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  1526  1527  1528  1529  1530  1531  1532  1533  1534  1535  1536  1537  1538  1539  1540  1541  Next

Comments 76651 to 76700:

  1. OA not OK part 3: Wherever I lay my shell, that's my home

    second summary post

  2. OA not OK part 4: The f-word: pH

    second summary post

  3. OA not OK part 5: Reservoir dogs

    second summary post

  4. Ocean acidification: Coming soon

    second summary post

  5. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Camburn, sorry for hammering the point, but I am perfectly convinced that there are technological solutions of all sort. The problem is a political solution to get the change to happen. Sometime in the next 30 years, constraints on oil production are going to give sufficient price signal to change that. However, at the moment, the price of power from coal reflects only production cost (which are subsidized to boot) and there is a lot of coal left. If a government wants an end to coal, how would it change that? Don't say "support nuclear" - what support for nuclear that is compatible with your political values, would cause nuclear stations to be built instead of coal ones?
  6. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    OK. I used to be an advocate of wind, but experience with a wind farm has shown the realiability of wind at peak power need does not fit the bill. Soloar is much the same. When I think of solutions, I think of solutions that are reliable, will provide electricity on demand. I also look at cost. With wind, you have to have another generation system as backup. This is duplication of costs, and not an effective utilization of precious resources. The same applies for solar, altho to a less extent. I do feel there are areas of the world that solar would work well with little redundancy. When I say economics, I think of mankind as a whole. There are millions of people who have not enough food, no work, limitied ability to expand economically. Lifespan is short, life is hard. By using current tech, reliable tech, we will have enough resources to expand eocnomicially for the good of all mankind. As far as fossil fuel consumption for transportation, the swing to more economical cars is evident in the sales of said cars. They should all be diesel as well as that internal combustion engine is much more efficent than a comparable gas engine, and hence, produces less co2 and pollution per gallon of energy consumed. At this time, I can see no practicle alternatives to large horsepower requirements being met with elec or such. If someone knows of one, I am all ears. Innovation is also something that comes over time. Right now I am trying to get a grad student to do an economic analysis of using wind generated elec to produce h, and then to produce nitrogen for crops. This would be better than using ch4, but at this time I do not know the economics of this. To me, as an idea, this is well suited for wind as the generation requirement does not have to be 24/7. It is taking wind, producing a produce that is currently produced from natural gas, and producing it from water, wind, etc with no detrimental environmental effects. Might sound crazy, but it might work as well as N, which is required for crops, is getting extemelty expensive. Tired, as I am harvesting. Thanks for reading.
  7. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    EtR#33: "both the conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats are separate from the general populace, which is fairly consistent." The question here is not R vs. D; the question here is identifying what the general population of Rs say they believe vs. what their candidates are pushing at them. You say politicians listen to the polls; it's not happening. If anything, the R candidates are driving each other into increasingly radical positions; surely you are not saying that the general population of Rs is driving that? And of course, you miss the fact that President Obama keeps moving towards the center. "polls are saying that they are separate issues among the voters." Polls are saying that Rs are confused. They say they don't believe in AGW, but they support government investment in alternative energies. Their leaders would take solar panels off the White House (oh, they already did that one). "I don't not think they are being misled by those they trust" So do you trust Limbaug, Beck, Bachmann and Palin? Enough to go all-in with the climate hanging in the balance? But 'thinking'? Based on the repetition of the talking points by Rs whenever possible, there's no evidence of any thinking. Thinking is hard work.
  8. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    If the quotes are examples of their "thinking" then God help you if one these clowns become president. They are examples of ignoring evidence and going with what you hope is true. WoMD anyone? In what areas of public policy is this not going to be a disaster?
  9. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Muon, Your poll regarding Republicans is only ten percentage points higher than the general populace (62% vs. 52%). One could assume that Democrats are ~42%, which is a difference of 20 percentage points, and similar to other polls. As I mentioned earlier, both the conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats are separate from the general populace, which is fairly consistent. You are constantly trying to tie energy efficiency to global warming and the political parties. This is why you see it as inconsistent. The polls are saying that they are separate issues among the voters. Contrary to Bern's assertion, I don't not think they are being misled by those they trust, but rather thinking for themselves.
  10. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Bern#29: I've recently quoted Dr. Curry, of all people, for some psychological insight: “All else being equal, individuals tend to be significantly better at detecting fallacies when the fallacy occurs in an argument for a conclusion which they disbelieve, than when the same fallacy occurs in an argument for a conclusion which they believe. ... “As more and more peers weigh in on a given issue, the proportion of the total evidence which consists of higher order psychological evidence [of what other people believe] increases, and the proportion of the total evidence which consists of first order evidence decreases . . . “Over time, this invisible hand process tends to bestow a certain competitive advantage to our prior beliefs with respect to confirmation and disconfirmation” --emphasis added And if you can't trust a skeptic blogger to know a bit about fallacy in argument, who can you trust? She's an expert in that department, after all.
  11. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    pirate#30: You cited a poll from 2010, as did I. See DB response to #18. However, I did give you a shout-out in #22.
  12. apiratelooksat50 at 12:24 PM on 25 August 2011
    Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Muon Ignoring 20? I gave you what you asked for...
