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  2085  2086  2087  2088  2089  2090  2091  2092  2093  2094  2095  2096  2097  2098  2099  2100  Next

Comments 104601 to 104650:

  1. Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
    #24 muoncounter I am still looking for a way to demonstrate my point... You state: "The earth's average albedo is given here as 0.30 or 30%. We do not go 'from one extreme to the other'. Here is a prior SkS article on the question of albedo. Look at the graph (figures 2 and 3) of measured albedo anomalies in that article; a big anomaly is on the order of 1%. That limits the plausible range of your slider bar considerably. We do not live in a world that is all desert one day, all ice the next, all forest the day after that." You, like the others, seem to think a chaotic system must happen really fast or the system is not chaotic. Why do you think this? I thought a chaotic system was a particular characteristic and I was not aware it was time dependent. I am looking for changes in Earth's Albedo. Primarily during known ice ages. The articles I looked at only stated the Earth's Albedo went up during ice ages but they never seem to give an estimated amount. On Science of Doom I found a blogger who gave a number...not sure where he got it from but it may show that albedo is far from constant or stable in the longer time scale of Earth time (not our time). Science of Doom page with post I refer to, name is Bill Illis. Bill's post: "Earth’s Albedo has varied throughout the last 650 million years between 25% to 50% (29.83% today) depending on the continental arrangements and the amount of ice that builds up and spreads out from the poles. That is a big range and the values are capable of explaining the majority of the temperature changes over the period." Thats the best I could do for now. Put 0.25 in the calculator and 0.50 for albedo and see how this variation effects Global Temp.
    Moderator Response: Norman, it sounds like you still have not read the Intermediate version of this post. You should read it carefully, because it describes chaos and explains why climate is not chaotic. If you are not really trying to assert that climate is chaotic, but only that climate cannot be predicted, then you should read the different post Models are unreliable--both the Basic and Intermediate versions--and you should comment on that post rather than this one that is devoted to the technically defined "chaos."
  2. How significance tests are misused in climate science
    Re: HumanityRules (30) Classic example of confirmation bias. Based on essentially a sample size of 1 issue of 1 climate science publication, author Ambaum demonstrated at least one instance of misuse of significance testing in approximately three-fourths of the articles in the issue. No surveying of other publications in the field, no controls to other publications in other fields. Again, a sample size of 1. Based on that, HumanityRules conflates that into
    "No it means 75% of all climate research is in part misleading."
     Sad. There was a time when I thought you had something constructive to offer, HumanityRules. Now I find I can't take you seriously anymore as it seems you aren't even trying, preferring to serve up inflammatory distortions instead. The Yooper
  3. How significance tests are misused in climate science
    "No it means 75% of all climate research is in part misleading. This is surely not a "denier"/fear-mongerer issue. " Lacks in rigor, not "is in part misleading". I love the way that HR and others latch on to one paper critical of statistical analysis in science, and immediately cast aside all the supposed "skepticism" they show towards published work. I imagine it's because HR and others believe this shows some gaping problem with climate science that undercuts the fundamental overwhelming scientific consensus that increasing CO2 will warm the planet somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5 C per doubling.
  4. How significance tests are misused in climate science
    24.muoncounter No it means 75% of all climate research is in part misleading. This is surely not a "denier"/fear-mongerer issue. In fact given that many on this website believe almost all peer-reviewed literature is in support of AGW then this paper is a critique of the mainstream science, "deniers" should be left out of the discussion because this paper has not researched the space where the audience of this website believe "deniers" predominantly publish. Let's stay within the bounds of the published work. (I'll drop the name calling when others do)
  5. Economic Impacts of Carbon Pricing
    Alec Cowan, What are the costs then?
  6. Keep those PJs on: a La Niña cannot erase decades of warming
    71.michael sweet I think it's clear what I want them to say. Some of the 2010 warmth is from the 2009/2010 El Nino. It's not clearly stated and for that reason it's not picked up by the press that's reporting it. Again Modest? 4/19 largest El Nino since 1950. You too want to underplay the role of the 2009/2010 El Nino in the temperature record? Please explain how being in the top 25% of strongest El Nino since 1950 justifies the description modest? It's clear to me they go to great detail to explain how La Nina will influence the later months of 2010 and into 2011 but have no detail on how the El Nino influenced the 1st half of 2010. As you and others have said this is a detailed description of ENSO's role in short term temperature trends, I'm not questioning that. It is also a description of 2010's temp. Given these facts how can they omit such an obvious detail as the early 2010 temperature was influenced by the 2009/2010 El Nino? This is important because it influences the way it's reported to the public. Please Michael/Ned specifically deal with the lack of explicit attribution of the early 2010 warmth to the 2009/2010 ENSO and the impact of how it affects reporting etc because I'm just repeating myself here.
  7. Climate cherry pickers: cooling oceans
    The extremely slow rise in sea level indicates that there is not wide spread warming occuring. http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=1619910
    Response: "extremely slow rise in sea level indicates that there is not wide spread warming occuring"

    The key here is that you've used sea level at a single location to infer there's no "wide spread warming". A single location is not a good indicator of global sea level as individual locations can be influenced by local subsiding rates, tectonic uplift, varying rates of thermal expansion due to regional ocean warming, etc. A better metric for "wide spread warming" is global sea level:



    For more info, see our page on sea level rise.
