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  2096  2097  2098  2099  2100  2101  2102  2103  2104  2105  2106  2107  2108  2109  2110  2111  Next

Comments 105151 to 105200:

  1. Stephen Baines at 20:24 PM on 5 November 2010
    Models are unreliable
    Or not...from the same paper "Another solution is to bring trained computer scientists into research groups, either permanently or as part of temporary alliances. Software developer Nick Barnes has set up the Climate Code Foundation, based in Sheffield, UK, to help climate researchers. He was motivated by problems with NASA's Surface Temperature Analysis software, which was released to the public in 2007. Critics complained that the program, written in the scientific programming language Fortran, would not work on their machines and they could therefore not trust what it said about global warming. In consultation with NASA researchers, Barnes rewrote the code in a newer, more transparent programming language —Python — reducing its length and making it easier for people who aren't software experts to understand how it functions. "Because of the immense public interest and the important policy issues at stake, it was worth taking the time to do that," says Barnes. His new code shows the same general warming trend as the original program." Seriously, poptech, how could consistent trends among dozens of climate models and several global temperature averaging algorithms, each coded by separate groups, result from random coding errors? You are applying several general statements in the article to climate modelers specifically when 1) none of the most damning examples provided by that article relate to climate modeling and 2) you haven't even bothered to find out what procedures and cross checks climate modellers have in place. This is the definition of quote mining.
  2. Compendium Maps: a visual summary of the climate debate
    As a mapping guy I find this intriguing! Not to mention potentially very useful as well. It might be useful to include a link directly to the map in question. The Yooper
  3. What should we do about climate change?
    HI scaddenp, @5 (or perhaps #346 of numbers are fixed) We do? We ban nuclear weapons but as far as I know, no banning nuclear power. Last time I heard a government minister on the subject, nuclear was off table on economic grounds. So far we generate 70%+ electricity from renewables with plenty of remaining capacity for wind (no subsidies for power generation here) and some for geothermal. Replacing our transport fuels are another story however. I would guess NZ to be reasonably unique though (perhaps like Iceland) with small population and abundant renewables including lots of wind. About 50% of our CO2e is farm-related, mostly methane. I agree with all you say here - for New Zealand. But does that apply for your West Island (i.e. Australia for foreigners)? We have very little additional, viable hydro capacity (we could develop some pumped hydro and I gave a link to an example in a previous post) We have some limited wind resource mainly along the southern coast of Australia. However, this is unreliable and can go for days at a time without generating power (across all the NEM's wind farms spread over 1200km east-west by 800km north-south). The National Electricity Market draws about 600 GWh per day, so the amount of energy storage that would be required to make wind power dispatchable would be enormous. We do not have any volcanic areas like New Zealand, Iceland and other places located on the ring of fire and mid Atlantc ridge. Hot Dry Rock and Hot Fractured Rock geothermal is another unproven technology that suffers from similar limitations to solar - i.e a diffuse source of energy. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a pipe dream propogated by the coal mining industry to delay action for as long as possible. It will sequester some CO2 but the contribution will be insignificant and at huge cost. Wind power, when backed up by fossil fuels as would be the case in Australia, displaces negligible amounts of CO2 emissions (so I understand, I can be corrected on this if someone has access to studies based on measurement data). Much less than the wind industry claims. Wind power has not closed down fossil fuel power stations anywhere. So why would it in Australia? Solar thermal. The technology does not exist to enable it to provide baseload power. The costs for what it can provide are huge. See "Zero Carbon Australia - Stationary Energy Plan - Critique" Therefore, I suggest: 1. Australia's only realistic option for cutting emissions massively, over the long term, with a sustainable trend of reducing emissions by 50% or more by 2050, is to go nuclear in a big way. I agree there will be some renewables and so there should. But we need to unblock the log jam that is prohibiting nuclear and has been for the past 40 years. 2. Allow whatever technology is best able to meet the requirement at the time. Do not prohibit any. Do not stack the cards for or against any technology. Do not provide massive subsidies for renewables, coal, gas, CCS while providing none for nuclear (as we do in Australia). Do not mandate renewables. If we want to mandate anything it should be "clean energy" no "renewable energy". Mandating "Renewable energy" as we do now is a demonstration of policy based on ideology. 3. New Zealand doesn't need nuclear. You mentioned it was not economically viable. That is the case in Australia too, at the moment and based on the assumption of a regulatory regime as applied in the other western democracies. We, and I expect NZ, are looking at the cost of nculear under a regulatory regime which makes them uneconomic. I argue we have the option of high cost nuclear or low cost nuclear. High cost nuclear is nuclear in the USA, Canada, UK, EU. Low cost nuclear is in Russia, China, India, Korea. The plants all meet the IAEA requirements. We do not need high cost nuclear. There is little difference in the safety (if any) and all are far safer than what we have now, and accept nbow as sufficient. So any move to nuclear of any type will have a major improvement in health and safety and cut CO2 emissions. So we should go for least cost nuclear. 4. There are many advantages of going least cost, as I've said in previous posts. Low cost electricity will displace fossil fuels for heat and transport faster then if the cost is higher. I gave the comparison of France and Germany to demonstrate this. Also we need to develop low cost clean low emissions electricity in the west so it will be chosen in preference to fossil fuel generators in the developing nations. That is where the really big emissions cuts (or avoidance) will have to be achieved. I provided a post with much more detail a few pages back. 5. Stop the blkocks. Stop the ideologically based policies. Stop the extremesism (only renewables).
