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  2049  2050  2051  2052  2053  2054  2055  2056  2057  2058  2059  2060  2061  2062  2063  2064  Next

Comments 102801 to 102850:

  1. There is no consensus
    Isn't the important consensus the following: That the earth is warming, man is a significant cause, *that the problem will be serious if nothing is done about it AND the proposed actions (e.g. Kyoto protocol, Cap and Trade, Copenhagen agreement) will prevent the problem from happening?* What % of published climate scientists would answer yes to that question? The majority of climate scientists I've heard opine on the issue of the effectiveness of any of the proposed solutions is that they won't stop the problem from happening.
  2. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Kaj L wrote: "Yes, because currently the waste is a mixture of fission products, uranium and plutonium with a half life of 35000 years. The waste from a “Integral Fast Reactor” is only fission products with a half life so short that the radioactivity disappears within three hundred (300) years." So... the waste from a type of reactor which is not in actual use for commercial power generation anywhere in the world is only radioactive for three hundred years? Oh, well then. Problem solved. :]
  3. A basic overview of Antarctic ice
    The article deals with a complex issue in an over-simplified way. Firstly, there are two quite different ice sheets the EAIS and WAIS. The EAIS covers the Antarctic continental land mass and, based on GRACE measurements is loosing ice at a net rate of ~57 giga-tonnes/year. The skeptic argument that this is compensated for by heavy precipitation high-up on the ice sheet is unsupported and contrary to the very low precipitation of East Antarctica. The WAIS is separated from EAIS by the Trans-Antarctic Mountains and is largely a marine ice sheet anchored on the seabed and rising high above the ocean surface. It is not floating. Other parts of WAIS cover the land of a scattered archipelago, the “peninsula” being the largest of the islands. The WAIS does not cover a land mass extending west of the Trans-Antarctic Mountains to the Peninsula as shown at Fig 1 of the article. That part of the WAIS covering land is subject to rising air and sea temperatures which are responsible for retreat of hundreds of glaciers and causing floating ice shelfs, such as Larsen B, to break away from coastal land. This enables glaciers previously blocked by ice shelfs to discharge ice into the ocean at a much faster rate. Relatively warm ocean water is also responsible for the retreat and speeding up of glacier flows, eg. The Pine Island and Thwaits glaciers discharging into the Amundsen Sea. The part of the WAIS which is a marine ice sheet is particularly vulnerable to waters of the Sothern Ocean which is being warmed by currents flowing from equatorial parts. Parts of this ice sheet, notably the massive Ross and Rönne ice shelves show signs of melting where they are in contact with the Southern Ocean. The Ross and Rönne ice shelves are not floating. They rest on the sea bed and are highly susceptible to seasonal surface melting and to relatively warm water melting their underside. Should the latter occur and should large sections of them break their connection to the seabed and the rest of the ice shelf, they would suddenly become floating ice, displacing water equivalent to their mass. This would cause a relatively sudden and significant rise in sea level. GRACE data shows that the WAIS is currently loosing over 132 giga-tonnes ±26 giga-tonnes of ice per annum and that the rate of loss is accelerating. Is this analysis wrong? Is it alarmist or merely raising issues that should be of concern and might have got a mention in the paper under discussion?