  8. Economic Impacts of Carbon Pricing
    Dana1981: The analyses of Waxman-Markey totally ignored the current economic distress. It thought it would be temporary. The rise of debt to GDP just in the US is not temporary. renewable guy: Semi trucks have become predominant because the rail road is so inefficient at moving perishable cargo. That is why you see most semi trucks pulling a reefer type trailer. We differ on the cost of future GAWG consequences. I see any mitigation required as adding to GDP rather than subtracting from it. The reason being that climate moves so slowly that mitigation will be like building the interstate highway system. We aren't going to wake up tomorrow to an earth temp 2.0C warmer than yesterday.
  9. Keep those PJs on: a La Niña cannot erase decades of warming
    69.hank mean monthly global temperature anomaly I enjoy your attention to detail but it changes nothing.
  10. Economic Impacts of Carbon Pricing
    Camburn: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The costs of future AGW consequences will reach 20% of GDP in the BAU scenario. I read this over and over from climate progress. This was also not covered in this article. Possibly for a little more advanced version of this could be included in a future article of "co2 limits will hurt the economy". Plus if this is designed correctly, it helps the poor, reduces the trade deficit, efficiency of automobiles is increased which can actually lower the cost of transportation. Semi trucks will be forced to give up freight to the railroad because it is more efficient. The person that plays their cards right reduces costs and gains more financial and energy security in an uncertain future.
  11. Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
    #26 KR "A chaotic system shows extreme sensitivity to initial conditions. Weather does exhibit this behavior (the "butterfly effect"), but climate, as defined by long term averages, does not" Are you sure about this statement? You can look at the links I posted for scaddenp and explain why the high degree (10 C temp cycle)and relative numerous Global temp cycles are taking place. The graph is jagged with little uniform behavior. Check out this on rapid climate change in the Sahara. Things totally changed in that area the last 100,000 years. Sahara desert climate change. Quote from the above article: "The climate of the Sahara has undergone enormous variation between wet and dry over the last few hundred thousand years." And your proof for this statement is? "A small variation in cloud cover doesn't affect global temperatures 20 years out by +/- 5 degrees. The albedo changes of parking lots in Europe don't determine whether we're heading into meltdown or an ice age. The climate simply doesn't have divergent behavior based upon small condition changes - rather, it has a straightforward (albeit non-linear) predictable response to changes in conditions." You seem stuck on rate of the change to dispel what the longer term clearly demonstrates. A volcano may indeed cause a drastic change in climate but just not on the short time scale of 20 or even 100 years. It may take thousands of years for the intitial effects to demonstrate the chaotic nature of the climate system with all its complex feedbacks.
  12. Economic Impacts of Carbon Pricing
    And the costs aren't .5 to 1% per annum either.
  13. Economic Impacts of Carbon Pricing
    Camburn - the analyses of Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Lieberman were done during the current economic distress. You're also ignoring the fact that unabated climate change will also have an adverse impact on the global economy.
  14. Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
    #23 scaddenp Your questions: "Lets suppose that climate IS chaotic. Now what is the time scale for predictions to fail for imprecisely known systems? For weather, its about 4 days. For the solar system?? Successful model predictions would suggest that it is not chaotic on scales so far worked on. Do you seriously think that your questions about albedo etc. are not built into the climate models? Could be time to study them" The last question is not part of this current point. I do not know what exactly are in climate models but the point of discussion is not about models, it is about the potential for climate to be chaotic (as defined in the mathematical view). I am not sure, by the definition of chaos on the links above, that chaos is a time dependent phenomena. Because of the size and momentum of the Earth's system the chaotic changes are slow and won't show up in 30 year study but do seem to show up when the time frame is extended. All of you have looked at these graphs. If you plot a chaotic system point would not it look similar? Forget the time scale and look at the system itself as a whole. Look at the many fluctuations in Global temps in 400,000 years. 5 million years of Global Temp with many unpatterned fluctations but not random which is a sign of chaos.
  15. Economic Impacts of Carbon Pricing
    The major flaw in all of the mentioned studies is that non could have forseen nor implimented the current economic distress of the world. The precarious nature of most major countries economies for the forseeable future because of the explosion of government(local/state/federal) debt will be a continuous drag on the growth level of GDP of the world. A world wide growth level of 2% per annum, impacted by carbon pricing costs of .5 to 1.0% of GDP is not acceptable and will only cause even more widespread unrest. We are in perilous times, the cause of which is not carbon based but financially based from over extension.
  16. Models are unreliable
    "Seriously, why is the code and results different for each climate model if the science is "settled"?" You have that backwards. The fact that the coding differs and the same results are acheived is actually a good thing -- an indication that the science is settled with respect to effects of CO2 on climate. You know as well as I that the code would differ even if the models worked at the same spatial resolution, represented ocean-atmosphere coupling in the same way and had identical degrees of detail the terrestrial carbon cycle (not to mention other things). Different software languages are used, there are different limitations on computing resources, and scientists have to make innumerable little decisions about how to handle input data. The fact that all the models can only produce the increase in temp over the last century only if the effect of CO2 is included indicates that those coding decisions have no bearing on the issue of whether anthropogenic CO2 has an effect on climate. I also agree with the sentiment of the Nature article - scientists (and biologists in particular) need more expert training in coding. But, I think climate scientists are probably the ones on the cusp of the effort to code better and more openly.
