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  1819  1820  1821  1822  1823  1824  1825  1826  1827  1828  1829  1830  1831  1832  1833  1834  Next

Comments 91301 to 91350:

  1. Meet The Denominator
    So Poptech came on SkS's FB page in defence of his 850 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm. Since he kept insisting that the papers by Roger A. Pielke Jr. and his father supported AGW skepticism I decided to read the Rogers' papers on Poptech's list. I've just finished reading "An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere". That paper is skeptical, but not in the fashion of the contrarians. It's more skeptical in the way science in naturally skeptical and analyzes a problem between ground and satellite sensors that climate scientists appear to have been working on for some time now. So, that's one paper that Poptech should remove IMHO.
  2. Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
    Just to add a comment - I have a colleague who has quite a number of years' experience dealing with noise from wind farms. He has a *very* low opinion of the folks pushing "wind turbine syndrome". I think it's much more likely that it's an annoyance issue, rather than a direct physiological effect - although annoyance can lead to stress & the associated physiological impacts that has on the body, and then there are psychosomatic issues as well. However, these are not *directly* caused by the noise from the wind turbines. The fact that everyone who has a financial interest in the turbines is devoid of symptoms also suggests this is the case.
  3. Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
    Oddly enough, I just finished reading "An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere" [Pielke Jr. et al, 2009]. This particular article in combination with this one couldn't have come at a better time. [OT] As for the Pielke Jr. article, I don't think it means what Mr. Poptech thinks it means.
  4. HumanityRules at 15:27 PM on 25 March 2011
    Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
    61 IanC Ooops sorry about the links the solar/climate review is here and it's well worth reading, covering most of the interesting aspects of the science that come up on this website. I would look at the issue from the other direction. I think climate scientist like to understand what happened in the past because it gives them more certainty about the assumptions they are using to project future change. I'd argue that the lower TSI goes the less they are able to explain past change and the less the theory looks complete.
  5. A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
    I'd also like to add my agreement to Glenn's post at #41. One of the most effective policy actions that could be taken would be for a government to legislate that, for example, no new fossil-fuel power stations will be permitted to be built after, say, 2015. Add restrictions on upgrades / enhancements to existing ones too (perhaps only allowing them if it can be demonstrated that renewable options can't do the job), along with a concrete timeframe for phasing out fossil power. If the Australian Government, for example, said that all coal-fired power stations *must* be shut down by 2030, you can bet there'd be a lot of investment in alternative energy sources... Although I'm certain that we'd also hear plenty of howls of protest that all it will do is ensure that Australia goes "back to the stone age" in 2030 when the power gets turned off.
  6. Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
    Read urban heat island effect title..Got it..it answers my questions,,please feel free to remove my above rant..LOL. Thanks.
  7. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    Decades? Ocean cycling is something close to 1000 years. ESNO amounts to ocean/atmosphere heat transfer. You dont see much sign of "draw down" on the OHC to 2000 meters shown in #40 of this thread, let alone total global energy budget.
  8. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    I have been struggling with a concept that seems to be conceded by [--snip--] and [--snip--] alike: that the super el ninio of 98-99 raised global average temperature. At what time scale is the global energy budget reconciled? If the answer is anually, to concede this point means that the ocean-atmospheric system had to draw down some "fossil" savings account to boost the temperature.
  9. The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
    Here's a question. Sceptics often tout the fact that CO2 is a "colourless, odourless gas" as 'evidence' that it can't do any harm - a 'see no evil' kind of thing. We also know that CO2 is *not* colourless in the IR spectrum. Has anyone taken pics in IR to show CO2 emissions from, e.g. power stations, or industry? I imagine by careful selection of the frequency & temperature sensitivity, you could see the plumes from industry against the background glow of the atmosphere.
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Carbon Tracker has maps, movie animations and even their own Youtube channel.

    Not at the fine-grained resolution you want, though.

  10. A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
    Glenn, I agree. Dont build another coal power station is a good way to focus industry on the problem.
  11. A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
    For the record, this article has been re-posted on TreeHugger.
