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  1828  1829  1830  1831  1832  1833  1834  1835  1836  1837  1838  1839  1840  1841  1842  1843  Next

Comments 91751 to 91800:

  1. The True Cost of Coal Power
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita German people produce 9.6 tCO2/yr/capita, whereas French produce only 6. Of course it is easier to improve when you're very bad at the beginning. Even Denmark produces 9.2 (and bad chinese people only 4.9). The only methods that have proved to be efficient to reduce (in some measure) CO2 production are hydroelectricity and nuclear power, that's it. All the rest is totally unable to power a modern country, despite everything you can read.
  2. Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
    ranyl, as Bern explains, there is no mechanism for carbon sinks to respond directly to CO2 emissions from human industry. The absorption rate of natural carbon sinks is instead driven by the total atmospheric CO2 level. Think of it as an osmotic process... the higher the imbalance between atmospheric and (for instance) oceanic carbon concentration the faster the net transfer of carbon between the two. As the two approach equilibrium the transfer rate slows. It gets complicated in this case because the carbon content of the ocean surface is currently much higher than that of the deep ocean... we have been adding carbon to the atmosphere, and thus indirectly to the ocean, more quickly than it can disperse throughout the total volume of ocean water. Thus, if emissions were to stop we would first hit an equilibrium between atmospheric and ocean surface carbon and then very slowly drift towards a lower equilibrium point as the ocean surface concentration (and hence atmospheric concentration) decreased as the carbon disperses through deeper water. In short, the carbon we have emitted thus far locks us into to atmospheric CO2 levels higher than the previously semi-stable level of about 280 ppm for tens of thousands of years... but if we stopped emitting we would see a significant drop in atmospheric levels in the short term followed by a long slow decline. It is the level at the start of the slow decline which we need to worry about as that will be what we are 'stuck with' on timescales long enough for all feedbacks to come into play.
  3. Teaching Climate Science
    Figure 2 is not garbage. It's just illustrative of computer scientist's world. Simulate something. Change a parameter. You build another world. No idea if it is real or not - and no way to check it. Don't mind.
    Moderator Response: Your comment belongs on the thread "Models are unreliable."
  4. Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
    grypo : but do you agree that if the proxies cannot reproduce the most recent warming, it is very uncertain to use them as evidence that they weren't similar warm periods 1000 years ago, if error bars are large ? for me, it's a rather simple conclusion based on usual scientific method - it is just an unreliable indicator, period. I can't understand why it would have become precisely unreliable just when you're measuring a new effect - that's undoubtedly a worrying issue.
  5. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Tom Curtis, you and the others here are doing sterling work but I wonder to what end. This has become like a thread that involves Poptech : circular and pointless. As you say, it is creating an illusion of some sort of debate, which is incomprehensible to the vast majority of people who understand that the greenhouse effect does not break any physical laws. Perhaps it is time to ask and demand answers to certain basic, and on-topic questions, from the so-called skeptics, with anything else being deleted as off-topic and time-wasting ? They would scream censorship, no doubt, but I believe the rest of us would welcome the decline in time-wasting nonsense - as I'm sure you would welcome the ability to concentrate on other matters !
  6. The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
    The Sahel reference I omitted earler. Sorry
  7. The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
    Wood is not a fossil material, it's part of the carbon cycle, as are dung and candle wicks and waxes. We know it's a bad idea to burn wood and dung in badly designed stoves. There are 2 options. One is to provide high quality stoves which burn more efficiently and thus produce less soot. This has the double advantage of reducing the lung cancer rate in countries where women who cook in unventilated homes over smoky stoves die unnecessarily early, painful deaths from lung diseases. The other option is to also provide better stoves, but with 'better' fuels. Unfortunately, most such programs tend to be expensive both for the providers and for the people who have to, some time or another, start paying the full price of that fuel. I suspect wider use of programs like the Sahel approach of growing smallish trees within crops allows production of fuel, both for home use and for sale, as well as improving cropping. The right kind of wood also provides building and fencing materials. Teaching those who don't yet have the skill about drying wood for best burning results and better placement and design of cooking stoves can take care of the rest of the problem.
  8. The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
    How do you measure the effects of non industrialized nations where the people burn fecal matter, candles and wood for heat and light energy? Does it actually make sense to wood that has no pollution prevention vs using a light from a monitored fossil fuel technology? Should the light user pay for carbon damages while a wood burner user does not and also contributes to soot and other pollution?
  9. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    736 - Tom Curtis "First, are they amongst the PR consultants which are known to be paid by some firms to create a haze of spurious disputation around sites that explain the truth about global warming?" Come on, get serious - no one would pay good money for contributions like those, surely!