  4. There's no empirical evidence
    I just wanted to say thank you for this post. The more available and easily readable evidence in public domain the better it is.
  5. What should we do about climate change?
    "Except that it's impossible to do it properly, or come up with a "Plan C" or Plan E for NZ, because they, like Australia, forbid nuclear." Um. We do? We ban nuclear weapons but as far as I know, no banning nuclear power. Last time I heard a government minister on the subject, nuclear was off table on economic grounds. So far we generate 70%+ electricity from renewables with plenty of remaining capacity for wind (no subsidies for power generation here) and some for geothermal. Replacing our transport fuels are another story however. I would guess NZ to be reasonably unique though (perhaps like Iceland) with small population and abundant renewables including lots of wind. About 50% of our CO2e is farm-related, mostly methane. The genesis of one part of my institute (the "N" of GNS Science) was to provide research for expected future nuclear power. A long time ago however.
  6. Pete Dunkelberg at 12:55 PM on 5 November 2010
    Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
    Denialism - everyone needs to be aware of it these days. While Freud's idea may come into it sometimes, the current concept is of rhetorical methods used to create an appearance of endless argument over matters that are already established. See the link for many specific methods. One simple direct method is to always argue as if nothing is known, and each new paper is obliged to prove everything from scratch. Since this is not possible in a single paper, the paper may be called "biased" for not doing what it was not intended to and could not do. This method is familiar to me from evolution denial. The series of comments above in this thread gives me the impression that the regular group here is more susceptible to denialism than it would be if the concept were kept in mind.
  7. Pete Dunkelberg at 12:42 PM on 5 November 2010
    Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
    Comment # 3 (thingadonta) made little sense to me. A key misconception comes at the end: "Too many holes in the paper ...." It is not a paper, it is a statement. Even if it were a paper it would only justify the new research within itself, and use references for established science just as the statement does. It is quite appropriate for a position statement to be based on (not try to re-establish) established science. It would be strange for a position statement to try to re-establish its scientific basis. If thingadonta wants a rehash of all climatology, the IPCC AR4 WG1 report is one place to start.
  8. What should we do about climate change?
    Peter Lang wrote : "So, instead of raising arguments to try to keep nuclear prohibited, why don't you put your effort into getting ACF, Greenpeace, WWF, FOE and the Greens to change their anti-nuclear policy." Like the majority, I am in between the extremists on both sides, i.e. you on one side and extreme Greens on the other. You deserve each other but, in the meantime, the real world (and the people who inhabit the real world) will find the solutions that work - not the solutions the ideologues or the conspiracy-theorists want. Sorry.
  9. What should we do about climate change?
    By the way JMurphy, you got this wrong: "(Total - 67.8, i.e. Nuclear contributes 41%)" You didn't understand what you've added. Try again (but read and understand first). The percentage is 56% nuclear. However, as most in the business know, it will be much higher than that because the renewables canmnot and will not be able to make much of a contibution. The polasn C is good because it gets to many people and is politically correct. The suggested starting point is to keep all those happy who are hoping and praying for renewables to bea bale to paly a significant role. I'd suggest the end result will be similar to where France is now. You can havng onto your dream. Time will tell. But waht is im,portant is that we need to ramp up nuclwear now. We need to remove the prohibitions. We need to remove the impediments. We need to remove the over the top requirements. So, instead of raising arguments to try to keep nuclear prohibited, why don't you put your effort into getting ACF, Greenpeace, WWF, FOE and the Greens to change their anti-nuclear policy.
  10. The Grumble in the Jungle
    One pathway studied was trying to identify a 'critical soil moisture threshold' at which vast tracts of forest just burn away. This is a strawman argument. The decline in soil moisture will not necessarily lead to vast tracts of the rainforest simply burning away. The response is likely to be complex and not necessarily homogeneous over the whole region. The rainforest itself has significant influence over hydrology in the region, affecting rainfall distribution, cloud formation, altering soil structure, water storage capacity, surface solar radiation and lowering surface temperatures. Increased seasonality (i.e a drier dry season, and a wetter wet season) can kill trees, despite only a small change in annual rainfall. Increased fire risk, is but one of a number of negative consequences. The fact remains that, even after all aforesaid studies, no such single mythical threshold level exists or has been found, for tropical forests like the Amazon. Well, actually studies have identified a range of moisture thresholds for the rainforest. Think about it for a moment, what limits the current extent of rainforest in the Amazon?. Don't you suppose soil moisture might be a limiting factor?. If you are implying that one single threshold exists for all rainforests, that seems unlikely given the varied conditions. If soil moisture loss were to actually cause half of the Amazon system to burn away, the forest would be long gone Sorry, but again, strawman material. The Amazon WWF error and the Himalayan WWF Please stay on topic. And again I've amply demonstrated the IPCC statement is correct. The word "error" used here is simply an opinion, and one contrary to established research. these issues have been examined and discussed in far greater detail, at RealClimate, Wattsupwiththat....... Well it appears, not well enough, given your misunderstanding of the topic. And it might just be my interpretation, but that appears some kind of appeal to authority. If so, color me unimpressed. The WWF report, and therefore the Amazon statement from the IPCC, violates all these governing principles. Again, just your opinion. I've reproduced the relevant guidelines above. People can make up their own minds, they don't need you as some sort of arbiter of the written word. Really beside the point anyway, I've already stated the IPCC could have handled this better, the issue is whether the statement is correct. It is.