  13. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    muoncounter @ 28: I don't agree that they simply believe what they are told to believe - I think it's more nuanced than that. They believe what appears to be a sensible conclusion based on the information they have. Unfortunately, their chosen trusted information sources are right-leaning media, who tend to trumpet false 'facts' about global warming, and spread disinformation like it's going out of style. So it's not a matter of them doing what they're told, rather they are being misled by those they trust. The problem for the rest of us is to figure out how to convince these people that they are being lied to. Given the attack on the credibility of science in general, and climate science in particular, that's no small task...
  14. Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
    16 decades later I am excited for Eunice Foote. Raymond Sorenson, the author of the monograph, should be congratulated.
  15. OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
    Thanks for the 2 part summary, Doug. It stitched the pieces together nicely and I now have some grasp of the process.
  16. Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
    I found the pdf on Eunice Foote seventh in the list on a google search, where the terms were the title of John Tyndall's 1859 paper: "Note on the Transmission of Radiant Heat through Gaseous Bodies" I'd be curious to know if other people find the article close to the top, as I did. Suggests it's a popular link, doesn't it? Good news - you HAVE to love google and diligent librarians. I think this is confirmed. Check this link: http://www.archive.org/stream/annualscientifi02crosgoog#page/n169/mode/2up If you want to backtrace, I got that link from here, which I got from here. First search term was the title of the David Welles digest, "Annual of Scientific Discovery", and it was dead easy to do the rest. I think that has to be legitimate. Agreed?
  17. OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
    Thank you so much for putting this series together. I'll be glad for the booklet to come out, too, for I'll be both reading and re-reading it, and sharing it with friends and associates.
  18. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    EtR#27: "I see no contradiction between the two surveys." Missing the point yet again? The table I posted above shows that clear majorities of Repubs are in favor of: - requiring increased energy efficiency - federal investment in renewable energy sources - mass transit - nuclear power You can pretend that this combination is just about efficiency if you want. But (except for nukes) these are neither Tea Party nor deep denial-type positions (see Heartland Institute or American Enterprise for those; AEI is even against energy efficiency!) Nor are they Libertarian Party positions. The (now) leading candidate (Guvna P) is diametrically opposed to the federal govt requiring or investing in anything (unless Texas needs the money). Well, he likes nukes -- and here's why: “We don’t have tsunamis in Texas.” The man's a genius! A separate table in the linked article shows that a majority of Repubs - don't see solid evidence of warming (it's not happening - 62%), - don't see warming as a problem (it's not bad - 57%) - don't believe science agrees on the anthropogenic cause (there's no consensus - 58%). My take on that internally inconsistent (and incorrect) profile is that they simply believe what they are told to believe by the disinformation industry.
  19. Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
    Wow, nice find barry! I wonder if Tyndall heard about this piece of work? If this is correct, Eunice Foote certainly deserves to be mentioned as Sphaerica says, a further demonstration of the antiquity of this branch of science. And in its day a major coup for a female scientist.
  20. Greenhouse effect has been falsified
    I don't believe it is generally agreed that falling temperatures with increasing altitute are the result of the GHE. The term is actually called the adiabatic lapse rate. Howere, I think this needs more consideration. For instance this paper by Verkley and Gerkema is relevant: “A column of dry air in hydrostatic equilibrium ….. bounded by two fixed values of the pressure, and the question is asked, what vertical temperature profile maximizes the total entropy of the column? Using an elementary variational calculation, it is shown how the result depends on what is kept fixed in the maximization process. If one assumes that there is no net heat exchange between the column and its surroundings—implying that the vertical integral of the absolute temperature remains constant—an ISOTHERMAL profile is obtained in accordance with classical thermodynamics and the kinetic theory of gases” http://www.nioz.nl/public/fys/staff/theo_gerkema/jas04.pdf If that would not be the case, it would be possible to build a machine that makes mechanical energy from a single source of heat. This goes against the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The natural intuition that the temperature must be warmer at the bottom, because molecules gain energy, when falling, is wrong because it’s exactly compensated by another phenomenon: Those molecules that have little energy cannot go up as well as those with more energy. This is not to deny that the sudden imposition of a gravitational field on a column of gas would indeed set up a temperature gradient. It would – but it wouldn’t persist. It would quickly be homogenized and the column would become isothermal. So if a column of gas behaves this way would a GH free atmosphere behave the same way too? Without the driving force of IR radiation from the upper reaches of the atmosphere there would be very little net heat flux in our column of air. There would be no re-radiation of course and very little convection. A GH free atmosphere would be very different from our present one and approximately much more closely to an isothermal state. So if this is the case, then we can show that the GHE has not been falsified simply by climbing a mountain and noticing that it does indeed get colder.
  21. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    muon, I see no contradiction between the two surveys. The error is in assuming that energy efficiency and global warming abatement are linked. The surveys indicate that most people want to do something about energy independence and efficiency, but not necessarily global warming. These numbers are similar to those in the survey to which I linked earlier. Also, you will notice that there is no difference across the politcal spectrum from moderate Republicans to Democrats. The only difference occur at the extremes.