  10. Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
    75 Giles "And I am not saying that the difference between median and average is obscure to me. I say that your argument is obscure, because it has been never stated by Summers that the important distinction was between average and median, and you didn't gave any support for that." but the difference is clearly obscure to you. median is an average, as is mean. Just how hard is that? The Summers link is a pretty high powered economist, I've no doubt that the difference isn't obscure to him - but, as I pointed out, it was a casual interview... and as such an easy target to someone who can only argue by sniping. Anyway, clearly you're following the general point as you've presented some data(!) - which I assume shows GDP and oil consumption averaged by taking the total and dividing it by the population - which is the mean - just so as it's not obscure ;) So, a nice graph showing that US and EU-27's increase in GDP is absolutely not correlated in any way shape or form to rate of oil consumption. And South Koreas fell out of correlation at 2 g/day. Further, so far as South Korea did ever follow a correlation curve, as did/does India and China - they are different curves... That shows that could be taken to show that any causal affect that might exist at some time is substantially under-determined by just considering oil consumption (otherwise the curves would be the same); all in all this shows that oil consumption is a week factor of production. So, that's a fail on point 1/ in my post 72. Now, for obscure arguments... your "death line" - I presume you mean the curve following South Korea, more or less? The line China seems to break? Is that it? If that is what you mean by "death line", then that's a fail for point 2/ in post 72. Of course, the other side of the argument (2/) on the table is that there are no substitutes (sorry, another technical ecnomics term) ... and that's clearly not demonstrated in your post... but I'll wait... I have faith in you. Anyway, well done on having a go at presenting data - I hope all those who said you couldn't do it are feeling shame right now!
  11. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    scaddenp @727, it is quite obvious from the way they discuss the topic that neither LJRyan nor Damorbel are interested in resolving the issues being contested here. Rather their intent appears to be to prolong discussion to create the appearance of rational dispute. It is a sham, of course, because their responses to arguments are neither rational, nor responsive. Instead there strategy appears to be merely to deflect and distract from core issues. This raises three issues. First, are they amongst the PR consultants which are known to be paid by some firms to create a haze of spurious disputation around sites that explain the truth about global warming? Second, how should site administrators respond to such evidently troll like behaviour given that they know that at least some such behaviour is paid for verbiage rather than reflecting genuine opinions? And third, as participators at a site, should we ignore their responses given that we recognise that their disputation is strategic rather than genuine? My answer to the third question is that it is better to not leave their responses unanswered, at least until they have exposed themselves as the empty shams they undeniably are.
  12. Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
    @Giles #37 to your question, "how do you prove they were reliable before 1900 ?" This is getting somewhat off-topic, but still has something to do with temperature. But when discussing 'proof' in an uncertain science, it is much more reasonable to use terms like 'degrees of certainty' or 'confidence'. There is no way to 'prove' that tree rings are exact matches for temperature, but the degree of confidence is given to dendro-proxies by how well they match up with other proxies. Does that mean that the entire sequence is definitely correct for that particular Briffa proxy? No. That is why you see the larger error bars around the warm periods. I found this review paper to be helpful in understanding the issues surrounding divergence.
  13. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Damorbel @726: Response to 613: As very clearly shown in 676, the radiant energy transfers are isomorphic with the radiant energy transfers in the third model of 676. The third model is an actual example of the GHE. Because of the isomorphism of energy transfers, it follows that the model of 613 is a model of the third model of 613, and hence a model of the greenhouse effect. It is good to see you endorsing LJRyan's answer at 619, however. He claims there that A=B. It follows that as C + D = B (by definition of half mirrored) and C = D (by definition of half mirrored) that C =/= B and hence C =/= A. But C = A by definition of equilibrium. So on LJR (and your) analysis of the box, C both equals and does not equal A. A contradiction that clearly proves your analysis to be false. Re your response to 677, that the lid of the box could not in fact be developed in life (as I mentioned) is irrelevant in what is after all an ideal thought experiment. A work around in real life could easily be developed using a laser. Why then are you concentrating on trivia?
  14. Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
    Yes, oil consumption has been definitely necessary to increase the wealth of american people by a factor 6 since 1900. There is a definite "death line" of oil consumption below which no modern industrial country can go for a given GDP - just for obvious reasons of needs of transportation. For instance here where the "dead zone" is the upper left corner. I agree that may be US could improve a lot their oil use. But note that despite their might, they burn "only" 25 % percent of the oil, so improving by a factor 2 would only result in a 12.5 % gain for the planet - which could be (actually *will* be) easily swallowed by all emerging countries. And I am not saying that the difference between median and average is obscure to me. I say that your argument is obscure, because it has been never stated by Summers that the important distinction was between average and median, and you didn't gave any support for that.