  17. Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
    Norman, you do not appear to have looked at the definition of a chaotic system. A chaotic system shows extreme sensitivity to initial conditions. Weather does exhibit this behavior (the "butterfly effect"), but climate, as defined by long term averages, does not. A small variation in cloud cover doesn't affect global temperatures 20 years out by +/- 5 degrees. The albedo changes of parking lots in Europe don't determine whether we're heading into meltdown or an ice age. The climate simply doesn't have divergent behavior based upon small condition changes - rather, it has a straightforward (albeit non-linear) predictable response to changes in conditions. As Tom Dayton stated, until you understand the definition of a "chaotic system" your statements will not be relevant to this topic.
  18. Keep those PJs on: a La Niña cannot erase decades of warming
    Humanity Rules, The entire GISS statement says that short term temperatures are dependant on ENSO. "Figure 3 has graphs of the global and low latitude seasonal temperature anomalies. The low latitude anomalies are strongly dependent on the El Nino-La Nina cycle of equatorial Pacific Ocean temperature anomalies, as shown by the Nino 3.4 SST2. Global temperature anomalies tend to reflect Nino variability, with, on average, a lag of about three months." El Nino years set high records and La Nina years are a little cooler. 1998 set an especially high record because it was such a strong El Nino. The next El Nino as strong as 1998 will be much higher than 1998 was. 2010 started off record setting warm, even though it was a modest El Nino. It is now near record warm even though there is a La Nina, a cooling trend. They predict 2011 will not set a record, due to the cooling La Nina, but it is still likely to be warmer than any previous La Nina year in the record. They predict that the next El Nino year will set a new high record. What more about El Nino do you want them to say???
  19. Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
    BP, The lead article discusses wedges that can be implemented by 2050. You are arguing about whether enough thorium exists to make it worth starting to build the theoretical reactors you support. Even if the thorium exists, it will take 20 years to demonstrate the technology so it will be too late to build for 2050. Your claim that we were discussing 200 year sustainability is unbelievable. Keep on topic. I am not going to post again on this topic, it is distracting the thread. I am glad to see you now support solar power. I lean more toward wind, but we will most likely need many sources of power.
  20. Climate cherry pickers: cooling oceans
    BP wrote:
    Computational climate models do not even match each other, much less reality. It is also a myth they are based on physics. They do incorporate some physics as their resolution permits, but on a sub-grid scale all the physics is gone, replaced by parametrization. Using these degrees of freedom it is easy to fit model output to a finite body of (past) data, in fact it can be done in a multitude of ways.
    You are incorrect in assuming that parameterization gives climatologists free reign. See my comments 267 and 269 on the "Models are Unreliable" thread. On that same thread, see also the comments 263 by e and 268 by muoncounter.
    Moderator Response: If anybody wants to further discuss parameterization, please do so on the thread Models are unreliable.
  21. How significance tests are misused in climate science
    TOP, for perspective, you should know that this same misinterpretation of statistics exists in every other field of science, and has for decades, as multiple authors repeatedly have pointed out. Despite the persistence of those misuses of statistics, other fields have made dramatic progress, largely because scientists do not really do what narrowly focused statistical textbooks and classes claim. Tamino's post also sheds some light on this. There is no reason to suspect that climatology suffers worse than other fields do, from the consequences of this misinterpretation of statistics. It's not quite much ado about nothing, but close.
  22. How significance tests are misused in climate science
    Re: TOP (27) The Pirate Chart was used to illustrate Alexandre's point, that just because things can be correlated doesn't mean that the correlation itself has any meaning. Just because comments by skeptics get flagged for being off-topic doesn't mean comments by those who believe in climate science do not get flagged for being off-topic. Check out the Deleted Comments bin sometime. I've had comments land there before; I can also guarantee I'll end up there again sometime. Comments that are off-topic get deleted; fact of life here. Tamino has some insights into the Ambaum piece here. The Yooper
  23. Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
    Norman, you still have not understood that there is a formal definition of "chaos" that is not the same as the normal English meaning. You have been pointed to the definition by other commenters. You should have read the Intermediate version of the post at the top of this page. Until you understand what "chaos" means, neither you nor anyone else will benefit from discussions with you on this topic.
  24. Ice-Free Arctic
    Rob@39: The route that the St Roch took was not sailed in the summer of 2010. The southerly route was sailed. One has to compare apples to apples. The Germans sailed the NE passage during WW2. In fact, the Russians have a robust set of ports on the NE passage today. There is a lot that we don't know about the Arctic and ice. Presently, Hudson Bay is very warm and is being fed by the Gulf Stream. The main thrust of my comments is for people to open their minds. Co2 potentially has caused some warming in the Arctic. There are lots of other explanations for the decline in ice as well. Let's try and understand all forces in this rather than only focusing on co2.
