is made of atoms.

You and DPeppigrass are asking Abbott to cite the obvious. Everyone informed knows that it is unsafe to build reactors in Tokyo harbor, that it is unsafe to build reactors on the San Andreas fault in California and that reactors require massive amounts of water for cooling (especially if you build 6 in one location). It is not necessary to cite a reference. If you really want to claim that you think one of these obvious factsneeds support you can ask for references (your complaint above does not specify which of these obvious facts you do not know). If others agree with you it might help your argument. My position is that eveyone who has done their homework knows these facts.

According to Wikipedia, the village of Cemaes in Wales has a population of 1,357. Where I live that is considered unpopulated and suitable for a nuclear reactor. I note that they only planned to build 2 reactors and not the 6 you claim is normal. In any case, the project has been cancelled and the $2 billion they spent was wasted. The fact that the project has been cancelled shows that nuclear is on the way out and not a suitable source of power for the future. The money should have been used to increase the size of their wind farm. If they had spent the money on wind it would be generating power now.

sidd at 13:50 PM on 16 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

I would like to see financing costs. Every power/utility engineer I know tells me that the major roadblock to building nukes in western countries is reluctance of banks and utilities to commit to financing the investment.

And I'd also like to see costs absent Price Anderson guarantees as in the USA.

sidd

Wol at 12:01 PM on 16 June 2019

Planetary health and '12 years' to act

OPOFEVER@ 2:

Nice words, but only words.

Each individual can make choices, yes, but a few percent of us making choices ain't going to do much.

Governments have to make the choices on behalf of their voters. And in places like the USA in particular, government imposed rules such as those meet hysterical opposition from half the population on the grounds that they violate constitutional freedoms.

(The same might be said about speed limits, taxes, metal detectors at airports and anything else that any individual might consider an "imposition", but rationality is not the strong suite here.

barry at 10:10 AM on 16 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Michael

the 10 nuclear sites ( Fangjiashan and Qinshan are regarded as the same site) in China have a total of 37 reactors which is an average of 3.7 per site. yet there are at least 12 more in construction on these sites which brings the occupancy to 4.9.

6 sites are planned to have 6 or more reactors.

This is a country that is building nuclear power plants unlike the USA where currently site occupancy is irrelevant because they are not building any.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_China

Daniel Mocsny at 09:10 AM on 16 June 2019

Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"

One Planet Only Forever @19:
The brief video starts with Bill Nye donning his safety glasses then turning to a flip chart that essentially says: Making something ore expensive - discourages people from buying it. Done.

Not quite done. Making something more expensive encourages selfish people to look for ways to minimize their costs. Consuming less is only one option. Defeating the policy that makes something artificially expensive is another option.

There are many options for defeating carbon pricing. One is voting for Trump. If people don't care about their individual contributions to global warming, they will resent being forced to pay for the external costs they inflict on others. They can then attack the policy directly (such as with a Trump vote), or they can drive to Washington D.C. in their tractors or trucks to protest high fuel prices, or they can riot like the Yellow Vests, and so on. They can write sob stories to their representatives and beg for exceptions, which will be doled out (if the track record for cap-and-trade is a guide).

History suggest that people tend not to submit meekly to policies they don't personally believe in. Look at the failure of Prohibition in the USA, and the Trumpian success after decades of Republican/Koch efforts to undermine environmental regulation.

The only way to really make fossil fuel more expensive is to change most people's morality, thus instilling them with an internal carbon compass that can't be corrupted by the Kochtopus. Coercive policy can only ever be effective against the remaining tiny minorities. As long as virtually the entire population sees nothing immoral about the high-emitting behaviors a carbon tax would have to target to be effective (such as driving, flying, heating, cooling, eating meat, owning meat-eating pets, and procreating), we won't have any coercive policies that are intrusive enough to be effective. And if we get them, we won't sustain them against the inevitable backlash as long as the vast majority of people remain amoral on climate change.

barry at 09:03 AM on 16 June 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

links to power station documents do not work,

try this link then navigate, into 2site preparation and clearances", then "factsheet" and to "planning application drawings"

https://www.horizonnuclearpower.com/our-sites/wylfa-newydd/documents

Daniel Mocsny at 08:53 AM on 16 June 2019

Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"

"But does shouting at the audience about global warming make anyone more likely to do anything about it?"