  15. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #730 Tom Curtis you wrote:- "But the issue of an internal heat source or sink is extraneous to his discussion, and your definition of thermodynamic equilibrium as "not having an internal heat source or sink" is false." Sorry but I must point out that an object with an internal heat source can never be in thermal equilibrium because it will always have a temperature gradient of some sort inside it. Further you wrote (1):- "two bodies are in thermodynamic equilibrium with each other if an only if, when heat can pass freely between them" This is not a requirement. If 'heat can pass freely' they will reach the same temperature (the only condition for equilibrium) at the fastest rate possible. And (2):- "As noted in the definition below, when two bodies are in thermodynamic equilibrium, they are at the same temperature" Which appears to contradict (1)and agree with (2) Emissivity is an intrinsic property of the material, it is not a direct function of its temperature. Emissivity can only change if the basic structure changes e.g. diamond has an emissivity different from graphite. You wrote:- "The Earth and the Sun are, of course, not at the same temperature. Therefore the special application of Kirchoff's Law you appeal to does not apply" The Earth absorbs the energy from the Sun that is not reflected by the albedo 'a' , this absorbed heat is radiated by the Earth with an emissivity e = 1 - a (a is the albedo) that is Kirchhoff's law. The law applies because the average temperature of the planet is not changing, it is in equilibrium with the radiation from the Sun. You wrote:- "I am... happy to concede that were the Earth heated to the same temperature as the Sun, the green house effect would not warm the surface" At the Earth, the Sun's radiation density is reduced according to the inverse square law, but the photons it intercepts still have the same energy as when they were emitted, it is just that they are spread over a larger area. If they are re-concentrated e.g. focussed by a mirror, the resultant image can, if it is only losing heat by radiation, reach the same temperature as the Sun. (It can't do this at the Earth's surface because the atmosphere absorbs some of the Sun's energy).
  16. Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
    "So come on, Gilles, stop your hand waving & tell us-what's causing this rapid warming if solar forcings are in decline?" Why do you think I should know the answer? believing we should answer any question at any moment is a religious attitude (religions explain also everything !) , not a scientific one. Can you answer the question of what has caused the rapid warming between 1900 and 1940, compared to previous epochs?
  17. Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
    Marcus : "2nd, we already know that proxies which rely on dendrochronology have proven very unreliable post-1960" I see that the "hockey stick" of proxy reconstruction is pretty well defined before 1960 - so just forget about the post-1960 data, and please give me an answer to my simple (again) question : if the shape of proxy reconstruction before 1960 is "reliable" , was it mainly controlled by anthropogenic influence or by natural ones? there is a second question : if proxies have "prove to be very unreliable" post-1960, how do you prove they were reliable before 1900 ? concerning the " *much* faster rate of warming in the period of 1980-2010 as compared to the period of 1910-1940", it is not by repeating it constantly that it will become true : I still do not know any field of science where two measurements (as precise as they may be) giving a slope of respectively 0.12 and 0.17 °C/decade would be qualified as "very different". We're talking of an approximate indicator (the average surface temperature has *no* clear physical meaning in any equation of physics) of a highly complex and non linear system with ill-known cycles , not of a precise measurement of fine structure constant by high accuracy laboratory measurements. and the 0.12 °C /decade was also "much higher" than the previous centuries, if I believe in "very reliable" proxies before 1900. So how do you explain this "much higher value" of 1900-1940 slope with respect to the previous time intervals ?
  18. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    First, my preceding post should be read as a response to 725, not 724. LJRyan @724, the "lid forcing" is due to reduced heat loss due to convection and latent heat transfer. There-fore-making the lid transparent to IR, a very small source of heat loss in the situation, will make virtually no difference. This does not change the fact that the addition of a cooler object resulted in greater heat in a warmer object that it would have had without the cooler object! Your attempts to distract us from this fact will not work, and nor will we forget that they represent a complete refutation of your claim in 715 the presence of a cooler object cannot result in increased warmth in a warmer object.