  25. How significance tests are misused in climate science
    @Moderator Response: "This thread is narrowly focused on concepts related to assessing statistical significance. " There is a high probability that only an off topic post by a skeptic will be flagged while more egregiously off topic posts about pirates will go unanswered. Based on Ambaum's statement that 3/4 of the articles in a recent randomly picked issue of a prestigious climate publication contained this error is it likely that the papers that the IPCC uses in it's publications are tainted? Ambaum further stated that this number was up over a ten year previous issue where the error only occurred 1/2 the time. I have seen what Ambaum alludes to in his paper, an increased use of computer programs to analyze data without understanding the underlying reasoning. You will typically see this on tests when asking students to take the sin(pi/3)/cos(pi/3)/sqrt(3). A calculator dependent student will more often than not get this wrong. Temperature anomaly is a low signal to noise ratio quantity. I'd sure like to see a study of the proper use of statistics in deriving that quantity. In fact it seems like there was one in a past topic. Can't quite recall the name at the moment. @muoncounter "No, but it does mean that 75% of climate denier posts are misleading -- and that's significant." Guess I'm not seeing the connection to "climate deniers". What is a "climate denier" anyway? Someone who denies that there is such a thing as climate? I wasn't aware that the Journal for Climate was an anti-anthropogenic global warming publication. After all they put out this, "Global Warming is Unequivocal: The Evidence from NOAA" 5/6/2010. @TonyL The Ambaum Article
  26. Ice-Free Arctic
    muoncounter@51: Ice melts from warming temps and also changes in albedo. The particulate load that China adds daily to the Arctic is nothing to sneeze at.
  27. Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
    #22: "move the albedo bar from one extreme to the other" The earth's average albedo is given here as 0.30 or 30%. We do not go 'from one extreme to the other'. Here is a prior SkS article on the question of albedo. Look at the graph (figures 2 and 3) of measured albedo anomalies in that article; a big anomaly is on the order of 1%. That limits the plausible range of your slider bar considerably. We do not live in a world that is all desert one day, all ice the next, all forest the day after that. Look at the graph in figure 1; as scadden points out, albedo variation is already taken into account in the models. Sorry, this dog won't hunt.
  28. Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
    Norman, fail to see how this demonstrates any chaotic behaviour at all - a no-atmosphere earth has fast extremes so dont get fooled. You are entertaining this idea because you wish demonstrate the climate cannot be predicted despite the success of models in doing just this. I dont need a calculator to know the effect of a fourth power on sensitivity. This demonstrates nothing about supposed chaos. Furthermore, you would wish to hypothesize that current warming is a dynamical effect - an internal heat movement that is part of a larger cycle. I am still waiting for you tell me where this heat is being moved from that is causing the heating. Chaotic system still have to obey the laws of physics. Will your alternative model explain all the other observed features (which happen to fit our existing climate model). Lets suppose that climate IS chaotic. Now what is the time scale for predictions to fail for imprecisely known systems? For weather, its about 4 days. For the solar system?? Successful model predictions would suggest that it is not chaotic on scales so far worked on. Do you seriously think that your questions about albedo etc. are not built into the climate models? Could be time to study them.
  29. Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
    #19 muoncounter If you read my response to KR...You say "For example, in this image of a chaotic system, the position of the swinging pendulum (ie, the weather) depends on where it is when the machine starts. However, the envelope of possible positions (ie, the climate) is entirely predictable." Use the calculator and move the albedo bar from one extreme to the other (both albedo ranges are possible on Earth, from a water world to an ice and snow world). With our current level of solar insolation the low albeo point would have a globe at 35F At the high albedo side the Earth woud be -138F. That is a 173 difference in Global temp based upon albedo. Now tell me how do you predict what the albedo will be if the Earth warms 10F? Will there be more relflective clouds? Of the 30% of the Earth that is Land what type of albedo will there be? If it becomes a desert that will shift it from the current estimate of 0.3 albedo to 0.37 and will cool the Earth more than it is currently being cooled. On the calculator if you slide the albeo bar to 0.37 it creates a cooling factor 0f -12F compared to 0.3 abledo. It means a warming climate in this case would end up cooling the Earth. If you can explain to me how this is not chaotic and how you can predict it then I am all ears. I can't see how anyone could predict what type of albedo will take place with a warming Earth, and if you can't predict that major factor, how can you predict a future trend?
  30. Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
    #20 KR "But climate, as defined as long term averages, is not chaotic. If top of atmosphere IR decreases, there is an energy imbalance, the climate will warm. If the sun decreases it's output, there is an energy imbalance, and the climate will cool." The purpose of posting the calculator was so scaddenp could play with various albedos to see how these cause change in Global temps. There is a nice list of various albedo numbers to try. Global temp can effect these albedo numbers on both land and water. Water can range from a super low albedo in liquid form to a very high albedo in ice and snow form. You can put the albedo number in the calcuator and leave the solar radiation alone. The effect on global temps are far more significant than the 1 to 2 degree range given for CO2 doubling (in absence of feedbacks, justs its own contribution). Global temp can also detemine the types of plants that grow on land. Forests have very low albedo, desert fairly high and grass in the middle. Combinations of temperature, long term wind patterns, evaporation rate and all go into determining what type of land coverage will take place. The albedo effects the Global Temp in a major way and the Global temp can effect various albedo numbers in a major way. This in itself creates and unpredictable loop...What type of land form will favor a warming Earth? If it is desert than the sand will actually reflect a lot more solar radiation than forest and work to cool the Earth (Sahara desert acts in this fashion...learned that when taking a Meteorology course in College). Forests absorb a lot more solar energy but they also pull water up from the ground and cause evaporation which cools the local environment but can cause heating in the upper atmposphere when the humid air condenses back into water.
