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  1807  1808  1809  1810  1811  1812  1813  1814  1815  1816  1817  1818  1819  1820  1821  1822  Next

Comments 90701 to 90750:

  1. Weather vs Climate
    johnd #80 Now I managed to download it. Very interesting, indeed. The importance of better skill on interannual and interdecadal predictability has been stressed on the last WCC, and this Japanese paper seems to address it. Their model seem to suggest a good part of this recent warming may be due to SST, but they also say this quantification is outside the scope of the paper, and that SST itself may have risen because of the GHE. I read only abstract and conclusions. Those questions I asked still stand. If one wants to explain GW via SST rise, he will have to reconcile that with the rest of the existing evidence. The energy trapped by GHG (and the temperature rise caused by it) is well understood and directly measured. I assume you understood the relevance of the questions I asked. PS: this paper was based on a model simulation. It does not seem to have bothered you this time.
  2. Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
    Phil - that's not what I said. I'm not saying people won't change their lifestyles. In fact, the way individuals can make sure carbon pricing doesn't impact their wallets is by taking advantage of energy efficiency programs. I'm talking about impacts to the economy as a whole, which will be small, and benefits will outweigh costs. And that's economics, not energy. Energy consumption will have to become more efficient overall as well. I think you're misreading what I'm saying.
  3. A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
    Well here's an interesting article about the future of fuel production.
  4. TimTheToolMan at 11:07 AM on 28 March 2011
    Weather vs Climate
    " I guarantee you the air temperature will drop as the cold water absorbs ambient heat from the air in the building." Of course it will and its through effects like decreased water vapour content and net radiation flow. The water vapour will condense out into the pool taking its heat with it and the difference in radiation means that the net radiation now flows towards the water and away from the atmosphere. But does that heat the pool? No, only to a very tiny extent...the energy simply isn't "sloshed around" in the system as you'd like to believe. Once it leaves the ocean, its going to be radiated away and doesnt wait around until the next La Nina to be put back.
  5. A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
    "the effect on birds deaths due to WindFarms ? Will they same standard be applied to Windfarms as oil?" Let's hope not. Bird deaths and spilt oil Every year at least half a million water birds die from encounters with spilt oil, according to Jay Holcomb, executive director of the International Bird Rescue Research Center in Fairfield, California. Bird deaths in oil sand production facilities A new study says birds are likely dying in Alberta oilsands tailings ponds at a rate that is at least 30 times higher than that suggested by the oil industry. How oil affects birds When a bird encounters oil on the surface of the water, the oil sticks to its feathers, causing them to mat and separate, impairing the waterproofing and exposing the animals sensitive skin to extremes in temperature. This can result in hypothermia, meaning the bird becomes cold, or hyperthermia, which results in overheating. Instinctively, the bird tries to get the oil off its feathers by preening, which results in the animal ingesting the oil.
  6. Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
    "I examined economic studies, and found that carbon pricing has a small economic impact, and in fact its benefits outweigh its costs several times over, as we've seen in real-world examples." Dana, Saying that mitigating or adapting to climate change will bear no economic costs is deluding ourselves.In fact, the whole point of mitigation measures such as carbon taxation or ETS is to impact on people's wallets so that they change their behaviour. But fundamentally, economic "growth" is the root cause of runaway carbon emissions as well as other environmental impacts ( degradation of landscapes, natural habitats, destruction of renewable respources and natural ecoservices).... My point here is that we are not addressing the fundamental problem of " externalities" by saying to the public: You can vote for climate change measures and it will not impact your "lifestyle". It would be better if the economic argument of climate change action emphasised the devastating effect of economic growth overall and called for a review of the current economic model which is focussed on material wealth rather than well being.
  7. Weather vs Climate
    Tim, Let's say we have an empty olypmic sized (because I always demand the best) interior swimming pool. The air temperature in the building is at 22C. We then quickly fill the pool with water at a temperature of 5C. I guarantee you the air temperature will drop as the cold water absorbs ambient heat from the air in the building. That's how the temperature in a water-cooled engine is maintained. The liquid is kept at a lower temperature so it can absorb heat from the engine and prevent it from overheating.