  19. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    LJRyan @724, again you are changing the details of the experiment to avoid refutation. I very carefully specified, "Suppose you have an electrical stove ...". The reason for that is very simple, while the colour of a gas flame is fairly constant with temperature, the colour of an electrical heating element above a certain temperature is not. Therefore, you can see on the electrical element as you cannot see on the gas flame the effects of changes of temperature. Reverting then, to the original specification, if you have a pot full of water on an electrical element which is on, and glowing a dull red; and then you remove the pot, the element will become warmer, and glow a brighter red as a result. Inverting the pot over the element will reduce convective heat transfer, but by so small an amount that the heat difference from simply removing the full pot is unlikely to be detectable by eye.
  20. Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
    "Really a stunning statement , in my sense : I do not any field of science where this would be qualified as a "pretty stark difference" given the number of different factors that can interfere and the complexity of the system - usually the qualitative difference are measured by a number of sigma above the natural variability (Signal to Noise ratio)." Its not a stunning statement at all, Gilles, only to people like yourself who refuse to accept the link between GHG's & Global Warming. Funny how Signal to Noise ratio never stops Denialists like yourself from claiming cooling trends over time periods as short as 3-5 years (even when plotting the data shows no such thing). In each case, I'm relying on over 400 data points (about 420 months) to draw my graph-that does a huge amount to reduce the signal to noise ratio-& what we're clearly left with is a *much* faster rate of warming in the period of 1980-2010 as compared to the period of 1910-1940, in *spite* of a lack of an obvious forcing for the 1980-2010 warming period (in fact, solar forcings are declining during that period). So come on, Gilles, stop your hand waving & tell us-what's causing this rapid warming if solar forcings are in decline?
  21. Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
    "in other words : do the proxies show something unusual associated with the anthropogenic component, or not ?" A few things Gilles-first of all, proxies don't cover nearly as much of the planet's surface as direct measurement of temperature does-so that automatically makes direct measurement preferable over proxies. 2nd, we already know that proxies which rely on dendrochronology have proven very unreliable post-1960, due to drought conditions in many of the proxy sites causing a reduction in tree-ring size that makes it look like cooling-so again, this makes direct temperature measurements more reliable than proxies, & direct temperature measurements show a *massive* increase in the rate of global temperature rise.
  22. The True Cost of Coal Power
    "well, that's different in France : peak consumption is during cold and dark evenings in winter - because thanks to cheap nuclear electricity , many people have electrical heating. Unfortunatly no sun and not always wind at this time. Worst, nuclear plant cannot respond quickly to spikes, so we must start again thermal plants." Yet your neighbours, Germany, have made very successful inroads in the use of PV's, solar hot water systems & passive solar heating-not to mention Wind Power-so your claims don't really don't stack up. Also, Coal Power stations don't respond well to spikes in demand either-as the frequent brown-outs & load shedding during Australian Summers can attest. As much as you try & spin it, Gilles, with the proper implementation of new & upcoming storage technologies most nations could swap entirely to a mix of renewable energy sources-be it bio-gas, tidal, solar, wind or osmotic,just for starters-within the next 20 years or so.
  23. Preventing Misinformation
    For me, one of the most remarkable claims in the document was: "If the public were aware that man-made CO2 is so incredibly small there would be very little belief in a climate disaster" This indicates clearly that [--snip--] have given up refuting climate science directly, and are openly trying to destroy public trust instead. We all knew that this was what they were about, but this sentence contains a rare admission of guilt.
  24. Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
    73 Gilles "wealth could be produced without energy" where did I say that? I did say "oil consumption increase is necessary for wealth"... Please cite me correctly ;) But really... Do you not understand the concept of factors of production? And, for pittys sake! You refer to a sophisticated concept like the gini coefficient - but think that the difference between "average" and "median" is obscure - while claiming to understand it?!?!? really? anyway, looking forward to moving things on via post 72... with facts, evidence and references please.
  25. The True Cost of Coal Power
    "It doesn't mean at all that FF can be suppressed without harm - despite all fairy tales you're reading." The only one reading fairy tales here, Gilles, is *you*. If that graph you supplied is the best you can do to "prove" the correlation between fossil fuel use & Wealth, then you're really clutching at straws. According to that graph, GDP grew by more than 20 times, whilst total energy demand increased by barely 4 fold-not really a great correlation to begin with. When you consider that the share of that energy which derives from coal or oil has *fallen* over that time period, then your correlation becomes even weaker still. I've shown examples of nations whose energy use/$ GDP has risen over the last 30 years, without any real improvement in total GDP over that period, & I've likewise shown a number of nations which have increased their total GDP, whilst significantly reducing the energy intensity of their economy *and* the share of energy derived from coal or oil. So I'd argue that I have more proof of the *lack* of a correlation than you have proof of a correlation. Even if you *could* prove a correlation for the past, it would certainly not hold true that *future* wealth creation depends on fossil fuel consumption-no matter *what* your fairy tales tell you.