  11. What should we do about climate change?
    Further to my post #339 here is my reply on BNC to quokka on this matter (I'm posting these here because it may be informative for some): quokka said: It is inconceivable that nuclear power could be introduced without a regulatory and safety environment that does not at least meet IAEA recommendations. I totally agree and I have never said anything that should be taken to mean I disagree with this statement. All the other countries abide by the IAEA requirements and nuclear is a lot cheaper in some of those countries than in USA, Canada, UK, and European countries. I want to run with the low cost way of doing it, not the high cost way. I also want to advocate to get the other big nuclear countries to stop agitating in the IAEA for ever higher safety regulations. I want these countries to start agitating to back off to a level that is consistent with the requirements on other industries. France is trying to ramp up the requirement to try to make its EPR monster competitive. That is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing if we want nuclear to be rolled out in the developing and underdeveloped countries (I am thinking of the poorest countries in Africa, for example). If they do not have the option of cheap nuclear they will use fossil fuel generation. Australia will have to abide by whatever the IAEA dictates. But we can take a minimalist approach and I think we should – for the benefit of the whole world!!!
  12. What should we do about climate change?
    J Murphy, So why aren't you out there advocating toe Greenpeace and the rest of the anti-nukes to change their policy to be pro-nuclear and get started right away?
  13. What should we do about climate change?
    I am getting pleaded with at BNC to shut up on the matter of excessive requirements for nuclear safety. I don't agree with the advocates for em to shut up. I thought I'd post my reply here too so you can all support my position :) "gallopingcamel, quokka, DV82XL, Douglas Wise, and all the others that are pleading with me to stop saying, and agitating, that: nuclear is 10 to 100 times safer than coal. The extra safety requirements are increasing the cost of nuclear and making it uncompetitive, so we have to stick with coal instead. This is illogical. We need to reduce the cost of nuclear to get it to roll out faster. This cannot be done with Gen III (much) but it can and should in Gen IV. We need to change the focus of our requirements from ‘super safe’ to ‘least cost with an acceptable level of safety’. Acceptable level of safety is what we accept for other industries, such as the chemical industry. I hear your plead for me to shut the f…k up on this. But I don’t agree with you. I understand you see how it is perceived by the public. I do understand this. I’ve been where you are. Now I think I am miles ahead of you. My reason for saying this is because I’ve seen 20 years of the pussy footing around. It gets us nowhere. I now believe we need to explain the facts. The facts are that we’ve made nuclear too safe compared with other industries. It is not feasible to raise the safety of other industries to what we require for nuclear. So that means that nuclear is disadvantaged. That means we cannot have the benefits of its higher safety and lower emissions. Another way to look at this is to point out that if nuclear had been available before coal and we were trying to introduce coal now to replace nuclear, we wouldn’t even consider it. When you think of it this way it points out just how ridiculous are the imposts we’ve imposed on nuclear. I do not agree with you guys that it is best to hold these discussions in private between consenting parties. I believe the discussion needs to be had with the public. Some will get it, others wont. But some will start to understand that they really have been taken for an enormous ride by the anti-nukes over the past 50 years. I believe Gen IV should be made as low cost as is necessary to provide the same level of safety as a chemical plant. I am thinking of what is needed to roll out nuclear instead of coal for generating electricity in the developing world. They can’t afford to buy developed country levels of safety for anything – chemical plants or anything else. So why would anyone believe they should have Gen III’s. It is totally illogical. We need to focus on least-cost not super-safe for Gen IV. We need to focus on the least cost available Gen II or Gen III until Gen IV is available because any Gen II or Gen III is more than safe enough. When implementing Gen II or Gen III (until Gen IV is available) the focus should be on removing as many of the imposts as possible so we can get the damned things at the lowest possible cost. We do not need to focus on safety. If they will provide lower cost electricity and free up fresh water by being on the coast near our major cities, then I am all for that. If it will be cheaper to put the first plants on brownfield sites, then I’m OK with that too.
    Moderator Response: If that is a direct copy of a comment you previously posted at some other site, next time please provide just a link plus some commentary, summary, or additional thoughts. Please don't just copy and paste lengthy comments that duplicate material available elsewhere. Thanks!
  14. What should we do about climate change?
    Peter Lang wrote : "Since the book was published he has added another scenario he calls PlanC.pdf 'Plan C'. This is the closest to being achivable. It requires 60% nuclear!" But, unsurprisingly, there are a few 'buts' : Plan C is a suggested starting point for a single consensus plan. (MY EMPHASIS) We build almost every zero-carbon technology we possibly can, as fast as we possibly can, starting right away. The plan reduces energy consumption by between 30% and 50% (depending how the accounting is done) by adopting super-efficient technology for the two biggest consumers – transport and heating. Figure 1.10. Plan C. Energy sources in 2050. Average energy contributed by source in kWh per day per person : Wind - 12 Clean Coal - 1.2 Tide - 3.7 Nuclear - 28 Wave - 0.3 Hydro - 0.2 Waste - 1.1 Pumped Heat - 13 Wood - 3 Solar HW - 1 PV - 0.3 Solar in deserts - 4 (Total - 67.8, i.e. Nuclear contributes 41%) Without smart demand management, the expansion of wind and nuclear will not work. And he has anticipated those who claim it's impossible without nuclear : Plan C gets most of its power from wind and nuclear. The mix could be adjusted in response to economic or political preferences: the exchange rate is that each Sizewell B is equivalent (on average) to 2000 (2 MW) turbines, which would make up wind-farms occupying an area of roughly 2000 km2.