  8. TimTheToolMan at 10:27 AM on 28 March 2011
    Weather vs Climate
    "How does this happen? Since cold is in fact the absence of heat (meaning you can't "add" cold to the atmosphere) atmospheric heat is drawn into the cold water upwelling from the ocean." No. Atmospheric heat doesn't get "drawn" into the cold water at all. The energy from the earth system is ultimately just gone. Radiated away. The cold water effects the weather with whatever effects that come along with it...Stuff like reduced atmospheric water vapour content is likely, cloud coverage changes, pressure changes cause blockings to change and so on. The cold water is eventually warmed again by downward shortwave radiation (ie direct from the sun) and the quasi-periodic cycle starts again.
  9. Weather vs Climate
    Alexandre at 10:10 AM, it may take time to download, otherwise do a Google search for the title. This study may not answer the questions you have asked, but it may cause you to rethink what questions need to be addressed.
  10. Weather vs Climate
    johnd #74 The link did not work. I'll try again later, it does not seem to be broken at its origin. But in light of it, and assuming that you read and understood it, how would you answer those questions I asked in my previous post (#73)?
  11. A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
    "The current state of WindFarms shows some cause for concern" Ah, that old myth is back again. In the US, Wind Farms account for about 10,000 to 40,000 deaths per annum-which amounts to barely 1 death per year per MW of installed capacity. Of course, that figure has an upward bias because it includes the many thousands of older Wind Turbines that really *did*-& still do-cause a lot of bird deaths, due to poor siting, poor colouring & smaller, faster spinning blades. Wind Farms built in the US, post-2000, have a bird fatality rate much, much lower than the national average due to major improvements in siting, better colour schemes & larger, slower moving blades. For a comparison, though, windows kill between 100 million & 1 billion birds per year in the US. Automobiles kill 60-80 million birds per year & oil extraction kills around 3 million birds per year. So, compared to other human activities, Wind Farms have very little impact on bird populations. Indeed, Wind farms even compare favourably to other forms of electricity generation, with Nuclear power causing almost twice as many deaths-per GWh-than wind (about 0.5 deaths vs 0.25), & about the same number of deaths as coal per GWh (about 0.22 for coal-without considering impacts of climate change-vs 0.25 for wind). Of course, as older wind farms are replaced with newer, more bird friendly turbines, the deaths per GWh figure for wind will almost certainly fall below 0.2. Of course, Stevee, if Wind Power was such a bane to bird life as you claim, then why does every Bird Preservation Society in the world give Wind Power such a big thumbs up? Of course, this endorsement does come with the caveat that the industry keep striving to reduce bird fatalities still further, but I doubt they'd side with a source of electricity generation that was so bad for the wildlife they're sworn to protect!
  12. Weather vs Climate
    Tim, During La Niña, the easterly trade winds strengthen and cold upwelling along the equator and the West coast of South America intensifies. Sea-surface temperatures along the equator can fall as much as 7 degrees F below normal. We also see that in certain parts of the world such as North America average atmospheric temperatures fall. How does this happen? Since cold is in fact the absence of heat (meaning you can't "add" cold to the atmosphere) atmospheric heat is drawn into the cold water upwelling from the ocean. No, the sun doesn't dribble energy at the planet, it radiates it. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap a certain amount of that radiation, causing a radiative imbalance (temporarily more coming in than going out). The planet responds by heating up, thus radiating more energy and eventually achieving a new radiative balance. Yes the amount of energy entering and leaving the planet is enormous. Increasing CO2 traps a relatively small amount of energy that would otherwise have been radiated back into space, but that energy accumulates over years and decades and eventually begins to impact the greater climate.
  13. Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
    Ah, I remember your first post Dana :) I can feel the nostalgia now. Glad I could contribute to your work here even before I became an author!
  14. TimTheToolMan at 09:43 AM on 28 March 2011
    Weather vs Climate
    "During a La Nina heat from the atmosphere is essentially transferred to the oceans." No. Quite apart from the fact the atmosphere doesn't heat the oceans to any appreciable extent at all, this is a fundamental misunderstanding many people have with regards the energy flows around the earth. Your view comes across as if the sun dribbles energy to the earth which mostly holds it and lets some go to keep in balance and it lets less go with additional CO2 keeping it here. The fact is that the energy flow through the earth is MASSIVE. Three times per day the earth receives and then radiates away the same amount of energy it has accumulated over the last 100+ years.
