Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2097 2098 2099 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 Next
Comments 105201 to 105250:
-
actually thoughtful at 03:13 AM on 4 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Thingadota - You are trying to have it both ways. If fast changes in the past triggered fast warming - that is the likely scenario now. If slow gradual feedbacks brought earth back to what we would consider a temperate climate over 100s of thousands of years, that is the likely scenario now. Yet you would like us to believe that there will be FAST feedbacks, and SLOW changes (even though we are ALREADY witnessing fast changes). So do you have ANY published science to back this up? Or should we relegate this to the "wishful thinking" bin? I admit I like your ideas - you lift the rather harsh penalties that mother nature seems to have in store for us. But acting on your theories, when reality is otherwise, would be the height of folly. -
Shub at 03:05 AM on 4 November 2010The Grumble in the Jungle
Dear Rob, I have read Nepstad 1994, 1999 and 2004. They do not support the IPCC's claim. The website could not have been copied from the report because the report came after the website. The website in question, is extensively cited in the WWF report in several other contexts. Secondly, I reiterate, the IPCC and the WWF report claims are different - it is even evident in the small portion of the claim you have reproduced above. Thirdly, The IPCC rules for use of grey literature (found in Principles governing IPCC work) state that authors should critically evaluate grey literature and the requirement for its use in its reports. Additionally, it states the lead authors should archive a copy of any such material available for general use. The IPCC did not archive a copy of the website page. Moreover, the passage you quote, is not part of the rules (or governing principles) - it is just a description of its methods. And lastly, I am not Richard North. :) -
Albatross at 02:21 AM on 4 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Chris @17 Actually Chris, I think people's responses here have been quite tempered in light of the inflammatory and highly misleading posts made by Thingadonta on this thread. Thingadonta also seems to be trying to insinuate that the Geological Society is purposefully omitting some key components/processes of the earth-atmosphere system with the intent mislead people or that they do not know what they are talking about. In reality though, it seems that it is Thingadonta's misunderstanding of the science which actually seems to be the problem here. Rather ironic....and so the faux debate and manufactured doubt continues. -
Ken Lambert at 23:31 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Peter Lang has got it spot on. Anyone in the power engineering field knows these numbers. Fossil (coal, oil, gas) fuel, nuclear, hydro and geothermal are the only short to medium term available sources for base load 24/7 electricity generation. Windmills and PV Solar are probably energy black holes due to the low energy density tapped, storage devices required and distance from major loads. What is never discussed seriously is the fact that Windmill, PV Solar and other renewables have existing costs based on an industrial infrastructure mainly powered by fossil fuel (coal) and nuclear, hydro which are all relatively cheap. What would be their costs if produced by an industrial system powered by Wind and PV Solar? Low availability of Wind and to a lesser extent Solar (seasonal and weather) requires baseload backup plant to cover for periods of no or light wind and cloud/seasonal lows over large geographic areas. Molten salt (and pumped hydro) and similar storage devices significantly add to cost and though smoothing out the fluctuations, still have no effect on the general problem of low availability. -
CBDunkerson at 23:09 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Peter Lang #282: "At the same time they are forcing governments to waste extraordinary amounts of money and national wealth on subsidising renewables. For no significant benefit. That is the political and policy environment we are in." 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. If you've got a study which says otherwise I'd love to see it because every one I've ever looked at makes it very clear that this claim that renewables get the most funding is pure nonsense. The closest I've seen on that would be studies showing that R&D subsidies for renewables are about the same as those for fossil fuels (but about HALF the R&D subsidies for nuclear) or studies that look at current subsidy amounts divided by the total energy production of each energy type... which is misleading since it ignores all the past subsidies which went into developing the massive fossil fuel infrastructure. "My position is I want to see an economically rational level playing field." No objections there... we just need to base 'economically rational' on actual costs vs fictional costs. "1. coal generates about 80% of Australia’s electricity. Baseload amounts to about 75% of our electricity consumption." I've read alot more about US, European, and global energy use than I have Australian so that may be part of the disconnect. Has the Australian government provided inordinate amounts of support to renewable energy? I wouldn't know. Seems unlikely given the strength of the 'global warming is a myth' contingent in Australian government. That said... Australia has huge amounts of sun drenched little used land in the interior. I believe the south coast also has decent wind power potential. So what would be wrong with developing such resources in the areas they are viable? "3. Nuclear and pumped hydro could meet all our requirements now. That would provide very low emissions electricity, and at the least cost (if we removed the impediments)." Consider for a moment a small isolated community in central Australia. They have low electricity needs, but they are far away from any large waterway or existing electrical grid. Which is going to be least expensive: 1: Building them their own nuclear power plant. 