  26. Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
    Les :Well, I thought that Summers' citation was introduced by you because it was important to state that wealth could be produced without energy , taking old american people as an example. I just said it was untrue - old american weren't richer than current chinese one , for their energetic consumption. Now you seem to use some obscure distinction between median and average (well I know the difference, but I don't think it's relevant here). Introducing a strong variation in average/median ratio should translate to a strong difference in repartition of wealth, measured for instance by the Gini coefficient . I don't have time right now to look at data concerning America in 1890 - I'm not sure it is that different. I didn't say that heating and low cost commodities produce "no" wealth, I said "not much". Please cite me correctly.
  27. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    LJRyan @723, actually I did not specify a rate. What I did specify was that, "In that case, after sufficient time for light to transit the box three times, and with a constant light source providing beam (A), then the box will have the following equalities." A single photon does not qualify as either a "beam" or a "constant light source". By reducing the case to that of a single photon, you are quite clearly trying to avoid discussing the model as specified. Any interested readers should note your evasion, and that you do not feel confident enough to discuss the case on its merits. That should come as no surprise - I certainly would not want to discuss my case on its merits if I held your purported beliefs.
    Moderator Response: [DB] It has been noted. :)
  28. Teaching Climate Science
    Bern, your comment about being unable to distinguish between a robo-troll and a real person is amusing :-)
  29. Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
    69 Gilles - OK, two proper claims. 1/ wealth is globally well correlated with energy use Correlation - as the old adage goes - is not causation. Never the less, I think - as I said above - that most people (and in this place it's hardly credible what people will nit-pick and snipe at!) would agree that energy is a factor of production. So, correlation isn't the important issue: the question is how significant a factor is it compared with, e.g., education, communications, various technologies, processes etc. etc. (and before you say it, of course these use energy, but then energy production uses most of these). 2/ a minimum amount of FF is necessary to insure cheap and available energy throughout the world I would have agreed that a minimum amount of petrochemical produce have no substitutes in site - but the assertion that there are no substitutes for FF down to some number. I'm not sure from your word - are you saying that 70% of energy must, of necessity, be FF based? Why?
  30. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    damorbel @720:
    "Yes indeed. And so did Gustav Kirchhoff writing in 1862. From that he concluded that the temperature of a body black or or otherwise, is not affected by its emissivity as long as it has no internal heat source (or heat sink) i.e. it is in thermal equilibrium. This is the basis of his argument that emissivity and absorptivity are the same for any given body."
    Kirchoff certainly relied on the fact that when to bodies are in thermodynamic equilibrium, altering their emissivity cannot change the temperature of either (for doing so would violate the 2nd law of dynamics). From this he then proved that emissivity = absorptivity at every wavelength for every thing. But the issue of an internal heat source or sink is extraneous to his discussion, and your definition of thermodynamic equilibrium as "not having an internal heat source or sink" is false. On the contrary, two bodies are in thermodynamic equilibrium with each other if an only if, when heat can pass freely between them, neither loses heat nor gains it. As noted in the definition below, when two bodies are in thermodynamic equilibrium, they are at the same temperature:
    thermal equilibrium The condition under which two substances in physical contact with each other exchange no heat energy. Two substances in thermal equilibrium are said to be at the same temperature.
    It follows that if they are not at equal temperature, they are not in thermodynamic equilibrium; and if not in thermodynamic equilibrium, Kirchoff's Law does not forbid a change in emissivity resulting in a change of temperature for one or the other. The Earth and the Sun are, of course, not at the same temperature. Therefore the special application of Kirchoff's Law you appeal to does not apply. I am, of course, very happy to concede that were the Earth heated to the same temperature as the Sun, the green house effect would not warm the surface (and likewise if the Sun was cooled to the same temperature as the Earth).
    The meaning of this is clear, the size of the albedo has no affect on the temperature of the Earth, the position of climatologists, that the Earth's equilibrium temperature is lowered by 33K from 288K to 255K has no scientific basis.
    Having rewritten the definition of thermodynamic equilibrium to give yourself the semblance of an argument, you now do the same with the theory you are contesting. Climatologists claim that the equilibrium temperature of the Earth would be approximately 278 degrees K without albedo or greenhouse effects. Because ice and clouds raise the Earth's albedo at wavelengths at which it absorbs light from the sun, but not at wavelengths where it itself radiates, that cools it by about 23 degrees. Because GHG lower the Earth's effective emissivity at wavelengths where it radiates but not at those where it receives light from the sun, that raises the Earth's effective temperature by about 33 degrees.
