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  2056  2057  2058  2059  2060  2061  2062  2063  2064  2065  2066  2067  2068  2069  2070  2071  Next

Comments 103151 to 103200:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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...
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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".
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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?
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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
  18. Renewable Baseload Energy
    tt23 it looks like my interpretation of the document was incorrect, however I don't agree with your interpretation either!
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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!
  27. 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.
  28. 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)
  29. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Riccardo... Exactly!! Too often people miss the simple solution of efficiency because it's just not as sexy as new technology.
  30. 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.
  31. 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).
  32. 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.
  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Kaj L @103... Waste is not a problem? It seems to currently be a problem. I gotta say, anyone who claims that ANY solution is a panacea is not serious. These are very complex issues for all the potential solutions. It's going to require encouraging all potential solutions in order to effectively address the issues we face.
  36. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Alexandre #92 - the air car is basically just a less efficient electric car. It's a little cheaper for the timebeing, but it will lose that sole advantage as batteries become cheaper. As a general comment, this article really has nothing to do with nuclear power, and it's kind of aggravating that the comments have been hijacked into a nuclear argument. It's hard to resist, because people are making incorrect statements about nuclear power, and then moving the goalposts so that the argument keeps going. But this really isn't the place to be arguing about nuclear power. Please stick to the topic on hand, which is the ability of renewable energy to provide baseload power, and whether it's even necessary.
  37. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    Mikel @69, Thanks. Again, good points. One has to understand that in this case there was a history of people from ClimateAudit requesting information that was (freely) available elsewhere, which ClimateAudit knew CRU were not entitled to release, and even removing data from CRU servers (without permission). Also, the sheer volume of the requests in such a short time indicates that the requests were not legitimate, not to mention the fact that they were all for the same number of stations, many from overseas and at least one request provided no contact details. This is beyond suspicious, especially when one applies context. 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?
  38. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Folks, Just a heads up that user tt23 may not be the most reliable or reality-based source of information on energy, especially as it relates to nuclear and renewables - although it looks like several of you have worked that out already! One of his classics: "Wind and solar are proven as hypes." He's like the energy equivalent of Anthony Watts. ;)
  39. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Re: Kaj L (103)
    "the waste is not a problem"
     Seriously? Channeling your inner Lang, I see. The Yooper
  40. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    Albatross @68 "Now to the "skeptics" here -- what have you guys done with it? Once again, can you show us even *one* legitimate research/analysis result that you've produced (peer-reviewed or not) that shows any significant problems with the CRU's work?" This particular post on this blog has FOI as it's topic and I'll answer the question from that perspective. 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. 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.
  41. Renewable Baseload Energy
    You could power the whole world with nuclear power for thousands of years. There is plenty of uranium and thorium, and the waste is not a problem. To understand the whole potential of nuclear power, a good place to start is this: http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/16/ifr-spm/ Look also "For further reading". We can compare for example wind to nuclear. In France they built 29 nuclear power plants in just 10 years. That was enough to get the same power capacity as with the wind power in the whole world in the same time. http://wp.me/pbZwh-wN There are plenty of pure nonsense out there about nuclear power. The same kind as there are about climate change. You could ask, do they have something in common? Who will benefit of climate inaction and from keeping nuclear out of the business? Hmm...just thinking...
  42. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    h-j-m @173 Your original point was, as I paraphrased at @152: Since GHG's absorb in the visible (as well as the infra-red), doesn't increasing the concentration mean that the earth receives less energy because the subsequent emission of that radiation scatters some of it into space - back radiation on incoming EM which thus goes into space. To answer to this in @161 you derived two numbers that measured the total visible absorption by the atmosphere of incoming EM by all gases in the atmosphere and the absorption of outgoing IR radiation by only GHGs. Since the numbers the first number was slightly smaller than the first, you then concluded that the magnitude of the difference was small: [Quote from @161] So, yes you are right, the green house house effect is stronger on outgoing radiation though I hardly assume the magnitude of the difference satisfied your strong wording. But the "magnitude of the difference" is not valid because you are not comparing like for like.