  4. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Rob Honeycutt@107 - “Waste is not a problem? It seems to currently be a problem.” Yes, because currently the waste is a mixture of fission products, uranium and plutonium with a half life of 35000 years. The waste from a “Integral Fast Reactor” is only fission products with a half life so short that the radioactivity disappears within three hundred (300) years. That, I think, is not a problem. IFR power plant of 1000 MWe needs one thousand kilograms (1000 kg) of natural uranium as a fuel in one year. The volume of 1000 kg uranium is about 50 liters. Think about it. That produces the same 1000 kg of waste, with have to be stored for 300 years. Spent fuel from light water reactors is suitable as fuel. So is plutonium for dismantled weapons, and depleted uranium left over from uranium enrichment is suitable as fuel. There is plenty of fuel in LWR waste so you don’t need uranium mines for a long time. You never need enrichment any more. Never. There are other types of reactors that can use Thorium as fuel. MSTR is breeding Thorium to Uranium-233 which is fissile. No plutonium at all in the process. So, the fourth generation of nuclear power offers an infinite energy source. It will solve the nuclear waste problem we are now facing. “I gotta say, anyone who claims that ANY solution is a panacea is not serious.” I didn’t claim that. Nuclear power is only good for replacing coal and natural gas in stationary heat and power production. It is capable to replace them all if we allow it. There are still a bunch of other problems to be solved. Professor Barry Brook has an excellent collection of articles in his blog Brave New Climate. If you want to know more, you can start here: http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/16/ifr-spm/ I you just want an easy overview, please watch this two videos: http://blip.tv/file/4198688 http://blip.tv/file/4199148
  5. A basic overview of Antarctic ice
    So, the increase of Antarctic sea ice is also antropogenic? This looks like immunization of the AGW-theory. It does not matter which new evidence is found, it always supports the theory.
    When the evidence roughly fits predictions made by the theory, well, yes, of course it supports the theory. Unless you live in the denialsphere. Your problem is that you assume climatologists have been predicting that sea ice in Antarctica would decrease rapidly as has been predicted for the Arctic. You're wrong.
  6. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    "I daresay there will be further discussion when the Information Commissioner publishes their Decision Notices relating to appeals." Yeah, it will be another "whitewash", eh? :) Actually, I'm sure they'll point out the obvious, that UEA could've handled things better (isn't that always true?), but that nothing illegal was done ...
  7. It's not bad
    @Argus: we're used to such freezing cold here in Quebec (temperatures here are on average colder than in Sweden, even though we're more to the South), but so far the late Autumn has been quite mild. Nowhere near record cold here, despite being the land of Snow and Ice... :-) @SRJ: that's insane! There was a *25C* degree difference between Greenland's center and its western coast.
  8. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    @damorbel: "A diagram without any temperatures?" Yes. It's a diagram about energy flow. it serves its purpose, no matter how much *you* misunderstand it. "I am curious to know how you find a diagram without any temperatures on it AT ALL "serves a [useful] purpose" in this regard." Because it shows energy transfers. What's your problem with it, apart from the fact that you don't understand what it's used for? It seems that, like many deniers here, you are consciously trying to muddy the waters and create confusion about AGW science. Too bad (for you) the level of knowledge on this site is so high...
  9. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    damorbel wrote: "Now this soil, water, atmosphere etc. only emits radiation when it is above 0K, whereas it absorbs radiation regardless of its temperature." BTW... it should be pointed out that 0K has never been observed. It's a theoretical minimum. Nothing that cold is actually known to exist. Therefor your contrast between one thing which 'only' happens above 0K and another which happens regardless of temperature is really two things which happen regardless of temperature.
  10. A basic overview of Antarctic ice
    Paul, yet another rewording/explanation; More sunlight strikes the Earth during summer than winter... especially at the poles. Ergo, a change in summer ice area is going to have a greater impact on the amount of sunlight reflected by the ice (and thus not warming the surface) than an equal change during the winter. Taking that into account we can then see that since the sea ice melts away almost entirely each summer in Antarctica there has not been any significant change in the amount of sunlight absorbed. Nor does the slight increase of Antarctic sea ice in winter have a major impact given the decreased sunlight during that time of year. So, you are correct that the amount of ice always impacts the amount of sunlight absorbed vs reflected, but the relevant bit here is that there is little sunlight at the poles in winter and Antarctic summer sea ice hasn't changed much while Arctic summer sea ice has decreased sharply.
  11. Renewable Baseload Energy
    dana1981, thanks for the info. It is interesting that they only check once a year. I think ultimately real time pricing with smart metering will extract the most value from your energy resource.