  15. What should we do about climate change?
    scaddenp said:
    I am also a fan of that book. I've attempted to create the matching numbers for NZ.
    Except that it's impossible to do it properly, or come up with a "Plan C" or Plan E for NZ, because they, like Australia, forbid nuclear.
  16. What should we do about climate change?
    That link to David Mackay's 'Plan C' should be: 'Plan C' http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/PlanC.pdf
  17. What should we do about climate change?
    "I am concerned about cutting the emissions of twaddle: David Mackay, Preface to "Sustainable Energy - without the hot air" Excellent book but does not cover costs. That is important to be aware of. We cannot make policy without understanding costs, schedule, resource requirements. They are fundamental to any policy decisions. You may be interested in page 335 (greenhouse gas conversion factors. Notice Figure 1.9 Carbon intensity of electricity production (g CO2 / kWh) France = 83 Denmark = 881 France has highest proportion of nuclear in Europe (and the world) and lowest emission intensity from electricity; Denmark has the highest proportion of wind power in Europe (and the world) and the highest emissions intensity in Europe. I'll mention that France is correct but Denmark's figure is probably a little too high). But the point remains valid. Renewables do not cut emissions significantly. Nuclear does. Another point on David Mackay's book, he provides several scenarios of technology mixes that could allow UK to achieve the emisisons targets by 2050. Since the book was published he has added another scenario he calls PlanC.pdf 'Plan C'. This is the closest to being achivable. It requires 60% nuclear!
  18. What should we do about climate change?
    CBDunkerson @328, "Add 'not reading what the other person says' to the list of things which prevent meaningful conversation with you." I don't know aht you are referring to in the post that enbds with this statment, but it seems to me this statement applies to you. You clearly haven't read, or if you did you didn't understand, the material and links I've provided. I agree, we cannot have a meaningful conversation.
  19. The Grumble in the Jungle
    We know this "is the internet", "chewbacca" etc etc - these types of statements will only derail any discussion, I could indulge in such things as well. Shub, if you are going to engage in such tactics, it's only fair for me to point this out to uninformed readers. So you are pretty sure Nepstad 1994, 1999 and 2004 contain material that can support the IPCC statement? No point in playing games, I've pointed out as much. However, since you and many other before, have fallen for this switch, it does not do any harm to point out more explictly that the Nepstad papers deal with putative soil-moisture deprivation driven thresholds for *fire risk* - a simple fact you have consistently managed to overlook all the while now. Shub, trees aren't made of asbestos, fire will kill them just as surely as drought. Pathetic looking low- level fires kill up to half of Amazonian trees they encounter, secondary fires almost double that mortality. You would know this if you had done done research on the subject. Putting forward this as some counter-argument is somewhat absurd. From Nepstad 2004: "This study points to the widespread effect of drought on Amazon forests, and the vulnerability of Amazon forests to small declines in rainfall or increases in ET(evapotranspiration). Rainfall and ET are nearly equal across the Amazon during most years, with total rainfall falling below ET during years of severe drought. Such droughts may become more common if ENSO events continue to be frequent and severe, if rainfall is inhibited by deforestation or smoke, and if warming trends continue. Increases in ET of only 15% or similar reductions in rainfall can lead to severe soil moisture deficits over roughly half of the Amazon (Fig. 9)The increase in forest flammability associated with severe drought poses one of the greatest threats to the ecological integrity of Amazon forests."

  20. What should we do about climate change?
    My goal is not to pick winners, but to present honest quantitative facts about all the options.
    Thanks for the pointer. The full book is downloading right now. It's amusing that it was published on April 1st in North America. I'm not anti-nuclear. I'm cynical based on society's track record of short-term profit potential vs. long-term risk management. Sort of the same way I'd be cynical about handing a chainsaw to a 12 year old with ADD. The emphatic safety claims call to my mind claims of an Unsinkable Ship. It is my opinion that there is no simple, silver bullet solution. I would say this even applies to potential game changers such as aneutronic fusion of Hydrogen-Boron fuel through dense plasma focus. Lawrenceville Plasma Physics: Focus Fusion
  21. What should we do about climate change?
    Peter, thanks for pointing out ExternE. I would say a step in the right direction but as far as I could tell, so far lacking in the transparent review and audit processes of IPCC. (eg. for IPCC, I can see comments from every reviewer and editorial response). It's the nature of the subject that makes their references somewhat uninspiring and difficult to locate. While there is endless bitching in climate circles about access to primary data, it looks a lot worse in energy sector where I am guessing commercial concerns hamper access. Nonetheless, I am pleased to see cross-government funded research going into this and obviously attempts to create a reliable, trustworthy resource for policy makers. JMurpy and Eric - I am also a fan of that book. I've attempted to create the matching numbers for NZ.
