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  1829  1830  1831  1832  1833  1834  1835  1836  1837  1838  1839  1840  1841  1842  1843  1844  Next

Comments 91801 to 91850:

  1. We're heading into an ice age
    I'm looking at the graphs again, to see what is really there, instead of what I assume is there. Chris Shaker
  2. Examining the impacts of ocean acidification
    Gary Thompson @ 43 - CO2 was high in prior intergacials as well as now so I can only assume that the oceans experienced a similar drop in carbonate ions and hence drops in calcification No Gary, you have that wrong. Previous interglacial CO2 levels were much lower than present (no industrial civilization). See ice core graph below: The peak atmospheric CO2 level during past interglacials is generally around 280 - 290 ppm. We are now at 390 ppm. So ocean pH was higher, and less acidic, during the previous interglacials. Thats what the boron isotopes tell us too. Earth has not experienced this level of ocean pH for at least 15 million years. Perhaps longer. See Tripati 2009
    Moderator Response: [DB] The last time I looked at the ice core data, the peak CO2 levels attained during any interglacial over the past 800,000 years was 298.7 ppm, IIRC.
  3. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    LJR 698, I get 3.4249 * 10^-19 Joules per photon myself, and hence four times that energy contained in the box. I have to wonder, however, why are you just feeding the box 1 photon at a time. If the feed rate is 1 photon per second, that represents a temperature of just 0.0016 degrees K, ie, beyond the range of experimental detection. Even if the box is one meter thick so that you are feeding in 299,792,458 photons per second, the temperature of the lid will still only be 0.2 degrees K. That is perfectly fine for a thought experiment, but in that case why not just set the incoming energy as 1 Joule per time unit, and set the time unit as 1/300,000,000 of a second for convenience. For a practical experiment, the values you have chosen are two small to be measurable.
  4. Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
    @MattJ Well, Europe has ambitious plans for renewable energy, but I don't see any JFKs around there. We may not need a Superman to get this done.
  5. Examining the impacts of ocean acidification
    Thanks Alan Marshall for the extra details and that helped me with understanding your post better. Also thanks to the yooper in #40 and for the recent paper from Pelejero. This is a very interesting and under reported topic - at least on the web sites I frequent. CO2 was high in prior intergacials as well as now so I can only assume that the oceans experienced a similar drop in carbonate ions and hence drops in calcification. Any idea how current ocean conditions compare with proxy data from the past? My apologies if the answer is in the link provided by the hooper - it's a long paper and I haven't finished yet.
  6. And so castles made of sand fall in the sea, eventually
    The peer reviewed paper on recent increase in land area of Tuvulu can be found at Webb & Kench 2010 Yes, familiar with the paper. I have no reason to doubt the results of their survey. Seems reasonable to me, we have only seen small rises in sea level thus far. A 2mm average rise in that Pacific region over the last 60 years (although this is higher in recent times) is not enough to inundate the solid reef foundations which formed during a regional sea level highstand there 4-2000 years ago. That's expected to happen mid to late 21st century. Once local high tide overtops the reef flats, the coral rubble and sediments will be subject to wave attack and erosion. See Dickinson 2009. There is a rate of rise for which coral atolls can adapt. Which is variable depending on the ambient conditions. Even before the advent of the industrial revolution many coral reefs drowned when we would have expected them to cope with sea level rise going on at the time. There is, for example, a vast relict reef off the Great Barrier Reef complex. Why did it drown during the Holocene?. We don't yet know. And of course, many reefs back-stepped during the Holocene too. Given all the harm humans are inflicting upon coral reefs, it's unreasonable to expect them to grow to match sea level rise, especially as studies trickle in showing that reef growth is declining around the world.
  7. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Tom Curtis 697 Part I Working with your model 3 lets assign a starting wavelength of 580 nm at the input which converts to 3.43 e-19 J = A The emissions of < 580 nm via the back wall, radiate through the filter lid. 580 nm and longer are re-radiated via the filter lid. If the physics work as you suppose, the energy is accumulating within the box. The subsequent absorption, radiation and re-radiation will result in equilibrium, whereby 4A = 1.37 e-18 J of accumulated energy. Do you agree?