  22. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    EtR - as stated in the article, efficiency gains by themselves are incapable of making much difference - slowing the rate of increase at best. Look at breakdown of where energy is used, look at maximum possible efficiency gain and see what total you can get. I can highly recommend MacKay's "sustainably energy without the hot air" as a starting point. I think constraints on fuel supply will reduce FF use in transport sector, but coal is the real issue. There enough coal left in the world to really damage the climate. You need to propose policies that will end coal use.
  23. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    @Rob #24 I forgot to say what browser I am using: it is FF 3.6.17 under Fedora 13 with NoScript installed. And now I see that you are right: the visible text actually does form coherent sentences with no missing words. But there should be a margin (or padding) between the text and the graphic; there is none, creating the appearance that words are covered up.
  24. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    @quokka, #10: Hunstman is a breath of fresh air among the Republican dunces. He even appeared on the NPR show, "Wait, wait, don't tell me", showing that he not only has a brain, but he isn't afraid to use it;) Knowing that, I think it must pain him greatly to see how the Republican party simply refuses to look reality in the face, instead insisting on a reckless path to devastation of the whole biosphere, all for the sake of profit.
  25. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    MattJ - not on my web browser, but the logo is very close, giving the impression it's covering text. It could do with a tweak though.
  26. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    I see a lot of good work has gone into preparing this article, which is why it pains me to observe first and foremost that the graphic "Climate Myths from Politicians" is covering up text of the first paragraph, which will surely repel many readers.
  27. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    If pirate is correct in "they merely echo their constituency," the polling issue is instructive. The following table shows that there is broad agreement that something must be done. The remainder the data on the source page show the broad ideological divisions on AGW opinions. There's a stunning contradiction between decreasing numbers who believe AGW is a real problem and the large percentages shown in this table who say we must do something. This indicates a high level of confusion in the general public and a potential area for an education effort. Not surprising that they're confused, given all the misinformation they are fed by the Limbugs, Becks and What's up/Faux News Bastardis. It also shows how far out of touch the Republican do-nothing/spend-nothing crowd really is - and illustrates a very strong weakness in their appeal in a national election.
  28. apiratelooksat50 at 05:43 AM on 25 August 2011
    Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Dikran at 12 I wasn't criticizing any individual by that statement. I was criticizing politicians in general who will say anything that needs to be said to get elected. They watch these same polls and conduct their own to feed back to the potential voters what they want to hear. Politicians, for the most part, are not scientists. Whether Democratic or Republican they merely echo their constituency on polarizing issues such as abortion, climate, Creationism/Evolution, etc... Some may try to move to the middle to appear likeable to the other side.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] This is still getting away from the discussion of the scientific position of the politicians, and hence likely to derail the thread.
  29. apiratelooksat50 at 05:36 AM on 25 August 2011
    Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Muon at 16 A very recent poll can be found here.
  30. Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
    Interesting discussion on the dealings with WUWT folks. I'm sure you folks that try to set facts straight there do make some difference, but nobody will be willing to admit it and it would appear your efforts are in vain (example: completely dropping the subject when engaged). Then again, maybe that belief is just wishful thinking on my part. Anyway, as far as Denning's challenge to come up with a Heartland-approved solution goes, these Heartland types have had decades to figure something out. The book Merchants of Doubt highlights several issues that have had similar policy implications as the climate change issue. In each case, the free market solution never materialized, and some form of regulation was finally put into place after a few decades of delay. Granted, there may be some similar problems that were solved by the free market that I don't know about, and there may exist a Heartland-approved solution for climate change that nobody has thought of. We can't hold our breath waiting for that solution, though. It seems that issues like climate change and peak oil expose some of the flaws in the long term viability of 100% pure capitalism. To me, it seems that capitalism does poorly when accounting for externalities, addressing public health problems, and anticipating disruptions. This is what I think strikes at the heart of these free market purists. I don't think any conceivable climate change solution jives with their rigid ideology, and that is why they have attacked the science for so long. Thus, I think it is more efficient to address the uninformed middle ground folks. That requires marketing and visibility for the scientific facts (hurray for Skeptical Science). Strong vocal support and education from our elected leaders couldn't hurt either. The way I see it, we need to first talk about the science and the solutions with people that are actually reasonable. We can still highlight the deniers when they are wrong about the science, but start to engage them only after the reasonable majority is well-informed. Thus, the initial priority is a three-pronged plan to inform the middle ground, squash the disinformation, and implement solutions. The secondary objective should be to engage the deniers if it is necessary to control their disinformation. They had their chance to be a part of the policy debate.
  31. Dikran Marsupial at 04:46 AM on 25 August 2011
    It's cosmic rays
    CERN CLOUD project results are published, discussion @ RC. I suspect they are not all that was hoped for, but I need to read the article.
  32. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Muon, [snip] Anyway, with the exception of the far right and left, the polls show similar support (or lack thereof) for action on global warming. Statements that Democrats support AGW and Republicans do not are contradicted by the polls themselves. Politicians tend to listen to the polls.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Moderator trolling snipped; please refrain from this sort of activity, I will simply delete the post next time.
  33. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Sphaerica, I see you are not to blame. The moderator deleted my last post which would have explained everything. ( -Snip- )
    Response:

    [DB] Moderation complaints snipped.  Your last comment was deleted by the moderator due to inflammatory remarks.

    In the spirit of transparency, it is duly noted that EtR also furnished up this link:

    http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_23.html

    as the source for his claim.  Let the reader make of it what they will.

  34. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Sphaerica, Did you read my last post. I am totally in support of increased efficiency. What fuzzy thinking? I linked to the government report which supports my earlier post.
  35. Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
    jyushchyshyn - please let's refrain from making gross generalizations of large groups like "environmentalists". Especially inaccurate generalizations. There's no reason we can't address the demand side issue while simultaneously at least delaying the exploitation of the tar sands. If we can delay it long enough, perhaps we can decrease demand sufficiently in the meantime such that by the time the tar sands oil can be transported, the demand will no longer be sufficient. China is working on a carbon cap and trade system, and eventually the USA will have a carbon pricing system, which would raise the cost of the carbon-intense tar sands oil and thus decrease the demand. And if we delay long enough, maybe Canada will elect a government that gives a damn about the environment as well.
  36. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    97, Eric the Red,
    All our improvements in efficiency have not stemming the rise in atmospheric CO2.
    All of our improvements in efficiency are trivial compared to what we can and should be doing. We've barely started, and so you're declaring it a failure. I would also point out that once again you are falling victim to fuzzy thinking, imagining the general numbers instead of researching them and carefully quantifying them. As far as cars and driving. I live outside of Boston, and visit NYC often. A lot of people are living well away from such large cities these days due to sheer congestion... as much as 60 miles away. At the same time an embarrassing number drive huge SUVs like a Chevy Tahoe (15 mpg city) in the stop and go traffic of rush hour. It's embarrassing that you would take a firm stand against efficiency. Absolutely embarrassing. That anyone would do such a thing is emblematic of denial in the extreme.
  37. Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
    No, the world is not black and white like that. It is the environmentalists and the extreme right who see the world in black and white terms. Personally, I would prefer to see the pipeline to Asian markets not be built. Have two way tanker traffic in the Pacific Ocean is an oil spill waiting to happen. In addition, the government of Alberta has been far to lenient in allowing oil sands operators to drag their feet in both greenhouse gas emissions and in dealing with the tailings issue. As CBDunkerson said, "If Obama blocks the pipeline or bargains his approval for some kind of concession (e.g. investment in electric vehicle research, offsetting carbon capture, or whatever) I'd say that is pretty good for us." Perhaps such a deal could include a ban on overseas exports of such synthetic crude, as well as firm deadlines to deal with the tailings and greenhouse gas emissions. it is the Asian markets which have virtually unlimited growth potential. As Camburn said, "The deamand is there for that oil." If there is a market for anything, someone will find a way to supply it. If we deal with consumption, that will take care of the demand for the oil. If there is no demand for the oil, no one will produce it.
  38. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    muon, ( -Snip- )
    Response:

    [DB] Off-topic snipped.  This post is about Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science, not public opinion polls on various and sundry topics.