2: Building the electrical grid out from a major population center hundreds of miles away to their small community. 3: Building a small solar thermal power plant outside town. If you didn't say 3 then you are lying to yourself. If you did then you must see that 'nuclear and hydro would be least expensive' is false... there are situations where other power sources will clearly cost less. There are many isolated mountain communities around the world where the same issues make wind power the best choice. Ditto islands all over the world. Then add in all the places which will refuse nuclear power. You may not like it, but it is REALITY. Refusing to accept reality is a poor foundation for any plan of action. "4. Solar and wind cannot provide baseload power. They are unlikely to be able to for a very long time, if ever. I doubt solar will ever be viable for baselod generation." Simply not true. Setting aside space based solar and high altitude wind as technologies not yet ready for the mainstream (like thorium reactors for instance) it is still entirely possible for wind and solar to provide stable baseload power. This can be accomplished by storing energy during peak generation periods for use during peak demand periods and/or by having a large enough grid with enough excess capacity to meet demand even during low production periods. How can you advocate pumped hydro and not see how that, amongst MANY other options (e.g. molten salts, graphite heat sinks, compressed air, actual batteries, et cetera), can solve the supposed 'baseload problem'? Wind blows more than needed somewhere on the electrical grid... the excess is directed towards pumping water uphill... some part of the grid later doesn't have enough power... that pumped water is allowed to run downhill through a hydro power station... required energy is supplied. No amazing new technology or massive investment required. Simple application of existing technologies. -
Rob Painting at 22:47 PM on 3 November 2010The Grumble in the Jungle
If you claim that the Amazon statement is based "on peer-reviewed literature", and not just take Nepstad's word for it, it is incumbent on you to come up with the reference. Incumbent?. No not really. But read Nepstad 1994, 1999 & 2004. Links are provided above. The WWF document reproduces text verbatim, from a website which is not working anymore. Have you considered the website was copied from the actual report?. No?. The WWF document is linked to above, you'll find it was produced by the authors after consultation with a few "experts' including one Daniel Nepstad. See the acknowledgements section. these gray literature sources are based on peer-reviewed science, can you find them for us? See Nepstad papers above. Moreover, the IPCC claim is entirely different from what the WWF report makes. IPCC - "Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation" WWF - "Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount rainfall And lastly, the IPCC rules allow for appropriate gray literature only if no primary sources are available for any claim to originate from, or be substantiated by........clearly shows the IPCC was in violation of its own rules Each chapter presents a balanced assessment of the literature which has appeared since the Third Assessment Report[1] (TAR), including non-English language and, where appropriate, ‘grey’ literature Which rule was violated?. Tell me, are you Richard North?. -
boba10960 at 22:24 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
#22 Stephen Baines "As for Dolomite deposition in response to increasing CO2 -- I'm not clear how increasing acidity through CO2 would promote Dolomite formation. I was taught that such precipitation happened when conditions become more alkaline, not more acidic. Also wouldn't formation of dolomite reduce alkalinity (and increase acidity) by removing base cations and bicarbonate? I'm confused there." You are absolutely correct. Why would anyone say that formation of dolomite would offset acidification of the ocean by CO2? -
roundton at 22:02 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Also worth reading are some recent 'Geoscientist' letters responding to the Geol Soc position statement. See www.geolsoc.org.uk/letters -
Eric (skeptic) at 21:55 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
In #299, JMurphy posted more links about subsidies to nuclear. The "Economics of Nuclear and Renewable Electricity" link mentions a study by Greenpeace that found that in Germany "total (direct + indirect) subsidies from 1950 to 2008 amounted to 165 billion euros (US$235 billion)" In 2009, German nuclear power generated 149 billion kWh. Applying the subsidized solar price (my link in #195), "green" nuclear power is worth $77B per year. Either nuclear is an extreme bargain or the solar subsidies are way too high (or both). -
quokka at 21:31 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