  22. New podcast: The Climate Show
    thumbs uppppp!
  23. Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
    TOP -"I haven't heard of any papers that reconstruct ocean albedo over these time frames or temperatures in the tropics." As always, try WG1 IPCC. Chapter 6. You will see there the relative forcings from albedo, sea level change, GHG, etc. Papers from which calculations were made in the references. Evaporation/convection/condensation moves heat around vertically and horizontally. The only way for energy to leave the earth is via radiation.
  24. Philippe Chantreau at 04:53 AM on 5 November 2010
    Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
    Chriscanaris, quick review: when someone says a bunch of hogwash, calling the hogwash by its name does not constitute an ad-hom argument, so long as no comment is made on the person. When someone says anything (hogwash or not), accusing the person saying it of being bad, then using that to invalidate what they say constitute an ad-hom argument. For instance, when Monckton goes blaring that Prof. Abraham looks like a lobster in order to distract from Abraham's critics of his inconsistencies and inaccuracies, that constitutes an ad-hom.
  25. What should we do about climate change?
    Eric (skeptic) wrote : "I like that e-book and would recommend it for everyone." I agree, and the other message that I draw from the "every little bit" helps/doesn't help message (depending on what the 'little' refers to - not driving to the newsagents round the corner, for example, is a little sacrifice that would help) is that 'big bits' are more useful, if more of an effort - although, the 'little bits', being easier and taking less effort, are easier to sell to the public.
  26. Eric (skeptic) at 03:40 AM on 5 November 2010
    What should we do about climate change?
    #329, JMurphy, I like that e-book and would recommend it for everyone. My only quibble so far is some information is out of date e.g. "Modern phone chargers, when left plugged in with no phone attached, use about half a watt." That small problem no longer exists thanks to microwatt level phantom draw the last few years or zero in recent designs. But that merely reinforces the author's point which is very practical: "every little bit" does not help, it induces an artificial reality of "doing something" when in reality "doing nothing".
  27. The Grumble in the Jungle
    Rob, We know this "is the internet", "chewbacca" etc etc - these types of statements will only derail any discussion, I could indulge in such things as well. So you are pretty sure Nepstad 1994, 1999 and 2004 contain material that can support the IPCC statement? Well, firstly observe the Nepstadian: "The IPCC statement on the Amazon is correct, but the citations listed in the Rowell and Moore report were incomplete". How do you read this? There is a clear switch here. This is important because Nepstad, for the remainder of his press release, basically defends and explains concepts set out in his papers, as they relate to the rudimentary form they were in, when formulated in 1998, in the website and copied out in the *WWF report*, not the IPCC WGII report. This does not concern our question, speaking strictly. However, since you and many other before, have fallen for this switch, it does not do any harm to point out more explictly that the Nepstad papers deal with putative soil-moisture deprivation driven thresholds for *fire risk* - a simple fact you have consistently managed to overlook all the while now. This rather limited formulation -'climate fire risk' stemmed from the mid-late 90s when the Indonesian tropical peat fires spurred many researchers to study forest fires and ecologic conditions that would cause massive forest fires. One pathway studied was trying to identify a 'critical soil moisture threshold' at which vast tracts of forest just burn away. The fact remains that, even after all aforesaid studies, no such single mythical threshold level exists or has been found, for tropical forests like the Amazon. The fire risk concept is distantly related to, but quite distinct in substance from the IPCC formulation, which speaks of "drastic change" without ever specifying what the "change" is, continues to talk about the whole "tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system" of the entire continent of South America potentially changing "very rapidly to another steady state". If this difference between the two cannot be acknowledged or reconciled, the more straightforward thing would be to simple admit that the IPCC made a mistake by using WWF material, however vaguely similar the resulting claim may look, to results from other lines of enquiry. Nepstad 1999 estimates fire risk and damage from logging. Nepstad 2004 estimates amount of forest at risk for fires, using soil moisture as a guide. If soil moisture loss were to actually cause half of the Amazon system to burn away, the forest would be long gone. Important ecophysiologic mechcanisms keep such an eventuality from transpiring, a fact that Nepstad and colleagues acknowledge in more recent publications. The Amazon WWF error and the Himalayan WWF error have many things in common. Passages were copied bulk from WWF reports, but their meaning was appropriately modified to make them sound relevant to climate change regional impacts. In the case of the Himalayan error, the number 2035 became a focal point of highlighting the statement's erroneousness. The Amazon statement has no single similar focus - an opportunity that has been exploited by Amazon researchers to defend the IPCC and their own exlanations from scrutiny. But the error remains nevertheless, because if you extract a similar claim from the Nepstad papers, or any similar reference, for that matter - it would come out different from what is to be found in the IPCC. I would also draw your attention to what commenter Mikemcc pointed out - these issues have been examined and discussed in far greater detail, at RealClimate, Wattsupwiththat (a thread where Nepstad commented), Climateaudit and Roger Pielke Jr's blog where Dr Ranga Myneni, Boston University put forth his comments, and several other blogs, including my own. Secondly, in framing its principles, "non-peer-reviewed" literature for the IPCC primarily meant industry reports and private sector sources - as the IPCC illustrates with an example of accessing material for case studies. The IPCC either never anticipated the use of environmental pressure group literature in its reports, or does not wish to confront the problem of authors doing so. RK Pachauri's statements suggest the latter - he has repeatedly argued that, for many areas of study, no adequate peer-reviewed literature is available and that grey literature from any source not be treated "as if it was some form of grey muddied water flowing down the drains". The issue is pretty clear: authors are supposed to "critically assess any source", reviewing the "quality and validity of each source", before proceeding. The WWF report, and therefore the Amazon statement from the IPCC, violates all these governing principles. If you want to make a claim present in the primary literature, do just that.