  39. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    EtR: "All our improvements in efficiency have not stemming the rise in atmospheric CO2." Complete the thought, EtR. Is it A) "and so we shouldn't address the problem through efficiency," or is it B) "but efficiency allows any other additional solution to work that much better, so all of this work on efficiency is a good thing"?
  40. Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
    The Eunice Foote writeup is very interesting. If accurate it seems like a fairly simple way to demonstrate the greenhouse effect to 'skeptics'. I wouldn't have thought that the extra warming within a glass cylinder would be significant enough to be measured by a thermometer... let alone 20 degrees warmer. Granted, this was apparently a 100% CO2 demonstration, but still an easy way to blow numerous 'skeptic' arguments (e.g. 'the CO2 effect is saturated') completely out of the water.
  41. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Sphaerica, Many of the improvements have passed their maximum savings growth. For instance, a new furnace today will not result in as much natural gas savings as it did 20 years ago. Replacing all the really old, greater than 20 years or so, appliances mightl. But how many of those really old appliances are still working? Insulating older homes or replacing doors and windows would probably generate significant savings. But I still do not see this making a huge dent. Vehicle fuel economy has increased from ~13 mpg in 1975 to 32.5 mpg in 2009. Again, much of that savings was reaped between 1975 and 1985, with only marginal increases since. That must be a really poor SUV to only get 12 mpg. Do people really commute that far to work? Unless they live in the Yukon, I cannot image going that far to the grocery store. On the flip side, improved fuel economy has allowed people to drive further, so how much was really gained? Technology has allowed many to work from home, thus eliminating some commuting. All our improvements in efficiency have not stemming the rise in atmospheric CO2.
    Response:

    [DB] "Vehicle fuel economy has increased from ~13 mpg in 1975 to 32.5 mpg in 2009."

    In the usual absence of a cited link, the inescapabale conclusion is that you are again making things up with impunity.  A quick Google:

    2009 Cafe

    [Source]

    So now the onus is on you to furnish a reliable cite to back up your seeming bald-faced assertion.  Remember, your continued participation in this forum is contingent upon this. 

    The regular reader will recognize that assertions without foundation are a staple in this poster's repertoire.

    From the US Federal Government:

    Reduce Climate Change
    Climate change is widely viewed as the most significant long-term threat to the global environment, and man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are very likely the cause of most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years. 

    Burning fossil fuels such as gasoline and diesel releases carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere, contributing to global climate change. CO2 is the most important humanmade GHG, and highway vehicles account for 27% (1.5 billion tons) of U.S. CO2 emissions each year. 

    Every gallon of gasoline your vehicle burns puts about 20 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere—the average vehicle emits around 6 to 9 tons of CO2 each year. 

    Unlike other forms of vehicle pollution, CO2 emissions cannot be reduced by pollution control technologies. They can only be reduced by burning less fuel or by burning fuel that contains less carbon. 

    One of the most important things you can do to reduce your contribution to climate change is to buy a vehicle with better fuel economy. The difference between 25 miles per gallon and 20 miles per gallon can prevent the emission of 10 tons of CO2 over a vehicle’s lifetime, more than a year’s worth of use. 

    You can also reduce your contribution to climate change by getting the best fuel economy out of your car

    • Using a low-carbon fuel, such as compressed natural gas (CNG) or electricity from a renewable resource such as wind or hydropower

    • Walking, biking, or taking public transit more often

    • New fuel economy and CO2 tailpipe emissions standards will go into effect starting with model year 2012 vehicles.