#297 JMurphy There is an international treaty governing the use of nuclear power called the Non Proliferation Treaty. Non nuclear armed states that sign up are entitled to do what they will for the peaceful use of nuclear power in return for forgoing nuclear weapons. No state that has signed and not subsequently withdrawn from the treaty has ever developed nuclear weapons. The IAEA will provide assistance to states new to nuclear power for such purposes as establishing appropriate regulatory structures. I don't know what all this "going it alone" business is about. The Bushehr reactor is a Russian built VVER-1000, Russia is supplying the fuel and taking back the spent fuel. To my knowledge no nation that is planning for new nuclear power is going it alone. They are all forming agreements with foreign suppliers and building established designs. eg Vietnam/Russia UAE/Sth Korea. All suppliers have a vested interest in not seeing their products go bang. If Iran wished to "go it alone", it would hardly be surprising considering the constant harassment and "all cards are on the table" threats. Especially as the harassment has a long history, most notably the CIA (cheered on by the Brits) engineering the overthrow of a social democratic government and installing the Shah. Who knows, without that there may have been no Islamic revolution and possibly a secular social democratic government in power today. Will Iran build nuclear weapons in the future? Who knows, but the more they perceive they are being threatened, the better then chances are. -
Shub at 21:28 PM on 3 November 2010The Grumble in the Jungle
Dear Rob, You say: "And your stipulation originates from where exactly?." I believe you do understand how these things work. If you claim that the Amazon statement is based "on peer-reviewed literature", and not just take Nepstad's word for it, it is incumbent on you to come up with the reference. I cannot prove a negative, i.e., I cannot show where the Amazon claim did not come from. Let me help. You say above (in post #12): "The omitted citations, supporting the WWF document & the IPCC claim, are peer-reviewed literature." This is incorrect. The WWF document reproduces text verbatim, from a website which is not working anymore. It omitted to cite the website. Both these sources are not peer-reviewed. If as you claim later down, these gray literature sources are based on peer-reviewed science, can you find them for us? Moreover, the IPCC claim is entirely different from what the WWF report makes. Ultimately, let us remember, it is the IPCC statement is what we are interested in. And lastly, the IPCC rules allow for appropriate gray literature only if no primary sources are available for any claim to originate from, or be substantiated by. Your point above #16, clearly shows the IPCC was in violation of its own rules. I liked your Chewbacca link. Pretty interesting. :) -
JMurphy at 21:24 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Peter Lang wrote : "I'd suggest you need to decide which you believe is more important: cutting emissions substantially or prohibiting nuclear power. The choice is that simple. Get to grips with it." No, the choice is that simple in your view. Cutting emissions is the most important need - the choice in the immediate future is whether we want to pay for that necessity while continuing to waste energy, or whether we want to cut back on the profligate use of the energy we are already producing. The simplest choices are those that are available right now : efficiency of production and use of energy, to reduce present CO2 production; use of available renewables as much as possible now; planning for and use of nuclear where necessary, to plug any gaps between the carbon-based supply of energy of today and the future renewables-based supply of energy; closure of CO2 emitting energy production as soon as possible - all depending on how serious we are (as nations) to pay and to reduce use. That, simplistically, is what we should be getting to grips with but I'm not going to harangue anyone, or dogmatically push any political agenda to get there. I am prepared to compromise to get to a low-carbon economy : are you ? Extremism (whether pro- or anti-nuclear, in this case) will get you nowhere fast. -
Stephen Baines at 20:44 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
We posted those last notes at the same time. So I hope we're not talking cross purposes. But I still don't get how scaddenp is talking about linearity. In fact, it seems to me he is talking by definition about non-linearity. Look, the geological record suggests that our estimates of the equilibrium sensitivity of the climate to increases in CO2 are correct. It doesn't really have much to say about the time frame over which that new equilibrium is reached because of the poor temporal resolution of that data. Our current experience would obviously be more pertinent to that problem and it suggests we could reach equilibrium quickly, then stop thereabouts, unless we've changed something pretty drastic. It seems Thingadonta is the one assuming linear change, just over a longer time scale ala gradualism. Much geological action is gradual, like erosion, weathering, sediment deposition. But some processes aren't, like meteor impacts and hydrate releases. I don't see why we must assume all processes are gradual simply because the geological record is too coarse to reveal faster dynamics. BTW...while Lovelock claimed that certain negative feedback mechanisms related to life maintain the earth's climate within a range capable of preserving life, he was largely talking microbial life, not human life (or dinosaurs for that matter). -
Maarten Ambaum at 20:39 PM on 3 November 2010On Statistical Significance and Confidence