  15. Weather vs Climate
    Trueofvoice at 09:23 AM, you don't feel that the oceans also interfere in that, when they remove heat from the atmosphere, that heat cannot be liberated to space, fast or slowly, and only when the oceans do release heat can that heat then be liberated to space?
  16. Weather vs Climate
    "Trueofvoice : so you agree that energy conservation does *not* imply a constant average surface temperature ? " It DOES imply zero trend in temperature over long period.
  17. A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
    Straw man. To reduce rate of climate change, you dont need to replace all fossil fuel use immediately. Just that in fairness, the big cuts need to be made in the West. (cue for Gilles to go off-topic on social justice issue). As to hazard, well looking at WG2, I'd say yes. (and if a warmist used comparison of migration to climate change, I doubt you would have much trouble refuting it).
  18. Weather vs Climate
    Alexandre at 23:23 PM, perhaps you should read the paper "Impact of Global Ocean Surface Warming on Seasonal-to-Interannual Climate Prediction" that I linked in an earlier post in this thread "johnd at 06:49 AM on 27 March, 2011". It might assist your own understanding of climate modeling. Incidentally, I think the behavior of buyers, and sellers, is extremely predictable, as reflected by the ability of some of the more astute investors of the world to always be ahead of the market. Whilst the study focuses on the time scales the title indicates, what those who conducted the study allow us to appreciate is that as our awareness of all the factors involved increases, the uncertainty widens. Here is an excerpt:- "Based on atmospheric model simulations with historical sea surface temperature (SST) forcing only, Compo and Sardeshmukh (2009) have found that most of the land warming in recent decades is caused by SST rise rather than by its local response to increasing GHG forcing. We note that the SST warming itself may be driven by both the increasing GHGs forcing and slowly-varying natural processes (Solomon et al. 2007). The SST change was found to play a dominant role in determining the land/ocean warming contrast probably via complex hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections (Joshi et al. 2008; Compo and Sardeshmukh 2009; Dong et al. 2009)."
  19. Weather vs Climate
    johnd #67 said: if you feel that CO2 dominates the climate, to what lesser degree do you relegate the oceans. Oceans don't have the ability to affect the energy balance of the planet. Surface temperature will be affected by ocean cirulations, but the amount of energy of the climate system will remain approximately the same. The greenhouse effect, OTOH, affects how much energy goes out. And if you attribute the current warming to the oceans, how do answer these questions: - What ocean oscillation became suddenly warmer now then on the last millennium or two? - Why did the outgoing longwave radiation diminish on the last decades? - Why did backradiation become more intense? - Why did IR radiation trapped by GHG have no effect on temperature this time?
  20. Weather vs Climate
    Trueofvoice : so you agree that energy conservation does *not* imply a constant average surface temperature ?
  21. Weather vs Climate
    Tim, no matter. While you provide a forcing (eg heat from underneath/more CO2 in the atmosphere) then the pot will heat till its temperature enables energy in = energy out. Yes, climate is more complicated because its sensitivity is harder to tie down with the internal feedbacks, but heat it will. Now by what physical process, can you get a sensitivity so low that you manage only 2 degrees per 500 years for realistic emissions? This violates the physics as captured by models, the observed sensitivity for post-1970 temperature rise and constraints from the paleo record? You need some so far unknown negative feedback. Too risky for me.
  22. Weather vs Climate
    Tim, During a La Nina heat from the atmosphere is essentially transferred to the oceans. During an El Nino heat is transferred from the oceans to the atmosphere. The heat doesn't go away, it just moves to another part of the planet. Energy only leaves the planet via radiation into space, and this is exactly the process that GHGs interfere with.
  23. A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
    So basically, you're arguing that mankind would have much less difficulties to replace 80 % of its energy sources, than to face a few degrees more on the Earth? the weird thing is that when I look at individual persons, I would be inclined to think exactly the opposite. Strangely enough, your own ancestors must have left spontaneously at some time a temperate and rainy country to go living in a much hotter and desert one... certainly a much brutal change for them than any local climate change .. and apparently they must have been rather successful yet !
