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  1785  1786  1787  1788  1789  1790  1791  1792  1793  1794  1795  1796  1797  1798  1799  1800  Next

Comments 89601 to 89650:

  1. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    Don't oceans actually average several thousand meters deeper than 900 meters? If so, saying so more forcefully would more accurately reflect the gulf in the data.
  2. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    It is true that capitalism (not the free market but the undercompensation of productive labor) shortens the path of technological progress (vs. feudalism, anyway. vs. socialism, the jury's out). It does so with a human cost. It is also extremely wasteful, encourages mistrust and fraud, allows commodity relations to dominate (dehumanization), undermines democratic rule, and leads to bizarre behavior among the ruling class . . . among other features. It must be bliss not to have to confront the history of a thing bought in a store. I would add, Bob, a fifth: collective agreement to do what has been determined through painfully slow deliberation to be in everyone's best interests. Obviously Harry's fourth and my fifth are not compatible. There is also the assumption that the "free market" will automatically provide humans with exactly what they want. The problem is that if you discourage the social determination of needs, then shortsighted, nearsighted individuals trapped within a private property system with diminishing resources is what you're left with. It ain't pretty, except, of course, for the owners of the means of production and the managerial class (which occasionally suffers angst while doing laundry and looking at their shirt tags, wondering what "Madagascar" is). What we're doing with carbon taxing is paying for the sins of our grandfathers and fathers, many of whom are still alive. Had we had the collective foresight and the means to materially express that foresight, we'd probably have simpler machines, fewer people, less killing, more sickness, less medical fraud, a more effective democracy, less expensive but weaker armies, and certainly an atmosphere that isn't developing into a giant pain in the market. I'll bet we'd be happier (antidepressants would not be no. 2 in popularity, after painkillers).
  3. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    Gilles @ 50: As Muoncounter has stated in the moderator response to your post, this article is about a carbon tax, not carbon intensity. The simple answer to your question, though, is that a carbon tax isn't intended to reduce carbon intensity, it's intended to reduce carbon consumption (your 'B'). You're putting the cart before the horse, by insisting the objective is to reduce intensity of FF use, when it's not that at all. Reducing B will lead to a reduction in A, as people will find ways to reduce the amount of carbon tax they pay while continuing life as normal. As for the last bit: Er, if C is an integral of B.dT over the 21st century, then of course reducing B at any point reduces C... If you don't see that, then I suggest a basic calculus course might be in order. The point being: a carbon tax makes using fossil fuels more expensive, so people will use less of them, or even better, find a cheaper alternative that burns no fossil fuels whatsoever. Given the amount of research & development going on, I suspect that we will soon have much cheaper alternatives, and the payoff in improved air quality in many major cities will be dramatic over the next few decades (especially as automotive use of FF declines).
  4. Harry Seaward at 10:56 AM on 10 April 2011
    How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    Sphaerica @ 51 and other places: The alternative you have missed is called capitalism. My wife and I live in the U.S. She recently replaced our 13 year old washer and dryer that were still operating reasonably with a more modern pair. Why? Better performance, less water usage, less electricity usage, etc... Water wise we are using half as much per load as before. I don't have quantitative numbers on the electricity usage, but it should be noticeably less. We spent some money, but our return on investment (ROI) should be realized within a few years. The money she spent went to the manufacturer, the distributor, the transportation entity, the appliance store, the salesman, and the delivery/setup guy. I then turned around and sold our old units to a family that lives in poverty. They got a good deal and can now wash clothes in their own home instead of a laundromat. Saves them some money, but does increase their home energy use. Adding a tax to my energy consumption had nothing to do with our decision. We simply wanted to more efficient.
  5. Harry Seaward at 10:43 AM on 10 April 2011
    How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    Sphaerica @ 41 Can you please rephrase this statement of yours so I can make sure I understand what you are saying? Thanks. "...in people who are (foolishly) still afraid of communism (primarily the 60+ crowd)."
  6. mothincarnate at 10:19 AM on 10 April 2011
    Photos from the Brisbane Rally for Climate Action
    Good to see!
  7. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    @10 MattJ: But it lacks the rhetorical 'punch' needed to compete with the disinformation machine: ..." With the possible exception of the title, it may be a bit too mildly worded. JC, though, has brought up my tendency to be emotive so I've been playing it cool.