  31. Preventing Misinformation
    h pierce at 18:38 PM, this paper may be of interest to you. Mechanisms for synoptic variations of atmospheric CO2
  32. Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
    Indeed he didn't say which average he was using (real statisticians know that there are several kinds of average, "replace 'average' by 'median' isn't a meaningful statement; "use the median average" would be); and median is the only one which makes sense - and I do have something substantiating that, i.e. Cowen. I wasn't actually proving anything (unless you think hand waving is proof, which I never claimed) - just illustrating. My 3rd paragraph states clearly (I had hoped, anyway) what I'm trying to "prove" - or rather explore, which is the significance of various factors of production, in particular FF consumption, in the provision of wealth and welfare... mind you, if you really believe that "heating and the production of commodities" are not wealth producing, I think our understanding of economics is very divergent.
  33. Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
    note added : it is plainly contradictory to argue that energy efficiency has improved recently in western countries and that FF consumption has followed economic growth. If energy efficiency (defined as the ratio of GDP to energy consumption ) has improved, this can only mean that the energy consumption has increased first faster, and then slower, than economic growth , which is exactly the case, and so that economic growth has lagged energy consumption growth - and as the relative share of FF has increased in the past, FF consumption has increased even faster.
  34. Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
    les : I don't have figures for the "median american" and "median chinese " (especially in 1890 !) - but I think you should at least substantiate your claims. The point is that you used Summers' citation to deduce something about energy use - and now you're saying that "average" means in reality "median" , but you don't have anything substantiating neither that he meant "median", nor that the citation is correct even if you replace "average" by "median". So what do you try to prove exactly ? My claim is that on average, and despite a normal dispersion in energy intensity, the wealth is globally well correlated with energy use, and that a minimum amount of FF is necessary to insure cheap and available energy throughout the world (current figure is around 80 % when you include non marketed heating wood and 90 % if not). And that it is untrue to say, as Marcus said, that FF consumption followed the increase in wealth - actually that's just the opposite, because FF where first used for applications that do not produce much wealth, such as heating and basic commodities, and then the efficiency improved. It may be possible to further improve this number - maybe 70 %. It is quite unlikely that we could produce as much energy as now with a lower number. I don't see how this claim is non "pedagogical" - it's just based on simple inspection of simple figures.
  35. Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
    Marcus : "HR, the warming rate for 1910-1940 was less than +0.12 degrees per decade. The warming rate for 1980-2010 was almost +0.17 degrees per decade. I'd call that a pretty stark difference in warming rates" Really a stunning statement , in my sense : I do not any field of science where this would be qualified as a "pretty stark difference" given the number of different factors that can interfere and the complexity of the system - usually the qualitative difference are measured by a number of sigma above the natural variability (Signal to Noise ratio).
  36. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    726 damorbel: "your box is just fine, it is what J J Fourier described - it just doesn't describe the atmosphere - as Fourier himself noticed 'the air is not held still in the atmosphere'" Really, mate, I wasn't asking for your approval of the model! You know, a physicist doesn't need name-dropping to see what is and is not in a model. Clearly I did not include convection etc. It is redundant to point it out - unless your only aim is go take pot-shots at everything for no apparent constructive reason. I don't know. My point was to show how one would move from the model proposed to one closer to something describing radiation etc. Waving hands and naming theories didn't really help develop the model - so, no contribution from you on the physics front. Still, thanks for the remarks, however trivial.
  37. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re 727 scaddenup you wrote:- "It seems that damorbel is not willing to be persuaded by experimental evidence on those terms." Having checked your link and scanned the thread, I am not at all sure which experimental evidence you claim 'does not persuade me'. I would appreciate your clarification.
  38. Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
    Giles: No I don't think the statement is false - because, as I hinted, "average" probably doesn't mean "mean" (as used by gapminder) but median - the point I quoted was made in a casual interview, not a rigorousness paper and it's not specified. Not even the median American is any richer then the median American a generation ago... despite a continued use of oil. I apologies for only hinting at the answer, maybe to subtle... But the reference to Cowen is a big clue! Or, are you are avoiding the point by concentrating on a point of view of a small detail which you think works for you? You wouldn't be the only one to take this approach. In so doing you avoid your responsibility to provide good evidence by sniping at other from the sidelines. It's a shame. The impact of various factors of production on the growth of wealth and wellbeing is a key economic issue and always interesting to discuss. No one would be so stupid as to put the various wellbeing improvements over the last century, world wide, down to just one factor or another; even harder - very hard - to identify a single factors as essential (oil in your case). That's a very strong thesis and, to all our disappointment, not one you've supported particularly strongly... ... unless you think sniping is a good pedagogically? If so, I pity your students.