  8. And so castles made of sand fall in the sea, eventually
    CharlieA - Are you unfamiliar with the depth of coral/limestone at the typical atoll? Yes, and no doubt so will you, seeing as many of them have not been drilled to the underlying basalt base. The ones that have can indeed be many hundred of meters thick, only the top 10-15 meters being the result of Holocene growth. The coral atolls that have not managed to remain at sea level are generally cases such as the far northwestern Hawaiian Islands Yes, as they migrated into cooler waters. But many reefs "drowned" during the Cretaceous period when they bleached as the atolls were transported into hot tropical waters. And the point you should be taking away from this is that ocean acidification and coral bleaching are going to seriously diminish the ability of coral reefs to keep pace with sea level rise.
  9. Maize harvest to shrink under Global Warming
    CharlieA @ 53- If the graph in the middle of the post your refer to if Figure 1, then you are incorrect. The figure in the middle of the post is for all areas, not the areas currently under cultivation. Both wrong and clearly doesn't make any sense. I think willful contrarianism is clouding your thinking. Read the study and the caption again. The graph, the one I placed in the middle of the post, is the average growing season temperature for the trials. The trials, quite obviously (but not to you) were carried out in areas already conducive to maize cultivation. Clear enough?. CharlieA -1. Look at your comment #24. The 2nd graph. (D) current maize growing land (% of land area) chart. Please note the the heavy green area in South Africa, just north of Lesotho. 2. Now go to your comment #26 and look at those same areas. Note the blue, indicating INCREASED yield, not decreased? Yes, as my comment at @26 points out, 65% of current maize growing areas decline under managed rain-fed conditions with 1°C of warming, not all areas. And your point is?.
  10. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    LJR @696, once the box reaches equilibrium, the amount of energy in each box as radiation is 4 times the energy carried into the box in the time to takes for light to travel from the front to the back of the box (1 time unit). It is two times the amount of energy in an equivalent space above the box one time unit after the box has reached equilibrium. Whether this should be expressed as the box "accumulating" four times or two (or possibly three) times the amount of energy that enters the box in one time unit, I'm not sure. It certainly contains four times the radiant energy entering in one time unit. The third model also contains (and accumulates) an additional amount of energy depending on the thermal capacity of the back and sides, and the lid. Whether the radiant energy accumulated is 4, 3, or 2 times the energy entering the box in one time unit depends on the precise definition of "accumulate" that we us, and as you evidently want to run through this with a ultra-fine tooth comb, we do need to be very precise. Whatever the definition of accumulate we use, however, the facts stated at the start of this post are sufficient to allow any disproof (or proof) of my claims.
  11. Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
    Dana, I was thinking more in terms of alternative forms of concrete that do not release CO2 to the atmosphere as they set; or alternative transport solutions, such as solar powered derigibles instead of passenger ships, or modern automated sail for shipping. Somebody also mentioned non-fossil fuel based plastics and fertilizers. There are a large range of issues in decarbonizing an economy, but only power generation seems to get much discussion. A discussion of other options would be interesting (and very informative to me, so I'm not the one to write it).
  12. Berényi Péter at 10:09 AM on 20 March 2011
    One of the best climate change ads I've seen
    #9 Tshane3000 at 06:36 AM on 18 March, 2011 Greed is a far easier sell than altruism. Yes. And I didn't know ads are supposed to go under the umbrella term peer reviewed science. However, if we are at icons, this one is right on spot (click on image). Spinning Star Wind Energy Project in Texas gets $450 million (30% of its financing) from U.S. stimulus funds (taxpayers' money), the rest comes from state owned Chinese banks (controlled by CPC, that is). A bargain.
  13. Rob Honeycutt at 09:37 AM on 20 March 2011
    The True Cost of Coal Power
    Phila... That's a great article. Best I've read in a while.