  24. TimTheToolMan at 08:51 AM on 28 March 2011
    Weather vs Climate
    "That's a very strangely qualified statement. Any timescale that we care about?" Would you feel the same if it turned out the majority of observed warming so far was in fact natural and that CO2 was actually expected to increase global temperatures by around 2C after 500 years or more with cuts in emissions that reflected a controlled steady move away from fossil fuels rather than a frantic ill considered one?
  25. TimTheToolMan at 08:45 AM on 28 March 2011
    Weather vs Climate
    @Trueofvoice "No matter how many ENSOs, or how powerful, in the end they do nothing more than shift the heat around." Thats clearly not the case though is it. During La Nina, global temperatures drop and during El Nino they rise. We measure this and its generally accepted. @scaddenp "Could you predict when the kettle will boil? (climate) yes. " No. Didn't you notice that the pot was much taller than you thought and that heat loss from the sides means that the flame isn't powerful enough to boil the water? There are many very large assumptions about whether climate can be predicted. Dont lose sight of that.
    Moderator Response: You have managed to start your comment on topic and end it off topic. See "Models are Unreliable."
  26. Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
    Unfortunately this is not a proposal that will be taken up by Australia, which is currently engaged in maximising extraction and export of fossil fuels - a boom that goes unopposed. Australia is struggling to get even it's ageed to minimal 5% reduction of domestic emissions by 2020 through the political process. The politicking is ugly with opponents building on a strong basis of mis- and dis- information with plenty of big media support. I believe that it's both possible and essential that the kind of remake of energy infrastructure and energy usage patterns this proposal represents occur, however I am in a minority. And it's a minority that simply cannot compete with the influence of an Australian fossil fuel lobby that has successfully prevented any political will to limit the continuing growth of their industry. Any serious attempts to do so are politically impossible within our fossil fuel dependent nation.
  27. Freedom of Information (FOI) requests were ignored
    Welcome to real world. If you (taxpayer from country x) have paid for data in taxes, then certainly demand for it be public. What about data from country y? Did you pay for that? How do you get a global record without access to country x,y,z etc? Now in many countries, met services are semi-commercial. Part tax payer, part from selling data and forecasts to media, farmers, airlines. If you want their data, then you need a contract with them for it. For research purposes, you might get it free - provided you dont make it public. Anything in UK is public, so FOI requests were for data from other sources. In my country, science is done by government-owned private companies. Income from research contracts with government but also heavily from commercial work. Public gets the data that the research contract specifies for free. No more.
  28. Weather vs Climate
    Trueofvoice at 01:55 AM, if you feel that CO2 dominates the climate, to what lesser degree do you relegate the oceans. The oceans store and move an immense amount of heat energy, apparently more than can even be accounted for. If we are to accept that the "missing" heat needed to balance the equations is somewhere in the oceans, then we must also accept that as long as the ocean currents circulate, that "missing" heat will reveal and perhaps manifest itself causing the currently balanced equations to be rebalanced.
  29. Temp record is unreliable
    Try the links at: here and here Way to go, by the way. Nothing better than getting your hands dirty with the real data. Just be sure to read up the metadata and also data processing, especially homogenising. Any long term record will have changed thermometers, screens, maybe location, reading time, many many times. Its not a trivial job doing those corrections. Homogenised records can be got from GHCN sources.
  30. A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
    Did the study estimate the effect on birds deaths due to WindFarms ? Will they same standard be applied to Windfarms as oil ? The current state of WindFarms shows some cause for concern.
  31. Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
    Ken Lambert at 00:13 AM, the point you make about where what competitive advantage we still have comes from is all too true, but something many seem oblivious of. We have seen our manufacturing industries virtually all move offshore because labour, and the skills they might have had, are not finite resources that we could continue to monopolise like we once could, instead the world supply is rapidly heading to oversupply. Thus, as apparently only dinosaurs are able to appreciate, we are left with little option but to exploit what finite resources we very fortunately do have. Sooner or later a major readjustment is going to be required to allow our standard of living to reflect our true rung on the world ladders of productivity and prosperity. One way or another we are going to have to learn to live with the equivalent of about half the income we currently enjoy. Even if renewable power eventually can be cheaper than FF,it is already too late for us here.