  12. Glenn Tamblyn at 13:14 PM on 25 March 2011
    A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
    An important point to remember when considering the costs of any new renewable and high efficiency plant and equipment. Some opinions make it sound like the cost of all these things will be an additional cost compared to zero cost with BAU. But this overlooks the fact that much of this equipment - Coal power plants, refrigerators, cars - will reach the end of their working life and need to be replaced anyway. So what the cost is really depends on the rate of the change. If it proceeds at the 'mortality' rate of existing plant it is simply the difference in the capital cost of the old vs new technolgy. If we want to make a transition faster, then we have to include the capital losses from equipment being written off early. To this end, one of the key areas to focus on is not building new equipment that isn't renewable & efficient. Each one of these built today is a possible capital loss several decades from now. Their is an important issue wrt to a transition to renewables that is often put forward in the skeptic argument Renewables can't do baseload As various studies have shown, a fully fledged renewable power system, with geographically and climatically dispersed generation and a smart distribution network can meet all power needs. But during the transition when renewables are only a small part of the mix then they do need FF backup. Its a classic Chicken & Egg problem. Existing FF generation will be needed during this transition period to provide the buffering until the new grid is large enough to be self-buffering. So arguments about the limits of renewables at their current scale aren't relevent to the viability of the completed grid. So in order to manage the transition well with minimal economic pain, we need to ramp up deployment of renewables and efficiency improvements as fast as possible preferably much faster than currently, without targeting the shutdown of FF plants initially (except for the really bad ones perhaps). We need them for the transition period. Its building the new equipment that matters. So sights like protesters picketting coal power stations is perhaps misguided. Perhaps picket government and business demanding more and more investment in/deployment of renewables instead
  13. A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
    Well David MacKay's "Sustainable Energy without the hot air" most certainly considers it. Powering Europe from renewables has some pretty major hurdles, technological, environmental, and economic, which tend to be glossed over. I personally suspect nuclear is a better option. Its not clear whether some of these plans are talking about just electricity generation or considering transport fuels as well.
  14. A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
    To add to the WWF study [sorry if it's excessive!]: * Zero Carbon Britain 2030: "A sustainable, secure, efficient Britain can be powered without relying on fossil fuels or nuclear power." http://www.zerocarbonbritain.org/ * Europe could be 100% renewable by 2050. A "super-smart" grid powered by solar farms in North Africa, wind farms in northern Europe, hydro-electric from Scandinavia and the Alps and a complement of biomass and marine energy could render carbon fuels obsolete by 2050. Nuclear energy not needed. http://www.ukmediacentre.pwc.com/News-Releases/Come-sun-rain-or-high-wind-Europe-could-create-a-100-renewable-electricity-supply-by-2050-e5e.aspx + http://www.pwc.co.uk/pdf/100_percent_renewable_electricity.pdf * Providing all Global Energy with Wind, Water, and Solar Power. "We suggest producing all new energy with [Wind, Water and Solar] by 2030 and replacing pre-existing energy by 2050." http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/january/jacobson-world-energy-012611.html + http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/susenergy2030.html + http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030 * Zero Carbon Australia Energy Plan. A ten year roadmap for 100% renewable energy. Baseload energy supplied by renewable sources. Affordable at $8 per household per week. http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org/zero-carbon-australia-2020 * Total Surface Area Required to Fuel the World With 100% Solar + Wind: http://www.landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/127 + responses to the usual nit-picking: http://www.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/esz1u/if_we_were_to_power_the_entire_world_with_solar/c1apasd + http://www.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/esz1u/if_we_were_to_power_the_entire_world_with_solar/c1apfva * Climate 2030: A National Blueprint for a Clean Energy Economy. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/climate-2030-blueprint.html * Germany to become 100% renewable by 2050. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/04/germany-the-worlds-first-major-renewable-energy-economy * The Combined Power Plant. How Germany will provide 100% renewable electricity by 2050. http://www.kombikraftwerk.de/index.php?id=27 * How Germany will achieve 100% clean, safe, renewable energy by 2050 - regardless of what the weather does. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR8gEMpzos4 * Clean Energy 2030. Google's Proposal for reducing U.S. dependence on fossil fuels. http://knol.google.com/k/clean-energy-2030# * Decarbonizing Civilization: Powering the Globe Entirely with Wind Energy by 2050. http://www.energyboom.com/wind/decarbonizing-civilization-powering-globe-wind-energy-2050 * Battle of the grids: how to deliver 68% renewable energy by 2030 and nearly 100% by 2050. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/reports/Battle-of-the-grids/ * Road map to zero carbon, renewable energy in Europe by 2050. "Nuclear and / or coal-with-CCS plants are not essential to decarbonize power while safeguarding system reliability." http://www.roadmap2050.eu/ * UN Report: How Two Per Cent of Global GDP can Trigger Greener, Smarter Growth While Fighting Poverty. http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=659&ArticleID=6902&l=en&t=long * EU Roadmap for moving to a low-carbon economy in 2050. "The share of low carbon technologies in the electricity mix is estimated to increase from around 45% today to around 60% in 2020, including through meeting the renewable energy target, to 75 to 80% in 2030, and nearly 100% in 2050." http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/roadmap/index_en.htm ~~~ Curiously, I've never seen any plan from any independent source that recommends nuclear....