  14. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Tom Curtis 695 You said: "By accumulate I mean: A) Once the incoming light starts, it takes more time than the time it takes for light to transit the box twice for equilibrium to be reached; B) If the incoming light is removed, it would take more time than it takes for light to transit the box twice for outgoing energy to cease; and C) The total energy inside the box once equilibrium is reached is greater than the total energy in an equal volume of vacuum immediately above the box through which only the incoming radiation and outgoing radiation transit, ie, there are no extraneous bodies." What about the specific quantifier of accumulate, as stated by you: "5) The accumulated energy in the box in the form of radiation will be four times the energy carried into the box by incoming light in the time it takes for light to travel from the lid to the back of the box." Acceptable or not?
  15. Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
    Tom #25 - perhaps renewables can't provide baseload power?
  16. Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
    Rahul #23 - the plan is based on limiting warming to 2C, which is about 450 ppm, but only if every other major emitter follows suit.
  17. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    damorbel: It is difficult to believe that a diagram showing emission of thermal radiation (W/^m2) can be considered useful when no indication is given of the temperature of the emitting body; why else would the Stefan-Boltzmann equation (E= rhoT^4) be so widely deployed in thermal physics? All I can say is I don't know of a single climatologist on the planet when describing the Earth's Energy Budget, uses anything other than W/m^2. If you are unwilling to accept that simple fact, then I suggest you redo Trenberth's schematic in your terms of temperature and show everyone how it should done.
  18. Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
    Moderators, could we have a thread about zero or low carbon alternatives to fossil fuels. Some of the alternatives here I have never heard of before, and it would be convenient to have a list with references in one location. Also, it would provide a place to send Gilles when he tries to derail a thread.
  19. Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
    Bern @11, one factor that needs to be considered is the impact of clouds on domestic solar photo voltaic cells and solar hot water systems. We have the former at my house, and over the last few months in Brisbane, it has not been very effective. As domestic solar becomes more prevalent, increased cloud cover will see an increase in demand on mains power to run essentials like fridges and computers ;)
  20. Maize harvest to shrink under Global Warming
    Charlie A at 23:32 PM, my first post on this thread began questioning whether the study told us anything not already known. It appears that the weak point in that statement centres on the word "us", so before the question was addressed I should have defined "us", however I think this thread has done that along the way. For myself, "us" means those people whose understanding is based on what is so readily evident and verifiable in the real natural world, the real physical world. For others, "us" means those to whom the same understanding only becomes real if it has been presented in a peer review study. It's not a matter of the first group ignoring that what the second group depends on, it's a matter of deciding what comes first, getting the job done with the paperwork to follow, or the other way around. This is often a point that defines the perspective of those who are in private enterprise and those who are not. In this particular case, if one wanted to understand how maize responds to changing temperatures, that question was being readily answered in the real world by observing where it is most prolific, and then observing how the growing of it diminishes as conditions change moving away from where they are optimum. If one wanted to know how a 1°C warming or drought conditions affected the crop, that evidence is provided by those who grow the crop under those conditions. If one wanted to know the limits to growing maize, then that will be found by observing where the cultivation ceases. Possibly one of the most authoritative sources as to what that limit is will be any peasant farmer who has avoiding perishing, perhaps merely (significantly?) by growing a different variety. Consider each peasant farmer a source of data. Collectively they yield the most meaningful data of all. It is therefore not dependent on conducting a study to identify those areas that are already beyond where maize is able to be cultivated to discover that if it warms even further that the yield of the non-existent maize will be even less. What would have been of value would be a study tracking the progress of the best of the new varieties being developed by measuring whether they are extending successful cultivation into those more marginal areas or if the pace of new development is failing and the marginal areas are advancing. Only with that knowledge would we be able to make projections into the future. There are two variables involved, the climate, and plant genetics. This study effectively froze plant genetics at a point more than a decade ago.