  32. Temp record is unreliable
    I'd like to be able to graph historical met station data for a given site over its entire history. So far, I have not yet found access to such a data collection Chris Shaker
  33. We're heading into an ice age
    Regarding whether or not we are heading into another ice age, my buddy's son, Jed Kaplan, is a climate scientist who believes that mankind has been changing the environment for at least 8,000 years, reversing the declining temperatures we experienced during this interglacial. He and palaeoclimatologist William Ruddiman believe that the agriculture of early mankind changed the CO2 level and helped stabilize our climate against the start of the ice age http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110325/full/news.2011.184.html "Proposed by palaeoclimatologist William Ruddiman in 2003, the theory says that human influences offset the imminent plunge into another ice age and helped create the relatively stable climate that we are familiar with today" If that is true, we need to learn to better control our environment by better controlling our CO2 emissions, ie - not just by cutting it. We would need to manage it, figuring out what level of emissions is needed to stabilize temperatures, and be able to mange our CO2 emissions to match. Climate control... Chris Shaker
  34. Freedom of Information (FOI) requests were ignored
    Why should we have to file Freedom of Information Requests to get data that taxpayers already paid for? As far as I'm concerned, no one should get their research grant until all data has been made public. Maybe pay half the grant up front, and not release the remainder until all of the data has been published? Chris Shaker
  35. Temp record is unreliable
    I've been looking for long term historical data from climate records for specific met sites that I can download and graph on my own. So far, Google has not provided. I did find and read some nice Wikipedia entries on Climate records, controversies about same, and more about the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth_Surface_Temperature Also found access to "Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850" http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/HadCRUT3_accepted.pdf I would appreciate pointers to raw data that we can download ourselves. Chris Shaker
    Moderator Response: Go to RealClimate.org. Click the Data Sources link in the horizontal bar at the top of that page.
  36. Models are unreliable
    "a set of models superimposed to data is enough to believe them- I don't. " No, but if they didn't match it would be good reason to disbelieve them. There is no way to "prove" a model is reality, but continuing success of model does increase confidence. Model validation is done in rather more complex ways than just global temperature trends including testing the physics of all the components. However, could any paper or data cause you to change your mind and decide we did need to act to limit CO2 - or you would always just find debating tricks to excuse such an action?
  37. Weather vs Climate
    Tim, repeating earlier comment: "Tell, if you put a large kettle on to hot flame, could you will all the computer modelling in the world accurate predict the convective flow within that pot? Not likely, though you might predict the pattern. (the weather) Could you predict when the kettle will boil? (climate) yes. "
  38. A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
    The Ville at 00:33 AM, you have gone off on a tangent. My observation of accommodating two variables as being harder and costlier in no way construes it as being impossible, merely how it compares relative to not having to accommodate two variables. Unless we can recognise and evaluate the options available, sorting out those that are less hard and less costlier from those that are more hard and more costlier, then we are likely to be continually blindly led down the wrong paths, which unfortunately seems to be an increasingly frequent occurrence with many governments of the developed world.
  39. Rob Honeycutt at 05:20 AM on 28 March 2011
    A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
    ClimateWatcher... If you click the link in Dana's article related to Steven Chu you'll see that they are projecting that solar with be cost competitive without subsidies by the end of the decade. That should be a major game changer.
  40. ClimateWatcher at 04:42 AM on 28 March 2011
    A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
    Solar makes sense: 1. for situations where the power is used when it is generated (schools, businesses that operate during daylight ) 2. for situations where the power is used where it is generated so that it does not require additional footprint for distribution. That means rooftops - and -not- the large generating farms. 3. for situations where the generation does not require huge amounts of water - which means localized PV and not thermal plants. 4. to a limited amount where the daytime capacity does not exceed the nighttime demand so that plants can operate at max efficiency. Otherwise, one is decreasing efficiency which increases cost and carbon intensity. 5. to the extent that we don't have to tear up all the ocean floor digging out the trace minerals necessary for the chinese to build us PV cells. 6. Passive solar makes sense everywhere. As I have posted, I don't believe CO2 is a problem, but if active solar can be cost competitive ( it still isn't after many decades ), we should use it.