  12. 10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
    There is some additional progress reported here on identifying a specific human fingerprint to extreme weather events In their biggest success, climate scientists led by Peter Stott of the British Met Office analyzed the 2003 European heat wave, when the mercury rose higher than at any time since the introduction of weather instruments (1851), and probably since at least 1500. After plugging in historical and paleo data, and working out climate patterns in a hypothetical world without a human-caused greenhouse effect, they conclude that our meddling was 75 percent to blame for the heat wave. Put another way, we more than doubled the chance that it would happen, and it’s twice as likely to be human-caused than natural. That’s one beat shy of “Yes, we did it,” but better than “There’s no way to tell.” Scientists are now applying the technique to other extreme weather, especially deluges and droughts. They have reason to be optimistic. One of the signal successes of climate science has been identifying the “fingerprints” of the culprits behind rising temperatures, fierce storms, and other signs that a 10,000-year-old climate regime has been knocked for a loop. Fingerprinting has shown that the rise in global temps follows the pattern you’d expect from the greenhouse effect and not an increase in the sun’s output, for instance. A hotter sun would heat the upper atmosphere more than the lower, but in fact the upper layers have cooled while the lower have warmed, Santer explains. Fingerprinting has also nailed the greenhouse effect for warming the oceans. Natural forces such as El Niño warm some seas and cool others, but every major ocean is hotter than in the 1950s. Similar analyses have been done for today’s extreme rainfall patterns (drought followed by deluge, not precipitation spread out evenly) and the retreat of arctic sea ice. “Natural causes alone can’t explain any of these,” Santer says. “You need a large human contribution.” http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/27/can-we-blame-extreme-weather-on-climate-change.html
  13. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Michele I wouldn't venture to disprove (ignore?) statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics in one shot. This is what that paper does.
  14. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    damorbel wrote: "Do you know that GHGs also radiate IR? The most common explanation for the GH effect is that this radiation causes the surface to get warmer somehow" So, you accept that GHGs absorb and then re-emit IR. Yet you insist that this re-emitted radiation can't possibly warm the planet. So... what exactly do you think happens to it? It somehow 'knows' the relative temperatures of the matter it was emitted from and the matter it is about to impact and 'changes course' to avoid any matter which is warmer than the previous? How do you imagine microwave ovens work? After all, as the food gets warmer the microwave photons can't possibly travel from the cool walls of the microwave to the warm food... they must be repulsed away from anything warmer. Therefor, a frozen dinner might be warmed up to room temperature, but a microwave oven could never make anything warmer than room temperature because the radiation can only travel into colder objects. Ditto sunlight, lasers, radio and television broadcasts, remote controls, and dozens of other aspects of everyday life. All of which demonstrate that your position is gibberish. Seriously. How can you not see that you are spouting completely ludicrous nonsense?
  15. A basic overview of Antarctic ice
    Something else of possible interest.
  16. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    "It is rather like claiming that if you are cold (+10C) you can get warm by taking your clothes off and hugging a snowman at -3C but much, much worse!" Good grief, damorbel: you really don't get it, do you? Warmer objects can indeed absorb radiation from cooler objects. If you shine a steady UV light on a spinning steel ball, the ball will eventually reach a specific temperature. True? If you then place another steel ball nearby--a steel ball below the temp of the first one but above 0K--then I'll bet you lunch that the first steel ball's surface temperature will increase slightly until it once again reaches an "equilibrium" temp. Allow this to take place in an atmosphere that does not support convection or conduction--only radiation. The total incoming radiation for the first ball will have increased due to the second (cooler) ball's radiation (and subsequent re-radiation of the first ball's radiation). In your model, does the radiation from the second ball just "bounce off" the first ball? Or does the second ball magically know not to radiate toward the first ball? Your snowman example is not good, because A) you're working primarily with conduction and convection and B) the naked person has an internal engine. There is still radiative transfer, though, between the snowman and the naked person.
