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  2051  2052  2053  2054  2055  2056  2057  2058  2059  2060  2061  2062  2063  2064  2065  2066  Next

Comments 102901 to 102950:

  1. A basic overview of Antarctic ice
    Why is it that "skeptics" must always immediately comment on any new post here with a comment that makes it obvious that they have either not read the post and the linked sources or have not understood them? Camburn, please read Robert's linked references in his response to you above. As it stands, most of your comment is simply wrong. The Yooper
  2. A basic overview of Antarctic ice
    I think it might help you to check out the following link http://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-ice-sheet-losses-overestimated.html I don't think that you are giving an honest assessment of the literature when you say that "the loss of land ice in Antarctic is very negligible" or that "it is virtually impossible to discern with any certainty what land ice is doing". Perhaps the following posts might be helpful. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Part-2-How-do-we-measure-Antarctic-ice-changes.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/Part-Three-Response-to-Goddard.html In summary there are a multitude of measurement techniques that have been employed and they all show the same consistent pattern of Antarctic ice losses. Furthermore, we do not need to correct for GIA as much with other datasets and radar interferometry does not find it at all and yet we see the same results. When you know the amount of snowfall stayed the same from last year to this year and yet you see an increase in ice velocity you know that the basin is not in balance. Finally, How does percentage relate to all this? It may be a small percentage of all of Antarctic ice but it still has implications for sea level rise. Lets consider that if Antarctic loses 1% of its total ice volume, it is a 0.7m sea level rise which is a lot for just from Antarctica alone.
  3. Renewable Baseload Energy
    123 actually thoughtful. I'm not a great advocate of individual action to solve the problem, but it's great for changing the mindset. (Must confess I've had solar hot water for 20+ years.) My mum lives in a retirement village which organised bulk purchase of solar PV for 190+ households. Now there's a bragging rights competition. One neighbour is crowing to the world at large that her power bill for the last 2 months was a measly $20. Where retired people have enough money and simply look at moderate investment / expenditure options, this is a surefire winner.
  4. A basic overview of Antarctic ice
    The problem with Grace is evident in the earlier literature. The lack of GPS stations affect the corrections. On a percentage basis, the loss of land ice in Antarctica is very neglible. Because the percentage is so small, and the Grace data is subject to correction, it is virtually impossible to discern with any certainty what the land ice on Antarctica is doing.
  5. We're heading into an ice age
    Re: NQuestofApollo (122) Technically we are still in an ice age (defined as the existence of continental ice sheets in any such form), so we actually are in what is called an interglacial period. Of super-sized form. Glaciated conditions typically form through draw-down of atmospheric concentrations of CO2, as seen here: Given that the residential lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is on the millennial timescale, we can be safe in assuming no glaciers bugging temperate latitudes anytime soon. We have known about the GHG effect of CO2 for nearly two centuries - this is well-understood and not seriously questioned by any competent scientist anywhere. Google Tyndall, Arrhenius or Fourier sometime. As far as a slow release of CO2, that would be nice. But it in no way reflects the reality of what is actually happening. There simply is no comp in the paleo record for such a quick rise in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere (other than during the PETM). So past periods of climate change occurred over much longer periods than what is happening today. Past periods of rapid climate change were always accompanied by many mass-extinctions (during periods when CO2 concentrations changed more slowly than today. Except during the PETM...). You can certainly disagree with Dr. Tyrrell and his understanding of the carbon cycle all you want. My money's on Dr. Tyrrell. As far as growing crops in a rapidly changing climate, that is easier said than done. Aridity of agricultural soils has gone from 8% in the 60s to over 21% as of 2001. Projections show greater than 50% aridity by 2035 and over 70% by 2052. Evapotranspiration of the soil is decreasing (soils are drying out) while humidity has increased by 4% (the equivalent extra volume of Lake Erie is now floating in the air, waiting to dump on someone). So what does that mean? Less rainfall events and drier soils; when it does rain, the "gas tanks" are greater, so more moisture falls (once-in-a-thousand year rainfall events start fall every century then every decade) in shorter burst, yielding more runoff and more erosion and flooding. And more crop damage. Global warming = Droughts, famines. In a world struggling to feed its existing populace, what will people do in 20 years when half the food is being produced for another 2 billion more people to feed than today's totals? muoncounter can answer whatever scaddenp didn't above. The Yooper
  6. We're heading into an ice age
    #122: "it is a bit obvious (at least to me) that a warmer globe is better than a cooler globe." You seem to be suggesting that if an ice age is coming, some beneficial greenhouse warming due to CO2 (let's lose the 'assuming CO2 does cause warming') would be a good thing. The first problem with this is the obvious: Who says an ice age is coming? I congratulate you for your personal chunk of face centered carbon crystals; hope it is of respectable carat weight. The issue is indeed atmospheric CO2; roughly 50% of the 30 Gtons CO2 we are releasing from fossil fuel combustion each year stays in the atmosphere and the globally measured concentration now increases by more than 2 ppm by volume per year. I'm sure some of the others here can enlighten us why C and CO2 seem to be used semi-interchangeably. Until then, remember to multiply by 3.664.
  7. Renewable Baseload Energy
    "PV on a roof sounds noble, but in reality is expensive per kwh." What, & nuclear isn't? Totally laughable Camburn. You can purchase enough solar power capacity to meet nearly *all* your year-round electricity needs for *less* than the cost of a car. Also, wheras the car will continue to *cost* you money after you buy it, the solar system will *save*-or even earn-you money from day 1. Also, there is nothing wrong with backfeeding solar into the grid. Take a look at *any* power use graph, & you will see that it is *peak* electricity we most desperately need-not more baseload power. The fact is that in the time it takes to get just *one* nuclear power plant online, you could already have installed over a thousand megawatts worth of wind, PV, concentrated solar & land-fill gas plants-& have a significant proportion of it already generating electricity over a 4-5 year period. This is because that, whilst a single nuclear power plant to take upwards of 10 years to build & bring online, most wind farms, PV farms & land-fill gas plants can be up & running in *half* the time. Also, wind & solar can be producing electricity once the first generation units are put in place-without even waiting for the entire project to be completed. Also, whilst nuclear power usually displaces existing land use, biomass gas & solar can be sited in locations already being used for other things (like rubbish tips, sewerage treatment plants & housing) & even wind farms-on a small enough scale-can be placed in locations *without* displacing what was already there.
  8. Renewable Baseload Energy
    "A lot of posts on this topic show that co2 is not an immenent threat to climate at all." They do?? Any with any scientific credibility at all? "The above is one of the main reasons that no action has/will be taken. The "threat" that demands this action does not seem credible simply because of the lack of use of "what we have" to solve a that percieved threat. " I cant see how this makes any sense at all. Replace climate change with "asteroid heading for earth". I cant see how you link "what business needs" with nature of threat. You are saying that business depends on fossil fuels, you can cant see any alternative, ergo we will do nothing even it will cost a great deal more in the long run than doing something about it now?
  9. We're heading into an ice age
    'So, the real argument would be against a rapidly warming globe." (my emphasis). YES! Rate is everything. Arguing about what would be a global optimal temperature would be tough. The problem is change faster than we can adapt in things like food production and infrastructure upon which we have become dependent. Re: use of "carbon". Well diamonds and such are not emissions. CH4 and CO2 are. While there might be an undesirable shorthand in common use, any document that matters on emission levels, is usually in terms of CO2e (CO2 equivalents).
  10. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    archiesteel #102 Seems to be troubling you though archiesteel. Have a look at this thread for reference. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Robust-warming-of-the-global-upper-ocean.html see posts #30, #43, #67 for a sample of the weakness in the AGW case as it relates to signals in the oceans. As you can see BP and I are a couple of dunces who don't understand the science or the numbers. Let's have your response to this vital area of measurement and verification of theoretical warming imbalances.
  11. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Quokka, the reason that both France & the US pursued Nuclear Power with such vigor was because of its close relationship with the development of nuclear weapons. Its no coincidence that the nations with the largest investment in nuclear energy just happen to be those with the biggest stockpiles of nuclear weapons (France, US, UK, China, Russia). Its also the reason why these nations used tax-payers money to subsidize the nuclear power industry. Also, if you look at how desperately the Conservative Political Forces are trying to undermine the NBN here in Australia, you'll see that they'd actually be *very* unwilling to pony up the kind of cash needed to fund the building of an extensive, local nuclear power industry. However, given our extensive coast-line, our good sunshine & wind & our rich geothermal resources, I see no reason why Australia even *needs* an expensive-& time-consuming- construction of a nuclear industry!
  12. Renewable Baseload Energy
    A lot of posts on this topic show that co2 is not an immenent threat to climate at all. There seems little interest to use tech at hand to solve emission problems. The development of a super grid nationally is foolish and unnecessary. There are leakage losses with long line transmission no matter what current tech is used. PV on a roof sounds noble, but in reality is expensive per kwh. The rich folks can do this and feel good. The idea of "backfeeding" the grid is also a very poor way of transmitting power. There has to be baseload generating stations. People expect the light to turn on when the switch is activated. Business expects the lights to be on when the switch is thrown in the morning. Commerce depends on this, humanity depends on this. The above is one of the main reasons that no action has/will be taken. The "threat" that demands this action does not seem credible simply because of the lack of use of "what we have" to solve a that percieved threat.
  13. We're heading into an ice age
    Thank you, both, muoncouter and Daniel - I really appreciate the help. Daniel (121) - I guess I have to start with questioning whether or not stopping an ice age is necessarily bad. Since it is rather difficult to grow things, like food, in ice - it is a bit obvious (at least to me) that a warmer globe is better than a cooler globe. So, the real argument would be against a rapidly warming globe. Assuming that CO2 in fact causes the globe to warm, causing glaciers to melt and frozen tundra to unfreeze - then a SLOW release of CO2 would be necessary to allow the increased water and vegetation to act as carbon sinks and absorb the increasing CO2. Based on my primitive understanding of the Carbon cycle - I must respectfully disagree with Dr. Tyrrell. muoncouter (120) - I would like to express my sincerest gratitude for your explanation, as it clarified the error of my ways. At first, I felt pretty silly thinking that the "C" in "Gton C" meant "carbon dioxide" - I've since discovered that this seems to be a common misconception. In fact, "carbon" is often used in reference to "carbon dioxide" - as in "carbon sink". However, I am now more frustrated than I was before. Last year, POTUS made the following statement: "… this legislation is paid for by the polluters who currently emit the dangerous carbon emissions that contaminate the water we drink and pollute the air that we breathe." Now, I have a solid piece of carbon hanging around my neck - in today's vernacular it is called a diamond. I can guarantee you (and I'm not even going to offer up a study to prove I'm right) that diamonds are NOT contaminating the water we drink and polluting the air that we breathe. So, now I'm noticing that the discussions about global warming interchange accumulated atmospheric carbon and carbon dioxide emissions. Here is an example: "Humankind is releasing CO2 at a rate of about 7 Gton C per year from fossil fuel combustion, with a further 2 Gton C per year from deforestation. Because the atmospheric CO2 concentration is higher than normal, the natural world is absorbing CO2 at a rate of about 2 or 2.5 Gton C per year into the land biosphere and into the oceans, for a total of about 5 Gton C per year." http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/how-much-co2-emission-is-too-much/ But, Carbon is not a greenhouse gas - Carbon Dioxide is. Without the O2 part - why would carbon have any impact on the temperature of the globe? Or, to make a short story long: why do we care about the amount of Carbon as a stand alone element vis-a-vis global temperatures?
  14. Antarctica is gaining ice
    Re: albertsonrich (58) This isn't really the proper thread for your questions, but as they span multiple potential threads I'll attempt a brief answer of each point. If you're looking for a more in-depth answer with source references, use the search function in the upper left of each page to search for the most appropriate thread for any questions you may still have. Assuming (we both know what that makes us) you wish a cut-to-the-chase, give-me-a-straight-answer to your questions, here goes: 1. No real easy answer to this one, as what is tracked is energy, typically in the form of Watts/square meter or temperature in the form of anomalies or ocean heat content in joules. Due to the GHG effects of CO2, yes, energy is accumulating in the system (about 93% in the oceans, the remainder in the air). 2. Yes (land ice in the form of alpine glaciers and continental ice sheets and sea ice in the Arctic are all in net decline). 3. Most will shy from giving you a solid answer to this one. It is not 100% certain, but overall, I think that you have the right of it; caveated that 100% attribution cannot be made. 4. Complex question. Unlike other GHG's, CO2 has a long residence time (a long "tail"). Full sequestration involves chemical weathering processes taking thousands of years. Assuming that humans cease playing the "pile it on" game...(cue next question) *********************************************** 1. As long as human-derived CO2 emissions are greater than zero, in the absence of some CCS program, the atmosphere will still be out of radiative balance. Once net emissions = zero, approximately 30-50 years must elapse before radiative balance will be achieved (mostly due to thermal lag of the oceans and subsequent smaller feedbacks). Dwell for a moment on the thought that we are just now experiencing the effects of the carbon slug injected during the 70s... 2. No. Much too simplistic of a question. There appears to exist tipping points for Arctic sea ice, the Greenland Ice Sheet and the West Antarctica Ice Sheet (Hansen 2008, I think). Given that the last time CO2 concentrations were this high, global temps were some 3 degrees C higher and sea levels some 6-12 meters higher. Given the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere, we're faced with the loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic (a 2010 study indicates that the system supports only a full-ice or a no-ice solution for the Arctic; i.e., once summer ice is lost, the system proceeds to a no-ice solution within as little as 6-10 years, depending on the model run). Given that, we must resign ourselves to the eventual loss of the GIS and the WAIS sometime within the next millenia (Hansen's study indicates 5+ meter sea level rises per decade by 2100 is a possibility due to ice melt and outlet glacier calving). 3. Unknown. If we continue BAU for another 20 years, the probability of an Arctic methane clathrate/hydrate release goes from its already non-zero status to perhaps an eventually likelihood. If we "burn it all", including the shale sands fossil fuels, Hansen maintains we can't rule out a runaway GHG "Venus Effect" or a hydrogen sulfide release such as seems to have occurred during the PETM. This is an area fraught with uncertainty, so your guess is as good as mine here. My thought is that the temperature increases and sea level increases will be the least of our worries (Google evapotranspiration decreases, soil aridity increase; an upcoming study proposes 70% of today's arable soils will be too dry to support crops by 2052...). Understand this: a synopsis-type answer such as I have given you in answer to your questions must necessarily be reflective more of my opinion of the consensus of understanding of the field than a considered opinion by the academic societies, the IPCC or even skeptical Science. Any further questions, please search for the most appropriate thread and post there. Thanks! The Yooper
  15. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    #182: "I thought this is rather to be a matter of science," One believes what the science says. As opposed to refusing to believe it, no matter how many times it is demonstrated, referenced, explained, etc. The New Scientist article you cite refers to methane from melting permafrost bubbling out into the Arctic Oceans. There do not appear to be 'semi-solid hydrocarbons' in the oceans, unless you are applying that designation to methane hydrates, colloquially known as 'ice that burns'. The discovery will rekindle fears that global warming might be on the verge of unlocking billions of tonnes of methane from beneath the oceans, which could trigger runaway climate change. ... The team located more than 100 hotspots where methane is leaking from seabed permafrost. Most of the water in the region had methane concentrations more than eight times the normal amount in the Arctic Ocean, and concentrations of the gas in the air above averaged four times the Arctic norm. Yes, methane is a GHG, but this is clearly a response to warming that is already underway. This added methane will indeed make things worse; whether it is 'runaway climate change' or not remains to be seen. Let's hope it's not. The headlines 'Arctic Ocean catches fire' will be too hard for even Watt$ to spin. The problem is now that your argument will break down if you are OK with water vapor as a GHG, but refuse to accept CO2. As yocta explained earlier, they are both molecules with the vibrational modes needed to capture IR radiation from the surface. You can't believe that one is a GHG and the other isn't; that just wouldn't be scientific.
  16. Renewable Baseload Energy
    The Ville @88
    The reason for the need of government guarantees is because the private sector is unwilling to fork out the dosh for the capital costs and the risks involved. Nuclear energy suffers the same problems as renewables in that when fossil fuel prices drop no one will make the long term investment in nuclear.
    One of the more important points made on this thread. A carbon price only partially addresses this. There is an all too common blind faith in the ability of the "free market" to abstractly get things right. One way of debt financing might be to somehow draw on the capital of pension/superannuation funds perhaps though some sort of government guaranteed bonds. Pension funds would possibly have an interest in this type of very long term investment at least for part of their portfolio. It would be useful to hear from financial economists on what sort of possibilities may lie here. One thing I think is vitally important is long term energy policies from national governments. Politically this can be represented as being in the national interest. That is why France is nuclear powered - for the "good of the republic" and not because there was a race to nuclear for a quick buck. For those that think that such large scale government intervention is no longer possible, I think the National Broadband Network in Australia shows that it is entirely possible to achieve the political support required if the public believe it to be in the national interest. This is not holding up the NBN model as something to be necessarily replicated, but as an indication that we are not entirely at the mercies of the "free market".
  17. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    h-j-m, if you are trying to find a correct description which somehow misses a measurable phenomena like back-radition, then good luck. How do you account for what DLR pyrgeometers actually detect then? People have pointed you at many good resources for getting a correct description - you appear to have rejected all because they dont conform to your incorrect understanding of physics. I suggest that you go to the textbook and read it from there, correcting your misinterpretations of science as you go. eg "Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, Incropera and DeWitt (2007)". And as for methane - hydrate release would be a disastrous feedback but not likely. We can tell from isotopic composition that bulk of methane going into atmosphere is not from fossil/hydrate sources. I do agree that that "insulator" analogy is poor because most people think in terms of a conductive insulator and its easy to jump to the wrong conclusions. I dont like "heat storage" in atmosphere because the convention use of the term does not strictly apply. This is all about the physics of radiative heat transfer and better understood in those terms rather than by analogy.
  18. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Another point, tt3. If you want an example of *why* renewable energy doesn't need massive geographic distribution, just consider King Island in Tasmania. A population of 2,000 people receive over 50% of their electricity from a single Wind Farm consisting of just 5 generation units-courtesy of a Vanadium Flow Battery. Now if you were to double the number of generation units, & make a modest increase to the size of the Flow Batteries, King Island could run almost *entirely* off Wind Power. Of course, I'm not suggesting that the whole world takes this approach, but it just shows how a Distributed Generation approach-when coupled with a decent storage system-can supply more than 50% of a local areas electricity needs *without* the need to be distributed over a wide geographical area. The same is true of both roof-top solar & Mid-Sized PV Power plants (50MW or less). Of course, as the efficiencies of both Wind, PV & CSP technology improves, the land area needed per MW of output will continue to decline-whereas the land area required for coal or nuclear will remain the same.
  19. Renewable Baseload Energy
    tt3, here are some actual price-tags of various nuclear power stations either being built in the US, or on the drawing board. "The reported prices at six new pressurized water reactors are indicative of costs for that type of plant:[17] * February 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at its Turkey Point site Florida Power & Light calculated overnight capital cost from $2444 to $3582 per kW, which were grossed up to include cooling towers, site works, land costs, transmission costs and risk management for total costs of $3108 to $4540 per kilowatt. Adding in finance charges increased the overall figures to $5780 to $8071 per kW. * March 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors in Florida Progress Energy announced that if built within 18 months of each other, the cost for the first would be $5144 per kilowatt and the second $3376/kW - total $9.4 billion. Including land, plant components, cooling towers, financing costs, license application, regulatory fees, initial fuel for two units, owner's costs, insurance and taxes, escalation and contingencies the total would be about $14 billion. * May 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station in South Carolina South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. and Santee Cooper expected to pay $9.8 billion (which includes forecast inflation and owners' costs for site preparation, contingencies and project financing). * November 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at its Lee site Duke Energy Carolinas raised the cost estimate to $11 billion, excluding finance and inflation, but apparently including other owners costs. * November 2008 — For two new AP1000 reactors at its Bellefonte site TVA updated its estimates for overnight capital cost estimates ranged to $2516 to $4649/kW for a combined construction cost of $5.6 to 10.4 billion (total costs of $9.9 to $17.5 billion). * April 2008 — Georgia Power Company reached a contract agreement for two AP1000 reactors to be built at Vogtle, at an estimated final cost of $14 billion plus $3 billion for necessary transmission upgrades. All of the above prices of course assume no time overruns but, as Finland can attest, overruns are actually quite common. What we see, though, is that China's "cheap" nuclear power stations are the exception, not the rule. Power Stations in the US & Europe come in at anywhere from US$2500 up to US$7,000 per KW. Hardly cheap-& certainly not as cheap as the cost assumed in the EIA's life-time energy cost study. Yet still that study leaves nuclear as *more* expensive than Wind or Combined Cycle Gas. That this is still the case after *sixty* years-& hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies-really suggests this fascination with nuclear power is totally fantastical in nature.
  20. actually thoughtful at 10:57 AM on 29 November 2010
    Renewable Baseload Energy
    Regarding baseload power - it seems we will continue to need this, baring the unforeseen. I do agree with the poster who points out renewables tend to favor a national grid (actually - everyone benefits, even coal - more open market). In general we can produce more power locally (and there is HUGE power in generating your own resources as the building level - it really is control over your life that we haven't had in modern industrial times - it feeds a primordial hunger most of us didn't know we had). We can severely reduce the need for baseload power through efficiency methods. One of the trade magazines I read stated "recapturing waste heat at x and so plant produced more energy then all the PV production of the US combined" (Contractor magazine). I don't know that is true - but surely we have opportunities to reduce demand by ~50% or more. Price carbon-based fuel correctly and see how much waste we have! I also agree that used EV batteries are not going to be the storage answer of the future - as I understand it, batteries have a charge cycle limitation and a straight-up time limitation (perhaps not all batteries). I do think there are opportunities in using active EV batteries as short term storage - power company pays you to store the energy - no payment if you run off and drive the car! But if they can store from 3pm until 7pm - this solves a peak renewable (PV/CSP) to peak load shift issue. As has been stated - there is SO much we can do before we hit storage issues - it is great that people are working on it now - but the first move for every INDIVIDUAL is to install renewable energy in their home/business. This is how the market starts and grows - people watch people and act accordingly.
  21. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    muoncounter, yes you are right I don't change arguments (stories) as long as I find them sufficiently backed by facts. But of course, I will never be a believer. I thought this is rather to be a matter of science, not belief. As to hydrocarbons in the oceans I might have meant this.
  22. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Quokka #53 "answering" my point about the dangers of a plutonium economy claims that the pyroprocessing process "cannot be used to produce weapons grade plutonium". As Quokka stated about my original post "this is a poorly informed claim". The pyroprocessing link that Q gave actually says this "The key step is "electrorefining," which removes uranium, plutonium and the other actinides (highly radioactive elements with long half-lives) from the spent fuel, while keeping them mixed together so the plutonium cannot be used directly in weapons." Oh dear. Perhaps Quokka does not comprehend what the word "directly" implies? Perhaps Q can tell us what will prevent an unscrupulous regime (see below) from using ordinary chemical separation methods to separate and purify the mixed actinides? TT23 #84 claims my argument was a straw-man. "However most people live in places which already have nuclear weapons, so even if the "plutonium economy" was a reality, this does not add to weapons proliferation in any way." Really? You just haven't thought about the way the world works enough. In order for population to stabilise at round 9 billion by 2050, which is the only way we will ever get to grips with "growth" eventually eating everything, it is assumed that the whole world will develop to achieve close to European living standards. That means, if we are to reduce our global carbon inputs to the atmosphere whilst simultaneously the third world gets necessary access to much more energy to develop than they currently use, then many nations will have access to whatever means we choose to supply all that extra energy. Many of those nations/regimes could currently be regarded as potentially unstable, prone to dictator style government etc. As they get more politically powerful (as they develop) the egos of their current and future leaders leaders may develop also. TT23 also wrote "Please read about how modern breeders (such as the IFR) work - they breed new fissile in place, and the reprocessing is done at the site" You're assuming that all these newly developing nations will choose the tech that you have faith in, rather than a tech that can be used to siphon off fissile material. Why do pro-nuke shills have such a childlike, but dangerous, faith in the innate goodness and morals of megalomaniac dictators? The problem with the nuclear industry is they have been claiming that nuclear energy is the answer for about 60 years. Yet again, with Gen 111 and Gen IV, they are holding out the same jam tomorrow. Prove it! Not just a demonstration or pilot plant but multiple full size plant with every aspect of the final engineering fully stress and time tested. If the new nuke designs are going to be promoted as a way to solve/ameliorate the atmospheric emergency we would have to install an awful lot of them and we would have to start now - decades before we can be sure in practice of the engineering. If some unforeseen problem surfaces 20 years down the line and the world was wholly reliant on nukes, what then? France has 60 million people and 60 nukes. A back of the envelope calculation speculation shows that if we were to power the world in 2050 with the universal European living standards needed to stabilise population - with the same size plant as France currently has - we would have to have around 9,000 nukes spread out in every one of the 200 countries in the world. Better pray that they are all run by selfless saints...
  23. Renewable Baseload Energy
    dana1981: You are basically right about nuclear power. The way I put it, or the few who listen:(, is that nuclear power will be a key player in the solution, but cannot be the entire solution by itself. As for the competing technologies, it looks like the Indians are about to put into Thorium the effort we should have been putting into it all these years: they have huge thorium resources they want to take advantage of. Nor are they interested in remaining dependent on others for their nuclear technology. Development of efficient, safe thorium reactors would give them much more energy independence than they have ever had to date. The problem is that with the Indian society and government's contempt for public welfare and human rights, I do not trust them to develop SAFE technology: it is just too low a priority for them. It was their incredibly lax regulation that allowed the Bhopal disaster -- whose victims still have not been recompensed for their suffering, many of them were abandoned like dogs in the street.
  24. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    Yes, superficially quite reasonable. However, Exceptions under EIR can be overridden in the public interest.
    The response from UEA stated that they considered whether the public interest would be better served by releasing the data despite the agreements, and decided that no, the public interest would not be better served by breaking them.
    Moreover, all UK public authorities are expected to put in clauses in contracts that allow for complying with EIR/FoIA. I would guess that CRU contracts with WMOs predate the FoIA/EIR.
    Given that the data goes back decades, that's a good guess.
    I reiterate my points that this is not simple and that these requests are best left to professional staff to deal with.
    Which would be the case for the response to McIntyre I'm discussing ... McIntyre knew all this, but huffed and puffed about the unreasonableness of it all, blah blah blah.
  25. Renewable Baseload Energy
    tt23- You have the gall to complain about alleged half-truths in the article, yet your own post is based on even more flimsy foundations? The flimsiest is your claim that all these technologies were abandoned because they were too expensive. You must have been living in a cave all these years. The whole POINT of the switch to low-carbon, renewable sources is that once the TRUE cost of carbon emission is taken into account, no, they are NOT too expensive. On the contrary: it is sticking with carbon that is far, far too expensive. Then there is the straw-man approach of your whole post. The article author never proposed use of concentrated solar alone as the baseload power source. Nor did he even propose the use of concentrated solar + geothermal as the complete supply of our baseload power. Read what he wrote instead of what you want to refute: he wrote, "Of course in an ideal world, renewable sources would meet all of our energy needs. And there are several means by which renewable energy can indeed provide baseload power." But this is NOT that "ideal world". He knows that, most of his readers know it. For some reason, you do not. Nor did he say that renewable energy "can indeed provide" ALL of our "baseload power". That he said this is YOUR fiction, your "straw-man".
  26. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    Albatross @70 "Given that you are familiar with the ins and outs of the legalities, is there any recourse for UEA/CRU to pursue action (legal or otherwise) against those people known to have orchestrated the requests under discussion? Surely, the FoIA has to be streamlined to strongly discourage such behaviour in the future?" In answer to your first question, none that I know. That UEA did not deem these requests manifestly unreasonable suggests that there was no demonstrable harassment and therefore unlikely to infringe the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. In answer to your second question, the Muir Russell report recommended that the ICO developed guidance, particularly for small research units, for dealing with orchestrated campaigns and being consistent with the principles of openness. dhogaza @72 Yes, superficially quite reasonable. However, Exceptions under EIR can be overridden in the public interest. Moreover, all UK public authorities are expected to put in clauses in contracts that allow for complying with EIR/FoIA. I would guess that CRU contracts with WMOs predate the FoIA/EIR. I reiterate my points that this is not simple and that these requests are best left to professional staff to deal with.
  27. Antarctica is gaining ice
    albertsonrich I presume your numbers come from David Archer's estimates or something similar. There are several diffferent processes at play and only a fraction of what we emit will stay in the atmosphere that long.
  28. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    180: "how ... can I can come up with a correct description" Check back a hundred or so comments. You've basically retold the same story; with or without any of the so-called 'back radiation' you find so distasteful, the result is the same (and we won't let anyone know you're now a believer). "semi solid hydrocarbons in the oceans just kept in their state " Can you explain what that means, where you heard about it and what it has to do with the (now verified) Greenhouse Effect?
  29. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Bibliovermis, can you please explain how in hell can I can come up with a correct description when everything that led to it was wrong, misinterpreted and misunderstood as far as any comment to it told. By the way, I was deliberately using the term green house gases for not referring to CO2. I had more H2O in mind as well as these semi solid hydrocarbons in the oceans just kept in their state due to a delicate balance of pressure and temperature.
  30. The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
    oamoe - The overall emissions spectra outline (without the GHG notches) is about 267K, the notches drop as far as 225K. See The greenhouse effect and the 2nd law of thermodynamics (intermediate) for this graph: Sources of this radiation are spread between the surface (where there are no GHG notches) to the upper atmosphere (say, around a wavenumber of 650-670), with some coming from clouds as well. I can't give you exact proportions off the top of my head.
  31. Renewable Baseload Energy
    @RSVP: 1) Lame attempt at tying environmentalism with population reduction. That kind of insinuation alone should be enough to delete your post. 2) The difference is putting all of your eggs in one basket (in this case, nuclear) or using a varied "ecosystem" of power sources, including distributed power generation among small consumers/producers. 3) Waste Heat is insignificant. Get over it.
  32. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Alexandre - Good questions on the solar tower and compressed air car. The solar tower works - but the energy density (utilization of the updraft air for power) is fairly low. The actual thermal gradient of sun-warmed air doesn't provide as much of an edge as concentrating solar; hence you would need very large areas covered by your greenhouse, more than with other solar technologies. That said, it's very low tech, and might be appropriate for some nations as a low cost alternative. (Minor note - as a private pilot I wouldn't want giant towers [probably with support cables] and the updraft associated with the chimney too close to my airport!) Compressed air cars have a very low end-to-end efficiency, mostly due to heat loss after compressing the air. When you re-expand air at room temperature you get near-cryogenic temperatures, and you either have to reheat it (with a fossil fuel) or accept the poor efficiency. Batteries have a much higher efficiency plug-to-road.
  33. Renewable Baseload Energy
    @114 The Ville - thanks for that, I guess we'll agree about our disagreement, and let everybody decide as they can read the law by themselves. :D
  34. Renewable Baseload Energy
    tt23 it looks like my interpretation of the document was incorrect, however I don't agree with your interpretation either!
  35. Antarctica is gaining ice
    Please comment on the accuracy of the following. The following statements appear to be correct. 1. Atmospheric heat, worldwide, has been steadily increasing from year to year for the past two decades. 2. Worldwide, the total volume of earth's ice has been in decline for the past two decades. 3. The cause appears to be the increased greenhouse effect as levels of atmospheric CO2 grew from 280ppm in the 1950's to the current level of 390ppm in 2010. 4. Estimates for the residence time of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere range from a low of 1000 years to estimates as high as 100,000 years. If the foregoing statements are accurate is it also accurate to conclude their signifigance as? 1. Any program designed to reduce our future global carbon footprint can have no effect on slowing or reducing the advance of climate change until the minimum residence lifetime of the anthropogenic CO2 already aloft (390ppm)is achieved or some currently undeveloped geoengineering response is able to remove anthropogenic CO2 from the atmosphere to one or more of the other compartments of the carbon cycle. 2. The melting of ice worldwide will continue, uninterrupted, until all of the ice is melted if the time it will take to melt it all is less than the minimum anticipated residence lifetime of current levels of anthropogenic CO2 already aloft (1,000 years). 3. The increase in levels of atmospheric temperature to be expected from an ice free planet are almost certain to exceed human capacity to survive.
  36. Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
    #69: "if the study had been powered to directly compare HRM to CRM," Here is a UK study that seems to have done just that and found it's pretty much a wash: a mean relative risk of 1.03 was estimated per degree increase above the heat threshold, defined as the 95th centile of the temperature distribution in each region, and 1.06 per degree decrease below the cold threshold (set at the 5th centile). And yet the mis-conception lives on, thanks to sloppy work such as: Lomborg postulates that rising temperatures will cause fewer people to die. He postulates that in Europe and North America today, many more people die due to excess cold compared to those that die due to excess heat. And with global warming, the decline in numbers of cold-related mortalities will be much larger than the rise in heat-related mortalities. No wonder confusion is rampant. If you see it in the movies (or worse on TV), it must be true.
  37. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    "We are expected to provide advice and assistance and we are entitled to seek clarification if it is not clear what information is required. It is not for us to judge whether the information provided has any value. I appreciate that those, including scientists, may find this irksome for their valuable and hard won information to be released in this manner, which is one of the many reasons why professional staff should be used to deal with these requests. Objectivity is essential." So I've read one of the original FOI responses that pissed off McI so deeply. It 1. Pointed out that the data wasn't UEA's to give 2. Said that UEA was working on getting the data available, and hoped to be able to release it in the future. Eminently reasonable, IMO.
  38. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Re: h-j-m (177) "My explanation will no way predict a tropospheric hot spot so you can cease looking for it." That's OK, it's already been found here and has been confirmed more recently here (source study here). The Yooper
  39. Renewable Baseload Energy
    RSVP #11 - please don't misrepresent what I said. This article has nothing whatsoever to do with population. Nor does it talk about impact on global temperatures because no specific numbers are discussed. Unlike the comments, I stuck to the topic at hand in the article. This is a rebuttal of the 'skeptic' argument "Renewables can't provide baseload power". The fact that CO2 is causing global warming is addressed in many, many other articles on this site. If you want to argue that fact, do it in one of those articles.
  40. Renewable Baseload Energy
    RSVP, On point #3, you are still stuck on waste heat. That point was repeatedly rehashed with you over hundreds of comments at Waste heat vs greenhouse warming. Anthropogenic waste heat contributes 1% of the warming that greenhouse gas warming does and is non-accumulative unlike greenhouse gases.
  41. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Sorry, a part of the quote is missing. The list of *Exclusions* again: (A) the failure of the sponsor to take any action required by law or regulation; (B) events within the control of the sponsor; or (C) normal business risks.
  42. Renewable Baseload Energy
    @109 The Ville at 06:34 AM on 29 November, 2010 tt23 stated: "Loan guarantees only remove the risk related to GOVERNMENT regulatory screwups beyond the control of the vendor, not to vendor screwups, or normal business risks." > tt23 Please do read the law by yourself, in particular I suggest you don't cherry pick. Yes I did, now lets look into the details: > SEC. 638. STANDBY SUPPORT FOR CERTAIN NUCLEAR PLANT DELAYS. > "(A) the failure of the Commission to comply with sched- > ules for review and approval of inspections, tests, analyses... This is failure of "the Commission", meaning the NRC, which is a part of the government. If the screwup is on the part of the Commission, the guarantee holds, if it is on the side of the vendor or investor, it does not. Exactly as I said. > (B) litigation that delays the commencement of full- > power operations of the advanced nuclear facility." > Please note that it does not state litigation as the result of government > regulatory screwups. > The litigation clause is a general one, eg. the loan guarantee would cover delays caused by environmentalists litigating against the nuclear energy company. Litigation can delay the project only if government has a role in it. According to the current rules, if the plant operator has COL (which it gets before the plant is in construction), and if the vendor followed all the NRC rules, there is no possibility of litigation to stop it, unless the government gets in the way. Again, as I said.. > Or in other words it DOES COVER NORMAL BUSINESS RISKS! Explicitly NO! Please consider the following: (2) EXCLUSIONS.—The Secretary may not enter into any contract under this section that would obligate the Secretary to pay any costs resulting from— (A) the failure of the sponsor to take any action required by law or regulation; (B) events within the control (C) normal business risks. > Delays can be caused by anything. Yes they can be caused by anything, which is why those delays which are covered are specified in the law. It does not cover anything, please read carefully the list of Exclusions. > Apart from this bizarre attempt at re-interpreting legislation, Bizarre attempt on YOUR side, sir!
