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

Settings

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.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  1397  1398  1399  1400  1401  1402  1403  1404  1405  1406  1407  1408  1409  1410  1411  1412  Next

Comments 70201 to 70250:

  1. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    JMurphy point taken on the may or may not part I agree that more info is reqired I was just trying to point out what science is playing with while most are distracted by global warming I provided a link @6 that may clear things up on climate change I'm a 1958 model and remember when man first went into space and one thing that stood out to me was the astronaughts saying how they kept seeing flashes of light and it seemed to be coming from inside their heads and when they investigated more they found micro burn holes in their visors that at the time they only put them down to some sort of partical that had travelled through the ship and through their brains you think they could have been neutrinos ?
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please restrict the disucssion to issues that are on-topic and clearly related to climate.
  2. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    I'd suggest to simply ignore jmorpuss comments. They are offtopic, add nothing to the discussion and above all he apparently takes tiny bit of physics at random and forces them into the climate discourse.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] This is good advice; if someone makes a post that has no relevance to the discussion, the best thing to do is to simply ignore it and not allow the discussion to be diverted. The moderators will deal with posts that contravene the comments policy, but please be patient and allow time for this to happen.
  3. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    jmorpuss : "We have already seen that spiral in Norway and CERN has just past neutrinos through the earth and they traved faster then the speed of light." They may have travelled faster than the speed of light but, then again, they may not have. Do you accept something so easily, without any back-up evidence ? That would be irrational. But, anyway, what has that even got to do with Global Warming ?
  4. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    DSL @28 To create globale warming might be a bit hard to prove but climate change why not a bit of heat from a ionispheric heater in the right place and away you go weather modification We have already seen that spiral in Norway and CERN has just past neutrinos through the earth and they traved faster then the speed of light Anyway here is a link that [inflamatory snipped] http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/Ielect.html It's about electrons ions and plasma Also here is a link to a video that shows what microwaves can do to CO2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrUqR0LO7k8&NR=1 It mite be at the extream end but you can still cook a chook on low pulse rate You can denie this process is not taking place by voising your opinion and thats your right [more inflamatory snipped]
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Comments likely to irritate or annoy others participating in the discussion are not welcome, and are incontravention of the comments policy. Next time I will simply delete your post, rather than editing it.
  5. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    muon - splorf! What a website. Just as well as I wasnt handling cats or coffee. Truly stunning what stories you tell when unfettered by measurements or physics. I won't waste my time on this one.
  6. The BEST Summary
    cynicus It's actually worse than that. According to the U.S. Census Bureau in 2010, 41,289,000 people had a Bachelor’s Degree as their highest educational qualification, 15,357,000 had a Masters Degree, and 2,793,000 held a Doctoral Degree. In the UK, the figure is around 20% of the population, or around 12 million. The figures are similar in most western countries. However, in places like India, the percentages are much less, but with the much higher population numbers, the total number of people with university degrees is staggering – around 100 million. Source (US data): http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/2010/tables.html So, what does this mean? Well, if we look at US figures alone, if everyone who signed the Oregon Petition held a legitimate university degree (but we know they don’t), then we can do a simple sum. The total number of university graduates is around 60 million. There were 31,000 signatories to the petition. This represents a staggering 0.05% of the population. But of course, the ‘Oregon Petition’ was open to anyone who wished to sign – you didn’t have to be in the US. So the figures are obviously much lower than 0.05% . You can make your own estimate if you like.
  7. 1998 DIY Statistics
    Came across this old thread in my wanderings, and the post from nofreewind showing us a graph with a declining trend from 1998. Here's what it looks like: It's more than a year later, so we can add another year's data to that 1998 trend line. The result: Emphasising the point that short term data demonstrates the variability, not the trend.