  31. Berényi Péter at 05:54 AM on 15 November 2010
    Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
    Come on. I for one probably use one third of the energy for heating than you guys, because I have 2 feet thick brick walls :)
  32. Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
    BP: "Of course it is not. But I thought we are talking about long term sustainability" Title of post: "Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard"
  33. actually thoughtful at 05:42 AM on 15 November 2010
    Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
    This conversation got stuck on electricity. Electricity is 20% of the energy consumed. Because of the coal in the mix, it accounts for 1/3 of the carbon emissions. Building heating/cooling and water heating are 40% of energy consumed. Transportation is 40% of the energy consumed. The trick is electricity is so darn malleable. You COULD use it for all of the above. So there is a reason it is always in the conversation. But you can get to the desired result quicker by using different technologies. For example, a standard R-19 wall/R-2 window home (shudder) cannot be heated, in a winter climate, by covering the roof with solar PV. You need 50% of your neighbors roof as well. This has been proven to negatively impact neighborly relations. But a solar thermal installation can knock out the heating/hot water load at about 50% of just your own roof. Leaving the remainder for PV for computers and refrigerators. It takes 8 standard sized PV panels to power a Nissan Leaf for a day. There is room for that too. So while you could get there by looking at the world as a giant electric problem, there is REAL, immediate progress to be made by NOT looking at the world that way.
  34. actually thoughtful at 05:35 AM on 15 November 2010
    Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
    This started as a good discussion. But, looking at EVERYONE's posts - I don't see a lot of "the PV at my home office does X." "My wind turbine produces Y". How many of us are using renewable energy right now? I will go first ;-> I have 12 solar thermal panels on my roof to heat my home and hot water. PV is awaiting on funding from the savings from heating. I've already achieved systemic energy payback. If energy prices hold steady - financial payback in ~5 years (the system has been up for 4 years already). If energy prices resume their 40 year avg increase of 6% per year - I will achieve financial payback in ~4 more years
  35. Berényi Péter at 05:30 AM on 15 November 2010
    Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
    #145 michael sweet at 04:37 AM on 15 November, 2010 The technique that you dream about sorting thouioum from the crust is not possible today. Of course it is not. But I thought we are talking about long term sustainability. If not, please consider this recent Increase In (US) Thorium Reserves. "The U.S.G.S.’ latest estimate of 915,000 tons of thorium ore reserves within the claims held by Thorium Energy, Inc., in Idaho and Montana compares to the previously published U.S.G.S. estimate of 160,000 tons for the entire United States as stated in the U.S.G.S. Mineral Commodity Summaries 2008. The October 2008 U.S.G.S. update states that, "The thorium and rare-earth deposits in the region were initially studied by the U.S. Geological Survey (Sharp and Cavender, 1962; Staatz, 1972, 1979) and others, including the Idaho Bureau of Mines and Geology, Idaho Energy Reserves Company (IERCO), a subsidiary of Idaho Power Company, the Idaho Geological Survey (Gillerman and others, 2003), Tenneco Oil Company, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, and the U.S. Bureau of Mines. Total reserves of the deposits are 915,000 tons of ore." This confirms that Thorium Energy, Inc.'s total Idaho and Montana thorium resources and reserves are the largest in the United States. Furthermore, the company is not aware of any larger, professionally documented reserves of high-grade thorium anywhere in the world. According to the current U.S.G.S. statistics, the next highest estimates of thorium ore are for Australia with 300,000 tons and India with 290,000 tons. It must be noted that the Idaho and Montana deposits are of high-grade thorite and thorianite rather than low-grade disseminated deposits as in India, for example. Mining thorium in the Lemhi Pass is immediately feasible, because the deposits there are not only high-grade but also near the surface. Additionally the identified mining sites are close to roads, water, and power as well as to long established towns and cities in Idaho and Montana. Thorium Energy, Inc. believes that its existing reserves could be as much as three times the 915,000 tons that have been geologically identified on its properties. The company believes that already identified resources of high-grade thorium minerals are economically extractable and that these accessible deposits of thorium are large enough to supply the power needs of the entire U.S. for centuries through thorium-fueled nuclear reactors." According to the U.S.G.S. Mineral Commodity Summary 2010 for Thorium, US reserves are 440,000 tons, reserve base is not published. In 2009 it was 160,000 tons indeed, with a reserve base of 300,000 tons. Anyway, reserves went up by 175% in a single year.