  39. Preventing Misinformation
    If I moved my comment to the CO2 measurement thread, nobody would read it. That video is for free CO2, and the conc is referenced to dry air. "Unless you care to cite some research that shows otherwise" Look at weather map on the TV. High pressure cells have more regional mass and more CO2 per unit volume than do low pressure cells. The map show there is no unifrom distributionn of pressure in space and time. Sat images show no uniform distribution of clouds in space and time. How much CO2 is in the droplets? it is not zero.
    Moderator Response: Yocta is right. Your detailed discussion of this topic belongs on that other thread. You are wrong that no one will read your comment there, because most regular readers monitor the Recent Comments page you can see by clicking the Comments link in the horizontal bar at the top of the page.
  40. Teaching Climate Science
    yocta - there are worse things than Comic Sans... (some of the PPT slides I've seen at work just make you want to cry!) I can't make up my mind whether cloa513 is a robo-troll, or someone who genuinely doesn't understand the basics of climate science. If the latter, then he/she would *definitely* benefit by watching the video, then coming back here to ask (meaningful) questions.
  41. Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
    les : you started with a citation , that "This quote from Larry Summers got me thinking: The average Chinese citizen is not nearly as rich as an average American was even two or three generations ago" do you agree that this sentence is plainly wrong, because average Chinese citizen is indeed as rich as an average American was even two or three generations ago ? (just the opposite of what is said ?) scaddenp : please understand me carfully. I didn't claim that "reducing carbon emissions will bring in a new dark age." I said that "suppressing FF would bring a new dark age". And I said that even if we improve the energy efficiency (which is a good thing anyway), there were no reason to limit the FF because a lot of poorer people need them anyway. In other words, I said that improvements of energy use have always led to a larger GDP for a given world energy consumption, and not to a smaller world energy consumption for a given GDP (this is linked to a subtle difference in mathematics between partial derivatives "keeping something else constant" - it depends of the "something else". At least, before continuing the discussion, do you understand the last point, and do you understand that it has absolutely nothing to do with a statement that we shouldn't improve energy efficiency, that I never made ?
  42. The True Cost of Coal Power
    "Second, solar panels produce their greatest amount of electricity when demand for electricity is at its highest(between 10am & 4pm), which makes them perfect for peak power generation" well, that's different in France : peak consumption is during cold and dark evenings in winter - because thanks to cheap nuclear electricity , many people have electrical heating. Unfortunatly no sun and not always wind at this time. Worst, nuclear plant cannot respond quickly to spikes, so we must start again thermal plants. That may be different in hot countries , where the peak it due to air conditioning in summer. But, you know, there is a much simpler solution : air conditioning is not necessary for life - 99 % of mankind has survived without air conditioning. So the best thing is actually - good old houses with dick walls and fresh shadow.
  43. The True Cost of Coal Power
    Marcus : "Gilles, you've yet to provide any data that proves your claim that the fossil fuel=wealth correlation is either historical or mathematical-in spite of your multiple repetition of the claim." I really didn't think that you could ignore such an obvious thing. Here is an example for Japan : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Japan_energy_%26_GDP.png (you could draw pretty much the same kind of graphics for all industrial countries). Of course you could argue that the slope is different and that they're have been times where GDP grew much more than energy consumption. But that's exactly the same for the effect of GW : you wouldn't find anywhere a definite relationship between temperature and any human indicator, with a constant factor, independent of history and geography ! things never work like that ! if you dismiss the correlation only by this simplistic argument, you dismiss also any effect of temperature on human societies. What is obvious is that both are correlated, and the different slopes could be also interpreted as a first part when energy was consumed with few consideration for energy efficiency , a lot of spoiling, and bad energy intensity, followed by a period where energy conservation took more importance following oil shocks. That's only because people were not very careful when the growth was important and energy was very cheap. So of course we can (and we must) improve our energy use. It doesn't mean at all that FF can be suppressed without harm - despite all fairy tales you're reading.