  17. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Michele - There is a quote from Carl Sagan, that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Your article (by a Claes Johnson) attempts to overturn Planck, the Stephen-Boltzmann law, and quantum effects on radiation, returning to classical wave mechanics by arguing for finite precision math and small scale diffusion effects. And without proposing any experimental differences between these two interpretations that could be used as a test. If this is the case, and your author is correct, by all means, he should submit to Science and everywhere else. But he's going to have to have rather extraordinary evidence to throw out the last 100 years of quantum physics. I consider it much more likely that Claes Johnson is completely wrong, and is in fact indulging in wishful thinking. Until and unless Johnson proves his amazing theories, I'm going with the greenhouse effect. As should you.
  18. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Eric #154 - yes, there are some state (California) subsidies. I'm not sure how much - the solar company took care of that paperwork and incorporated the subsidies into the quoted cost. After a year of the lease, the electric utility (PG&E in my case) checks the meter - if it's negative (more produced than used), they pay me, I believe somewhere in the ballpark of 10-12 cents per kWh. I've only had the panels installed since August - it was very negative in summer, and has been positive in winter. Overall I've got just about zero net use from August through November.
  19. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    damorbel "It is rather like claiming that if you are cold (+10C) you can get warm by taking your clothes off and hugging a snowman at -3C but much, much worse!" No, it's rather like claiming that 10 °C is better than -3 °C. Your clothes are colder than your body on average, at almost the same temperature inside and colder outside. But they reduce the heat fluxes due to both conduction and convection and you feel warmer. The point here is that whatever reduces heat dispersion (heat flux) makes you feel "warmer", even if it is colder than yourself. And even if the prevailing mechanism is radiative instead of conductive or convective. Please note the flux from the atmosphere to the surface is not a heat flux but an energy flux, the former being the net energy flux at the surface. So, the heat flux does not revert upon increasing the greenhouse effect as required by the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
  20. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #174 Tom Dayton you wrote :- "wavelengths of radiation that are plentifully emitted by the Earth but only weakly emitted by the Sun, thereby acting as a partially closed valve that traps energy below the top of the atmosphere" A (partially) closed valve? The absorbed insolation is converted to heat, it warms the soil, water, atmosphere etc. A (partially) closed valve is not an idea that applies to radiation, even the IPCC doesn't mention this idea! Now this soil, water, atmosphere etc. only emits radiation when it is above 0K, whereas it absorbs radiation regardless of its temperature. For example Earth can absorb microwave radiation very efficiently but the whole point of microwave ovens is that their radiation does not have thermal properties, it is "monochromatic" with a wavelength many orders of magnitude longer than IR. Starting from 0K the temperature of material receiving radiation (of any sort) can only rise and as it rises it starts to emit radiation, eventually reaching a temperatures at which it emits as much radiation as it absorbs - it has nothing to do with the wavelength of the incoming radiation. However if you want to assign a temperature to your source then you must choose a source with a thermal spectrum, a spectrum that follows Planck's radiation law; it must not be monochromatic like a laser, a microwave oven or any other non-Planckian spectrum, only then can you speak of a temperature.
  21. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    KR, I suggest the following draft http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/ambsblack.pdf Claes Johnson, relating to classical harmonic oscillator with radiation and dissipation, forced by an incoming wave, shows in a straightforward manner that the energy is transferred only from warmer to cooler and the back radiation isn’t able to heat the planetary surface. Up to now, I didn’t know this very fine detail!
  22. It's not bad
    Re: Albatross (81) Old family saying:
    "The slow go hungry."
     Heh. The Yooper
  23. actually thoughtful at 04:19 AM on 30 November 2010
    Renewable Baseload Energy
    Quokka: "You are comparing the US economy now to France thirty years ago" Just to be clear - the "you" that you refer to is Sailrick - who made a comment that I didn't understand, so I did some research and shared what I learned. Quokka: "What exactly does 90 GW of solar mean?" Still not reading what I write, are you? I don't mind debating, but it really not much of a challenge when you don't bother to READ what I post. Do you want to try again?
  24. It's not bad
    # 73 Argus and #74 Yes it is unusually cold in Scandinavia for the moment, but take a look at Greenland. Yesterday they had +11C in some parts. Link It is rather well known that cold weather in Scandinavia means warm weather in Greenland.