  8. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    @2 Albatross: You're right; I made a mistake in wording. I was going to enumerate those portions of our climate system where we have accurate measurements. The sentence should have read: "Our measurements of how much energy goes into the atmosphere, land, and melting ice are accurately known, however." But now that I see a certain clumsiness in that statement, I may change it to: "Our measurements of how much energy is going everywhere else are well known, however." A question to anyone. Which of the above corrections do you think is the best statement?
  9. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    The article is good, the facts explained are correct. But it lacks the rhetorical 'punch' needed to compete with the disinformation machine: it is far too easy to do just as the article says, quoting Trenberth out of context. I am not sure there is a real solution to this. The fiasco is a good example of why private communications between scientists are not necessarily suitable for public release. But alas, the wider public does not understand that what is said in a private context may be understood completely differently when repeated outside it.
  10. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    There are, to my knowledge, only three ways to control human behavior: 1) Make something illegal, and punishable by law (e.g. no stealing) 2) Instill a moral imperative (e.g. no lying) 3) Tax it (e.g. no using carbon based fuels without paying extra for the damage that such use is doing to civilization) It is pretty obvious that the first two solutions will not work in the case of fossil fuel use, so it falls to us to develop a fair way to manage the third. Why is this so difficult for some people to understand and accept? What alternative have I missed?
  11. Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
    dm#61: "having to deal with sea level makes a country poor is ridiculous." Hardly what was said from #55 on. However, it is clear that countries under economic stress will not be able to deal with such problems. What is ridiculous is this tendency to prescribe for other countries -- let the Chinese move their cities, put Egyptians to work filling sandbags -- rather than find global solutions to what is undeniably a global problem.
  12. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    Dear all I already stressed that we shouldn't mix up three very different quantities * the carbon intensity A (amount of carbon burnt per unit service, or say per $ GDP) * the carbon consumption (it's B = A* GDP) * the total carbon burnt over the XXIth century C = \int (Bdt) (the integral of B(t) over the whole century). Before continuing arguing, do you admit first that A,B, and C are three different quantities (actually they are even dimensionally different) , and that reducing A doesn't imply that we'll reduce B, and reducing B at some period doesn't imply that we'll reduce C ?
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Another attempt to drive yet another thread off-topic? This thread is about a carbon tax.
  13. Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
    GFW - its the Marlborough Sounds area on the northern part of NZ's South Island. (I live much further south).
  14. Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
    Daniel, the Stern report is but one example from WG2. Show me a study that that doesnt underestimate warming that comes out with a different result. Lomberg is the only attempt I know of and he grossly underestimated warming and has since changed his tune. For discussion of "plant food" (not true), go to is not that bad.
  15. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    "This is classic redistribution of wealth. Karl Marx is smiling in his grave right now." Harry, I would like to hear your idea of what would be the best way to reduce carbon emissions. Carbon tax/carbon trading is usually assumed to be the methods of the economic right, while carbon rationing is the preferred choice of the left. A more politically acceptable way of reducing carbon emissions would be extremely welcome.
  16. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    Gilles, Thanks, I'm pleasantly surprised. Just to clarify for others, those "some people" to whom you refer are 'skeptics' of AGW.
  17. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    I am fully ready to recognize that some people have distorted the meaning of Trenberth quote [snip]
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Inflamatory part of the post snipped. Gilles has given an unequivocal answer to the question, lets leave it at that please.
  18. Arctic Ice March 2011
    sorry DM, I think I understand Popper's paradigm as well as yourself. That's why I remarked that the kind of predictions made by logicman are not able to disprove the theory - so they're in his sense "weak" predictions. Although it's true we cannot prove a theory, the degree of faith that we can have in it is dependent on the number of unlikely predictions that it has made successfully (example : discovery of the massive bosons has given much confidence in the electroweak theory) . By unlikely, I mean that saying "the ice is thin, it will probably melt a lot this month" is much less unlikely that "the ice will be thin in ten years and will probably melt on month earlier".
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Sorry I'm not biting, but as I said, discussion of empirical doubt is off-topic. My comment to logicman was a good-natured commendation of his good scientific attitude, it was not an invitation to return to an off-topic discussion. No more.