  28. New podcast: The Climate Show
    Great show guys, I look forward to watching more!
  29. What should we do about climate change?
    scaddenp wrote : "Whoa! this thread headed in political country but I dont think we need this." I agree. Peter Lang's conspiracy theories involving an all-powerful bunch of Lefties using AGW (or, even more horrifyingly, "DAGW") to take control of the world is just bizarre. Further discussion is about as useful as trying to persuade Monckton that Communism is not plotting world domination. Thankfully there are plenty of unbiased, non-ideological sources out there, including the following, which lays out all the options in a rational format : Sustainable Energy - without the hot air
  30. Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
    ".....although the best estimate from the end of the last glacial is that the temperature probably started to rise a few centuries before the CO2 showed any reaction." p.4 And then it goes on to talk about the positive feedback from CO2 after the temperature had already risen. "This was accompanied by major climate change around the northern hemisphere, felt particularly strongly in the North Atlantic region. Each warm and cold episode took just a few decades to develop and lasted for a few hundred years. The climate system in those glacial times was clearly unstable and liable to switch rapidly with little warning between two contrasting states. These changes were almost certainly caused by changes in the way the oceans transported heat between the hemispheres." p.4 It was talking about 10C changes during an ice age. This could be looked at as statements of a rapid rate of change. I think the paper makes the point that the greenhouse effect is primarily due to the influence of gases in the atmosphere and didn't have anything to say about changes in albedo of the oceans. I haven't heard of any papers that reconstruct ocean albedo over these time frames or temperatures in the tropics. An ice age itself implies that massive amounts of energy have been removed from the oceans by evaporation/convection/condensation which kind of bypasses the greenhouse atmosphere. Finally, ranyl #41 made the comment, "Although they[sic] are no easy tasks as removing CO2 does mean stopping using fossil fuels" which is mistaken. Planting trees in the Sahara has been suggested as means to both remove all AGG and supply a growing population with food and building materials. This was suggested by the Weizmann Institute in Israel. Plant a tree already. This solution is no more difficult than stopping the use of fossil fuels and doesn't have the negative feedback of reducing food production.
  31. What should we do about climate change?
    Peter Lang #317: "You cannot compare on the basis of the raw numbers. You need to compare the subsidies on the basis of the amount of energy supplied." I cited that viewpoint, and explained why I consider it untrue, in the paragraph after the one you quoted. In short, I covered that point before you ever made it... yet here you are raising it again without bothering to answer my objection to it. Peter Lang #320: "We have to include the cost to make wind or solar able to provide power of equivalent quality and reliability. That means we need to include the cost of back up." I explained in the same post how wind and solar can be made reliable WITHOUT backup power plants. Add 'not reading what the other person says' to the list of things which prevent meaningful conversation with you.
  32. What should we do about climate change?
    I just noticed I made an error in my post #310. The corrected sentence reads: "This shows that subsidies (just the ones included in your source document) for wind energy are 6 times and for solar energy are 110 times the subsidies for nuclear per MWh supplied.
  33. Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
    Agnostic, "Are you saying we have already sown the seeds of our own destruction?" The seeds are sown but hard times only inevitable if we ignore the situation and leave things to carry on as BAU rather than taking this seriously and initiating actions that remove CO2 from the atmosphere and putting in place plans to adapt to what is already likely to occur. Although they are no easy tasks as removing CO2 does mean stopping using fossil fuels in a very short time frame (political suicide) and predicting what is actually going to occur isn't easy as new weather patterns are emerging.
  34. What should we do about climate change?
    Many people do not realise why the cost of nuclear is so high in the western democracies. Look at this and you might understand why. Greenpeace can barely contain themselves: DV82XL at BNC says: ...rumor has it that Entergy Corp. will announce this week that it plans to sell the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant. Note that while the State of Vermont cannot rule on this plant’s license, (such things are a federal prerogative in the U.S.) the company that owns it is fed up with the State and and has decided that continuing to do business there is not worth the trouble.. How high does the investor risk premium have to be to cover for having your investment shut down by changing political environment. This was built under a poitical environment when it was wanted by the people. Investors were attracted on the basis of promises at the time. Now politcs has changed. The investors loose. Under such a suituation, it wil be difficult (i.e. very costly) to get investors to invest in nuclear again without a very large public sector swag of money, adn the public lose it first. That is one of the main reasons nuclear is so much more expensive than it should and could be in the western democracies.
  35. What should we do about climate change?
    scaddenp, I agree. I believe ExternE is the equivalent of IPCC regarding the comparison of the various electricity generation technologies. Google: "ExternE" for externailities "ExternE NEEDS" for costs, material requirements" "ExternE NewExt" for comparitive risk assessment
  36. What should we do about climate change?
    A little bit of trivia: "there’s more than ten times the nuclear energy available from the [uranium in] coal ash than there is chemical energy available from the coal."