  42. Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
    Paul D - no, there aren't any prominent Democratic politicians who are climate "skeptics". There are a few who oppose certain climate solutions, but not climate science. It is indeed very polarized. Back when we started the Climate Myths from Politicians database, we tried to find some "skeptic" quotes from Democrats, but struck out. It's only Republicans who reject the science.
  43. Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
    jyushchyshyn - the world isn't black and white like that. Of course consumption is the main problem, but when we start to produce unconventional fossil fuels with higher carbon emissions intensity, that's a problem too.
  44. Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
    20, barry, That is so cool! If it's not a hoax it should be brought into the mainstream, with Tyndall and Arrhenius, at ever mention of past climate science.
  45. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 01:02 AM on 25 August 2011
    Skeptical Science celebrates its 4th birthday
    Birthday felicitations - and best wishes for your new role. The Global Change Institute must find it hard to believe its luck :D
  46. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    94, Eric the Red, I would like to point out that almost everything in our current society has a lifespan of five to ten years (with the major exception of buildings). If we simply committed to improved efficiency for those new products that are already destined to be manufactured and consumed to replace existing tools, within that five to ten year span we could make a huge, huge dent in the problem. But we can't do that while people are still wedded to driving huge, 12 mpg SUVs just to commute sixty miles to and from work, or to get to the grocery store. And getting there requires a political commitment from the Right, as well as stopping foolish resistance to proven science so that people know whom they can and should trust, admit to the problem, and act in their own future as well as present interests.
  47. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    94, Eric the Red, See comment 63. That's where Camburn started, with Thorium reactors.
  48. Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
    Tyndall mayn't have been the first!
    we've known since British physicist John Tyndall's laboratory experiments in 1859 that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide trap heat
    I chanced upon a delightful wee monograph stipulating that Tyndall was beaten to the punch by three years, by a certain Eunice Foote at "the 1856 AAAS annual meeting in Albany, New York." Though her work wasn't published, it was noted down by a journalist, thus:
    "Prof. Henry then read a paper by Mrs. Eunice Foote, prefacing it with a few words, to the effect that science was of no country and of no sex. The sphere of woman embraces not only the beautiful and the useful, but the true. Mrs. Foote had determined, first, that the action of the rays increases with the density of the air. She has taken two glass cylinders of the same size, containing thermometers. Into one the air was condensed, and from the other air was exhausted. When they were of the same temperature the cylinders were placed side by side in the sun, and the thermometers in the condensed air rose more than twenty degrees higher than those in the rarified air. This effect of rarefaction must contribute to produce the feebleness of heating power in the sun's rays on the summits of lofty mountains. Secondly, the effect of the sun's rays is greater in moist than in dry air. In one cylinder the air was saturated with moisture, in the other dried with chloride of lime; both were placed in the sun, and a difference of about twelve degrees was observed. This high temperature of sunshine in moist air is frequently noticed; for instance, in the intervals between summer showers. The isothermal lines on the earth's surface are doubtless affected by the moisture of the air giving power to the sun, as well as by the temperature of the ocean yielding the moisture. Thirdly, a high effect of the sun's rays is produced in carbonic acid gas. One receiver being filled with carbonic acid, the other with common air, the temperature of the gas in the sun was raised twenty degrees above that of the air. The receiver containing the gas became very sensibly hotter than the other, and was much longer in cooling. An atmosphere of that gas would give to our earth a much higher temperature; and if there once was, as some suppose, a larger proportion of that gas in the air, an increased temperature must have accompanied it, both from the nature of the gas and the increased density of the atmosphere..."
    http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2011/70092sorenson/ndx_sorenson.pdf May be familiar to some contributors here, but a new one to me. Marvelous bit of history.
  49. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    I would like to know what type of reactors Camburn would support. Thorium reactors are much smaller, can be built locally, have significantly less shielding needs (hence less government regulations), and thorium is much more plentiful than uranium. Economically and safety-wise, these make more sense than uranium reactors. On a cost basis, I do not know how they would compare to other options such as wind or solar, but the size requirements are less. Efficiency upgrades are fine, and we should continue to to make strides in that direction. But that is only a marginal reduction. In fact, these are ongoing as people replace older vehicles, furnaces, etc. with newer models.
  50. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    91, Camburn, I'm curious, but why are other options not on your radar, such as wind and solar, improving mileage on new vehicles, energy efficiency in building, and other methods? Why is the solution restricted to building as many nuclear power plants as we possibly can (while knowing that, like fossil fuels, radioactive fuel is also a limited resource)? After that... I'm with scaddenp... how do you propose that we move beyond just letting the free market not bother to build those new nuclear power plants, and get into a mode where the cost of fossil based energy reflects the actual cost, and not just the extraction, preparation and delivery cost of the product?

Prev  1526  1527  1528  1529  1530  1531  1532  1533  1534  1535  1536  1537  1538  1539  1540  1541  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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