  25. It's not bad
    Sorry Daniel...
  26. It's not bad
    Re: Argus (78) I had a real nice comment all lined up but I see Albatross beat me to it... :) Ah, well. Despite the focus on individual cooling trees (the weather), the forest surrounding us is still heating up nevertheless. The Yooper
  27. It's not bad
    It is winter again, and so the cherry-picking of cold temperatures, some of theme records, begins. Global warming, for now, does not mean the cessation of cold weather. Nor does it mean the end of winter (the planet is still tilted from the vertical)or that no record cold temperatures will be measured anywhere. What is does mean is that the planet as a whole is warming, and that fewer record lows will be set. That is a fact, and is exactly what has been happening. Another fact, until recently, 19 countries around the globe had set all-time record high temperatures in 2010, compared to zero record cold lows. See here. Maybe we will hit 20 before the year is out....
  28. Renewable Baseload Energy
    SNRatio #153 Adding to your argument, there's a study that I've posted before, but I think is still worth some attention: Czisch & Ernst 2001 High wind power penetration by the systematic use of smoothing effects within huge catchment areas shown in a European example They conclude it's possible to smooth out even seasonal variation with a large enough integrated area.
  29. A basic overview of Antarctic ice
    RE: #33 Paul , I might try and explain too! (repetition, but with different words). The most important effect on heat balance is ice cover in the summer. Since 'change in heat balance' = 'change in albedo' x 'heat coming in' and 'heat coming in' is biggest in summer. In summer, Antarctic sea ice retreats to the edges of the continent, which is generally covered by ice too thick to melt away. So changes in summer will be a tiny change in total area. Meanwhile, there is still sea ice left in the Arctic in summer. NSIDC minimum extent for Antarctica has been pretty constantly around 3 mil sq km since satellite records began. So there has been little change in heat balance. Meanwhile, Arctic sea ice extent has decreased by about 2.5 million sq km and there is still another ~5 mil sq km left to go in summer. To offset the decline in Arctic ice we've already seen, you'd need a 75% or so increase in Antarctic summer sea ice.
  30. A basic overview of Antarctic ice
    Guys, the greatest Arctic sea ice trend is observed when comparing September minima across years. In fact, the greatest anomaly is occurring later in September than previously. The most important time with respect to albedo is June. The trend observed (so far) for June is quite a bit less than for September. Likewise, wrt albedo, the austral summer solstice is most important, and at that point the ice has not melted back to the continent. If it is slow to melt back and there is more reflective material around Antarctica in December and January, I think it should not be arm-waved away. There may be calculations that show the Arctic trend is much more important for planetary albedo than the Antarctic trend, and given the effect of angle of incidence, etc, those quantitative results would help greatly in supporting the intuitive argument.
  31. A basic overview of Antarctic ice
    #32 Muoncounter I have calculated trends for both extent and area of NH and SH ice. I find that the increase in SH ice extent as well as area is statistically significant at the 95% level. Here is a plot with trend estimates and 95% confidence limits: Please note that the units are given as K/year where K=millions square km's. Tamino finds a similar result: "But if one uses data for all months, the increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979 is statistically significant." From here I remember having read somewhere that this is related to increased precipitation. As temperatures continue to rise this positive trend in ice area and extent will at some point reverse and become negative
  32. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #166 archiesteel you wrote :- "@damorbel: the graph serves its purpose. It is not misleading to anyone with any kind of base scientific knowledge." A diagram without any temperatures? Telling us that the surface is warmed? This is not scientific, the thread is about the 2nd Law of themodynamics which is about how heat moves between places with different temperatures; I am curious to know how you find a diagram without any temperatures on it AT ALL "serves a [useful] purpose" in this regard.
  33. A basic overview of Antarctic ice
    Oh Jeez Rob, you posted that while I was typing my response. OK, we seem to be on the same page though. Good point about the impact on albedo of the Antarctic ice sheet.