  21. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    LJR @689:
    "I've already challenged your more simplified models...remember "practical difficulties do not prevent us from exploring theoretical possibilities in ideal cases." And your absurd conclusion of 360 kJ of "boxed" light. Then you walked back your conclusion by saying the light would "decay." post 647"
    To start with, that was your simplified model, not mine. Second, I did not "walk back" from my conclusion. I distinguished between the ideal case (3600 kJ accumulated) and every possible practical case (the light would escape or be absorbed by the mirrors before internal storage could be measured or stored). What I was noting was that it would be impossible to set up an experiment that tested your model. In contrast, in each of my models, an experiment could be set up which would be able to test the conclusion (even though they would not match exactly the ideal case) Your inability to master simple reading comprehension is not my problem.
    "Because model three incorporates surfaces with emissivities >0, specifically blackbody surfaces, "accumulated" energy can actually be calculated. Further, because blackbody represents the maximum thermal conversion of all radiation, it also represents the maximum "accumulated" energy of your three models. That is, emissivities <1 absorb less radiation then blackbody therefore "accumulate" less energy...ergo if model 3 is proved to have zero "accumulate" energy models 1&2 also have zero accumulated energy.
    By accumulate I mean: A) Once the incoming light starts, it takes more time than the time it takes for light to transit the box twice for equilibrium to be reached; B) If the incoming light is removed, it would take more time than it takes for light to transit the box twice for outgoing energy to cease; and C) The total energy inside the box once equilibrium is reached is greater than the total energy in an equal volume of vacuum immediately above the box through which only the incoming radiation and outgoing radiation transit, ie, there are no extraneous bodies. I believe these stipulations follow from the standard definition of "accumulate", but I believe in your case it is necessary to be precise. Given the above meaning of "accumulate", yes, energy accumulates in all three boxes, and, if you can prove that there is zero accumulated energy in any box, you have proved it in any (as every proposition follows from a contradiction).
  22. Christy's Unconvincing Congressional Testimony
    Citizen - Ben Santer did send a letter to Congress calling out Christy's misuse of Douglass et al. And asking him to defend his associated statements. I don't know if he'll be required to reply.
  23. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #668 Ricardo "given that you know how to calculate temperature from the energy flux" I'm afraid I don't; it is temperature calculation that defines the whole 2nd law objection. The 2nd law is about energy transfer and it states that it is a function of two temperatures. To know the rate of energy transfer between two places, as an absolute minimum both the energy source temperature and the energy sink temperature must be known. The sink temperature may be 0K, that is the basis of Stefan's law, it gives the maximum possible energy transfer because no object can have a lower temperature than 0K. If the sink temperature is not 0K the energy transfer is less than the figure given by Stefan's law. If you think of it this way you will see this is the reason why bodies with the same temperature do not exchange energy, neither of them can be an energy source or an energy sink; thermal equilibrium exists! There is another reason why Trenberth's diagram tells us nothing. Yes I noticed that the figures he gives could be derived from Stefan's law, but only if you assume the places he gives as sources, e.g. TOA, act like black bodies. This is simply not possible; the TOA is quite transparent, so it can't possibly meet the definition of a black body. Just having the spectrum of a black body, like a grey body (it's a gas! It doesn't even have that!) is not sufficient to qualify the TOA as a black body; so any figures for enegy transfer in the atmosphere based on Stefan's law will be quite misleading.
  24. Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
    How far above 350ppm does a total zero by 2020 get us? 410-420ppm? "A windmill is made of steel (or carbon fibers) and concrete. How do you produce them without FF (and even dissociation of calcium carbonate produce CO2) ? electricity is transported by copper (or aluminium) wires : how do you produce them without FF ? how do you carry and erect the windmills without FF ? how do you travel across Australia without FF ? how do you power trucks, boats and planes ? how do you make isolators, paints, elastomers, fertilizers ?" (Gilles 2011)post 3. What is possible without FF and at a low carbon cost?
  25. Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
    MattJ #19 - the study addresses your CST overnight storage concern by noting that overnight demands are low. The 7.5 hour storage estimate is based on daytime power demands. The benefit of CST with storage is that output can easily be ramped down, unlike many traditional sources, which just waste the extra overnight production. Hence the "better than baseload" comment in the article.