  15. Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
    #98: "wind induced low frequency sound effects are real enough for those affected." That's an interesting turn of phrase. Are the effects of this sound real to all? Or real only to those affected? A study of the so-called wind turbine effect: There is no credible scientific evidence that low levels of wind turbine sound at 1 to 2Hz will directly affect the vestibular system. In fact, it is likely that the sound will be lost in the natural infrasonic background sound of the body. ... The body is a noisy system at low frequencies. In addition to the beating heart at a frequency of 1 to 2Hz, the body emits sounds from blood circulation, bowels, stomach, muscle contraction, and other internal sources. ... “Wind turbine syndrome” is not a recognized medical diagnosis, is essentially reflective symptoms associated with noise annoyance and is an unnecessary and confusing addition to the vocabulary on noise. This syndrome is not a recognized diagnosis in the medical community. There are no unique symptoms or combinations of symptoms that would lead to a specific pattern of this hypothesized disorder. The collective symptoms in some people exposed to wind turbines are more likely associated with annoyance to low sound levels. But of course, there's a wind turbine syndrome website, so it has to be real.
  16. Teaching Climate Science
    #17, Gilles: "computer simulations are never taken as evidence that things are real, ... no real validation that things would have happened like that without anthropogenic forcing." Clearly you do not understand Figure 2. The validation you claim to seek is there (its called matching the models to history). Without anthropogenic forcing, there is no match. But you've said that you're not really here to discuss such scientific goings-on, so you've rendered your own opinions on this question moot.
  17. Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
    "What you have to consider is that base load 24/7 from black coal plant generates electricity for 4-5 cents per kWhr, Gas, Nuclear and Geothermal are in the 8-12 cents range. Wind 7-12 cents (depending on site and without storage)." Apples & oranges Ken. Black Coal is only so cheap because it has received almost 100 years of 100% tax-payer support & a virtual monopoly in most energy markets-yet even then it took several decades for prices to fall below $1/kw-h. Even today Black Coal receives a number of generous tax-payer subsidies, like cheap water, reduced diesel fuel costs, free infrastructure & subsidized waste disposal & land rehabilitation. Yet not only are its supporters unwilling to consider a removal of these subsidies, but they complain about coal's competitors receiving *any* subsidies at all.
  18. A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
    #29, Gilles: "Iceland ... Electricity is already there !!! which is not the case of Hawaii I think." Another bit of fact-free dialog from the world according to Gilles. To burst the bubble with a fact or two: The 2009 Hawaii State Legislature enacted this goal into law by establishing a renewable portfolio standard of 40 percent and an energy efficiency standard of 30 percent by 2030 ... Hawaii ranks third in the nation ... in use of renewable energy relative to the state's total electricity production. In 2009, ... 19 percent of Hawaiian Electric, Maui Electric and Hawaii Electric Light companies’ sales came from renewable energy (including solar water heating) and quantifiable energy efficiency efforts. By 'electricity already there' in Iceland, I presume you mean hydro and geothermal resources? Some of that Icelandic electricity might one day be on its way to a European nation near you.