  36. Ocean acidification isn't serious
    Some new data revealing the results of ocean acidification on marine corals: New Ocean Acidification Study Shows Added Danger to Already Struggling Coral Reefs Source study here. And yes. Acidification is the term used in the study. Like it, or not. The Yooper
  37. Berényi Péter at 04:49 AM on 15 November 2010
    Climate cherry pickers: cooling oceans
    #20 Daniel Bailey at 00:53 AM on 14 November, 2010 For serious flaws to exist in the models, which are based on the physics of our world, it is very likely that this would have been noted before now. Unless you have evidence to the contrary and a physics-based theory that explains why the models match reality the vast majority of the time for everything but OHC data? Computational climate models do not even match each other, much less reality. It is also a myth they are based on physics. They do incorporate some physics as their resolution permits, but on a sub-grid scale all the physics is gone, replaced by parametrization. Using these degrees of freedom it is easy to fit model output to a finite body of (past) data, in fact it can be done in a multitude of ways. But their predictive power is seriously compromised by this step. Also, it is not just OHC that models have problems with. Trend of water vapor in the upper troposphere (above the 700 mbar level) as measured by balloon radiosonde probes is also inconsistent with practically all computational model predictions. Therefore this (huge) body of evidence is simply dismissed by modelers as unreliable. BTW, this is general practice in mainstream climate science. Whenever measurements don't conform to theory, they are adjusted until a fair match is achieved. Just have a look at the adjustment statistics that was done to USHCN (United States Historic Climatology Network). One would expect some measurement error in a long timespan over a huge area like the US, but none that would require adjustments with such a clear trend. That's ridiculous. The difference between USHCN and GHCN (Global Historic Climatology Network) is that in the former case adjustments are at least made explicitly, while for the global network (outside the US) adjustments are made to the raw data before they'd have a chance to get into the database. It's not even adjustment, it is plain data torturing. As for OHC, Trenberth himself says before 2003 OHC was seriously undersampled. In fact it was only mid-2003 when ARGO coverage got sufficiently dense and uniform. Still, most of the supposed warming of oceans happened prior to that date and it is measured to be flat since then by ARGO. It is of course possible there is some as yet undiscovered imperfection in the ARGO fleet, but it is extremely unlikely ARGO data are more unreliable than the intermittent and undersampled XBT/MBT data before. Satellite ASR (Absorbed Shortwave Radiation) and OLR (Outgoing Longwave Radiation) measurements go back in time well before the introduction of the ARGO system. They are evidently not good enough to give a useful value for the energy budget, as the long term difference between the two values is about 6.4 W/m2, which is impossible. If Earth would gain thermal energy on such a huge rate, everything would be different. There is simply no chance it would have gone unnoticed. However, even if accuracy of satellite measured energy budget is poor, its precision is much better. It means if there were a change in the rate the climate system gains (or loses) energy, it would show up in the satellite data. Difference of ASR and OLR is supposed to be roughly proportional to the temporal derivative of OHC (Ocean Heat Content works as an integrator). If the NOAA NODC OCL reconstruction were correct, there would be a step-like drop in the derivative of OHC around mid-2003. In fact nothing like that is seen in satellite measured difference of ASR and OLR. If we accept satellite measurements are precise enough and ARGO is better than XBT/MBT, then OHC reconstruction before 2003 is crap. That is, if offset of satellite measurements is calibrated against ARGO data, then the huge increase of OHC between 1990 and 2003 is an artifact. It means Trenberth's missing heat should be looked for in the past (like 20 years ago). I am surprised greatly this possibility is not explored in the literature. This alone shows how biased the so called mainstream has become.
  38. Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
    BP: You are talking pie in the sky and the rest of us are discussing solutions that can be applied now. If nanotechnology takes off as you like to dream we can discuss that when the time comes. They have to have a source of energy. I am glad you suggest solar. Wee need to keep that in mind for the next discussion. The technique that you dream about sorting thouioum from the crust is not possible today. You need to stick to the topic: things that can be done TODAY to help slow AGW. Possible solutions in 200 years are not worth discussing today.
  39. Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
    @RSVP: "Tell that to a professor of economics." Even Economists agree that Economics is a Social Science, not a Natural Science (some will talk of "hard" and "soft" science). "Economics is the most honest measure of human motivation," No. Economics is the study of the production, consumption and distribution of goods and services. If you want to talk about human motivation, try psychology. (Hint: a considerable portion of "human motivation" isn't ruled by economics.) "which is in turn tied directly to natural chemical energy." So is Religion. So is making stuff up. So it trolling. What is your point?
  40. Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
    Norman, a "chaotic system" is characterized by non-linear dynamics (yep, lots of those in climate change) and by extreme sensitivity to initial conditions (nope, not the case with climate). The behavior of a chaotic system is very predictable - it will vary around it's attractor. Weather is chaotic, in that it varies hugely around the climate means due to the initial conditions - hence the ever changing state of sun, wind, rain, clouds, etc. The strange attractor for weather provides variability, and the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions (temps, humidity, clouds, etc., which we known only to a certain degree of accuracy) prevents accurate weather forecasts weeks in advance. But climate, as defined as long term averages, is not chaotic. If top of atmosphere IR decreases, there is an energy imbalance, the climate will warm. If the sun decreases it's output, there is an energy imbalance, and the climate will cool. The very nature of a running 20-30 average smooths the chaotic weather effects - and the "climate", although non-linear, is predictable to some degree of accuracy. It's not chaotic.