  26. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re My Posts. To those who have noticed:- A number of my posts appear twice, I regret this very much, it is nothing personal but for most of today my attempts to post have failed; I tried the usual rebooting without success. Now I have reinitialised through the home page and see that some these posts now appear more than once; seems to be a glitch somewhere. Rather embarrassing; sorry.
  27. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re 650 RickG :- "For what Trenberth is demonstrating temperature is neither necessary or relevant in that diagram. I have no problem understanding the diagram myself." It is difficult to believe that a diagram showing emission of thermal radiation (W/^m2) can be considered useful when no indication is given of the temperature of the emitting body; why else would the Stefan-Boltzmann equation (E= rhoT^4) be so widely deployed in thermal physics? You say you 'have no difficulty understanding the diagrams', then it is probably my fault, I must be looking at them the wrong way; would you mind saying just what it is that you understand, please?
  28. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Tom Curtis 686 Thanks for providing a hyperlink. Cut and paste is tedious to format. I also like the following comment/paragraph...but in it's entirety. "Now, it is very likely that applying a cavity-based formula to the temperature of a rotating half-lit sphere is inherently mistaken. But if not, then 279 Kelvin constitutes the upper limit for the earth because such an estimate assumes a body that is perfectly absorptive, meaning that it can’t possibly absorb more light than the light it’s exposed to. Doing everything a "greenhouse effect" is alleged to do, continuously re-radiating infrared energy inside itself, a light-trapping blackbody demonstrates that radiative forcing is a fiction. For its temperature hits a ceiling not much higher than what you see in real life. Yet greenhouse theory claims that radiative restriction generates temperatures HIGHER THAN a blackbody’s. And considerably higher at that. Such a claim overtly contradicts experimental evidence, then. It doesn't have an empirical leg to stand on. First seized upon as the answer and later dismissed, a glass enclosure proved that infrared opacity had nothing to do with generating extra heat inside. Then came the radiatively restricted blackbody, which nailed the forcing concept shut. Yet against all evidence climatologists still push the radiative forcing theory. WHY?" You said: "You would have thought that Alan Siddons, having noticed that the mean global surface temperatures is 287-288 degrees, and that much hotter temperatures than that are to be found on the Earth's surface would have noticed his experimental refutation and concluded that it was indeed, not just likely, but in this case proven that "...applying a cavity-based formula to the temperature of a rotating half-lit sphere is inherently mistaken" Addressing GHG theory flaws is not the same as explaining why surface temperatures are 33 degrees higher then blackbody. Precluding the later does not nullify the previous. We can move onto a scientifically sound explanation for the 33 degrees, but lets first conclude the argument at hand.
  29. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Tom Curtis 685 1q) Photons work for models 1 & 2 but not 3. Ok what if we assign an input wavelength for 3? You said: "Given that, you persistence in concentrating only on complicated cases, and in trying to assume universal disproofs from particular instances suggests that you are just very confused. It suggests, in fact, that you cannot demonstrate your case, either to yourself or to others, in the simple cases. Consequently you must concentrate on complicated cases that allow maximum free play for misdirection. " I've already challenged your more simplified models...remember "practical difficulties do not prevent us from exploring theoretical possibilities in ideal cases." And your absurd conclusion of 360 kJ of "boxed" light. Then you walked back your conclusion by saying the light would "decay." post 647 Your model three is just happens to mimic actual experiments, so the conclusions are verifiable with actual results... no decaying light, no misdirection. Because model three incorporates surfaces with emissivities >0, specifically blackbody surfaces, "accumulated" energy can actually be calculated. Further, because blackbody represents the maximum thermal conversion of all radiation, it also represents the maximum "accumulated" energy of your three models. That is, emissivities <1 absorb less radiation then blackbody therefore "accumulate" less energy...ergo if model 3 is proved to have zero "accumulate" energy models 1&2 also have zero accumulated energy. Do you agree?