  19. Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
    "wind induced low frequency sound effects are real enough for those affected." As I've said, though-why aren't people living even *closer* to the wind-farms suffering from the same effects? It seems odd that no-one who has been paid to site wind turbines on their land has suffered ill effects, whilst people up to 20km away claim their health is being impacted. I'd be inclined to suggest that these people are just miffed at having a wind-farm in their niehgbourhood, or are annoyed at not having received money themselves.
  20. A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
    If you ask me, Jevons Paradox sounds over-simplistic. Case in point-I switched all the lights in my house from incandescent to globes to CFL's about 10 years ago. Now aside from the immediate energy savings (I now use about 1/5th of the electricity for my lighting needs than I needed back in the 1990's) there is also the simple fact that I've bought far fewer globes in the past decade than I did in the decade prior because-whereas my CFL's now last anywhere from 2-5 years, my old incandescents needed to be replaced every 2-6 months. So there is an energy saving there too, IMHO.
  21. The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
    Of course, what a lot of people seem to forget is that CO2 isn't the *only* gas you get when you burn coal. Even after years of "cleaning" up emissions, coal-fired power stations are still major sources of Cadmium, Mercury & Radon-not to mention harmful particulate emissions that are believed responsible for asthma & lung disease. So even if the CO2 emitted could be defined as a "colourless, odourless gas, that's essential for life on this plant", you definitely can't say the same for all the other crap that comes with it!
  22. The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
    Caerbannog #18 That was a catchy metaphore. I may use that one!
  23. Philippe Chantreau at 11:07 AM on 25 March 2011
    2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    What's this talk of photons having temperatures in Kelvins? A photon's energy depends on its frequency or wavelength, not on the temperature of its source, which is what Damorbel seems to imply. The better informed here correct me please, as this is the way I see it: the temperature of an EM radiation source affects the spectrum of the radiation and that's about it. An individual photon at a given frequency couldn't care less whether it came from a 5 gazillion degrees source or a light bulb, does it? If it does, how exactly does that manifest? A different spin angular momentum? Or what?
    Moderator Response: There is a common misconception that all photon sources output photons of only a single frequency that is determined by the temperature of the source. In fact, the blackbody radiation curve is a distribution of photons of multiple frequencies, with an increase in temperature causing a shift in that distribution of emitted photons so that more of the higher frequency/energy photons are emitted relative to the lower frequency/energy photons, but there still is emission of photons of multiple frequencies.

    Consequently, when somebody receives a photon of a given frequency, that person can state only the relative probabilities of the temperature of that photon's source. That photon could have come from a source of any temperature. As a commenter said a bit ago, photons do not carry ID cards.
  24. The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
    What are they implying by "colorless"? Is that attribute supposed to make the greenhouse gas better in some way? Sounds racist (yeah I know I'm being silly but so is the article).
  25. A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
    32 Dana, Yet the Pliocene had a CO2 350ppm and was 3-5C hotter, taking into account that i slong equilibrium and only 60% is realised in 100years that leaves 1.8-2.4C for 350ppm. So 450ppm seems a best risky considering what we talking about and seeing the changes already happening would prefer to be far below 2C as well, 1.5C is double what we've had already and that is becoming sobbering.
  26. The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
    Let's say that a privately-owned dam breaks and floods a town. Would the residents be able to sue the dam's owner for flooding the town with "a harmless, colorless liquid that’s essential for life on this planet"?
  27. A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
    Making a country carbon-neutral has very much to do with available technology. Iceland, for example, with about 300 000 inhabitants, has no chance of making electric vehicles for transportation themselves - probably not even biofuels for their fisheries. Not even a big economy like Germany's can develop/produce everything needed itself. But whether opportunities are used, depends much on national (or, in Europe, the EU) policies. For instance, Germany already in 2009 had a 7% biofuel use in transportation, while some other EU countries had virtually zero.