  43. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    Mikel @66, Thanks for that information. And a question that caerbannog asked is worth repeating: "Now to the "skeptics" here -- what have you guys done with it? Once again, can you show us even *one* legitimate research/analysis result that you've produced (peer-reviewed or not) that shows any significant problems with the CRU's work?" The answer? Nothing of course-- because they were clearly not interested in the data, but rather harassing UEA/CRU in their ongoing vendetta against the scientists there.
  44. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    h-j-m, greenhouse gases absorb wavelengths of radiation that are plentifully emitted by the Earth but only weakly emitted by the Sun, thereby acting as a partially closed valve that traps energy below the top of the atmosphere.
  45. Renewable Baseload Energy
    @Camburn (#99): why is it an "either/or" choice? Why does it have to be nuclear, but not nuclear combined to wind and PVs (including from small independent producers, i.e. individuals who sell back power to the utility companies)? "It is time to stop arguing and get moving." It's not the PV/Wind/CPS/Nuclear debate that is slowing things down, but the anti-AGW propaganda pushed by conservative think tanks that are financed by Oil interests, such as the Koch brothers. Our Energy Strategy needs to be multi-pronged: solar (both CPS and PVs), Wind, Geothermal, Tidal Power, Nuclear *and* (to a very limited degree) fossil fuels, at least in the first couple of decades. One of the solutions is to stop subsidizing fossil fuels, and start transferring those sums to renewables/alternatives.
  46. Renewable Baseload Energy
    @Camburn: "This topic is about renewables/alternatives. We can discuss co2 sensativity on another thread." I'm just trying to figure out your position, here. If you don't believe in AGW, why do you care about renewables/alternatives? The only way this would make sense is if you're taking a contrary position on principle, i.e. you will oppose whatever appears to be the most supported position out of a desire for confrontation... Just tell me if you agree with the following statement, which is completely on-topic: "We need to curb our CO2 emmissions, and thus must seriously consider renewables and other energy alternatives." A simple yes or no will sufffice.
  47. Renewable Baseload Energy
    @quokka: "If you want to see what is achievable, watch China in the next few years with the construction of standardized designs and increasing engineering experience." The same China who is also putting billions in renewables, to bring them to a level of output similar to their planned NPPs? It seems like the Chinese agree with me and others here, i.e. Nuclear is part of the solution, but far from the only solution.
  48. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
    Phil, my calculations assume nothing except what I wrote they assume which is 1. the assumption that differences between TOA and surface provide a measurement for the green house effect and 2. that the numbers from Trenberth's diagram are reliably correct. Following your argument the first assumption should be incorrect but then I am the wrong man to point your critique at.
  49. Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
    Regarding the data that "skeptics" had demanded access to via FOI requests, it turns out that all of that data had been available to them all along. The data that the CRU refused to release was available for the asking (and signing of nondisclosure agreements) from the organizations that actually owned said data. Now, given the skeptics actions (FOI demands, etc.), one would get the impression that they *really* wanted the data in question and were "chomping at the bit" to do some real work verifying the CRU's published results. Now, can anyone here point to even *one* legitimate research result produced by the "skeptics" who had been pestering the CRU? Mind you, the skeptics have had access to all the data and information they needed to conduct independent checks on the CRU's work, and they've had access to the data/information for *years*. Now to the "skeptics" here -- what have you guys done with it? Once again, can you show us even *one* legitimate research/analysis result that you've produced (peer-reviewed or not) that shows any significant problems with the CRU's work? It's not like you guys haven't had enough time (you've had full access to all the data you've needed for *years*). It's not like you don't have access low-cost computing resources. Hardware these days is dirt cheap, and all of the software that you need is available for free (i.e. Linux, GCC/G++, SciLab, R, etc. etc.). So given all the data, time, and computing resources that you have had at your fingertips for *years*, what have you guys actually done?
  50. Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
    @KL: " I have never claimed that they had no case - but that the case is more or less exaggerated." Yes, and you have been unable to demonstrate any such exaggeration. It's clear you are here for political reasons, i.e. to continue to muddy the waters and delay any action on AGW. In fact, it took me about 5 minutes to figure this out the first time I read one of your posts...

Prev  2056  2057  2058  2059  2060  2061  2062  2063  2064  2065  2066  2067  2068  2069  2070  2071  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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