  19. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    I'm not asking you if you care Gilles, that is not relevant. I'm asking you what should be a simple thing to do-- unequivocally concede/acknowledge that 'skeptics"/contrarians and those in denial about AGW have distorted and spun the comment in question to further their misinformation campaign and to sow doubt. Can't do it can you? :o)
  20. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    i don't know whom you're calling "likes of myself" ? that's a bizarre categorization. Do you mean male people with blond hair and blue eyes ? I don't care about people misinterpreting Trenberth's sentence, neither about people saying incorrectly that Jones' "trick" was to try to hide the decline of instrumental temperatures. A lot of people are speaking about climate without understanding the slightest aspect of radiative transfer, of thermodynamics, without knowing what an error bar is, or an effective temperature , not to speak of principal components analysis, limit cycles, or spatio-temporal chaos.Also I'm not either a deep specialist of all that, I think my general knowledge is much higher than the average one, and I don't think being "like" people you're speaking of.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] If you are not interested in people misintepreting Trenberth's sentence, the topic of this article, then please restrain from obstructing the discussion amongst those that do. If you want to discuss the gap in the energy budget, please find a more appropriate thread where that discussion is not off-topic (perhaps this one).
  21. A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
    " There are clearly loads more hydrocarbons available on the planet. Price might go up, but that just makes exploration and extraction more attractive. " No, they don't "just" do that. You "just" forgot the other half of the of the supply and demand law : when prices go up, the demand decreases. dwindling supplies means actually that the red curve goes to the left - meaning more expensive FF and less production. Actually the production per capita has been fairly constant during 30 years, and the GDP growth has been obtained only through demographic expansion and improvement of energy intensity. But with decreasing resources, it is not granted at all that this pace can be maintained. " But if the trends continue for the next 20 years we will see renewables become cheaper than hydrocarbons. Onshore wind is already cheaper than nuclear. " think of a simple question : what makes the cost of renewable energy ? another thing is of course that the capacity of renewable generation is limited by intermittence - and yet another one is that FF can't be replaced by electricity in all their uses. All this together doesn't make the situation so comfortable you think, by far. The oil price is climbing anew to the sky. I predict that we won't wait for years before the next economic crisis, which will be still worse than the previous one - and like the previous one, no rush on renewables- just more poor people.
  22. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    #1, I am obviously talking about this specific comment made by Dr. Trenberth. Sad that you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that this specific comment has been abused by the likes of yourself. Come on surprise me and do so :)
  23. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    a comment about the comment : that's why the comparison made in the post is somewhat disingenuous : "Suppose you are an accountant for a major corporation which grossed 1 billion dollars last year, an increase from the previous year. Your job is to find out where and how that money was spent. You take into account every detail such as salaries, benefits, purchases, etc.. Ideally, your goal as an accountant is to account for every dollar spent or left over as profit. Realistically you can be off by a small amount without worry. Imagine, however, that 10% (100 million dollars) is unaccounted for. " The issue here is that we don't know exactly how much the Earth has gained so the "1 billion dollars" is not known actually.
  24. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    #2 : I have no difficulty to admit that discussions about climate are full of distortions and misinterpretations - on both sides. Nevertheless , Trenberth's quote shows that we're certainly not entitled to claim that we understand accurately the energy budget of the Earth, as you admit yourself.
  25. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    @ Gilles "why is it interesting to make *alternatives* more attractive, if it doesn't lead eventually to a smaller amount of extracted FF integrated over time?" Lets not use the word 'attractive' because it can mean many different things, even in this context. Lets use the 'less expensive' instead. What the carbon tax does is make FF use more expensive, which makes alternatives relatively less expensive. This eventually WILL lead to a smaller amount of FF from being extracted (aren't well all price sensitive). The question is at what level should the tax be implemented. And as you mentioned in France people make due even though gas prices are much higher, so likely here in BC a higher tax wouldn't be ruinous. In fact back in 2007 the Federal Conservative government commissioned a report (which they then tried to bury) which indicated that a $50/tonne carbon tax would have a modest impact on the economy at first, then provide slight benefits.