  37. New podcast: The Climate Show
    John, This is the first time that I've heard your voice and seen your picture. I now feel that I can personally thank you for this wonderful site dedicated to debunking the nonsense of the contrarians. Bob Guercio
  38. New podcast: The Climate Show
    Excellent show and I'm looking forward to the next one! Bob Guercio
  39. Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    @Protestant In the Arctic report card they also discuss the melt season (see my post at 30). Those data go back to 1979, and show that "Along the southwestern ice sheet, the number of melting days in August has increased by 24 days over the past 30 years". Not far enough back? OK, how about this study by Jiang et al. (2010) , which shows this: That graph shows the GRACE estimates of ice loss from the GIS along with estimates derived using two independent data sets. For example, shows an acceleration of ice loss from GIS over the period 1958-2007. Now most reasonable people would be concerned by the sudden increase in mass loss observed in recent decades and years. It is not deceptive to show all off the available GRACE data, and especially when scientists make the effort to place those observations in context as is shown in the above figure. We do not have to lose all the ice from the GIS for it to be a concern-- that is a classic argumentum ad absurdum. We have set in motion processes that are going to have some very undesirable impacts on future generations. According to Hansen et al. (2007): "Ice sheet demise may occur in pulses as additional ice sheets or portions of ice sheets (e.g. West Antarctica or the South Dome of Greenland) become vulnerable." And "It is difficult to predict time of collapse in such a nonlinear problem, but we find no evidence of millennial lags between forcing and ice sheet response in palaeoclimate data. An ice sheet response time of centuries seems probable, and we cannot rule out large changes on decadal time-scales once wide-scale surface melt is underway. With GHGs continuing to increase, the planetary energy imbalance provides ample energy to melt ice corresponding to several metres of sea level per century (Hansen et al. 2005b)"
  40. What should we do about climate change?
    Whoa! this thread headed in political country but I dont think we need this. Perhaps we need something like IPCC for advising governments about alternative energy that has assessments audited for BS and industry advocacy from any source firmly tied back to verifiable facts. I really miss the peer-review process in making sense of these competing claims. Like climate, government processes need to be reliably informed so they dont just depend on which lobby group has the best tactics. (Sounds like this might be asking a bit much in the US though where politics appears to have gone tribal).
  41. Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    #44: "Note that todays instruments are VERY sharp" Yes, GRACE is sharp. But if you know anything about interpreting gravity data, the problem is complicated by isostatic rebound. Hence the differing interpretations -- which are not contradictory. See also the observation made by RH in #28. "Now you have just 8 years of data" Noooo. There's Arctic ice extent data back to 1972; the satellite ice mass data covers the last 8 years. The acceleration in ice loss is clear from extent as well as mass. Use the SkS search function 'Arctic ice loss' for context; the evidence of acceleration is overwhelming.
  42. What should we do about climate change?
    @Peter Lang: "We've discussed many of the issues already. "once it becomes cheaper to recycle the material rather than mine new uranium, whenever that is." I like how you claim that Nuclear power is needed *now* because renewables aren't ready, yet dismiss the waste problem as something that'll be solved by technology sometime in the future... "The waste from nuclear is no more toxic than the waste from other technologies." How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you make claims like this? How is waste from wind or solar power more toxic than nuclear waste? "It appears their Pro-Renewable Anti-Nulcear (PRAN) beliefs are based on faith" Who said anything about being anti-nuclear? Why do you keep misrepresenting the position of people who oppose you? This type of strawman arguments has no place in an honest, rational debate. This is *exactly* the type of comments that make it sound as if you're shilling for the Nuclear industry. I'm not saying you are, but putting words into other people's mouths only proves you're more interested in pushing your message than finding the truth. As many have said before, it will take a mixed solution. Your one-sided advocacy for nuclear, though it may or may not be self-interested, is counter-productive.
  43. New podcast: The Climate Show
    Consider yourself asked back... ;-) No escape for you after your sterling effort in this show!
  44. What should we do about climate change?
    Stephen Baines, We've discussed many of the issues already. But they are continually regurgitated in the same sort of vacuous statments like: "Many people would prefer not to have to deal with a system that produces waste that requires a lot of babysitting (in some cases for centruries) and poses significant security risks over long intervals." 1. The 'waste' as you call it is once-used-nuclear-fuel. We've used just 1% of the available energy so far. It will be reused eventually, once it becomes cheaper to recycle the material rather than mine new uranium, whenever that is. 2. Only nuclear energy manages the toxic component of its waste. No other technology does. Why don't you do proper comparisons? 3. The waste from nuclear is no more toxic than the waste from other technologies. Furthermore, radioactive waste does decay over time. Most of the toxic chemicals released by other technologies do not decay. They last forever. Why don't you do proper comparisons - or refer to authoritative studies that have (such as ExternE)? 4. the quantities of waste from nuclear energy are miniscule compared with quantities from the alternatives that can provide our power (fossil fuels). They are also small compared with solar (per MWh generated over the life of the plant). I may have shown this picture before. The picture shows 16 canisters which hold all the once used nuclear fuel from the entire 31 years life of a now decommissioned NPP in New York state. The plant supplied 44 TWh of electricity. If that had been supplied by coal it would have released about 44 million tonnes of CO2, similar amount of mining waste, plus fly ash, particulates, heavy metals, benzenes, long chain hydrocarbons and about 10 tonnes of Uranium, all of which is released to the environment. If you are objective, as you think you are, why don't you do your homework before repeating all the anti-nuclear nonsense? If you are objective, as you think you are, why don't you tackle the organisatiosn that are blocking nuclear power? Why don't you (and the others that say they want to reduce emisisons) make a conserted effort to get these anti nuclear groups and political parties to change their anti-nuclear policies. I expect most here have never attmepted to do so, which suggests an inconsistency between what you claim and what you actually do.