  8. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    jmorpuss . . . what are you trying to say? That microwaves are causing global warming? Problem one: the stratosphere is cooling. Explain it. Btw, muon, that may be the silliest alt-theory website I've ever seen--not because the theory itself is not even wrong, and not because there's not a shred of evidence to support it, but because it's so well-crafted, so sincere, and so naive. It's like listening to a five-year old's patient, ten-minute explanation of how babies come into the world because women eat pebbles. The author should be placed in a steel cage match with Doug Cotton. I might pay to see that, if it was made available in a podcast. Sweet, oneiota. That one was featured in last month's trade pub New Trends in Snake Oil.
  9. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    Best video on Global Warming I've ever seen. Nemesis, Punisher of Hubris. Νέμεσι πτερόεσσα βίου ροπά, κυανώπι θεά, θύγατερ Δίκας, α κούφα φρυάγματα θνατών επέχεις αδάμαντι χαλινώι, έχθουσα δ’ ύβριν ολοάν βροτών μέλανα φθόνον εκτός ελαύνεις. υπό σον τροχόν άστατον αστιβή χαροπά μερόπων στρέφεται τύχα, λήθουσα δε παρ πόδα βαίνεις, γαυρούμενον αυχένα κλίνεις. υπό πήχυν αεί βίοτον μετρείς, νεύεις δ’ υπό κόλπον όφρυν αεί ζυγόν μετά χείρα κρατούσα. ίλαθι μάκαιρα δικασπόλε Νέμεσι πτερόεσσα βίου ροπά. Νέμεσιν θεόν άδομεν αφθίταν, Νίκην τανυσίπτερον ομβρίμαν νημερτέα και πάρεδρον Δίκας, α ταν μεγαλανορίαν βροτών νεμεσώσα φέρεις κατά Tαρτάρου. In English translation: Nemesis, winged balancer of life, dark-faced goddess, daughter of Justice, who, with your unbending bridle, dominate the vain arrogance of men and, loathing man’s fatal vanity, obliterate black envy; beneath your wheel unstable and leaving no imprint, the fate of men is tossed; you who come unnoticed, in an instant, to subdue the insolent head. You measure life with your hand, and with frowning brows, hold the yoke. We glorify you, Nemesis, immortal goddess, Victory of the unfurled wings, powerful, infallible, who shares the altar of justice and, furious at human pride, casts Man into the abyss of Tartarus!
  10. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    Sorry way OT but following on from 24 & 25 above Climastrology button required for this one as well....don't waste too much time there.
  11. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    "Sometimes you have to put the peaces together" Ahh, global warming is caused by microwaves and the fact that the cold war didn't turn into hot war, i.e. the peaces prevailed...
  12. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    You don't have to be a climate scientist to acknowledge the validity of anthropogenic global warming anymore than you have to be a biologist to acknowledge the validity of evolution.
  13. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    10, Pirate, Is there a point to your question?
  14. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    Climastrology button required here.
  15. How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
    Does a geochemist qualify as a climate scientist?
  16. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    scaddenp, You are being wayyyy too rational about this. The basis of the "Microwave" theory is that microwave radio frequency communications are directly linked to global climate change and can be historically traced to the use of radio waves at a global level.
  17. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    scaddenp @ 22 As you move into the microwave frequencies used by satalite and long distent coms as well as some radars you can create hot spots and as you know heat differences drive the weather Here is a link to http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/IONO/Dynasonde/SpEatHeating.htm Sporadic E and charged particals
  18. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    jmorpuss - noone disputes radio waves are EM. Just that this has nothing to do with climate or weather. If you want to connect radio (kHz to 1GHz range EM) to climate, then you need papers that show a climatic/meteorological response in that range. Sporadic-E clouds are not meteorological clouds. GHG are transparent to EM in that frequency.
  19. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    Tom @16 The first line here states that radio waves are a form of electromagnetic radiation http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/radio+waves Sometimes you have to put the peaces together
  20. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    muoncounter @30, I do not think we are significantly disagreeing. Your quote from Hansen, "The most important change of the climate dice is probably the appearance of extreme hot summer anomalies..." is exactly correct, and exactly to the point. My purpose, however, was to point out that the increase hot events was not matched by an equivalent decrease in cold events. As can be seen from the following graph (also from Hansen et al, 2011): a) cold (> 1 sigma) events have approximately halved over the last 40 years; b) very cold (>2 sigma) events have declined but not appreciably; and c) extremely cold (>3 sigma) events have never been frequent, but have become rarer, but one still occurred as recently as 2010. In contrast: e) hot (>1 sigma) events have tripled on frequency; d) very hot events have risen from about 1% to about 20% of land area; and e) extremely hot (3 sigma) have risen from negligible amounts to about 5% of land area. Obviously the big news in this is the rise of hot events. There is, however, a common perception that that rise will be matched by and compensated by a decline in cold events. That perception is wrong, and needs to be rebutted.