  26. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    Re #1, I agree. I think Villabolo probably meant to say that: "Our measurements of how much energy is in our atmosphere climate system are accurately known, however." Although I might contend that even that statement might not be 100% true, b/c we do not have comprehensive measurements from the deep oceans. The point is that people have grossly distorted and spun Trenberth's original statement for ideological purposes, and that is indeed a travesty. Contrarians and skeptics would improved their pitiful credibility is they could acknowledge as much first before nit picking (as I am sure they will do on this thread). So commenter @1, do you agree with how people distorted and spun Dr. Trenberth's comment? Let us get that out of the way first.
  27. Skeptical Science in other media
    Thanks John for your efforts on this dialogue. As a professed Christian, I find the science/Christianity debate somewhat tiresome and unnecessary. I think that many Christians adopt the disconnection due to a lack of A. Knowledge, B. Faith, C. Confidence that science has provided us an amazing look into the creation around us. I don't feel that scientific discovery undermines my worldview the same way that Francis Collins, the Head of the Human Genome Project, doesn't believe that it undermines his. I'm glad to see people will to profess their faith have an open, honest and safe conversation about science.
  28. Arctic Ice March 2011
    obviously Muoncounter hasn't carefully read the prediction. ;). Now Popper would say that a theory should be disproved by the fact that its prediction are not verified. But what if logicman's prediction isn't ? would you deduce that after all the artic ice melting is not due to anthropogenic factors? most probably, not. This means that logicman's predictions are *not* a solid test of the theory. That's just , say, like weather forecast, some probabilistic estimate, knowing the general physics of the ice. But of course they could have been made whatever the cause of the melting would be. Even if it were a natural cycle, observing the thickness of the ice, the cracks in the pack, and so on, could have led to the same kind of predictions (I'm not saying it is, I try to quantify the discriminating value of the prediction). So is there another feature that could unambiguously really proves, not that ice is melting more these last years (we all agree on that), but that it melts * mainly because of anthropogenic factors* ? is there a specific characteristic feature, that could prove it without discussion ?
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Logicmans prediction was not a test of a specific theory, just a test of his ability to predict the course of the Arctic ice melt. Popper would still approve of that, I'm sure. However, your last sentence demonstrates that you haven't understood Popper at all, you can't prove any theory regarding the cause of the melting, only disprove.
  29. Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
    scaddenp, where was that photo you posted taken? (the aerial view of a coastline)
  30. The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
    "Our measurements of how much energy is in our atmosphere are accurately known, however." ?? I don't understand this sentence - what do you mean ? the atmosphere stores only a tiny amount of energy, and it's constantly changing - GW is certainly *not* a permanent storage of energy in the atmosphere !
  31. Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
    Extra CO2 and global warming means of course a huge increase in plant growth.
    Statements like this always demonstrate such an extreme ignorance of both climate and plant biology that I usually need to go buy a new computer (having smashed, in a fit of impotent, annoyed rage, the one I was using to read the offending sentence).
  32. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    50, Ken,
    So how about putting some numbers on your assertion in the light of the above facts.
    Ummm... isn't that the point of Flanner's paper? So you're implying that my position has no credibility unless I invest the time and energy into performing the effort, for a mere comments thread, equivalent to the paper under discussion? How about we stick with Flanner, as summarized in the above post:
    However, if the current pattern holds then this would boost the best estimate of global warming temperature rises by about 20%
  33. Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
    JMurphy @64, I agree completely with your stance on this. The person is question may not realise it, but they are trolling. I have asked them twice now on this thread to speak to the topic at hand (Tamino's expose of the fatally flawed analysis of the Houston and Dean paper) and they have avoided doing so. So it is likely that the trolling is an effort to detract by the failure of yet another 'skeptic' paper. Those trying to argue it is not bad et cetera should please take the argument to the "It is not bad" thread.
  34. Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
    daniel maris wrote : "The Stern report! No one takes any of that very seriously in the UK. Even climatists tend to gloss over it, because really it was just "think of a number and double it"" I find it amazing (and the height of arrogance) how some people can project their own political beliefs and opinions onto not just some others but everyone else - in this case, in the UK. Those statements I have quoted, have no basis in reality whatsoever, and it is now apparent that most of this poster's comments so far have been a litany of unsubstantiated, inaccurate and self-denying wishful thinking. Is there any chance of having some facts, backed up by references ? Until you start showing some, your comments can be taken as evidence-light, misinformed opinion.