  41. Berényi Péter at 02:38 AM on 15 November 2010
    Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
    #138 michael sweet at 12:21 PM on 14 November, 2010 I read some of your Nanotechnology Roadmap and I see no mention of fixing gigatons of carbon. They rely on fossil fuel for their carbon. Molecular nanotechnology simply needs carbon, whatever the source may be. As long as carbon based geo-fuels are abundant and cheap, they may be used for this purpose (as they are currently for plastics). However, it was your claim "in 200 years when all the oil, gas and coal have been used up" people would get in trouble. I doubt it, but if it happens, the next most obvious source of carbon is the atmosphere, isn't it? Molecular nanotechnology is the ability to build precise structures at the molecular level according to a pre-defined blueprint, where each atom has its specific place and is held there by strong covalent chemical bonds, resistant to thermal excitation under normal environmental conditions. It can be made cheap only by using molecularly precise self-replicating programmable constructors (called "assemblers" by enthusiasts) in molar quantities (102X of them). Each of these molecular machines would need some 1012 atoms, most of them carbon of course, at least for their structural backbone. Sounds familiar? Plants use ribosomes as self-replicating constructors and chloroplasts for photochemical carbon capture. And guess what? They do not use geo-fuels (that's done by underground bacteria), but atmospheric carbon dioxide, many hundreds of gigatons annually. The only trouble is plants (or bacteria or whatever) are not optimized to serve specific engineering purposes, but to produce more similar structures (according to a pre-defined blueprint stored in DNA). Ribosome, the programmable molecular constructor they rely on is not a universal one either. It can only put together arbitrary chains of 20 amino acids, fixed by peptide bonds, their folded 3D structure being often stabilized by secondary disulfide bridges between remote cysteine members of the chain. All the other large functional molecular machines (like tRNA molecules, ribosomal subunits or chlorophill) are constructed in ad-hoc reaction pathways driven by protein-based machines called enzymes. The same is true for most of the structural polymers like cellulose or chitin. We can obviously hack into these molecular machines. If it is done, it's called biotechnology. However, there is much more to carbon chemistry than the tiny segment covered by this God-given machinery. Some of the most powerful possibilities like diamondoid structures, nanotubes, graphene or Fullerenes are not accessible through this path at all. Carbon is pretty unique in its versatility. No doubt some structural diversity can be attained using silicone heteropolymers, but it does not even come close to carbon. Therefore industrial usage of carbon as the default structural material is expected to go up steeply in the future (meaning many gigatons of the stuff), replacing most other raw materials. At some point relative shortage of carbon is inevitable. On the other hand energy is not expected to be in short supply. Solar radiation is abundant, even at ground level (much more so in space, inner solar system). At the moment there is no economically viable way to use it, because cheap and efficient temporary storage is lacking, but with advanced molecular nanotech it should be easy to manufacture micron sized solar plants en masse (that could be applied to sunlit surfaces as paint), producing some nonflammable, not toxic energy-rich chemical (like sugar), storing it locally and later on turning it into electricity on demand by adjacent microscopic, molecularly precise fuel cell engines. As solar radiation at ground level on Earth is intermittent and has low power flux density, terrestrial land use requirements of solar power are high, even with the most advanced technology. Open surfaces that could be put to dual use without competing for sunlight with plant life, like roads or rooftops have limited extent. Therefore some more compact long term power source is also needed, presumably a nuclear one. The 3He-D fusion reaction is promising, as all the participants have electric charge (no free neutrons), therefore with appropriate arrangement no nuclear waste is produced. A molecularly precise design using smart materials with exotic electromagnetic properties and fast control should enable us to use very short acceleration paths to overcome the 3He-D potential barrier in an energy-efficient manner. 3He reserves in the lunar regolith are estimated to be about 2.5 million tons, enough for thousands of years. The same stuff in the atmosphere of gas giants is practically inexhaustible. With an abundant energy supply, we can forget about shortage of any raw material for a long time. Sorting atoms needs free energy, but from a thermodynamic point of view energy requirements are only proportional to the logarithmic rarity of the component to be extracted. With program-driven engines operating at the molecular level, we can get pretty close to the thermodynamic limit. Nuclear fissile material like uranium and thorium are also abundant in the crust. With molecular sorting capability these resources are inexhaustible, even in the long run (hundreds of million years). With closely controlled proper breeder technology all the long half-life reaction products can be eliminated or fed back to the reaction, making long term (hundreds of thousand years) nuclear waste storage unnecessary. Molecular machines, if their design is redundant enough and they have self-repairing capability can withstand quite high levels of radiation (as it is demonstrated by some bacteria). Therefore they can be used to sort nuclear waste as needed. Current new age Luddite trend of CAGW scare does not help to resolve real problems and implement knowledge extracted from long term basic research as engineering solutions. They are very successful in raising legal obstacles to R+D and investment, but fail to promote necessities, as worldwide compulsory industrial liability insurance for example. At the turn of 19th/20th century there was a horse manure scare. The stuff was supposed to flood cities by the end of 20th century and cover them in a several feet deep layer. What's happened in fact is quite the opposite. I have learnt from my grandpa that horse manure is best for nurturing cucumbers. But unfortunately it is in such a short supply by now, that it took me several weeks to get some. With advanced nanotechnology we can overcome all the present day pollution problems as well. Assemblers (the universal constructors mentioned above) can also be used backwards, as disassemblers (universal programmable deconstructors). They can be programmed to take things apart to their constituent atoms or small (and harmless) molecular compounds, making them accessible to re-assembly. That's what God's nanotech was doing for billions of years, successfully. Temperate forests grow on their own litter, year by year. Yet, they fail to turn into a refuse dump, because an intricate web of disassemblers are at work in the soil, all of them of the most precise design at the molecular level.