  21. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    The moderator is quick of the mark today. For the record, jmorpuss posted another of topic response which has been deleted. I presume it was deleted because: 1) It contained moderation complaints, in contradiction of the comments policy; 2) It was extremely of topic, in contradiction of the comments policy; and 3) It contained a link with no discussion of the link's comments, in contradiction of the comments policy. All three aspects of the comments policy are justified, and indeed, valuable in keeping discussions focused, relevant, and understandable. Yet deniers persistently violate all three and then complain that their posts are deleted in order to suppress their opinions, which is laughable. In this case I wish to point out that not only was jmorpus link of topic with regard to the OP, but it was also of topic with regard the particular discussion of his theories above. It contained no mention of clouds, sporadic E, or the ionosphere, and therefore was entirely irrelevant. It was certainly not a defense of jmorpus' theory. Also, for the record, I do not delete anything on SkS, as I am not a moderator.
  22. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    Additional to my 16: IN facing theories that are utterly absurd it is easy to miss particular absurdities in the crowd. In particular, jmorpuss claim that: "What I'm trying to point out here is how ground based and satalites data collecting can cause sporadic E clouds to form" is beyond absurd. Like all other ionized layers, Sporadic E layers are formed by ionizing radiation from the sun. While they effect radio communication, they are not caused by it. This claim by jmorpuss is further evidence of crankery, and needs to be defended along the same lines as those in my conclusion of my 16 (12:00 PM 14 Nov, 2011). Note to moderator: I know that my 16 and this post are now responses to a deleted post. Could you please allow them to stand based on the principle outlined inline @7. If you could restore his deleted post on the same basis, that would also be appreciated.
  23. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    DB: Suggest that all jmporuss's comments be deleted and that he/she be banned from posting on SkS.
  24. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    Norman @13, I accept your point. Accepting it, however, only shows jmorpuss claim @6 even more absurd.
  25. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    jmorpuss @11: >b>1) I, and I am sure all other comentators on this site have never come across your unusual definition of radio waves as "radiated electromagnetic waves". What we have come across in both physics courses and popular reading on the topic is the definition of "radio waves" as:
    " Wave from the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum at lower frequencies than microwaves. The wavelengths of radio waves range from thousands of metres to around 30 cm. These correspond to frequencies as low as 3 Hz and as high as 1 gigahertz (109 Hz)."
    (Source) Consequently, unless you can provide a clear definition of "radio waves" as "radiated electromagnetic waves of all frequencies" from a reputable source of information on physics, I will conclude that my usage is incorrect, and that your usage is aberrant, and marks you as an ill informed crank. 2) Like Scaddenp, I failed to find any relevant information in your linked source. First, it refers to only a restricted part of the radio frequencies, and hence not to gamma rays. Second, it specifically discusses the effects of the ionosphere on the propogation of High Frequency Radio waves, ie, those between 3 and 300 MHz. The ionosphere is a portion of the atmosphere including the thermosphere and exosphere (50 km to over 500 km altitude according to your source) in which electrons are stripped from atoms in the atmosphere, thus ionizing them. Because of the high altitude and the ionization, no water is found at those levels of the atmosphere, so no meteorological clouds can be found at that level of the atmosphere. Third, the only "sporadic E" things described by your source are "sporadic E layers", which are:
    "Sporadic E refers to the largely unpredictable formation of regions of very high electron density in the E region. Sporadic E may form at any time during the day or night occurring at altitudes of 90 to 140 km (the E region)."
    (My emphasis) It is true that the wikipedia article on the Ionosphere refers to these layers as "sporadic E clouds", but they are clouds of high electron density, not of water vapour and therefore are not meteorological events. Equating clouds of high electron density with meteorological events is further evidence of crankery. As the wikipedia article on cranks says,
    "Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate an often futile task."
    Therefore, absent the immediate explicit explanation of your theory, supported by links to reputable sites explicitly advocating and providing evidence for that theory, I will draw the obvious conclusion that you are in fact a crank and that further discussion with you is a waste of my time.
  26. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    Philippe @12 this link may help you understand http://www.ips.gov.au/Category/Educational/Other%20Topics/Radio%20Communication/Intro%20to%20HF%20Radio.pdf
    Response:

    [DB] Again, simply posting a link does not help you prosecute your agenda.  You must demonstrate that you both understand the science and mechanisms behind that which you propose AND you must also point to peer-reviewed literature which supports those.

    Your links, as have already been pointed out, do not support your position.

  27. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    Riccardo @10 You need to research how a magnetron works and with carbon Nano tube tech's one can make a wave guide out of it and inject gasses into the wave guide The microwaves in your microwave oven is ionised by the metal wave guide
  28. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    Tom Curtis @ 8 Cosmic rays are currently described mostly as high energy particles. Mostly protons with a few alpha particles and some heavier nuclei. I do not think they refer to gamma rays as cosmic rays anymore but call them gamma rays directly to indicate the difference between the normal particle flux entering our solar system and the few extreme events that produce intense levels of gamma radiation. Current understanding of the term cosmic rays.
  29. Philippe Chantreau at 11:32 AM on 14 November 2011
    New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    "What I'm trying to point out here is how ground based and satalites data collecting can cause sporadic E clouds to form" Say what? What in the world in this mumbo-jumbo? Data collection causing cloud formation? How is this fantastic hypothesis supported in any way by your link? Sorry to be blunt but you seem to have no comprehension whatsoever of what you read. When one talk about radio waves, it is generally understood to include electromagnetic waves within the radio frequency spectrum. If it is infra-red, visible or ultra violet, this is normally specified. If it is higher energy like X rays or Gamma rays, it is never referred to as radio waves. Conventions may be just that but they do have their usefulness. Electromagnetic waves do not carry nano particals, whatever that may be. Cosmic rays do not do that either. If you know of any scientific work linking, even in the loosest fashion, radio waves and climate, please cite. At this point, you have demonstrated only thorough confusion.
  30. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    Tom C#29: Point taken. However, your #21 "an overall increase in the combined total of hot and cold events, even though cold events are becoming rarer" seems like a stretch. Why include cold events in the 'combined total,' if the rightward migration of these distribution curves shows that extreme cold events are becoming less frequent? See Hansen again: The most important change of the climate dice is probably the appearance of extreme hot summer anomalies, with mean temperature at least three standard deviations greater than climatology, over about 10% of land area in recent years. That's illustrated in Hansen's Fig 7: --full scale The vertical scale is % area; summertime area classed as 'hot' has tripled, 'very' and 'extremely' hot went from negligible to sizable percentages. In that context, this really is about increased probability - and extent - of extreme heatwaves (with their accompanying drought and fire risk). So what comes after the 3 sigma 'extremely hot'? Biblical?
  31. Models are unreliable
    So ... no Camburn. Am I only only person who thinks he was just going off on models in an effort to derail the other thread?
    Response:

    [DB] Camburn has elected to recuse himself from further participation.

  32. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    The linked information refers to radio spectrum in the range 1 to 300 MHz (well within normal usage of word "radio"). Again, I fail to see the climatic significance.
  33. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    jmorpuss nowhere in the link you provide do they say that radio waves is short for "radiated electromagnetic waves", whatever that means. In any case, there's no way for them to carry nanoparticles.
  34. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    Tom @ 8 thanks for not deleting. Sphaerica @7 Radio wave is short for radiated electromagnetic waves and really covers the whole magnetic spectrem and includes gamma rays though people may not understand this it is still true (-Snip-)
    Response:

    [DB] Unless you can point to peer-reviewed science that can substantiate what you hypothesize, you are essentially engaging in "What if _______?" conjecture. 

    Of course, what you neglect is the need for subsequent explanations as to why what amounts to established fact only applies in certain situations...and not others.

    OT snipped.