  28. A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
    If the Jevons paradox claims that improving energy efficiency results in higher overall energy use, it's wrong on very basic economic levels. Let's say average fuel efficiency of automobiles rose from 25 mpg to 250 mpg, and average miles driven per person per year was 10,000 just prior. For Jevons paradox to be correct, the average miles driven would have to increase to beyond 100,000 miles. This is somewhat of a simplistic example, as it doesn't take into account the extra energy use required to manufacture the vehicle and dispose of it, or extra road maintenance for any increased miles driven, so the actual number would be somewhat less than 100,000, but one would be hard-pressed to make the numbers work for Jevons paradox. So if auto fuel efficiency did increase tenfold, there would be more miles driven, but nowhere near enough to offset the energy savings. There isn't enough spare time in the day to drive that much. Another reason is the price elasticity of demand, which is fairly inelastic for current gas prices. Just as doubling fuel costs has small effect on reduction in consumption, so would halving fuel costs (even less effect). One can see this in U.S. petroleum consumption from 2005 to 2008. There were huge price increases but only modest reductions in consumption, much of which could be attributed to the declining economy in 2008-2009. There are also fuel efficiency standards that are beginning to take effect. These various factors, however, can't be disentangled easily by eyeballing some numbers. U.S. Primary energy consumption by source
  29. A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
    Re Jevon's paradox: From my experience, the increase in energy use after substantial efficiency improvements is usually some fraction of the saving. As a typical example, people increase indoor temperature after installing heat pumps, resulting in an actual halving of energy consumption rather than the potential (and maybe projected) reduction to a third. In the few cases where total energy use actually increases, there is usually an underlying latent need that now can be met. Generally, it may be a good idea, as CBDunkerson suggests, to introduce policy measures to support the intended changes, but it is not always strictly necessary. What is, generally, necessary, is high enough energy prices to encourage efficient use and avoid too much wasteful use. For instance, what the billionaires of the world spend for personal use, won't make much of a difference. But what the millionaires do, will make a difference. So for a policy to be efficient, it must target them (too). So far, energy use has been way too cheap in most of the world to sufficiently encourage savings and efficiency, but things are changing now.
  30. Daniel Bailey at 10:21 AM on 25 March 2011
    Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
    @ getricks (93) Welcome to Skeptical Science! To put it kindly, your friend is misinformed. Fortunately, you do not have to become climate scientists to become better informed on the Urban Heat Island (or any other issue). That's what Skeptical Science is here for! There is an immense amount of reference material discussed here and it can be a bit difficult at first to find an answer to your friend's questions. That's why we recommend that Newcomers, Start Here and then learn The Big Picture. I also recommend watching this video on why CO2 is the biggest climate control knob in Earth's history. Further general questions can usually be be answered by first using the Search function in the upper left of every Skeptical Science page to see if there is already a post on it (odds are, there is). If you still have questions, use the Search function located in the upper left of every page here at Skeptical Science and post your question on the most pertinent thread. Remember to frame your questions in compliance with the Comments Policy and lastly, to use the Preview function below the comment box to ensure that any html tags you're using work properly. Hope that helps! The Yooper
  31. Teaching Climate Science
    "I see here no real validation that things would have happened like that without anthropogenic forcing." Gilles - I have a great idea for validation. Why dont we stop producing any anthropomorphic forcings and see climate settles to predicted natural forcings?
  32. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    damorbel - the gambit is a way to end the argument. If you arent philosphically prepared to accept experimental evidence as the arbiter, then yes it is a well-deserved attack on you and meant to expose you to other reader of this. On the other hand, if you do accept that reality is the arbiter, then then the game is played like this: An experiment is proposed: (you can propose it). You calculate by any means you like, the outcome of the experiment. I am sure you mean to do within your understanding of physics. Someone else (not you), calculates the experiment via the relevant textbook physics. If you are right, then time for us to help you polish a paper. If textbook is right, then time for you to go back to school and stop complaining the climate scientists dont understand physics.
  33. A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
    ranyl #31 - they're talking about limiting the warming to 2°C, which is around 450 ppm CO2. Realistically even 450 ppm is an extremely ambitious goal at this point.