  34. A basic overview of Antarctic ice
    Paul @33, I could be wrong. So major caveat emptor ;) The slight increasing trend in Antarctic ice during the austral winter is not as important or critical as the loss of summer ice up north (during the boreal summer). The reason being that changes in albedo are not really an issue, if at all, during the austral winter. In contrast, the rapid loss of ice during the boreal summer does have a large positive feedback because of the very important impacts of changes in albedo between snow/ice and ocean water. On another note. In recent testimony to congress, Dr. Alley said that the slow increase in Antarctic sea ice will change soon. Now Dr. Alley is a paleo scientists, so I do not know what he means by "soon"-- decades, centuries? My guess is decades.
  35. It's not bad
    Talking of record colds... Quote Cold Record in the Antarctic Minus 50.2 degrees Celsius. 1:20 PM, JUL 22, 2010 • BY JOHN ROSENTHAL Courtesy of /.../ (NOAA), the news media has been full of reports in the last few days about last month being the “hottest June” yet recorded and 2010 being on track likewise to be the hottest year. /.../ When, however, actual temperature readings reveal record cold, this apparently is not news. So it was in May, when much of Europe was experiencing unseasonably cold weather. Germany, for instance, was hit with major snowstorms in May. In the middle of the month, the German Weather Service quietly acknowledged that the country was experiencing record cold: some 3-5 degrees Celsius below the long-term averages. And so it was also last week, when the Georg von Neumayer polar research station on the Antarctic coast recorded the lowest temperature reading since the station was first established in 1981: minus 50.2 degrees Celsius. Unquote
  36. A basic overview of Antarctic ice
    Paul Barry.... I'm not an expert on Antarctic ice by any means but I believe the idea here is that summer sea ice loss in Antarctica is going to have very little net albedo change. The ice melts back pretty much to the continent as it is in the summer months. Whereas in the Arctic when sea ice melts we are left with open ocean, in the Antarctic we still have the Antarctic continent covered with ice and almost no net change in albedo.
  37. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    damorbel - IR at greenhouse frequencies gets absorbed and re-emitted within about 100 meters. That means the surface is facing an atmospheric IR emitter at 14C, not -50C. The -50C is reached through atmospheric lapse rate temperature drop, until the altitude where lowering pressure reduces IR absorption enough to radiate to space. Now, realize that without the GHG absorption and emission at 14C we would instead be radiating those bands directly from the surface to space, which is (if you include microwave background radiation) at -269C? I suggest you think about sitting (a) in a room at 14C, then try (b) sitting in a cryo-fridge at -269C, and consider what kind of body temperature you could maintain in those two circumstances. Wear warm socks.
  38. A basic overview of Antarctic ice
    Thanks, CBDunkerson. That's one possible source of confusion out of the way. I have no desire to attack this article (the evidence for AGW is overwhelming, I believe) - but it is, unlike most articles I read in Skeptical Science, far from easy to follow. Again, this sentence is a bit of a non sequitur:"Essentially Arctic sea ice is more important for the earth's energy balance because when it melts, more sunlight is absorbed by the oceans whereas Antarctic sea ice normally melts each summer leaving the earth's energy balance largely unchanged." Is more sunlight not absorbed by the oceans when Antarctic sea-ice melts? Why not - the fact that it "normally melts each summer", as the above states, tells me nothing about why it is different to the Arctic - the arctic does the same, does it not? Why does this leave energy balance unchanged? Can somebody explain to me what I need to grasp to make this logical leap (or suggest a clearer way of expressing the above) Thanks in advance. Great site!
  39. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re #167 yocta you explain that CO2 etc, the greenhouse gases (GHGs) absorb radiation in the IR band. I have never heard this disputed, do you think that those who question the GH effect actually question this? I certainly don't. Do you know that GHGs also radiate IR? The most common explanation for the GH effect is that this radiation causes the surface to get warmer somehow; this thread is about how GHGs which are between cold and very cold (-50C) in the upper atmosphere can warm Earth's surface which is normally between +30C and -30C. It is rather like claiming that if you are cold (+10C) you can get warm by taking your clothes off and hugging a snowman at -3C but much, much worse! The snowman hugger gets cold because his body heat, at 10C transfers to the colder (-3C) snowman, melting part of the snowman meanwhile making the hugger quite a few degrees colder. This is what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is all about. The explanations of the IPCC claim that GHGs in the troposphere warm Earth's surface at 255K by 33K to 288K, that's a lot of warming!