  35. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    muoncounter @23, the top row of graphs is Jun-Jul-Aug, but the second row is Dec-Jan-Feb. Consequently my point @21 stands.
  36. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    jmorpuss @6, as Sphaerica has already pointed out, cosmic rays are not "radio waves that carry nano particles". Radio waves are the least energetic form of electromagnetic radiation. Cosmic rays are gamma rays, the most energetic form of electromagnetic radiation (even more energetic than X-rays) along with showers of high energy sub-atomic particles, and while the latter could be loosely described as "nano-particles) they are not "carried by radio-waves" in any meaningful sense. To clarrify Spaerica's further comment, by "cosmic ray theory" he means the theory that cosmic rays increase cloud cover by creating cloud nuclei, not the theory as to how cosmic rays are generated.
  37. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    6, jmorpuss, Um, no. Cosmic rays are in no way "radio waves that carry nano particals [sic]." That falls under the category of "making stuff up." Beyond this -- cosmic ray theory itself is an unproven theory with no support at the moment whatsoever. Taking this a step further to discuss radio waves is insanity. Beyond this -- the fact the you can use the word "cloud" in your topic as well as the original post does not make your comment on-topic on this thread. Your comment is off topic and as such should be deleted. You've attempted to post these links before, but without context. Now you're conjuring context out of thin air. And honestly, I have a very, very hard time seeing the point. Please stop. This site is about science, not Dog Astrology or whatever your own personal interest may be. [Mods -- feel free to delete the original comment and all subsequent comments.]
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Actually, since jmorpuss has persistently been pushing this agenda regardless of thread, it's a good teaching moment to nail this one down so subsequently we can point back to this as needed (lest it amount to PRATT, of course).