  35. Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
    daniel maris @61 The Stern report! No one takes any of that very seriously in the UK. Even climatists tend to gloss over it, because really it was just "think of a number and double it". Hmm, kindly do not speak for me, or other UK citizens (like Phil Scadden) Stern is always happy to include figures on the negative side, but not on the positive. Extra CO2 and global warming means of course a huge increase in plant growth. I doubt you'll find he put any plus signs in for that. Stern discusses the positive, and negative, effects on crop yields here
  36. CO2 lags temperature
    A nice change to find a level-headed scientific discussion for a change - thank you for the time and effort involved. As a non-chemist/physicist I seek comment on a related matter. Papers, blogs and posts elsewhere (eg www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/Interglacials-and-CO2.pdf and various Wiki entries)throw Be10 variations found in ice cores and various sediment cores into the CO2/temp lag discussion. I believe cosmic ray flux a bit far fetched as an explanation for global temperature variation, but am not qualified to form an opinion.
    Moderator Response: The cosmic rays argument is covered here. In short current evidence does not support the hypothesis.
  37. Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
    #61 - daniel "Extra CO2 and global warming means of course a huge increase in plant growth." The widely reported decline in tree growth is due to the heat stress, which has overwhelmed the trees' ability to take advantage of excess CO2 to promote growth." Silva LCR, Anand M, Leithead MD (2010) Recent Widespread Tree Growth Decline Despite Increasing Atmospheric CO2. PLoS ONE 5(7): e11543. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011543 http://www.plosone.org/article... "The idea that having to deal with sea level makes a country poor is ridiculous. If it was true, then the Netherlands would be the poorest country on the planet, rather than one of the richest." The history of the Netherlands shows that land reclamation was performed in stages as the wealth became available to pay for it. A basic principle of economics states that if one thing is purchased then the buyer must forgo the purchase of other things. This is called opportunity cost. Sea wall construction diverts funds from other uses. In the poorest countries the protection of land is bought at the price of less money spent on health and education, etc. That gets you an F in biology, an F in economics and an F in history. Because your use of straw men is too transparent, you get an F in rhetoric as well.
  38. Dikran Marsupial at 00:45 AM on 10 April 2011
    Arctic Ice March 2011
    logicman@214 I'm sure Popper would approve! ;o)
  39. Arctic Ice March 2011
    #211 - Gilles. My prediction was for April 07 plus or minus 3 days. The ice bridge main plug has been thinning and cracking. It is under tremendous pressure and will soon finish breaking up. After April 10, if the ice bridge has not broken up then I will accept that my forecast was out by however many days the ice bridge survives after April 10. If the ice bridge completely fails to break up this year then my score for that specific prediction will be zero out of 100 and I will buy you at least one beer. :)
  40. Dikran Marsupial at 00:31 AM on 10 April 2011
    How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    muoncounter - in which case, Gilles' criterion is incorrect both scientifically and economically. For comparison, here in the U.K. petrol is about 134p per litre (which works out at about $8.73 per gallon). Civilisation has not gound to a halt here, so the US still has some room for manoever! ;o)
  41. Photos from the Brisbane Rally for Climate Action
    "My Mom is Hot" - think Mother Earth or Mother Nature is my guess.
  42. Arctic Ice March 2011
    Gilles#211: "I'm not at all a specialist of ice sea. ... my opinion is : well, wait and see." Wouldn't it be preferable to consult specialists for their opinions? "First we're already on April 9th, so what about the first one ? " Breakup is underway. Score: Prediction 1, Wait and see attitude 0.
  43. Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
    Scaddenp - The Stern report! No one takes any of that very seriously in the UK. Even climatists tend to gloss over it, because really it was just "think of a number and double it". Stern is always happy to include figures on the negative side, but not on the positive. Extra CO2 and global warming means of course a huge increase in plant growth. I doubt you'll find he put any plus signs in for that. Muoncounter - The idea that having to deal with sea level makes a country poor is ridiculous. If it was true, then the Netherlands would be the poorest country on the planet, rather than one of the richest. I am sure there are lots of young unemployed men in Egypt who would be only too happy to be given jobs building a sea wall. Having to build a sea wall would just mean there was less money for the corrupt ruling elite to spend on trinkets in European capitals.