  40. Renewable Baseload Energy
    dana1981 (#140), "Over the 10 year lease, it roughly breaks even with what I would have paid otherwise to my electric utility, despite the fact that my house has very low energy consumption" Are there subsidies for the lease (i.e. is it based just on capital costs of the equipment)? Also how much are you being paid for the electricity that you don't use? Can you give us a comparison to peak and off peak wholesale and retail rates for your area? Thanks very much, I also have some solar for incidental use plus glass mat batteries for storage. No subsidies and not breaking even in the least. I did it just as a hobby.
  41. Renewable Baseload Energy
    From a European point of view, I think this discussion is lacking quite a lot. First, wind energy can cover much of base load when the generators are integrated over a sufficiently large area. Like a system of offshore wind power generators from Norther Norway to Portugal/Southern Spain. Simply put, the wind always blows _somewhere_, and the speeds needed for wind power generation are rather small - smaller than many think, I guess. Wind power is not so well suited for local generation as for integration in regional (world-wise) systems. Second, the potential role of hydro-electric power as equaliser is little investigated and even less exploited. In Europe, there is currently about 170 TWh magazine capacity, and in principle, this capacity could be utilized for a very high peak power output. Combined with pumping when wind and solar PV produces surplus energy, it is in principle possible to base a rather high total consumption entirely on wind, simple solar PV and hydro, provided wind and solar gives a sufficient and reliable output. Third, electrifying transport will both reduce the total energy consumption, make more "opportunistic" energy use possible (for instance switching between battery and fuel cells and coordination of domestic and transport energy use on household level), and free up lots of fossile fuels for co-generation, easing transition problems in the development of more sustainable energy systems. Fourth, the impact of ordinary PV is so far to a large degree unknown. The EU parliament has decides that within 10 years, all new EU houses shall be "plus-houses", over their life span generating more energy than they use. In most cases, this will probably imply both a tremendous focus on domestic energy-efficiency and a multiple eploitation of solar energy, both passively through building construction, and actively through PV and solar heating. There are several combinations possible, only starting to get into development and use now. Basically, when buildings are appropriately designed, most of heating needs in most of Europe can be covered by solar and heat pumps with rather high efficiency. There is no question whether the basic renewable technologies deliver. They do, and the challenge is to find good ways to optimize and integrate them.
  42. A basic overview of Antarctic ice
    #31: "So, the increase of Antarctic sea ice " If by increase, you mean the vaguely positive trend in the red graph shown in the figure below (NSIDC): How do you spell 'not statistically significant'?
  43. A basic overview of Antarctic ice
    So, the increase of Antarctic sea ice is also antropogenic? This looks like immunization of the AGW-theory. It does not matter which new evidence is found, it always supports the theory. When a theory reaches this stage, there is no need for further research. The billions of dollars can better be used to build dikes in Pakistan.