  30. Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
    Now concerning "society mobilized by ambition vision": yes, JFK did it. But let's not forget: young and even immature though he was, and despite his lamentable weakness for women of questionable reputations, JFK was a great leader. Somehow, for some mysterious reason, we just don't seem to produce such leaders any more. There is even a relatively famous book on this sad phenomenon: "Where Have All the Leaders Gone?" by Lee Iacocca. Nor is Iacocca the only one to comment on the problem. Bennis has an even more indicting title, "Why Leaders Can't Lead", and an endorsement from the legendary Peter Drucker. Then there are the famous Dilbert insights into the "mastodon dung" that passes for managers these days. The climate of the times has definitely changed since JFK. Instead of leaders rising to the top, our whole human society has started to look more and more like the sickening decay leading up to the Russian Revolution, when high-placed government ministers, instead of addressing real problems with probable solutions, would sequester themselves in occult meetings to try to conjure up the ghost of Rasputin (this really happened), at the same time, throwing roadblocks in the way of those precious few who really did try to solve problems.
  31. Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
    I think asking "is it possible to decarbonise without relying on fossil fuels" is a good question that needs solid evidence. There are a lot of ideas - I was recently discussing the same point here - where there's an example of the opposite kind of knee-jerk reaction: "renewables without fossil fuels is impossible and we're all heading for mediaeval levels of per capita energy use." There was also some info on solar breeder plants, that try to tackle the problem head-on. But it seems to me we're some way from understanding the full range of issues in energy transition. So personally I'd lay off Gilles: it's a fair question, and one that I've not seen any completely convincing framework for answering.
  32. Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
    Giles is a teacher? If I were an English composition teacher, I would have flunked him for writing post #3. He broke every rule in the book! Why, I would even have to modify the complaint I see others making: not only is he "shoving FF propaganda down our throats", he is doing it so badly, it only inspires revulsion for his claims. But now trying to get us back to the science of global warming/climate change: the CST technology Wight describes certainly does better on the storage problem then I was aware for for any solar thermal solution, but the article still gives too glowing a picture: click on the Scientific American link and you will discover that though the efficiency is impressively high, it can keep up the power output level for only 7.5 hours. Of course, for much of the year, the night is longer than 8 hours. And not all the world is as sunny as Central Spain or Australia. So it leaves me wondering if one of the reasons the plan works so well for Australia -- even eliminating a need for nuclear-- is that Australia gets more sun than even the American SouthWest. But that's OK: we won't ask Australia to endorse the nuclear solution -- as long as you keep doing the uranium mining and selling it to the rest of us;) As for the corrosive potential of salts, yes, Bern, it is less corrosive than chlorides, but at that temperature, it it still corrosive. One should expect that there will be problems, hopefully tractable problems, discovered due to this corrosion as the technology gets more use. And yes, I am in favor of seeing it get more use.
  33. Evaporating the water vapor argument
    At my institution full text of Boucher article is available, but not at home, so at this link at least the abstract can be gotten to.
  34. Evaporating the water vapor argument
    I thought these links (also added to the water vapor argument comments) would be useful given the comments above by BestTimesNow and Mizimi (namely that water vapor continually emitted by mankind from combustion or irrigation could serve as a forcing): The first is an atmospheric science PhD candidate's calculations regarding combustion-induced water vapor. His conclusion: the amount added from combustion is trivial. The second is a paper (Boucher 2004) that attempts to come up with a radiative forcing from global irrigation. Their conclusion: irrigation likely does add radiative forcing, but it is a trivial amount (0.03 to 0.1 W/M2) compared to atmospheric water vapor in general or C02- and the net climate effect is also likely much more complex than that given a strong cooling effect locally of irrigation (0.8 K locally), and vegetative changes that may affect albedo/C02 etc... I can't find much else out there on the topic, but thought these might be helpful to those wondering about "anthropogenic" water vapor.
  35. The True Cost of Coal Power
    Gilles' comments are beginning to seem like spamming to me. We get it. You think FFs are wonderful, and your concern about externalities and opportunity costs is minimal to nonexistent. Duly noted, yet again. For people who think a different world is not only possible, but desirable, here's an interesting article on the cost of solar power.