  41. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Phillippe @863 - Didn't you know - Global Warming is caused by glow-worms. :-)
  42. Rob Honeycutt at 03:46 AM on 28 March 2011
    Weather vs Climate
    TTTM said... "The view that CO2's effect as a GHG will necessarily dominate over any timescales that we care about is a naive one." That's a very strangely qualified statement. Any timescale that we care about? I believe the point is that we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a rate that it is overwhelming the natural radiative balance and causing the planet to warm. I don't believe that is a naive statement in any way.
  43. Philippe Chantreau at 03:24 AM on 28 March 2011
    2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    LJR: "Q1)What is the SW radiation emissivity of the earths surface?" What? Why would one even ask such a question is baffling.
  44. Weather vs Climate
    Gilles #58: "has the rise been unlikely close to Hansen's predictions, or not?" Skip the ambiguity; take these questions to the relevant thread, where there is graphical evidence that your doubts are ill-founded. "you cannot always find clear validations of theories." In this case, theory predicts trend (climate) rather than specific events (weather). Short-sighted individuals who focus on individual events do not look carefully enough to see those trends. Perhaps it is a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees?
  45. A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
    Gilles, you're certainly right about Oz and USA consumption. Our houses are dreadfully designed and built for this (or any) environment. We have far and away the biggest carbon footprint of the OECD countries, Canada's between us and the USA. I don't think we can continue to have the biggest houses in the world. Most Australian capital cities are on the list of 10-15 least affordable places to live in the world - that can't continue. OTOH, insulation, ventilated roofs to remove the heat reservoir in our ceiling spaces, passive environmentally sensible design should remove most of the 'need' for our excessive use of air conditioners. I don't have one but have an old house with very, very high ceilings. Livable in all but the very worst heatwaves. And I'm a lot more optimistic than you about the declining cost of wind and solar. I'm also very impressed by technologies like metal roof panels precoated with solar collecting material and similar window films. Not economic yet, but soon, very soon. My preference for places with ludicrously high consumption like ours is major investment in negawatts, rather than alternative sources to maintain our totally unnecessary consumption (esp of that diabolical brown coal used in Victoria.) Though here we get 15% of our power from wind already and the only reason it's not more is grid inadequacy near a couple of prime wind generating sites. Basically I'm more optimistic than you. Equally, I'm irritated by people insisting on staying with what I see as primitive technology. No matter how you cut it, burning stuff to initiate other processes that eventually finish up producing power is Victorian. The fact that we build bigger and better with more concrete can't change the fact that this is crude technology. I prefer sophisticated.
  46. Weather vs Climate
    Tim, No matter how many ENSOs, or how powerful, in the end they do nothing more than shift the heat around. They do not produce or eliminate it. CO2 dominates climate because it controls the planet's radiative energy balance. The more CO2 we add to the atmosphere, the greater the energy imbalance and the more heat we get. The energy imbalance can be measured and projected into the future as we continue to add GHGs to the atmosphere. This is basic physics.
  47. A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
    rhj #23: "Wind farms in the UK have been turned off because they caused havoc with the main grid supply as the supply fluctuated with wind changes." I'll see that non-specific example with a specific one. Texas had a freeze in early February; mechanical issues with freezing water pipes caused a number of coal-fired plants to go off-line. Natural gas shortages (in Texas, no less!) prevented backup generators from starting. A series of 'rolling blackouts' began statewide on what was one of the coldest days of the year. Unlike these unreliable fossil fuel plants, the wind kept sweepin' down the plain: Wind energy played a critical role in limiting the severity of the blackouts, providing enough electricity to keep the power on for about three million typical households. ERCOT, the Texas grid operator, has confirmed that wind energy was providing between 3,500 and 4,000 MW of electricity (about seven percent of ERCOT demand at that time), roughly what it was forecast and scheduled to provide, during the critical 5–7 a.m. window on [Feb. 2] when the grid needed power the most. --- Texas climate news, 2 Feb 11 Despite progress, Texas remains the state with the highest CO2 emissions in the US. ERCOT reported last month that wind-generated power had increased to 7.8 percent of the electricity used in Texas during 2010, compared to its 6.2 percent share in 2009. Coal produced the most electricity last year with 39.5 percent, followed by natural gas, the 2009 leader, which was down to 38.2 percent. -- same source We're all used to cheap, amply available fossil fuels; perhaps our judgment is clouded by that history. The situation will no doubt be different as we slide along the downwards side of an energy supply curve. Perhaps resistance to change is highest in places that have neither experienced the damage done by lost supply nor the benefits of available alternatives.