  44. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    DM#43: "Thus if alternatives cut the rate of our emissions sufficienlty" And what controls the rate of emissions? Here is direct evidence that increasing the price of fossil fuels (in this case gasoline) decreases demand. -- click for full scale The horizontal axis is annual miles driven per capita in the US; the vertical is USD/gallon. Plotted this way, the curve moves back and forth; apparently NYT doesn't think in terms of functions. But the message is clear: when the price goes up, we drive less.
  45. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    50, Ken, As an aside, concerning the Arctic Circle, I merely mistyped my sentence... I'd meant to say "within the Arctic Circle at 75˚ (which is where the edge of the ice generally is in March/April, and is right now, and so is the primary area of concern). Your constant efforts to nitpick people's words and then pedantically carry on about it are neither helpful to debate nor appreciated, and I personally think they reflect rather poorly on you yourself rather than the people whom you are criticizing. [Moderators: Yes, I'm in a very bad mood this morning, and so have little patience for some things.]
  46. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    50, Ken,
    if you compare the Arctic circle with the Equator
    The amount of insolation in the Arctic does not need to match the Equator for it to be relevant to the Earth's climate. All of your attempts to try to redirect the discussion around this are just gamesmanship.
  47. Bob Lacatena at 23:11 PM on 9 April 2011
    How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    40, Gilles,
    sorry but I must have missed a point : why is it interesting to make *alternatives* more attractive, if it doesn't lead eventually to a smaller amount of extracted FF integrated over time?
    Obviously that is the point, and you know it. But you yourself said:
    I just said it won't change the amount of FF under the ground, and won't make us stop extracting them either
    So which is it, Gilles, do you get this, or don't you? Let me make it really, really, simple for you, so that you can't craft another careful half-truth to help confuse people who are reading. A small tax on carbon will encourage three behaviors: 1) Energy efficiency, reducing overall use (such as improving insulation in a home) 2) Reduction in use, reducing overall use (such as choosing a vacation spot closer to home, or cutting back on short trips to the store for bread and milk) 3) Greater incentive to make use of carbon-neutral energy sources, which could ultimately replace some or all FF (such as the development of solar, wind and nuclear sources, and the infrastructure required to use such power in vehicular transport) Now, I know you're sitting there just chomping at the bit to trot out the tired argument that if the cost of FF goes down through increased efficiency, use will simply increase because it's cheaper. You've hinted at this with your statement that "it won't change the amount of FF under the ground, and won't make us stop extracting them either." That last statement is, in fact, false, for three reasons. First, the carbon tax can be incrementally increased to keep FF use high. Basically, just because a "free" system works that way, it doesn't mean that FF must work that way. Second, as the tax helps to make carbon-neutral fuel sources cheaper, by improving the technology behind them and the infrastructure that must be in place to support them, then FF will themselves become more expensive in comparison. FF will not necessarily become cheaper as efficiency grows. They are not expensive now because the entire infrastructure of the world is built around them. When that is no longer the case, they will no longer be cheap. Basically, competition from other power sources will drive the cost of FF higher (once those other power sources are given a fighting chance, by not competing against a power source that in effect has a monopoly and infrastructure and customer base). And, lastly, we can continue to use fossil fuels, and there are cases (such as airline fuel, plastics, and some fertilizers) where we possibly should or must. But as long as we can reduce the rate at which we use those fuels, we are okay, and in fact it will allow them to last longer. Which brings us back to the common denial alarmist meme, which is that if we stop using FF, civilization will end... and yet by using FF at such a prodigious rate, we are therefore hastening our own destruction.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Can I suggest we all take a less agressive tone towards Gilles? If his questions are genuine, and agressive tone is likely to prevent him from accepting the answer; if he is merely trolling then an aggressive dispute is exactly what he wants, so why give it to him? Either way, the truth is best served by calm answering of his questions (and leave the moderators do deal with anything that strays from the comments policy).