  44. The True Cost of Coal Power
    "Gilles, you're forgetting the golden rule (well, one of them, anyway): Correlation does not equal Causation" sure, but it doesn't mean that there is no causation. Tell me : how can you estimate the cost of GW without using correlation ? I wonder why this argument is always forgotten in climate studies ! " Personally, my income level is by no means tied to my consumption of fossil fuels. Why, I managed to reduce our fossil fuel consumption by at least 20% just by putting a solar hot water system on the roof, and, gosh, my pay hasn't gone down in the three years since..." Personally, I managed to increase my average temperature outside (by going on vacation in the south of France) without any harm. So I deduce also that temperature is not a problem for human beings. And also, I adopted a diet that has reduced my caloric input by 20 % . So I deduce logically that food is not necessary for life. Just a question : what are you doing with your spared money? do you think that the things you're buying grow naturally on trees and walk to the stores ? do you think that public transportation work only with sun ? do you even think that the electrons that move in your electric wires do exactly know where they're from and carefully travel from green sources to your houses ? (although they vibrate at 50 or 60 Hz and don't travel a lot -actually they always stay pretty close to your houses) ? if you become ill, will you ask if the hospital electricity and the devices that could save your life are "green" ?
  45. Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
    Dana, you say it's pure non-sense, but on the thread you're citing, figure 2 you clearly see that the black curve (proxies) grows only in the first part of the XXth century, and saturates just when anthropogenic influence is supposed to dominate. So , looking at proxies only, is the rise beginning in 1900 mainly natural, or anthropogenic ? in other words : do the proxies show something unusual associated with the anthropogenic component, or not ?
  46. HuggyPopsBear at 17:31 PM on 22 March 2011
    The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
    Rob Honeycutt #34 And the Apple iPad (of course, that being the latest major advance in human-technology interface). ;-) LOL, I suppose it depends on how you view technology and how ones mental image interprets a statement made or what reference material you use. I am of course referring to solar, electric cars, the advent of reverse gravity which would be great to replace present day aircraft and in my humble opinion see as the biggest default for pollution and the probable pollutant effect of CO2 in the upper atmosphere. Is this in the calculations we are being fed Mr Moderator? Anyway Rob for fear of being vetted I better cease here by saying again it depends on what reference material we use for how long mankind has been on the planet.
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] 'Tis far better to cite reference material than to make vague reference to it.
  47. Preventing Misinformation
    RE# 28 h pierce: Scientists have an increasingly better understanding of the transport properties of CO2 through space and time. Unless you care to cite some research that shows otherwise? I suggest moving discussion over to the thread: CO2 measurements are suspect Watch the animation video at the bottom to see how scientists can watch CO2 mix throughout the atmosphere. More videos and explanation here
  48. The True Cost of Coal Power
    You make a good point Bern. Prior to my energy efficiency drive, my electricity bills were around $200 per quarter-even with tariff increases, they're now less than $150 per quarter. So, if anything, I can show an *inverse* correlation between my fossil fuel use & my personal wealth. Now, thanks to my Green Energy scheme, I use *no* fossil fuels at all for my electricity needs, & all for AU$0.01c per kw-h more-which amounts to a *whopping* $6 per quarter more for my electricity than what I was paying just 1 month ago-oh dear, better head off to the *poor house*. Similarly, if I used a car to get to work every day, I'd currently be spending about $40 per week on my petrol alone, but because I use public transport to get everywhere, I spend only $30 a week-meaning I save over $500 per annum-again, inverse correlation between personal fossil fuel consumption & personal wealth. Seems like Gilles argument really fails to hold any water.
  49. The True Cost of Coal Power
    Gilles, you've yet to provide any data that proves your claim that the fossil fuel=wealth correlation is either historical or mathematical-in spite of your multiple repetition of the claim. I've provided some other perfectly reasonable social changes-namely increasing wage parity (courtesy of trade unions), & increased contraception & abortion access-that far better correlate with increasing wealth in Western Nations than consumption of fossil fuels. Second, solar panels produce their greatest amount of electricity when demand for electricity is at its highest(between 10am & 4pm), which makes them perfect for peak power generation. Of course, alongside significant price reductions & improvements in efficiency, solar cells have also undergone massive improvements in terms of the amount of cloud cover required to stop *all* electricity production from the cells. Oh, & contrary to your statement, price of the cells-& energy storage-is the issue, because as the cost of both continues to fall, then the ability of householders to install enough solar panels & battery storage to both supply the grid *and* meet all their own power needs becomes infinitely more affordable. Still, you obviously don't care to hear that, because it goes so much against your mantra of "no wealth without fossil fuels".
  50. Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
    As impressive as the Solar Power Tower is, I reckon we should go for Big Dish technology-which uses a sterling engine to create electricity directly. As far as I'm aware, it can also be coupled with a secondary system through which you can run chemicals for heat dissociation.

Prev  1828  1829  1830  1831  1832  1833  1834  1835  1836  1837  1838  1839  1840  1841  1842  1843  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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