  42. forensicscience at 02:01 AM on 15 November 2010
    How significance tests are misused in climate science
    Climate sciencei is heavily reliant on proxy data and hence statistical methods, probably more than other empricial sciences are. Its not surprise that this part of the science comes under such heavy scrutiny. However, I would imagine that if climate scientists were in any doubt relative to natural variability they would not have published so many peer reviewed articles. So rather than bring up the subject we should be asking why so much literature on th subject if it has little or no merit?
  43. How significance tests are misused in climate science
    #23: "75% of climate science papers use statistical significance in a "misleading" way. Does that mean you think these are all written by "deniers"?" No, but it does mean that 75% of climate denier posts are misleading -- and that's significant.
  44. How significance tests are misused in climate science
    19.Eric L Erm this paper suggest 75% of climate science papers use statistical significance in a "misleading" way. Does that mean you think these are all written by "deniers"? Drop the rhetoric and stick to the science. 2.Daniel Bailey "Entirely scientific graph: Who worked out there were 17 pirates in 2000?
  45. Climate cherry pickers: cooling oceans
    BP #19 Note that I have used THEORETICAL 'observed' in parenthesis BP. I am well aware of the fact that the REAL observed number from CERES is 6.4W/sq.m. You should read more of my pieces on this blog. I got pilloried here making your point on MODELS: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Real-experts-dont-know-everything.html#30319 on "Real experts don't know everything" I was taking the 145E20 Joule number from Trenberth's Aug09 paper Table 1: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final2.pdf Note that 'Observed' is used in Trenberth's Table 1 and the text pp23 notes that "The net imbalance is estimated to be 0.9W/sq.m" Trenberth reconciles the 0.9W/sq.m number in Figure 4 of the same paper which uses the IPCC AR4 Fig 2.4 Table of forcings PLUS climate responses - S-B radiative feedback of -2.8W/sq.m and WV + Ice Albedo feedbacks of +2.1W/sq.m He derives the S-B cooling from a 0.75degK increase in surface temperature since a AD1750. WV and Ice Albedo positive feedback +2.1W/sq.m is from Trenberth and Fasulo - an approximation. Perhaps you could turn your considerable (and oft referenced by me)talents to the history of this major climate response feedback (WV + Ice albedo) and whether it is real or theoretical too!!
  46. Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
    #18: "Here is a model of Earth's temp (simple model). It calculates Earth temp" There's nothing at all chaotic about this model; its just a demonstration of two straightforward equations. One of them just happens to have T4, which makes it sensitive -- not chaotic. Here's a definition of 'chaotic behavior'; note that it mentions 'weather,' not climate. You may be mistaking 'chaotic' with 'sensitive to change.' For example, in this image of a chaotic system, the position of the swinging pendulum (ie, the weather) depends on where it is when the machine starts. However, the envelope of possible positions (ie, the climate) is entirely predictable.
  47. Climate cherry pickers: cooling oceans
    And one final comment re : Daniel Bailey's comment, Which model do you choose? The ensembles are very course in their predictions and dont appear to have any particular specific skill over relatively short timescales.
  48. Climate cherry pickers: cooling oceans
    Bah, I should have kept reading. Re: Berényi Péter's comments ...Yeah, what he said :-)
  49. Climate change from 40 million years ago shows climate sensitivity to CO2
    Norman, a greenhouse effect greater than 70 F is entirely possible (after all, Earth's is currently about 60 F). Also, the 70% factor on sunlight was about 4.4 billion years ago while the timeframe Mars is believed to have had water is in the 4.1 to 3.5 billion years ago range... when the Sun was closer to 75% of current brightness. We know Earth had liquid water in this timeframe. There is strong evidence Mars did too. Yet sunlight alone clearly couldn't have caused that. Sunlight and more pronounced greenhouse effects (hardly surprising in the early volcanic history of the newly formed planets) could have.
  50. Climate cherry pickers: cooling oceans
    "Note that ocean heat measurements still find a positive energy imbalance - the planet is still accumulating heat - just not as much as the satellite data at the moment." Dont lose sight of the fact that it could be the satellite data that is wrong. Satellite data due to its complexity is far from a slam dunk its entirely possible the corrections need to be made to it and not the OHC data (or even some combination of the two but how would we know?) Its easy to put a stake in the ground and declare the satellite data as the "truth" in this, but that in itself is a significant assumption considering satellite data itself goes through processes of correction.

Prev  2085  2086  2087  2088  2089  2090  2091  2092  2093  2094  2095  2096  2097  2098  2099  2100  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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