  34. A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
    If the world took on Ecofys approach and all things went renewable what is the COe2ppm in 2050? Calculating that would mean accumulative adding all the CO2e cost of creating and maintaining the renewables (e.g. trinitrofloride for some PV's, off shore wind maintainence) and the infra structure to support them, plus re-building the entire car fleet and new infra structure necessary for electric cars, plus getting all those batteries and replacing them regularly (what is the environmental costs of all those proposed batteries and their replacements?), plus replacing all white goods with efficient ones, plus all embodeid energy for the materials to renovate homes and build new ones, plus adaptation infra-structure embodied energy, plus replacing extreme weather damage to homes and goods (flood damage), plus any grown biofuels CO2e debt, plus all the CO2 released from burning fossil fuels until 2050 when they are fully replaced and so on. Then consider all the eco-system changes from producing things like tyres, heavy metals, plastics, bricks, rockwool like insulations, copper, water (for cooling smelting processes, embodied water in things due to production (Aral Sea)), waste creation and the associated CO2e disturbances due to those eco-system disturbances and things maybe start to add up and that isn't even starting to address communications (an iphone has a large environmental legacy), increasing population demands, farming, international trading and fishing! Is it possible to get to a safe CO2 concentration (i.e. 350ppm) in the atmosphere by 2050 and still use all that power necessary to maintain the high octane westernised lifestyle?
  35. Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
    Hi again Mr moderator,I promise i wont bother you too much, the fact is i am mr average and am trying to form a firm opinion on this subject,,I put your links to a friend of mine who claims to be in the know and have been discussing this with. He does not accept this as a truthful representation of what is claimed. His exact word are "the term Urban Heat island effect [-----snip------]
    Moderator Response: (Rob P) - Your comment is off-topic, please post on the relevant thread, for instance: Does Urban Heat Island effect exaggerate global warming trends?
  36. A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
    The only way the reports key assumption of 15% lower demand in 2050 could happen is if there is a severe, worldwide recession, making our current recession look like small potatoes.
  37. The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
    Caveat: I am not a lawyer. In common law jurisdictions much of tort law is founded on the principle of a duty of care. In brief, this means that we all owe to each other a duty of care in our general activities. A breach of the duty of care could range from driving a vehicle with a known brakes defect to dumping waste materials in a river. Anybody occupying land has a specific duty in UK law to see that no harmful thing escapes from that land. The principle is of very general application - it includes humans as 'things'. The fact that CO2 is invisible would - I suggest - count in favor of any plaintiff. Industrial emitters of CO2 know daily that they are emitting this gas in large quantities. The average 'legal neighbor' is not aware of the presence and harmful effects of the gas. In the UK there are principles of civil law which lay a greater burden of damages on a misfeasor who by virtue of expertise knows - or should know - more than the average person about the thing complained of. Persistent statements by emitters of CO2 and their agents that CO2 is harmless to humans, good for plants, a natural gas, etc. could be used against them in a court of common law jurisprudence as evidence of fraudulent misstatement. A fraudulent misstatement need not be completely untrue. It need only be shown to have been made in an attempt to persuade the target audience of that statement that the thing complained of is not a cause for concern. Sources: Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100 (26 May 1932)
    Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] UKHL 2 (06 May 1970)
    The sources cited are from the UK case law. Of course, courts in other jurisdictions are not bound by House of Lords decisions - but they are entitled to take the arguments and findings into consideration as guidance. Caveat venditor. Again: I am not a lawyer.
  38. A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
    27 : CB : the great advantage of Iceland is that they have already much more renewable electricity produced than they need - Electricity is already there !!! which is not the case of Hawaii I think.
  39. A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
    concerning the Jevons paradox, the problem can be best viewed as a marginal cost/benefit problem (Nash equilibrium). Starting for the situation given here, with a overall integral consumption of 500 Gt of C , say (I didn't check the figures), what would be the marginal cost 'including all externalities you want and the marginal benefit to burn juste one more t of C ? if you can't demonstrate that cost > benefit everywhere in the world, then nobody can insure that just this t of C won't be burnt. And so on for the next t ...
  40. A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
    Gilles, it isn't a country, but I expect that Hawaii will be one of the first places in the world to fully convert. Currently they get most of their energy by shipping in oil and burning it... which is just insane given their abundance of solar, wind, tide, and geothermal energy sources. Electric cars are also much more viable when you live on an island, which inherently limits how far you will ever need to drive.