  38. Glaciers are growing
    Some grist for the mill: I’ve come across an interesting easy to read general paper on AGW by the glaciologist Lonnie Thompson titled Climate Change: The Evidence and Our Options. “Glaciers serve as early indicators of climate change. Over the last 35 years, our research team has recovered ice-core records of climatic and environmental variations from the Polar Regions and from low-latitude high-elevation ice fields from 16 countries. The ongoing widespread melting of high-elevation glaciers and ice caps, particularly in low to middle latitudes, provides some of the strongest evidence to date that a large-scale, pervasive, and, in some cases, rapid change in Earth’s climate system is underway. This paper highlights observations of 20th and 21st century glacier shrinkage in the Andes, the Himalayas, and on Mount Kilimanjaro. Ice cores retrieved from shrinking glaciers around the world confirm their continuous existence for periods ranging from hundreds of years to multiple millennia, suggesting that climatological conditions that dominate those regions today are different from those under which these ice fields originally accumulated and have been sustained. The current warming is therefore unusual when viewed from the millennial perspective provided by multiple lines of proxy evidence and the 160-year record of direct temperature measurements. Despite all this evidence, plus the well-documented continual increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, societies have taken little action to address this global-scale problem. Hence, the rate of global carbon dioxide emissions continues to accelerate. As a result of our inaction, we have three options: mitigation, adaptation, and suffering.”
  39. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    Muoncounter, I am sure we are on the same page. Hansen's paper is shocking. Skept, It sounds to me like we generally agree. I think the data already exists to show the warming is much more downside than any lessening of cold is upside. I think Hansen's paper is the final nail in the coffin of the deniers. If we both keep reading we will come to agreement soon. There are a lot of people on this website who call themselves "skeptics" who are really deniers so your handle looks funny.
  40. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    5, Sphaerica All you have to do is rap this type of info around cosmic ray theory But see that cosmic rays are only radio waves that carry nano particals And then apply this info on radio propagation from our com's and detecting Link provided http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/5/1
  41. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    4, jmorpuss, Your provided link says nothing whatsoever about weather or climate. How is it of any interest on this site, or in any discussion of climate?
  42. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    One thing I don't see disgust much is th conection between sporadic E clouds and weather events Why? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sporadic_E This link gives some insight to what I mean I have other links I would like to share if you are interested
  43. New tool clears the air on cloud simulations
    WheelsOC, This isn't about better resolution cloud modelling. COSP simulates, within a GCM, the mechanisms by which real satellite observational data is collected. The challenge is in obtaining meaningful comparisons between satellite retrieval data and outputs from GCMs in order to produce realistic parameterisations of cloud processes. This approach allows genuine apples to apples comparisons between models and satellite data. Thanks for posting this, John, very interesting. Just yesterday I was pondering the possibility of exactly this approach for assessing UAH & RSS TLT data against models. Maybe it's already been done?
  44. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Hansen has singled out ocean heat content measurements as the most important indicator of a "warming world" for many years. Now that precise measurements look like they are becoming available, he is emphatically calling attention to them. Since 2005 he has been describing calculations primarily based on measured ocean heat content in his public statements as a “smoking gun”. Now the term, i.e. “smoking gun”, is in his latest paper in press. He is becoming increasingly confident in analyses of data coming from the recently deployed Argo floats: “The strong positive energy imbalance during the solar minimum, and the consistency of the planet’s energy imbalance with expectations based on estimated human-made climate forcing, together constitute a smoking gun, a fundamental verification that human-made climate forcing is the dominant forcing driving global climate change.” This is the data he is using: (From von Shuckmann and Le Traon 2011, “How well can we derive Global Ocean Indicators from Argo data?”) To illustrate how “noisy” the previously available ocean heat storage data is compared to this new Argo data, Hansen provided this chart. The solid red line is his calculation based on the data from the von Schuckmann chart above, and the dotted red line is calculation based on data from a previous von Shuckmann et. al. effort. Both are Argo analyses: The ocean is where the heat is. Mere sloshing around of a tiny bit of the heat in the ocean, i.e. ENSO, can show up as a cooling trend in the global average surface temperature chart. Debate about whether the planetary system could possibly be cooling should be done using terms that make it clear that the global average surface temperature chart isn't a measure of whether the planet is cooling or not, or whether global warming is occurring or not.
  45. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    John Hartz, thank you, will look it up.
  46. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    Re philippe 117 . Electrical energy import into the UK is via a single route : across the channel from France. Oil imports are from many diverse routes and suppliers. Governments will rightly consider such facts, that is the reality. I cannot personally see the UK relying on 70% import of energy from a single supply route. Maybe 20% max. That leaves at least 50% fossil fuels or local nuclear. (Unless you can suggest another answer). You might want to check out Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air by David McKay, for a good survey of UK energy needs and scenarios, it is also downloadable online.
  47. Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    @ Lancelot #115 The journal references that you asked for are: Mark Z. Jacobson, Mark A. Delucchi. Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I: Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials. Energy Policy, 2010; DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.11.040 To access a PDF of Part I, click here. Mark A. Delucchi, Mark Z. Jacobson. Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part II: Reliability, system and transmission costs, and policies. Energy Policy, 2010; DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.11.045 To access a PDF of Part II, click here.
  48. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    Interesting paper here, which directly connects fire with temperature in a more indirect way, so to speak : Forecasting Fire Season Severity in South America Using Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies
  49. Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
    michael sweet#24: Please excuse my northern hemispherocentrism. It is interesting to note that the new Hansen et al paper finds verification of the much-discussed (and criticized) 1988 models: Hansen et al. (1988) projected how the odds would change due to global warming for alternative greenhouse gas scenarios. Their scenario B, ... led to four of the six dice sides being red early in the 21st century based on global climate model simulations. Figure 5 confirms that the actual occurrence of summers in the "hot" category (seasonal mean temperature anomaly exceeding +0.43 σ) has approximately reached the level of 67% required to make four sides of the dice red. ... However, note that the odds of an unusually cool Jun-Jul-Aug (by the standards of 1951-1980) have fallen more than the odds of having an unusually cold Dec-Jan-Feb. Comparable loading of the dice has occurred in winter, where "hot", i.e., mild, winters now occur almost two-thirds of the time. --emphasis added The new paper's Figure 7 is extremely relevant: It depicts the inexorable trend of JJA for an increasing percentage of the globe into 'hot,' 'very hot,' and 'extremely hot.' This graph could make even the 'pausers' take notice, as there is no evidence of warming having paused.
  50. Philippe Chantreau at 05:43 AM on 14 November 2011
    Sober up: world running out of time to keep planet from over-heating
    Will strategic and political considerations constrain the relaiance on imported electricity more than they constrain reliance on imported oil and coal? I don't see that the situation will be much different. The truth is that, as long as tepid attitudes and reluctance to change like that displayed here by lancelot are widespread, no change can happen. There is also the option of waiting until FF are so scarce that change, and its modalities, is no longer a matter of choice.

Prev  1397  1398  1399  1400  1401  1402  1403  1404  1405  1406  1407  1408  1409  1410  1411  1412  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us