  45. Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
    ranyl (38) Are you saying we have already sown the seeds of our own destruction?
  46. What should we do about climate change?
    Stephen Baines, I am well aware of all that. It's not as if it hasn't been said a million times. The problem is that most of the general belief about nuclear, renewables, energy security, distributed electricity generation is wrong and it is being perpetrated here. Someone mentioned up thread we need to educate people about DAGW. Well, why doesn't that apply just as much to the misunderstandings about nuclear and renewables? If we want to cut emisisons, surely we need to educate people about what solutions are actually viable as oppsed to be wishful thinking. I'll pick on just one of your points: Also, while I tend to agree that we have some way to go to have renewable energies completely replace what we have, the fact is that some argue the NP/renewable divide as an either or scenario. I agree with this statement "the fact is that some argue the NP/renewable divide as an either or scenario." It is clearly true that environmental NGOs and Greens and most on the Left have tried to block nuclear totally. They do not want any of it. So clearly your statement is correct. It is not true that anyone has tried to block renewables, however. I want whatever is most economic. I argue that renewables, in most cases are uneconomic. They are economic in some situations, and where that is the case I strongly support their use.
  47. What should we do about climate change?
    CBDunkerson @303 No objections there... we just need to base 'economically rational' on actual costs vs fictional costs. I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. I believe that is what I am doing and I believe it is what the PRANs are not doing. For example, we cannot compare wind or solar with nuclear purely on the basis of $/MWh. We have to include the cost to make wind or solar able to provide power of equivalent quality and reliability. That means we need to include the cost of back up. Here is a comparison on the basis of average power (a very simplistic way to get a rough cost of energy for technologies where the upfront cost dominate). Nuclear = $4,500/kWy/y Wind (with gas back-up) = $11,800kWy/y wind with pumped hydro storage = $132,300/kWy/y This is admittedly simplistic, but the result is not too far off. Wind energy, when you include all the costs of the back-up required and all the extra costs of enhancing the grid to enable it to manage the fluctuating power supplied by wind and solar, costs around three times the cost of nuclear energy. The costs of energy storage at the scale required make it not viable now or probably ever. I'd urge people to try to see the big picture as a first step.
  48. Eric (skeptic) at 11:44 AM on 4 November 2010
    What should we do about climate change?
    #306, JMurphy, you posted another link about subsidies. This time they determined the full price for nuclear power taking into account all capital and operating costs, plus insurance against meltdown. A total of 21 cents per kWh. The German price from my link in #192 is 52 cents. Nuclear provides fully-costed power at 2/5ths of the price.
  49. Stephen Baines at 11:39 AM on 4 November 2010
    What should we do about climate change?
    At Peter Lang. I was following this debate with interest for a while. It has broken down a bit, but I think your leap from frustration to questioning the integrity of those who partake in climate science discussion at this site (including by extension John) is completely unecessary, logically unfounded and not even sensible given your desire to promote NP. This is the way I see it. Many people would prefer not to have to deal with a system that produces waste that requires a lot of babysitting (in some cases for centruries) and poses significant security risks over long intervals. Another simple fact is people fear radioactivity deeply. It has nothing to do with being an enviro anything. You should see the looks I get from parents and students (or my mother!) when I explain that I use it all the time in my research. The cold war seems to have etched that fear deeply in the minds of the public, in the same way that some seem to think that communists still exist and want to take over the world. Others also hope for a decentralized structure for power distribution rather than a centralized one, for a number of reasons. There might be a personal preference for the independence that implies, maybe there's a distruct of centralized political power that results from such structures, or a distrust that risks will be evaluated fairly once we're committed to it (I tend to share that view!) or maybe a sense that distributed systems would be more resilient, though difficult to engineer. These are legitimate concerns, though some are very hard to argue against, I admit. Finally, many think that renewable energy alternatives have not received the investment that other more centralized forms of power distribution have. We haven't seen that kind of funding for those technologies, and people want to see them given a far chance. I think you tend to undersell there potential a bit. Also, while I tend to agree that we have some way to go to have renewable energies completely replace what we have, the fact is that some argue the NP/renewable divide as an either or scenario. That typically hardens stances. All that has nothing to do with the goal of this site - which is to discuss the scientific bases underpinning our role in climate dynamics.
  50. What should we do about climate change?
    CBDunkerson @303 None of this seems remotely accurate to me. Subsidies on renewable energy have been tiny. If you add it all up renewable power gets LESS public funding than nuclear... and those two combined are insignificant compared to the subsidies fossil fuels have received. You cannot compare on the basis of the raw numbers. You need to compare the subsidies on the basis of the amount of energy supplied. See post #310.

Prev  2096  2097  2098  2099  2100  2101  2102  2103  2104  2105  2106  2107  2108  2109  2110  2111  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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