  36. And so castles made of sand fall in the sea, eventually
    My posting to this thread was prompted by a comment by Daniel Bailey saying "Creation of new real estate (at all, let alone that above future SLR) = slim to none (outside of new volcanic islands)." If I have in error mistaken a Skeptical Science author with an uninformed poster, my apologies, but I assume that Daniel Bailey the author of the above comment is also the author of the recent Skeptical Science post Sea level rise: coming to a place near you. Hoping to assist in the understanding and knowledge of Skeptical Scientist's experts, I mentioned cases where his statement was inaccurate --- the very relevant to this article case of the expansion of shoreline areas in virtually every modern city; and the case of coral atolls. The peer reviewed paper on recent increase in land area of Tuvulu can be found at Webb & Kench 2010: The dynamic response of reef islands to sea-level rise: Evidence from multi-decadal analysis of island change in the Central Pacific Many islands had data only for 1984 to 2003. Others for 60 years, but the overwhelming majority had added land area, with the overall increase of all islands studied being 7% of the total area. The volcanic substrate is many hundreds or thousands of meters below the surface and this "creation of new real estate" is definitely NOT volcanic in origin. ====================================== Bern, it is more like you, in the middle of summer, forecasting a horrible freeze and snow in 6 months time. I agree, pointing back to the horrible freeze and snow that we had survived 6 months prior. There is a rate of rise for which coral atolls can adapt. The current rate of rise is well within that rate. Three times that rate, 10mm/yr or 1 meter per century is approaching that limit in some areas. In other areas the limit is as much as 10cm per YEAR.
  37. Rob Honeycutt at 02:31 AM on 20 March 2011
    We're heading into an ice age
    cjshaker... "We are still 4.5 C below the peak temperature normally achieved during an interglacial." That's an interesting bit of information given that we're in the process of adding a significant additional radiative forcing to the climate system. You are essentially arguing for climate sensitivity in the high estimated range of ~9C.
  38. Sea level rise: coming to a place near you
    In the article caption for Map 5 is "Map 5. The poster child for sea level rise, the Maldives was once a vast island during the last glacial maximum, when sea levels were at their lowest ebb. Reduced now to but a string of island dots on a map, the Maldives will soon cease to be anything but a distant memory for our descendants. And a lasting testament to the willful folly of mankind." I wonder how many are aware that that the Maldives on on a limestone platform of over 2000 meters thickness. The volcanic substrate upon which the island chain rests is 2000+ meters below the surface, yet the islands remain. How does that happen? Darwin figured it out in 1837. His hypothesis was that coral atolls were large coral/limestone formations on top of submerged volcanic rock. In 1896-1896 the Royal Society of London drilled on that other post child of CAGW activists, Tuvulu. They got down to more than 1100'/340 meters and were still in limestone created by corals. Corals don't grow very fast if submerged more than a few 10's of meters. The existence of coral atolls through the many past changes in sea level are a testament to the resiliency of the coral atoll systems.
  39. Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
    I'm not so sure - a generation can also be just that, a generation - around 50 years. Never the less - I'm not so sure mid to late 1800s makes much difference (I'm not calculating anything precise here!) According to the Wiki carbon emissions chart the impact from oil isn't significant till after 1900 and, overall we're talking less than 10% of todays combustion... ... and clearly the US was wealthy before that etc. etc. I'm not sure my point is sensitive to with 50 years.
  40. And so castles made of sand fall in the sea, eventually
    Charlie A: "The highest elevation is 4.5 metres (15 ft) above sea level" (from wikipedia). Given that we're talking about a likely minimum sea level rise of ~1m by the end of the century (some estimates are 5m+), I don't think we can be complacent about the fate of low-lying islands. With ultimate sea level rise likely to be at least 6 metres (but it may be as high as 25m, if the East Antarctic Ice Sheet stays frozen, 75m+ if it thaws), then there will be a lot more places than Tuvalu having trouble keeping their heads above water. The other thing to consider is that sea level rise is expected to accelerate - particularly due to ice sheet dynamics - so you aint seen nothin' yet, so to speak. It's a bit like me saying on midsummer's day that it's going to be cold here in 6 months, and you coming back three days later saying "hey, it's not any colder than it was the other day, what were you talking about?"