  41. A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
    dana#15 I never stated that no country should go to zero FF before Iceland, if some of them succeed in doing that, that's fine for me! I'm just expecting that countries with zero FF and a lot of renewable electricity would be in a much better condition and should be the first ones to achieve that - so i'm eager to look at the speed at which they'll do the transition.
  42. The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
    I don't know if you in Skeptical Science, being largely down in Australia, know about The Washington Times. They are nowhere near as good and reputable a paper as the New York Times and the Washington Post. Rather, they were founded by the 'Moonies' (supporters of 'Reverend' Sun Myung Moon), to support his peculiar world view -- which includes some very conservative ideas: so a lot of neocon propaganda has found its way into print through the Washington Times. This poor and biased coverage of AGW issues is only one example of this trend.
  43. Rob Honeycutt at 08:55 AM on 25 March 2011
    The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
    graphicconception... That would be true but it's a bit of a red herring. If there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere life also can't exist on Earth. If you would like to watch a really great lecture you should try this one by Richard Alley called The Biggest Control Knob. And definitely keep cruising the articles here on SkS. There's a lot of material.
  44. The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
    Earth, CO2 free? But the argument isn't really relevant to anything discussed for reducing emissions. The idea is to find suitable CO2 levels that stabilize the climate to which humans are all adapted to.
  45. The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
    graphicconeption, with 0% atmospheric CO2 most green plants would die. Without those plants most herbivores would starve. Without those herbivores most carnivores and omnivores would starve. Yet life (even human life) would survive in drastically reduced numbers. Of course, on the other hand, with 15% atmospheric CO2 most animals on the planet would collapse bleeding from every orifice and die within a matter of seconds. Most plants would suffocate and die within a matter of days. And the climate impacts would be unimaginable... possibly sufficient to wipe out all life. That said, neither of those scenarios is remotely possible... making the skeptic argument just a red herring.
  46. A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
    Djon, you (like the articles you and les have cited) are making unwarranted assumptions about 'motives' behind citing Jevons paradox. I'm all for energy efficiency improvements. My position is just that they should be tied to price controls such that the efficiency improvement leads to a matching decrease in fuel usage rather than the efficiency change essentially being 'wasted' as people react to the decreased price with increased usage. The plan above proposes that we will be able to reduce all fossil fuel usage by 50% while realizing dramatic reductions in costs. Does that seem realistic to you? If costs go down that significantly why wouldn't people use more energy? We shouldn't go into a massive redesign of the underlying foundation of modern society looking to get the job done on the cheap. Keep prices level (or raise them if you need to) until the conversion is nearly complete and then if you find that costs are lower than is being charged for you can start decreasing costs... provided you are ready to ramp up generation if needed.
  47. graphicconception at 08:42 AM on 25 March 2011
    The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
    I have heard it claimed by skeptics that without CO2 in the atmosphere life on earth as we know it would cease. Is that true? I looked in your list of skeptical arguments but could not find anything that seemed to be relevant.
  48. Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
    A search of the literature reveals that well over 99% of writers since the Ancient Greeks support the theory that the Earth is round. It is obvious that dissenting argument has been quashed, else THE TRUTH would have long since been known. I am still trying to discover who is keeping the secret time travel papers. After all - how could all those people have reached a consensus without a time travel machine? I guess that the same argument holds for the global warming theory: how else did they get Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius and others to sign up to the IPCC consensus that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? /end feeble attempt at humor. ( Sorry for the CAPS. )
  49. A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
    I posted an hour before, and my post disappeared; OK it was in French, but I hope this was not the reason to delete it; so what was the reason?
    Moderator Response: [DB] Pretty much. You may try the French version of this site linked at top. Or, seeing as your English is pretty good, repost it in English here.
  50. A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
    Rob #20 - thanks, I'm using that Chu reference in my next post.

Prev  1819  1820  1821  1822  1823  1824  1825  1826  1827  1828  1829  1830  1831  1832  1833  1834  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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