  43. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Three separate points. 1) It would seem that part of the "solution" requires failing, since the more you "solve" the problem, the bigger the problem gets,... unless of course you address growth limits apriori as part of the bargain. The article even says, "Of course in an ideal world, renewable sources would meet all of our energy needs." Well, why not make adjustments (that affect demand) for this to be the case? Of course going along with this is basically admitting that GW is a population issue... but dont bother, since it is already implied in the quote. 2) The other thing having to do with nuclear as the "only" solution. I would ask, what difference does it make for nuclear to be the only solution (assuming this were possible) if you're going to have nuclear as part of the package anyway? 3) Last item. Absolutely no mention in this article of the long term thermal impact for adopting these solutions. After all, wasnt global warming the whole point of this website? Or do we have to have all those nuclear plants installed first in order to discover ocean temperatures slowly rising for some mysterious reason? And yes, I know, all this is a waste of time and space given the absolute certainty that CO2 is the only significant cause of global warming, and as long as CO2 isnt somehow attached (on the surface) to the solution, it is a great idea.
  44. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    h-j-m, You have successfully described the greenhouse effect. One point of note: That in turn may cause more green house gases to be released. Yes, that is how it happened historically. An initial forcing factor, such as a solar irradiance increase caused by an orbital change (Milankovitch cycles), caused a temperature increase. This temperature increase caused the release of CO2 from the oceans which increased the temperature further and caused more oceanic CO2 release. That isn't what is happening currently. The oceans & terrestrial biomes have been net CO2 absorbers during this recent warming. CO2 is coming from the ocean (argument #87)
  45. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Riccardo... Exactly!! Too often people miss the simple solution of efficiency because it's just not as sexy as new technology.
  46. Renewable Baseload Energy
    tt23 stated: "Loan guarantees only remove the risk related to GOVERNMENT regulatory screwups beyond the control of the vendor, not to vendor screwups, or normal business risks." tt23 Please do read the law by yourself, in particular I suggest you don't cherry pick. SEC. 638. STANDBY SUPPORT FOR CERTAIN NUCLEAR PLANT DELAYS. "(A) the failure of the Commission to comply with sched- ules for review and approval of inspections, tests, analyses... (B) litigation that delays the commencement of full- power operations of the advanced nuclear facility." Please note that it does not state litigation as the result of government regulatory screwups. The litigation clause is a general one, eg. the loan guarantee would cover delays caused by environmentalists litigating against the nuclear energy company. "(1) INGENERAL.—Subject to paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), the costs that shall be paid by the Secretary pursuant to a contract entered into under this section are the costs that result from a delay covered by the contract." Or in other words it DOES COVER NORMAL BUSINESS RISKS! Delays can be caused by anything. Lets just understand what a loan guarantee is for normal folk. When you take out a loan, there are risks that mean you might not be able to pay, so you pay someone to insure the loan against problems paying it. Without the insurance, you might not get the loan because the lender may consider the risks to high. Apart from this bizarre attempt at re-interpreting legislation, tt23 highlights the very reasons why nuclear energy has specific risks that need to be insured against.
  47. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    FoIA/EIR/DPA give individuals the right of access to information. These rights do not come with any obligation to do anything with the information obtained. Any request for information does not have to include any indication of use. Moreover, those dealing with requests are not entitled to ask what use the requester intends, even though that may assist us in helping them with their request. This is quite true, but is very important for everyone to keep in mind that the credibility of the skeptics depends very much on what they have done (or in every case seen so far, have *not* done) with the information. The take-home message here, is regardless of whether the CRU handled all FOI requests properly, the individuals making the FOI requests have demonstrated in spades that they have no credibility (or integrity, for that matter). This may be a little OT with respect to this thread, but it is a message that people need to be told, loudly and clearly. The skeptics' motives were all nefarious. The skeptics haven't even *tried* to produce anything constructive or worthwhile with the data made available to them, *even though they have had all the time and resources necessary* for them to do so. The global-warming "skeptics" who have accused the CRU of manipulating data have not made the slightest effort to perform the data analysis that might confirm their accusations, even though all the data they needed to do so was served up to them on a silver platter. At this time it is safe to conclude that the "skeptics" who have been bashing the CRU and other climate-research institutions for allegedly "manipulating data" have *zero* integrity (whether or not the CRU actually fumbled any legitimate FOI requests).
  48. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Just an afterthought. My explanation will no way predict a tropospheric hot spot so you can cease looking for it.
  49. Renewable Baseload Energy
    I'd like to second Rob Honeycutt #107. In the messy business of rethinking the energy structure of our society there's only one thing we know for sure, no single substitute to fossile fuels will exists in the foreseable future. This is why we need profound changes in the way we produce and use energy. Speaking of which, I noticed that not many like to talk about energy savings. There's ample room to save energy; look at the energy consumption per capita and you'll see large differences between devoloped countries with similar life styles. We are terribly inefficient.
  50. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Phil, my original point was that the mentioned isolation (blanket) analogy is no way valid to explain the facts. How you rephrased this is of no concern to me. Now let me try to give my view on the green house effect which indeed leads to the conclusion that the green house effect does not interfere with the second law of thermodynamics, but for reasons that so far have just been mentioned here but not explained. In my posts #148 and #162 I tried to show that green house gases differ from other gases in their ability to store (trap) heat (falsely hoping nobody would object to that) at a significant higher rate than other gases. From here the argument is simple. Higher concentrations of green house gases in the the atmosphere will allow the more energy to be stored in the atmosphere. Due to the chemical composition of green house gases the bulk of that energy has to be drawn from surface emissions. As a result the energy content of the atmosphere is higher than before. In consequence incoming radiation will be less able to heat the atmosphere and more of it will reach and heat the surface. That in turn may cause more green house gases to be released. This explanation does not rely on back-radiation to heat the surface and therefore does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics.

Prev  2051  2052  2053  2054  2055  2056  2057  2058  2059  2060  2061  2062  2063  2064  2065  2066  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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