This is a question for social scientists to investigate. How does a given messaging style influence beliefs and behavior? What factors of personality and prior knowledge affect a person's receptivity?

Military drill instructors have long relied on shouting and verbal abuse to train and indoctrinate recruits. (The stress hormone cortisol may play a role in the formation of long-term memories, as any trauma victim can attest, but prolonged exposure can impair learning.) However, this is always in concert with the training camp environment, which uproots recruits from their familiar surroundings and social influences. "Climate boot camps" might be effective for changing minds but they probably aren't compatible either with democracy or with the scientific ethos of collegial debate.

However, the question from the original post is ill-posed in this portion: "make anyone more likely to do anything about [global warming]." Technically, the typical individual (anyone) cannot do "anything" about global warming. That is, no action available to the typical individual (short of perhaps unleashing a bioweapon epidemic that would depopulate the globe) can have a measurable impact on the rate of global warming.

Rather, the only thing an individual can "do anything about" with respect to global warming is to reduce his/her individual contribution to global warming, and to exert whatever pressure they can on others to reduce theirs. By analogy, suppose a large mob is stoning someone to death. One individual in the mob probably cannot stop everyone else from throwing stones. That individual can only choose not to participate, and to try to influence a few other individuals to stop throwing stones. Framing the problem as "doing anything about the stoning" might lead the individual to conclude there is no reason to stop throwing stones, since the victim will die in any case. The correct framing is about morality rather than efficacy. Suppose the mob cannot be stopped - what then will a morally virtuous person do, when given a choice to participate? A virtuous person will do the virtuous thing, which is not to participate in a collective evil.

Applied to global warming, the first step is to inventory one's carbon footprint. Typically one's sources of greenhouse gas emissions follow a Pareto distribution, with perhaps the four or five largest emitters accounting for 80% or more of one's footprint. These will typically be expensive behaviors (since raping the planet costs a fortune) such as driving, flying, heating, cooling, eating meat, owning meat-eating pets, and procreating.

Thus to speak coherently about an individual "doing anything about global warming", we must really mean an individual doing something about his/her largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions, which is to say either stopping or greatly reducing those behaviors or switching to zero-emission alternatives.

Voting in elections for politicians who promise (or aspire to) green policies is another potential way for the individual to "do something about global warming". However, this only has an effect on emissions if vast numbers of other voters vote similarly and durably (and if politicians manage to defeat the giant bag of dirty tricks that fossil fuel interests use to capture governments). Until that happens, green voting is merely gesture politics. It may make a high-emitting individual feel good, but it has no impact on emissions, thanks to winner-take-all elections and the vast constituency ready to defend every source of emissions. The only policy options open to politicians to fight climate change are those that inconvenience no one. In general, convenience is inversely proportional to efficacy, since individuals strongly "feel" their carbon footprints. Your life on a high carbon footprint is obviously different than your life on a low carbon footprint. Much as the life of a slave owner is obviously different than the life of a person who owns no slaves.

By analogy, suppose everybody was addicted to heroin. A few addicts might vote for government policies to eliminate heroin, but they won't make any difference. Until a voting majority demands such policies and accepts the enforcement costs, the only meaningful actions against heroin that an individual addict can take are to quit using and to persuade others to quit.

And, of course, the chances of actually getting policies to eliminate heroin will be higher as more people choose to quit. As more and more addicts quit, they can begin to form a social movement.

The typical messaging from the climate movement tries to put the cart before the horse, by pretending we can get governments to do all the heavy lifting first, or that social movements can be built from people who don't actually change their behavior. As if a society of heroin addicts can vote their way out of their addiction. While governments have a role to play, individuals have a far bigger role. This is easy to verify empirically just by cutting one's own carbon footprint. A motivated individual (which is to say, a morally responsible individual) can attain a lower carbon footprint in a matter of months than any government policy can create for that individual in decades.

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments