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  2053  2054  2055  2056  2057  2058  2059  2060  2061  2062  2063  2064  2065  2066  2067  2068  Next

Comments 103001 to 103050:

  1. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Marcus @64, You make a claim that large centralized power stations are wasteful because of transmission losses with the implicit assertion that distributed generation by solar and wind will be more efficient from a transmission point of view. This is plainly nonsense due to the huge geographical area required to achieve "spacial smoothing" of variable renewables. In fact centralized power stations sited relatively close to centres of consumption, are more efficient from a transmission standpoint than distributed renewables generation. Why do I need to point this obvious truth out? Because there is a deplorable habit of commentors making wild claims without factual basis, solely because they "sound good". This is not in the spirit of this web site.
  2. Renewable Baseload Energy
    There are a lot of reasons nuclear is not *the* answer. It's relatively expensive and requires massive up-front capital costs. Government loans put taxpayers at great financial risk, and often default due to cost overruns. "CBO considers the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high—well above 50 percent." There's the NIMBY problem. There's the fact that it takes about a decade to build a single nuclear power plant. There are terrorism concerns. There are a lot of reasons why we shouldn't put all of our eggs in the nuclear basket, especially since we have other available technologies with essentially infinite energy sources, which are already as cheap or cheaper than nuclear power (e.g. wind, solar thermal, geothermal). Diversifying is usually a good idea, and the power grid is no exception.
  3. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Addendum to my previous post: Camburn, look at this link here: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/csp_water_study.pdf According to this study, Coal & Nuclear power both consume 500 gallons (around 2,000L) of water per MW/h. Combined Cycle gas consumes only 200 gallons (800L) & a Parabolic Trough consumes 800 gallons (3,000 Liters) per MW/h. Dish/Engine systems apparently only use 80L of water per MW/h of electricity produced. Of course, we must also not forget that nuclear power uses a further 700L to 900L of water-per MW/h, for the remainder of the fuel cycle (compared to around 50L to 400L of water for other fossil-fuel sources of electricity). So, Camburn, whilst you might be correct in saying that trough-based solar power uses more water than nuclear power-it is only by a tiny fraction, & nuclear definitely isn't the 2nd most water-efficient power source, as you claim.
  4. actually thoughtful at 16:27 PM on 28 November 2010
    Renewable Baseload Energy
    Been some debate about nuclear CO2 emissions (concrete is VERY CO2 intense). Here is a link that shows nuclear is 10th worst on the list (it is better than coal) - it is at least twice as bad as any renewable, but it is better than all fossil fuels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparisons_of_life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions Nuclear has a (small) role going forward. But whatever your choice - get on it! Remember the effect of YOU taking action is much greater than 1000 letters to the editor or to politicians. Your actions speak volumes.
  5. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Camburn: According to this site here: http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/rn/2006-07/07rn12.pdf, just the operation of the nuclear power plant alone uses between 1,500L & 2,800L per MW-h of electricity generated (depending on the technology used). The Olympic Dam mine in South Australia uses 42 *million* liters of water-per day-in its operations (14,000 times more than Australia's per capita water use per day). Yet you'd have me believe that Nuclear Power has one of the lowest levels of water use than any other source of electricity? Well, sure, if you spend all your time reading pro-nuclear propaganda. Also, whereas CSP technologies are actively seeking to *reduce* their fresh-water use per MW-h (by use of more efficient concentrating technologies, different heat-capturing liquids, or by supplementing CSP & desalination), the water use of Nuclear Power remains high compared not only to solar, but also compared to a range of other conventional & renewable electricity sources!
  6. actually thoughtful at 16:07 PM on 28 November 2010
    Renewable Baseload Energy
    Quokka: "There has not previously been a need, nor the ability. The first molten salt happened in 1995. Before then we didn't have the material science to pull it off. Same with the super-high temperatures of CSP. I was referring to grid storage not CSP. As I already explained grid storage IF it were economic, would be very useful in meeting peak demand in conjunction with coal or nuclear - so yes there has been a "need" for it. Please stick to the point." Ironically - as you attempt to tear apart my message - the one point you overlook is molten salt - AKA grid storage. If YOU won't stick to your point, why should I? OK one more time - "always on" technologies - coal and nuclear, don't really need storage - they need consumption. So your "point" is not entirely valid to start with. As for being in dense housing - the relevant point is to use EXISTING technology - available NOW, to solve the CO2 crisis - not pie-in-the-sky "to cheap to meter" nuclear, not some future "clean coal." At the risk of being a nag (but realizing that the only way we can accomplish what MUST be done, given that governments are pinned down by the ignorance of their people) - have you asked your landlord to install PV or solar thermal or a ground source heat pump? He/She will benefit from increased property values, you could agree to have the landlord pay for heat/cool, and pay your old rent + your old heating/cooling bill. There are lots of ways to solve the landlord/tenant renewable problem (with willing parties). I am not a huge fan of PV (after we have gone over the world once with solar thermal, lets pick up PV on the second pass - but every bit we put in the grid now both proves out renewables and reduces CO2. I am sorry for the typo - I meant energy destiny. It is actually a very powerful position to be in - controlling you own heat/power locally. It is yet another subtle (and strictly positive) result of the switch to renewables. The main point remains - action will solve this problem - not endless debate (even amongst people who "get it"). As I posted in another comment - let's leave nuclear at 20% and get rid of coal. Then we can look around and see if it is smarter to expand natural gas, nuclear, or renewables. We have plenty of work to do just displacing coal.
  7. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Ron, I mention biomass frequently. Gas generated by the anaerobic decomposition of organic waste-at such locations as farms, plantation forests, land-fill sites & sewerage plants represents a readily available source of energy, whilst significantly reducing the amount of CO2-equivalent released into the atmosphere (as methane is a more potent Greenhouse gas than CO2). Not only that, but bio-sequestration of CO2, from existing Gas & Coal fired power stations, using high-density algae, also represents an excellent source of biomass energy.
  8. Renewable Baseload Energy
    'Enhanced geothermal systems' are also sometimes called hot rock technology. South Australia has one of the most promising areas in the world for this type of energy, due to the presence of highly radioactive granites deep in the subsurface, and favourable overlying lithologies. It is believed by some that Australia's precious opal deposits have formed ultimately from this rare geology; deeply sourced heat from underlying radioactive granites below the Great Artesian Basin have breached the surface, interacting with microorganisms in the subsurface to create the opal deposits in extinct hot spring zones. The source of this energy is large, safe, constant and entirely sustainable. Granites are large bodies of heat, U and other radioactive elements decays to produce a constant supply of heat. It is large enough to potentially supply much of Australia's energy needs. The problems include: 1) the technology and very high cost of deep drilling and 2) various energy transfer/extraction issues. One promising area of research is to reduce the very high costs of deep drilling. Currently laser drills (a drill with a powerful laser out in front which weakens and breaks up the rock before the drill bit hits it) are being developed which could significantly speed up and reduce the costs of deep drilling. The deeper one goes the more expensive it becomes, and the hotter the rocks get. Drilling is a highly technical and expensive science which still has a long way to go. If one can reduce the costs of very deep drilling, where there has been little research/work, (because nobody historically wants to mine that deep down, and deep oil drilling technology wasn't ever set up/researched for such purposes), there is enough heat down there to supply baseload power in specific areas. There is virtually nothing known about some of the very deep rocks beneath our feet. In many areas, we know more about the moon then about some of the rocks more than just a few kilometres beneath the earth. Some of these areas have high heat flows. If the technology becomes much more efficient (think computers in the 1980s compared to now), areas with less radioactive granites and lower heat flows etc can become viable. Drilling is an ancient art that has more potential to develop and become cheaper. Dont under-estimate the miners and their drills-they know about the earth and this field of science may provide answers to future energy needs. PS. Traditionally, there has been virtually no government subsidies/grants or research into improving drilling methods, because these are associated with what is viewed as 'non-green' technologies, and moreover this is something which is largely viewed as something industries/market forces will naturally address. However, mining and oil companies have no real incentive to drill very deep holes historically, other than for oil and gas. This is largely still the case; and most of the research money into sustainable energies has gone into more obvious 'green technologies' not related traditionally to something like mining.
  9. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    RE#148 h-j-m. Drawing on these texts [**] I’m going to attempt to answer this question: Why is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Introduction... Gas molecules whether they be CO2, N2, O2, CH4, CO, H2, He, Ar etc will all interact with light at specific frequencies. So for example if a single photon is absorbed by one of these gas molecules the absorption or emission of a photon will be accompanied by a change in the internal energy state of the molecule. This is a consequence of Quantum Mechanics that a molecule can only take on values drawn from a finite set of possible energy states. The distribution of which is determined by the structure of the molecule. The energy states involved in infrared absorption and emission are connected with displacement of the nuclei in the molecule, and take the form of vibrations or rotations. So how does the number of atoms in a molecule and its geometry effect this? The noble gases like He, and Ar are have one atom (monatomic) and have only electron transitions, so are not active in the infrared. And indeed QM calculations and lab experiments verify this. A molecule with two atoms (a diatomic molecule) eg CO, O2, N2 amongst others has a set of energy levels associated with the oscillation caused by pulling the nuclei apart and allowing them to spring back and forth. Now triatomic molecules (like CO2 or H2O) have an even richer set of vibrations and rotations, especially if their equilibrium state is bent rather than linear. What specifically then, makes one type of gas molecule more infrared active than another... For a molecule to be a good infrared absorber and emitter, it is not enough that it have transitions whose energy corresponds to the infrared spectrum. In order for a photon to be absorbed or emitted, the associated molecular motions must also couple strongly to the electromagnetic field. You can classically think of the infrared light as providing a large scale fluctuating electromagnetic field which alters the environment in which the molecule finds itself in, and, exerts a force on the constituent parts of the molecule. This force displaces the nuclei and electron cloud, and excites vibration or rotation. The strongest interaction that will happen between an electromagnetic field and a particle is one where the particle has a net charge. A charged particle will experience a net force when subjected to an electric field, which will cause the particle to accelerate. In relation to Earth's atmosphere... Ions are extremely rare in the atmosphere. Thus molecules involved in determining a planet’s energy balance are almost invariably electrically neutral. So where does this leave us? Ok we have now elimated charged particles…so what’s the next best physical property of a molecule that will make it a strong infrared active one? Why molecules that have a dipole moment! (This is when we have a disproportionate part of a molecule’s negatively charged electron cloud bunched up on one side, while a compensating excess of positive charged nuclei are at the other side.) Does our atmosphere have a molecule that fits this criteria? Yes! Good old CO2! CO2 is a linear molecule with the two oxygens symmetrically lying about the central carbon. Whilst a uniform stretch of such a molecule does not create a dipole moment, a vibrational mode which displaces the central atom from one side to the other does. Addionally, the bending modes of CO2 have a fluctuating dipole moment, which can in turn be further influenced by rotation. Modes of this sort make CO2 a very good greenhouse gas. Here you might ask, but the atmosphere is full of O2 and N2 and there is only ppm concentrations of CO2? Many common atmospheric molecules have no dipole moment in their unperturbed equilibrium state. Such nonpolar molecules can nonetheless couple strongly to the electromagnetic field. They do so because vibration and rotation can lead to a dipole moment through distortion of the equilibrium positions of the electron cloud and the nucleii. Diatomic molecules made of two identical atoms, do not acquire a dipole moment under the action of either rotation or stretching. Symmetric diatomic molecules, such as N2, O2 and H2 in fact have plenty of rotational and vibrational transitions that are in the infrared range. However, because the associated molecular distortions have no dipole moment, these gases are essentially transparent to infrared unless they are strongly perturbed by frequent collisions. This is why N2 and O2, the most common gases in Earth’s atmosphere do not contribute to Earth’s greenhouse effect. However, it is important to recognize that situations exist in which diatomic molecules become good greenhouse gases are in fact quite common in planetary atmospheres. When there are frequent collisions, such as on planets with high density atmospheres like Titan and on all the giant planets, diatomic molecules will acquire enough of a dipole moment during the time collisions that are taking place ,and the electromagnetic field can indeed interact with their transitions quite strongly. This makes N2 and H2 the most important greenhouse gases on Titan, and H2 a very important greenhouse gas on all the gas giant planets. I don't think I even scratched the surface, but hooray for physics! [**] Principles of Planetary Climate, R. T. Pierrehumbert Molecular Quantum Mechanics P. W. Atkins (Author), R. S. Friedman An Introduction to Statistical Thermodynamics. T. Hill
  10. Renewable Baseload Energy
    I believe the most important renewable resource for this list is Biomass - apparently unmentioned by the author or any above comment. Biomass is larger than even hydropower around the world - especially in developing countries. It is unique by virtue of easily providing a means of energy storage - so that it can back up solar and wind. But even more important is that when employed as Biochar, all forms of biomass can provide carbon negativity. The sun produces annually (via photosynthesis) about 8 times more carbon than we presently emit via fossil fuels. This is a huge untapped resource that should be endorsed by all SkS readers. See www.biochar-international.org. Ron
  11. Renewable Baseload Energy
    actually thoughtfull @58
    Research how much CO2 is in concrete. Then how much concrete goes into a nuclear power plant.
    There are some comparative estimates here giving the steel, concrete and land requirements for CSP, Wind and Nuclear. The figures are remarkably lopsided - in favor of nuclear: Energy system build rates and material inputs
  12. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Marcus: I posted a link earlier. The Indians are just behind the Chinese in building nuclear power plants. CPS and water? CPS uses more water per mwh than any other source of power. Nuclear is the 2nd lowest, wind is nill and the lowest. The northern zones of the US have ample water. The southwest does not. The southwest has sun for CPS and will have to figure out how to provide enough water for CPS. My cousin is a quality control engineer at a nuclear power plant. IF we decided to use thorium, it would not be a problem. There may be wasted elec from base stations, but at least there WOULD be electricity.
  13. Renewable Baseload Energy
    So, Quokka, why don't you petition your landlord to install PV's or hot-water systems? There are a lot of rental houses in my area, & most of them have PV's that were installed, by the landlord, out of their own pocket, because it made long-term sense. I mean, *yes* if you want to continue to let some CEO dictate the price you pay for electricity, if you want to pay for the 10% extra electricity that gets sent to you, but you never receive (due to T&D losses) & if you want to continue subsidizing the massive glut of electricity generated during off-peak periods, then by all means keep spruiking large, inefficient & expensive nuclear power.
  14. Can you make a hockey stick without tree rings?
    Re: eco-kowana (48) Here's your answer to that. The Yooper
  15. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Water limitations, Camburn? So what about the water needed for a Thorium Reactor? Not just the water needed to generate the steam to make the electricity, but also the water needed for the *entire* nuclear fuel cycle? Face it, *all* forms of nuclear energy require far more water to operate than even Coal-& far more than Gas or any of the renewable energy sources. As water becomes even less widely available, I'd argue that nuclear power is going to be even *less* feasible* than it is now. Especially when one considers the wasted electricity generated by large, overly centralized power stations (10% losses from transmission & distribution & the over-supply during off-peak times). As I said, the Indians have *not* shown Thorium to be technically or economically viable *yet*-though maybe they will down the track. Even so, the Indians are investing *far* more time & effort into the various forms of renewable energy than they are into Thorium, & the *experts* in the US & Europe have only started talking about Thorium for the first time in the last 18 months. Sounds like they don't have a huge amount of faith in this "proven" technology either.
  16. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    Camburn, There is currently a thread for discussions on early 20th century climate, and your other points are also already addressed on this site. argument #38: "It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low" What caused early 20th Century warming? & argument #36: "We're coming out of the Little Ice Age" What ended the Little Ice Age? & argument #10: "We're heading into an ice age" Are we heading into a new Ice Age? argument #5: "Models are unreliable" How reliable are climate models? That Manhattan quote is taken from a Salon interview that Hansen gave in 1998 & Watts popularized last year. Watts then goes on to claim, wrongly as usual, that there is no trend in sea level increase. argument #21: "Sea level rise is exaggerated" How much is sea level rising? & argument #74: "Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated" How much will sea levels rise in the 21st Century? You are correct on your last point. This thread is now off-topic and should move to a different area of the site.
  17. Renewable Baseload Energy
    actually thoughtfull @55
    I will take this at face value. There has not previously been a need, nor the ability. The first molten salt happened in 1995. Before then we didn't have the material science to pull it off. Same with the super-high temperatures of CSP.
    I was referring to grid storage not CSP. As I already explained grid storage IF it were economic, would be very useful in meeting peak demand in conjunction with coal or nuclear - so yes there has been a "need" for it. Please stick to the point.
    So then your next sentence:"Which leads to the obvious conclusion that all of the possible technologies mentioned in the article are not currently viable." Makes no sense (it never did). By your logic we could never have been to the moon - the technology was not in use at the time - therefore it was not viable. Lather, rinse, repeat.
    Going to the moon was done for political reasons - there was never any need to for it to be economic. It is utterly irrelevant.
    But even your weak conclusion (it isn't viable) isn't supported by the evidence. I have dozens of customers NOW who have cut their home heating bills (in a winter climate) by 75%. With today's "non-viable" technology.
    What on earth has this got to do with grid storage? If you are commenting on what I wrote, why don't you stick to the point?
    But to insist on that, when we have very GOOD energy sources (wind, solar, wave) ready - RIGHT NOW is just silly.
    Oh really? Why don't you tell me how much wave power is being generated world wide, or how many coal fired power stations that have been shutdown because PV panels have made them redundant?
    Go install solar panels on your roof (PV, solar thermal or both). Experience the feeling of controlling your own energy density. Of locally produced energy. Reflect on peak oil/gas/coal/nuke, on pollution in its various forms, on terrorists funded by the energy YOU buy.
    I live in a rented house. I have not the slightest intention of installing PV panels. Many people are in exactly the same position. As are people who live in high density/high rise housing. It is plainly obvious that high density housing is environmentally beneficial. In any case I take strong exception to the moralistic overtones of your comment. I also take exception to squandering public money on ridiculous feed in tariffs, that benefit only the better off and shift the cost of electricity to the less well off and achieve absolutely no meaningful reduction in GHG emissions. But they do provide a political fig leaf for the continuing large scale burning of fossil fuels. I am almost (but not quite) lost for words when I read "Experience the feeling of controlling your own energy density". I really have very little interest in "my energy destiny" or the "experience" that may or may not accompany such. I do however care about the world that my daughter will live in and I would rather not have the planet experience a mass extinction event. Mitigating warming requires critical thinking about energy and collective action to implement feasible solutions. If I want a sales spiel for PV panels, I can get it from one of the door to door PV sales persons who I regularly turn away. I steadfastly refuse to suspend my critical faculties just to feel "green".
    While you are hand-wringing and fearing it can't be done
    It can be done, but it requires nuclear power and even then the task is huge.
  18. Pete Dunkelberg at 14:54 PM on 28 November 2010
    Climategate: Perverting Peer Review?
    The professional deniers are whiners as part of their act. The main item here was and is Soon & Baliunas 2003. It was so bad (and the journal publisher refused to print a rebuttal) that Hans von Storch (more or less a lukewarmer) resigned even though he had just become chief editor. Before long four other editors also resigned. If the deniers has a scientific case to make they could just make and would not have to complain.
  19. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Marcus: Here is my take: In the southwest, water limitations taken into consideration, CPS power plants are a no brainer. Other areas of the country that right now rely heavily on coal or natural gas, nuclear is the only other option. Thorium is the best option. The Indians have shown that thorium is viable. The US has thoriumm for 1,000's of years. PPV is too expensive. I could put one on my roof but the cost per kwh would exceed 1.15 cents. I can't afford to erect a tower high enough, even tho I live in an area 5 wind zone, to produce wind power. And even if I could, I would have to keep my current infrastructure as at times the wind just does not blow. There are ways to reduce co2 quickly and effectively. No one seems willing to compromise enough to do so.
  20. Renewable Baseload Energy
    actually: There is a lot of concrete in any type of power generating plant. There is a lot of concrete in each base of a wind tower. I watched a Windfarm being built. A LOT of concrete under each tower. But once it is built, the co2 emission ceases.
  21. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Camburn, in what way is Thorium a "proven" technology? How many commercially viable power plants are there in the world? By my reading, only the Indians have built a Thorium Reactor-a single, pilot plant. In spite of some benefits, Thorium Reactors still have a number of engineering & cost hurdles to overcome, & Thorium has a number of negative health & environment impacts that can't be overlooked.
  22. Can you make a hockey stick without tree rings?
    @eco-kowana: it wasn't.
  23. Renewable Baseload Energy
    archiesteel. Yes, for what its worth, I agree with helping those Countries that already *have* nuclear power to keep using that-rather than switching to coal-as their source of base-load power, at least until renewable energy technologies truly "come of age". I certainly don't believe we should try expanding nuclear power into Countries that don't already have it-especially when you consider the very long lead times in construction. Finland, for example, started construction of a new 1.6GW reactor earlier in the decade, & was due to go online in 2009. It is now not expected to go online until 2013-four years behind schedule. The project has also run into significant cost overruns. Now this is in a Country with prior experience in nuclear power-so how much *worse* will it be for Countries that lack the skills base? Also, what about potential proliferation issues in Countries that are not signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? Of course, nuclear power was tried in a number of developing countries, mostly in SE Asia, but was abandoned in each case due to cost & construction overruns. Last I checked, the World Bank no longer funds energy projects that involve nuclear power. I do love tt3's claim that nuclear power receives no subsidies! Complete nonsense. Globally, nuclear power has received hundreds of *billions* of dollars worth of subsidies-both direct & indirect-to keep the price of the technology down. The spruikers of the technology also love to low-ball their overnight construction cost estimates in order to produce a much lower life-time cost of the electricity of new plants. Even with these low estimates, & the ongoing subsidies, EIA studies show that new nuclear reactors are more expensive than Wind, Gas or Coal (at around $60/MW-h)-with Solar technologies swiftly catching up.
  24. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    @Camburn: "Laws were broken and prosecuted. No sir: They couldn't be prosecuted because the statute of limitations had expired." I'm sure you can tell me which law was broken, and how long the statutes of limitations are for that offense... "Dis-information. I will go with only one that is well known." That's what I said: the well-known disinformation is the one that comes from professional climate science deniers, whose junk science is peddled by think tanks that are funded by such oil industrialists as the Koch brothers. "You base your 2.0 to 4.5 C increase in temps on model runs. The scientist who produced the model seems to have made you certain of this." I would hardly call a 2.0 to 4.5C spread "certainty". On the contrary, it indicates an admitted degree of *uncertainty*. As for myself, I am not certain of it, I accept it as correct after reading up on it and understanding the science behind such a claim. "The HO is still the warmest period of this interglacial. The current warm period may be within 1.0C of that temperature." Actually, we don't know for certain that the current temperatures aren't already higher than those of the HCO. In any case, they are very close to them. "Trend going up since 1850. You attribute this trend to co2." Actually, I mostly attribute the warming since 1975 to CO2. You're the one who brought up 1850 - don't put words in my mouth, please. "On each one there was a dramatic increase in temps before the fall of said temps. We may be experiencing one of those now as the cycle is ripe for it to happen." Actually, we aren't - and those alleged rises (I have not seen any convincing evidence of their existence) were likely much slower than the current warming we are experiencing. "This topic has drifted of target. Maybe you can start a new thread where we can talk in earnest about historical climate. I would welcome it." It's unlikely you'll bring any arguments that haven't already been debunked on this site. Frankly, I've wasted enough time with political activists trying to delay action on climate change.
  25. actually thoughtful at 14:29 PM on 28 November 2010
    Renewable Baseload Energy
    CAmburn: "No CO2 emitted." Research how much CO2 is in concrete. Then how much concrete goes into a nuclear power plant. It sounds good - but it ain't true.
  26. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    Camburn: #61 It's called smoothing, and it's a reasonable response to complex systems with fractal properties. I'm reminded of the old Douglas Adams quote: 'If anyone finds out what the universe is for it will disappear and be replace by something more bizzarly inexplicable." There is another theory that states: "This has already happened.' Or to put it another way; if you model something with sufficient precision to be an exact model of the phenomenon under investigation, you're not modelling, you're replicating. All models are wrong but many are useful (quote attributable to someone else).
  27. Renewable Baseload Energy
    archiesteel: Why not the only solution? Proven tech, supply of thorium for over 1,000 years. No co2 emitted. After reading the comments again, it would appear that to most of you nuclear is not part of any solution. To me it is a better solution than the current mix as it is an actable solution. Just think of the level of co2 emitted in 10 years if we decided to REALLY attack emissions, shut down all coal/natural gas power plants and have nuclear instead. I know.....a pipe dream. But we won't because no one really wants to.
  28. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    "Nevertheless, models still show significant errors. Although these are generally greater at smaller scales, important large-scale problems also remain. For example, deficiencies remain in the simulation of tropical precipitation, the El Niño-Southern Oscillation and the Madden-Julian Oscillation (an observed variation in tropical winds and rainfall with a time scale of 30 to 90 days). The ultimate source of most such errors is that many important small-scale processes cannot be represented explicitly in models, and so must be included in approximate form as they interact with larger-scale features. This is partly due to limitations in computing power, but also results from limitations in scientific understanding or in the availability of detailed observations of some physical processes. Significant uncertainties, in particular, are associated with the representation of clouds, and in the resulting cloud responses to climate change. Consequently, models continue to display a substantial range of global temperature change in response to specified greenhouse gas"
  29. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Another day, another thread hijacked by nuclear industry shills. Look, we all agree that nuclear is *part* of the solution, but it cannot be the *only* solution. For starters, nuclear energy doesn't allow for consumer-producers, i.e. consumers who have their own solar/wind installation and can sell back excess power to the grid.
  30. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    Also, I would suggest that you read WG1 in regards to modeling climate.
  31. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    archiesteel@56: Laws were broken and prosecuted. No sir: They couldn't be prosecuted because the statute of limitations had expired. 2. Dis-information. I will go with only one that is well known. There are multitudes of others. a. The west side highway of Manhaten will be under water by 2013. Isn't going to happen. 3. Models and certainty. You base your 2.0 to 4.5 C increase in temps on model runs. The scientist who produced the model seems to have made you certain of this. 4. Temps 8,000YBP. The HO is still the warmest period of this interglacial. The current warm period may be within 1.0C of that temperature. This is a brief history of the Holocene. http://westinstenv.org/palbot/2007/12/14/holocene-temperatures-and-sea-level-changes/ 5. Trend going up since 1850. You attribute this trend to co2. Well, the period from 1850-1940 saw very little increase in co2PPMV. The temp did increase. Also please observe the ends of past interglacial periods. On each one there was a dramatic increase in temps before the fall of said temps. We may be experiencing one of those now as the cycle is ripe for it to happen. 6. This topic has drifted of target. Maybe you can start a new thread where we can talk in earnest about historical climate. I would welcome it.
  32. actually thoughtful at 13:57 PM on 28 November 2010
    Renewable Baseload Energy
    Quokka: "This surely leads to the obvious question of why, other than pumped hydro, grid storage is not currently used on any significant scale?" I will take this at face value. There has not previously been a need, nor the ability. The first molten salt happened in 1995. Before then we didn't have the material science to pull it off. Same with the super-high temperatures of CSP. So then your next sentence:"Which leads to the obvious conclusion that all of the possible technologies mentioned in the article are not currently viable." Makes no sense (it never did). By your logic we could never have been to the moon - the technology was not in use at the time - therefore it was not viable. Lather, rinse, repeat. But even your weak conclusion (it isn't viable) isn't supported by the evidence. I have dozens of customers NOW who have cut their home heating bills (in a winter climate) by 75%. With today's "non-viable" technology. We risk the great being the enemy of the good. It would be great for a high energy-density, non-CO2, non-WMD producing, non-polluting energy source to appear right now. But to insist on that, when we have very GOOD energy sources (wind, solar, wave) ready - RIGHT NOW is just silly. Go install solar panels on your roof (PV, solar thermal or both). Experience the feeling of controlling your own energy density. Of locally produced energy. Reflect on peak oil/gas/coal/nuke, on pollution in its various forms, on terrorists funded by the energy YOU buy. Then tell me "Undue and unwarranted faith in unproven technologies has the very nasty side effect of providing a fig leaf for the continued use of fossil fuels." Time for a dose of reality indeed. While you are hand-wringing and fearing it can't be done - some of us are busy doing it. The more people who install renewable energy, the easier it gets.
  33. Can you make a hockey stick without tree rings?
    I thought the Medevil warm period was a lot warmer than now
  34. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    @KL: "The topic of this thread is Climategate - hiding the decline." Actually, the true topic is how that innocuous phrase was misrepresented by climate "skeptics" - something which you continue to do to this day it seems, even though no one seriously believe there was anything misleading or dishonest about the phrase in its proper context. "All the raw global thermometer data was collected and many (if not all) 'corrected' by CRU to produce the surface temp series HADCRUT etc." Please provide actual evidence that the corrections to the data made it less represenative of reality. If you do not have any evidence of this, then you are making baseless accusations, which is not a logically tenable position. "In plain language - do dodgy once and don't be surprised if others want to look at your other 'tricks' to verify there is no other 'dodginess'." Except there was no dodginess in the first place. "when the proxy no longer matched the warming trend" Indeed, because tree ring proxies since the 1950s do not accurately represent actual temperatures. The misleading thing would have been to *continue* using the proxies past this date. "Archiesteel - I can't remember which thread I last conversed with you but your ungenerous remark does not fit with my recollection of the weakness of your contribution." At least my contributions make sense, and are not a series of confused deductions based on erroneous premises. So say my contributions are weak all you want, they are the rock of Gibraltar compared to yours. (Nor do I constantly whine about being "censored" when my comments are redacted due to inflammatory language. Instead, I take it like a responsible adult. You should try it. This is just a website, after all - it's not as if we're being paid to post here, right?) "The argument then goes - if one bit of this 'science' is dodgy - how do we know that the rest is rock solid" Uh, by analyzing it? I mean, that is the logical thing to do. On the other hand, if we were to apply your logic to professional climate deniers like Singer, Lindzen, Watts and McIntyre - who have been shown to be wrong over and over again - then none of them should have *any* credibility left, and you should criticize them as much as you do actual climate scientists.
  35. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    Philippe Chantreau (#55): Regular skeptics on this site do it quite often too. When shown that there was simply an element they overlooked, instead of duly apologizing, they say, "I'll look into it again and get back to you", which never happens. Eric (skeptic): It's often not feasible to investigate an issue right away especially one that is complex. This site is very useful in pointing out flaws in my thinking but it can take time to integrate that new knowledge. So it may appear to be hit and run, but its not. Arguments like this thread are not very useful since I am not going to convince anyone about Steve M. It is much more useful for me to put forth alternatives to CAGW and let people poke holes in them. I'll apologize now in advance for those times where I will be wrong.
  36. Renewable Baseload Energy
    sailrick at 08:32 AM, sailrick, I was thinking more along the lines the energy being stored elsewhere in the system other than by the power generator itself. In order for the power generator to be able to store energy that can be drawn upon when the sun or wind is insufficient, the amount it puts into the grid is somewhat less than what it is capable off, just for arguments sake, lets say supplier A puts 2/3 of their capacity into the grid, and 1/3 goes into storage. That means that some other power supplier, generator B has to be also supplying power into the grid, firstly to supplement the 1/3 that generator A is otherwise putting into storage, and then perhaps 100% when generator A becomes idle having exhausted their storage capacity. Generator B will be using fuel of some sort, but again for arguments sake, lets say it is hydro powered. If generator A is limiting itself to only putting 2/3 of capacity into the grid in order to store energy, then generator B will being using water to makeup the extra required. What I was saying is that if instead generator B puts 100% directly into the grid instead of 1/3 into storage, then the power required from generator B will be correspondingly less, thus they are conserving their energy input, namely the water in their reservoir, which in effect becomes an energy store, increased in capacity by the equivalent to what otherwise would have been put into storage by generator A. What one has to consider then which is the most efficient form of storage, both in terms of losses, and the ability to store for extended periods. In this example it would be hard to beat storing water in a dam.
  37. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Nick Palmer @31
    we will switch to breeders, which is tested and proved technology since the early 1050s. Then we would have to deal with the consequences of a very widespread plutonium economy. Just imagine what might happen if Iran, North Korea, Chechnya etc had easy access to tonnes of the stuff.
    This is a poorly informed claim. It has no relevance whatsoever to potential thorium based breeders. In the case of fast spectrum reactors based on a uranium/plutonium fuel cycle, the preferred reprocessing technology is almost certainly Pyroprocessing. This technology simply cannot be used to produce weapons grade plutonium. The reprocessed fuel from pyroprocessing contains uranium, plutonium and other actinides all mixed together and the resulting material cannot be used to make a bomb. Would be bomb makers would certainly take some other, mostly likely traditional method of obtaining weapons grade material.
  38. Renewable Baseload Energy
    When considering grid storage, it must be realised that grid storage is not something that is uniquely applicable to variable renewables. It would be just as useful in conjunction with coal or nuclear for meeting peak demand. This surely leads to the obvious question of why, other than pumped hydro, grid storage is not currently used on any significant scale? Which leads to the obvious conclusion that all of the possible technologies mentioned in the article are not currently viable. Furthermore, I would suggest that there is no real indication of when they might be viable on a scale that matters. There is a very dangerous tendency to put hugely optimistic hope in future technologies - some of which may very well never prove to viable. The notion of using half-spent batteries from EVs is a fine example of dangerous nonsense that should never figure in a discussion of current energy planning. We do not know when there will be enough EVs deployed to even begin seriously thinking about such a scheme, let alone the practicalities of it. We don't even know whether batteries are going to largely replace the good old internal combustion engine. It may be possible that the ICE lives on for a long time with carbon neutral syn fuels. Undue and unwarranted faith in unproven technologies has the very nasty side effect of providing a fig leaf for the continued use of fossil fuels. Time for a serious dose of reality.
  39. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    ""The models do not project the certainty that some would have you believe." Which scientist claimed their models projected certainty? Please provide some evidence for your allegations." Indeed. Climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 most likely in the range of 2-4.5C projects a lot of uncertainty, not certainty. Of course, Camburn and his ilk are those that project certainty, i.e. that even the low end of that rather wide range is too high. They're certain of it. Their own certainty is what they mean by "uncertainty".
  40. Renewable Baseload Energy
    New Zealand company I mentioned in comment 50: http://www.solenza.co.nz/
  41. We're heading into an ice age
    Re: NQuestofApollo (119) To tack onto muoncounter's execellent comment to you at 120 above, there's these quotes from Dr Toby Tyrrell of the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and Earth Science at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, appearing in Science Daily:
    "Our research shows why atmospheric CO2 will not return to pre-industrial levels after we stop burning fossil fuels. It shows that it if we use up all known fossil fuels it doesn't matter at what rate we burn them. The result would be the same if we burned them at present rates or at more moderate rates; we would still get the same eventual ice-age-prevention result."
     and
    "Burning all recoverable fossil fuels could lead to avoidance of the next five ice ages."
    The Yooper
  42. Renewable Baseload Energy
    sailrick: "An interesting approach to getting more energy out of the sun, is that being done by Zenith Solar of Israel and by Cogenra. In both cases, these are concentrating PV solar which produce both electricity and hot water." There is a New Zealand company that has developed a roofing system that combines PV with solar heating. Can't remember the name of the company, although I know it is a university spin off. They get higher efficiencies from the PV part because the cells are kept cooler.