  44. It's not bad
    Re: Argus (76) Thanks for the link. Ironically, another sign of a warming world: when the Arctic Oscillation goes negative, the Arctic experiences above-normal temps, enhancing the overall ongoing warming there. The downside, of course, is Europe and the UK gets hit with the cold polar airmass displaced from the Pole. Source here. The Yooper
  45. It's not bad
    Daniel Bailey #74: Do you have sources for those "cold records"? I quote from Met Office: "Last night saw November minimum temperature records fall across the country. Most notably both Wales and Northern Ireland recorded the coldest November night since records began. In Wales, temperatures fell to -18.0 °C at Llysdinam, near Llandrindod Wells, Powys. Northern Ireland recorded -9.5 °C at Loch Fea." Or check he article for yourself: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2010/pr20101128.html
  46. It's not bad
    Re: Argus (73) You may wish to reconsider that wish for an additional 6 degrees (I assume you mean C). Here's the latest, which says we're on track for 4 degrees C - by the 2060s. This means the 2 degree C target for organizations like Copenhagen or 350.org or CO2Now is impossible. Maybe you're unfamiliar with what effects a 4 degree C rise will entail. Let me refresh your memory:
    "At four degrees another tipping point is almost certain to be crossed; indeed, it could happen much earlier. (This reinforces the determination of many environmental groups, and indeed the entire EU, to bring us in within the two degrees target.) This moment comes as the hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon locked up in Arctic permafrost – particularly in Siberia – enter the melt zone, releasing globally warming methane and carbon dioxide in immense quantities. No one knows how rapidly this might happen, or what its effect might be on global temperatures, but this scientific uncertainty is surely cause for concern and not complacency. The whole Arctic Ocean ice cap will also disappear, leaving the North Pole as open water for the first time in at least three million years. Extinction for polar bears and other ice-dependent species will now be a certainty. The south polar ice cap may also be badly affected – the West Antarctic ice sheet could lift loose from its bedrock and collapse as warming ocean waters nibble away at its base, much of which is anchored below current sea levels. This would eventually add another 5m to global sea levels – again, the timescale is uncertain, but as sea level rise accelerates coastlines will be in a constant state of flux. Whole areas, and indeed whole island nations, will be submerged. In Europe, new deserts will be spreading in Italy, Spain, Greece and Turkey: the Sahara will have effectively leapt the Straits of Gibraltar. In Switzerland, summer temperatures may hit 48C, more reminiscent of Baghdad than Basel. The Alps will be so denuded of snow and ice that they resemble the rocky moonscapes of today’s High Atlas – glaciers will only persist on the highest peaks such as Mont Blanc. The sort of climate experienced today in Marrakech will be experienced in southern England, with summer temperatures in the home counties reaching a searing 45C. Europe’s population may be forced into a “great trek” north."
     Remember that 2 degrees C means Middle Eastern summer temps for Europe and guarantees the eventual loss of the GIS and the South American glaciers. Three degrees C risks the loss of the Amazon to fire. Don't think for a second that it will stop there, at 4 degrees C. 4 by the 2060s means 6 by 2100 and an eventual methane clathrate/hydrate release. Think PETM... Beware of what you wish for. The Yooper
  47. A basic overview of Antarctic ice
    Paul Barry, it means southern hemisphere summer... so December. Nothing counter-intuitive. Ice in both hemispheres grows during the cold months and shrinks during the warm months.
  48. It's not bad
    Re: Argus (73) Do you have sources for those "cold records"? The Yooper
  49. It's not bad
    After 2-3 of months that you could call summer, and 3 months of autumn when it just gets progressively colder and darker, winter has now struck my home country (Sweden). Six degrees warmer would be very nice now (actually would be nice the whole year around), but it still would not take the temperature above freezing in Stockholm - and I don't have the time to wait for it another 100 years for it to happen... And with the present rate of 0.016 degrees per year the promised change would hardly be noticed. Yes, I know there are places on the earth where it is too hot, but it is hard to believe right now. New cold records were just set in Wales (-18C) and in Northern Ireland. In northern Sweden we have had temperatures around -30C for about a week already.
  50. A basic overview of Antarctic ice
    I just have a question about the original post. I'd just like to get a clearer understanding of the following from the beginning of Robert's article which I may have completely misunderstood. It says: "Essentially Arctic sea ice is more important for the earth's energy balance because when it melts, more sunlight is absorbed by the oceans whereas Antarctic sea ice normally melts each summer leaving the earth's energy balance largely unchanged." Is the summer in Antartica in this case understood as December or June? Are you saying that most sea ice builds up during the warm months? If so, is there a simple explanation for this counter-intuitive phenomenon? Thanks for all the posts.

Prev  2049  2050  2051  2052  2053  2054  2055  2056  2057  2058  2059  2060  2061  2062  2063  2064  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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