  48. How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    BTW Gilles, in one of your previous rants about how much oil & coal was left to be extracted, someone rightly pointed out that the same is true of blue asbestos-yet we don't mine that anymore due to the obvious health dangers posed. Its interesting though how this analogy can be taken further. You see, long before blue asbestos was finally outlawed, there was *very* strong evidence that the asbestos industry *knew* about the dangers of its products, but did its level best to hide those dangers, & publicly attack anyone who tried to blow the whistle. Indeed, there is evidence that the insurance industry was also aware of the dangers posed by asbestos, as they refused to give insurance to anyone who worked in the asbestos industry-way back in the 1930's. Seems the Denial Industry has been at work for many, many decades-& in many, many industries.
  49. Dikran Marsupial at 23:02 PM on 9 April 2011
    How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
    Giles The total amount of FF consumed integrated over time is not the correct metric to look at. The natural environment has been taking up about half our emissions every year; if the rate of our emission remain below the level that the natural environment can absorb (loosely speaking), then atmospheric CO2 will not rise at an unmanagable rate. Thus if alternatives cut the rate of our emissions sufficienlty, the consumption of FF consumed integrated over time is essentially irrelevant. Burning all the FF is fine, provided we don't do it faster than the environment (possibly with our help) can cope with.
  50. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
    Sphaerica #49 "I'll also readily admit that this is at the edge of the area of interest, and that as one moves north, the angle decreases, but we are not interested in getting anywhere near the pole at this point. We're talking mostly about the Arctic Circle at 75˚N, where the peak angle of incidence would be 38.4˚... still close enough to 40˚ that the albedo of the ocean is substantially different from that of ice. So stop misrepresenting my position to make yourself look smart and your position look tenable." The Arctic circle is at latitude 66.56 degrees N - not 75 degrees N. 90 degrees minus the Earth tilt (23.4 degrees) = 66.6 degrees to one decimal place. Perhaps a bit of Wiki might help: *The Arctic Circle marks the southern extremity of the polar day (24-hour sunlit day, often referred to as the "midnight sun") and polar night (24-hour sunless night). North of the Arctic Circle, the sun is above the horizon for 24 continuous hours at least once per year and below the horizon for 24 continuous hours at least once per year. On the Arctic Circle those events occur, in principle, exactly once per year, at the June and December solstices, respectively.* Now if you stood on one point on the Arctic circle for 24 hours starting at the June summer solstice at noon, you would see the sun at 46.8 degrees incidence. 6 hours later you would see it at 23.4 degrees, at midnight it would be at 0 degrees, 6 hours later at 23.4 degrees and at noon back to 46.8. So the Arctic circle angle of incidence is above your magic 40 degrees for only a couple of hours per day in mid-summer. If you move to 70 degrees N, then the angle of incidence within that circle is *never* above 40 degrees all year round. Now at the equinoxes - September and March you will see the sun at 23.4 degrees at noon, 0 degrees 6 hours later, and -23.4 degrees at midnight (dark). So in 3 months you have moved from 46.8 to 23.4 degrees at noon which if linearized is 7.8 degrees/month. 46.8 - 7.8 = 39 degrees. You will have roughly one month either side of the June solstice where you are seeing the sun above 40 degrees. Similarly of your 24 hour mid-summer day - you will drop roughly 3.9 degrees per hour in incidence angle either side of noon. Only for 4 hours a day will you be above 40 degrees in midsummer. When the two effects are combined - the upshot is that on the Arctic circle you will only be above 40 degrees sun incidence angle for maximum 4 hours a day at the solstice for only 2 months of the year at noon. Furthermore, if you compare the Arctic circle with the Equator, the rough exposure time above 40 degrees incidence is approximated as - Arctic Circle : 2/12 (months) x 4/24 (hours) = 0.028 ie 2.8% of the year. Equator : 12/12 (months) x 6.7/24 (hours) = 0.28 ie 28% of the year. The annual exposure time over 40 degrees at the Equator is 10 times that at the Arctic circle and at a much higher average incidence angle (between 40 and 90 degrees) You say: "But your position is that the angle of incidence is too low (it's not), the albedo of the Arctic waters is too high (it's not), the length of day doesn't matter (it does), and the duration of sunlight of 3 months for 20 to 24 hours a day is too short (it's not)." So how about putting some numbers on your assertion in the light of the above facts.

Prev  1785  1786  1787  1788  1789  1790  1791  1792  1793  1794  1795  1796  1797  1798  1799  1800  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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