  43. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Another idea, harvesting urban heat island energy: http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/44135
  44. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    @Camburn: "CRU did not follow the law. It is that plain and simple." Actually, no laws were broken, except by the person who hacked the e-mails. If Jones and the CRU had broken any laws, they would have been prosecuted. Are you as confused about Law as you seem to be about Science? "The issues that deal with climate is the mis information on both sides." Actually, the disinformation is coming out from one side only: the climate deniers'. "The models do not project the certainty that some would have you believe." Which scientist claimed their models projected certainty? Please provide some evidence for your allegations. "The temp data gets pulled in both directions." Do you have evidence supporting this? "The sensativity of climate to co2 is a very much loaded question." Not really, but if you have an actual scientific argument to support your claims, please share it with us. "The trend in temp since 1850 has been up. The long term trend since 8000 BP is still down. These are known facts." Current temperatures are already as high as they've ever been since the HCO, and may even be higher on a global scale. The fact that the current trend is going dramatically up while the normal long-term trend should lead to a decrease is *evidence* that AGW is indeed happening. I suggest you learn a bit more about the science before challenging it, otherwise it simply sounds as if you're opposing AGW on political grounds.
  45. Climate's changed before
    Re: flanerz (138) In addition to archiesteel's nice link at 139, please see "What does CO2 lagging temperature mean?" for a good explanation of what Gore said in his movie and what it means. RealClimate does a nice deconstruction of Gore's An Inconvenient Truth here, where they talk about what he got right with the science and what he got wrong. One of the more knowledgable commenters at RealClimate, Patrick 027, offers up a dissection of forcings, ice ages and milankovitch cycles here. I have not seen the film you name in your comment, so I couldn't characterize what they said that Gore said (he said, she said revisited). Hope that helps, The Yooper
  46. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    @damorbel: the graph serves its purpose. It is not misleading to anyone with any kind of base scientific knowledge. I'm sorry, but it really sound as if you're grasping at straws, here. The greenhouse effect is real, a fact the majority of climate change skeptics recognize. Heck, I even had skeptics here assure me that "no one disputes the greenhouse effect"...yet it seems that this is exactly what you're (unsuccessfully) attempting here. Is this really a wise tactic on your part?
  47. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Solar thermal, or CSP, can also desalinate sea water while generating power. Desertrec plans to get hot water, desalination and electric power, all from solar thermal power plants. "Skyrocketing fuel prices and the mounting reality of a peak oil future have made Desertec economically attractive for the first time since it was conceived back in 2003. ...And it doesn’t hurt that the project carries a built-in bonus: drinking water. The plan aims to use the waste heat from the solar power plants for thermal desalination to create clean water for host countries. " http://solveclimate.com/blog/20080421/solar-power-africa-best-investment-eu-can-make This could be very positive for quality of life in countries where clean water, abundant hot water, and electricity are luxuries. That, and cooperation among countries may reduce geopolitical and regional tensions. How about it Southern California? SoCal cities take water from the SF Bay area Delta via the aqueduct, the Colorado River and the Owens Valley aquifer. Combined with the massive use of irrigation water, and the needs of natural ecosystems of rivers and delta, something has to give. Impacts on fish and other creatures is severe. I'd like to see a feasability study for this. CPV can also desalinate water. "IBM Launches Solar-Powered Desalination in Saudi Arabia" ".... a concentrated solar system with an innovative cooling mechanism that will allow it to take better advantage of the desert heat and fuel the desalination process with renewable energy.......... IBM's concentrated PV system can focus 2,300 times the power of the sun onto a one square meter solar cell without causing heat damage, thanks to an indium/gallium liquid metal alloy that conducts heat away from the cell" http://solveclimate.com/blog/20100407/ibm-launches-solar-powered-desalination-saudi-arabia
  48. Climate's changed before
    @flanerz: check out the response to the CO2 Lags Temperatures argument.
  49. Climate's changed before
    I have one simple question that I hope someone can asnwer. In that film 'The great global warming hoax' I think that is the name of it. Def something like that, it said that the huge graph which Al Gore used to demonstrate the history of warming on our planet (by showing the direct corellation between CO2 and warming), failed to tell us that on closer inspection, the temperature rose first and then the CO2 because the ocean was releasing the CO2 as it warmed and not the other way round. Is this true or false?
  50. We're heading into an ice age
    #119: The Sicily paper's data only goes up to 1998; here is the more recent version. On that page, they say 337 billion metric tons of carbon since 1750; half since the mid-70s. The difficulty is the conversion from carbon to CO2 is a factor of 3.664: 1 gram C = 0.083 mole CO2 = 3.664 gram CO2. Not quite apples and oranges, but still important. When you divide 650.7 Gtons CO2 (world cumulative from 1980-2008 from the tables here) by 3.664, you obtain 177.6 Gtons carbon, which is the same order of magnitude as 'half of 337 Gtons carbon since the mid-70s.' Someone here very patiently explained this to me the first time I found the same sort of inconsistency; I hope I've paid that forward for you. I did a breakdown of the carbon numbers by identifying segments with reasonably constant slope: 
    	  cum carbon	avg annual rate
   period     (gtons)	(gtons/yr)
1751-1910	19.2	0.1
1911-1946	37.2	1.1
1947-1979      102.4	3.2
1980-2006      170.1	6.5
    As a result, it hardly seems like anything prior to early part of the 20th century is worth bothering over.

Prev  2053  2054  2055  2056  2057  2058  2059  2060  2061  2062  2063  2064  2065  2066  2067  2068  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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