  48. A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
    johnD: "It's a lot harder, and costlier, to accommodate two variables." It's not hard. If you take that attitude then everything is hard and we would have never have developed any system we have today. If you go back to the 1940s then playing music from files on a silicon chip would have seemed like science fiction (it was science fiction, because that was exactly what science fiction authors wrote about). What really annoys me is the idea that: 1. People are stuck in some sort of time warp in which nothing can possibly change and we must have what we have today. 2. People are dumb and all the technology we have today magically appeared from no where. Just in the UK alone we have two completely new energy storage technologies being developed/researched. And it was only a few days ago that new developments in better battery cathodes promises extremely quick charging times for existing battery technologies. What I find extremely puzzling, is that skeptics are optimistic about future climate and pessimistic about any new technology developments that would replace existing technology. Or rather maybe it should not be puzzling, given vested interests and a complete cynicism about science. Yet these same people lap technology up once it is universal. IMO you have to make your mind up, get on with the job of changing, or just go and sit in a cave somewhere. You have those two choices. Isentropic energy storage: http://www.isentropic.co.uk/
  49. Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
    Marcus & Adelady As johnd again correctly points out - there is a world price for coal because it is a traded commodity produced in many nations. Demand has been increasing rapidly - so the price is at high levels and our dastardly miners are making big profits. Remember Rudd's 'Mining Super Profis Tax' - it was designed to cash-in on the boom. So our miners are just 'giving' our heavily subsidized coal to the Chinese like a fire sale of the family silver?? Well in that case all the other world producers must be 'heavily subsidized' by their governments too - so they can compete with us! Hello?? Sounds like Pauline Hansen Economics 1.01 to me. Have you ever heard of State Royalties which act as a straight turnover tax and Company Tax which taxes profit just like any other company? Marcus: Time for you to put some numbers on your assertions. How about the cost of Wind generation including the storage technologies (molten salt, compressed air or pumped hydro - or whatever). Cents per kWhr will do. And all those landfills across the country just happen to be able to back-up Wind generators when they don't generate. Let us know the cost of this too in cents per kWhr. One free service dinosaurs like me perform, is to point out that our main competitive advantage in this real cruel world is our relatively cheap and abundant fossil fuel (black coal and gas). Input energy from Wind, Solar or other renewables to our industries and domestic economy at 2-10 times the current cost and see what happens to our standard of living. I am all for energy saving and efficiency measures such as building insulation, smart storage of heat, light bulbs, 6 star ratings etc - but these must all make economic sense with the current cost (and projected future cost) of energy.
  50. Weather vs Climate
    johnd #62 The behaviour of a buyer is far more unpredictable than that of a gas. I suggest you get more familiar with what climate models are all about (btw, this could be a suggestion for a future post here at SkS). It's just a calculation with very well established laws of physics. Now, you cannot predict daily weather very accurately, but you can predict its long term average quite well, given the boundary conditions. If you add a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, you can calculate (and measure) more IR radiation being trapped. You can calculate the temperature difference. You can estimate within uncertainty ranges how water vapor will respond. It's not like trying to guess how the market will behave. You can't say for sure if it will rain on the Amazon on Dec 12th, but you can state quite confidently that December will have far more rain in the Amazon than in the Sahara. Why?

Prev  1807  1808  1809  1810  1811  1812  1813  1814  1815  1816  1817  1818  1819  1820  1821  1822  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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