  41. Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
    les - I think you have your timeframes incorrect. "Two or three generations ago" means in the time of grandparents and great-grandparents of people around 20-odd years of age. I'm close to double that age, and my grandparents grew up in the early years of the 20th century. So probably between the wars would be around the right timeframe for the comparison, I'd guess. And oil was definitely having an impact at that time (Model T, anyone?).
  42. Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
    Joe Lalonde - regarding your comment about salt corroding metal - I'd say that it's more like chloride salts corrode metal (chlorine ions do nasty stuff to steel). If you're talking about the molten salt heat storage, the salt in question is likely to be a nitrate salt, not a chloride salt, so corrosion isn't a major issue. W.r.t. storm damage - well, if we can accept the risk of storm damage to our homes & the thousands of commercial buildings around the country, then I think we can live with the risk of storm damage to the heliostats... In other words, they can be designed to withstand all but the most severe storms - and one of those would shut down a coal-fired plant just as easily.
  43. Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
    14 Joe "Considering how terrible that technology is that it needs a great deal of subsidizing for governments to buy them." indeed, that pretty well sums up the nuclear option.
  44. Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
    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
    Expressed - as an imprecise, but never the less fun - exercise: The Chinese citizens (all billion or so of them) chugging their way through piles of coal and oil today; are not as wealthy as the American citizens (all couple of hundred thousand) where 150 odd years ago - before oil became such a big factor of production (mostly the coal era). So, this contradicts the idea that oil consumption increase is necessary for wealth. We have lots of consumption in China now and little in the US 150 years ago - yet we have more poorly off citizens now then we did then. No proportionality there, even. What made the yanks well off a 150 years ago was 'free' land - we've all read Cowen by now, right? Indeed it's interesting that Cowen hardly even considers FF consumption ... indeed he hardly considers oil. If he did, he'd probably observe - to be consistent - that the growth from oil consumption has been had in (at least) The West and we should look else where for future growth technologies.
  45. Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
    Of course, not to mention risk management...
  46. Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
    Lalonde #12 I'm not familiar with the details of the project, but coal and nuclear powerstations have their own maintenance and depreciation costs too. It all has to be taken into account.
  47. Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
    13 les, Good thing there was a little wind, eh? Considering how terrible that technology is that it needs a great deal of subsidizing for governments to buy them.
  48. Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
    12 Joe: "next storm damage"... Worth noting: Japan’s wind farms save its ass while nuclear plants founder
  49. And so castles made of sand fall in the sea, eventually
    Tuvulu is often mentioned as being in danger of drowning in the rising seas. What do the actual observations about Tuvulu tell us? Pacific islands 'growing not shrinking' due to climate change Far from drowning, some Pacific islands have grown as sea rises, study says
  50. The True Cost of Coal Power
    The 'up front' nature of renewable costs also seems to be a big part of the barrier to implementing them right now. First because it means that you need to invest alot of money in advance and not see any profit for many years. While the eventual payoff should be more than worth it, modern investing strategy runs more towards short term slash and burn than long term prudent growth strategies. The other barrier is, ironically, falling prices for various forms of renewable energy. A solar plant built today would cost half what one built just a few years ago would have... and one built a few years from now will likely cost half as much again. Why spend money on something that will yield a small return starting in 15 years when you can wait/invest elsewhere for five years and start getting a larger return in around the same timeframe? It is clear that these issues won't delay the switchover to alternative energy sources much longer, but it sure is frustrating to watch as we continue to pay higher costs for fossil energy sources which are inferior in almost every way (energy density of gasoline being the only significant exception).

Prev  1829  1830  1831  1832  1833  1834  1835  1836  1837  1838  1839  1840  1841  1842  1843  1844  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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