This is a very nice article - and all very true. I spent some time myself studying the use of significance tests in climate science. The result? There is a real problem! Significance tests are misused by many, perhaps most, climate scientists. There will be a paper appearing in the Journal of Climate which analyses the precise problem, using Bayesian statistics. In a nutshell: significance tests are generally used to quantify the validity of some hypothesis while it is is nothing like it. In fact, the significance statistic is largely irrelevant. Unfortunately, misuse of significance tests is widespread. Not only climate science suffers, also economics, medical science, social science, psychology, biology. I am afraid that significance tests have muddied the waters of several climate papers and there is a real communication problem here. We need to accept that statistics alone cannot usefully quantify the truth of some hypothesis. And significance tests are possibly the worst in this respect. For more details read Significance Tests in Climate Science. -
JMurphy at 20:36 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Berényi Péter wrote : "Conclusion: in order to make solar panels a viable option, we need government support. In other words, solar energy is not economically viable at all. For government support is not for free, it is financed by tax money." Adding to what others have already highlighted about that irony, it's lucky that nuclear has had so much government money pumped into it over the years, otherwise it would never have got going and would not be continuing now. And, having read what others have written about how essential nuclear is now, it makes you wonder whether some believe that a free market should only apply to certain energy supplies and not others. Another report to add to the long list of others posted : Despite 50 years with huge accumulated subsidies, the true economic costs of generation II nuclear energy are consistently far higher than admitted by proponents, who use misleading presentations to hide its very high capital costs. The vast majority of nuclear power stations built to date have been over time and over budget. Furthermore, since 2003 the estimated capital cost of new nuclear power stations has escalated much more rapidly than the capital cost of renewable electricity, with one recent estimate of the projected cost of new nuclear electricity being comparable with that of solar PV power stations. Economics of Nuclear and Renewable Electricity The following I add because of its discussion of various assertions made, particularly with regard to Denmark (and I like the title !) : The Base Load Fallacy and other Fallacies disseminated by Renewable Energy Deniers More available, especially with regard to the energy-production response to global warming, at energyscience All I have read on this and other sites points to a balanced mix of energy production (including a role for nuclear), with renewables being the most important in the long run. -
Peter Lang at 20:15 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
JMurphy, I'd suggest you need to decide which you believe is more important: cutting emissions substantially or prohibiting nuclear power. The choice is that simple. Get to grips with it. If you are on this web site you clearly believe you are capable of objective research and analysis. So this is a new topic to get your teeth into. How can we cut emissions by the amounts and on the time scale I presume you believe is necessary, realistically? -
Stephen Baines at 20:12 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
I actually don't get what Thingdonta is on about here at all. As scaddenp says, it's clear from the data that the run up in temperatures was faster prior to the PETM than was the reduction was slow afterward and that ocean chemistry changes were relatively fast. If Thingdonta is going to question those points he/she needs to provide some references for us to look at. I also don't get the whole argument that the geological record reveals that things always chagne slowly. The sudden changes in northern hemisphere temps during the last glacial cycle (ocean current shifts) clearly shows that the geological record, when sufficiently time resolved, can reveal very fast and large dynamics - faster even than todays. That such sudden and large changes are not often observable in much of the geological record says more about the limits of that record than it does about the time scale and amplitude of actual dynamics. I also thought the report was pretty clear on a number of points that thingadonta seems to think it ignored - like the role of CO2 as an amplifier rather than a driver of glacial interglacial dynamics, of the fact CO2 has little to due with sudden climate change in Greenland. Both are completely consistent with our current thinking on the current effects of CO2 and mentioned in the text. As for Dolomite deposition in response to increasing CO2 -- I'm not clear how increasing acidity through CO2 would promote Dolomite formation. I was taught that such precipitation happened when conditions become more alkaline, not more acidic. Also wouldn't formation of dolomite reduce alkalinity (and increase acidity) by removing base cations and bicarbonate? I'm confused there. -
JMurphy at 19:58 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
quokka wrote : "Apologies for being off topic, but I find it difficult to take neocon beatups targeted at the next Middle Eastern war." I don't know what you mean but the political aspect of nuclear power is one of the drawbacks that its most ideological supporters always fail to mention. A country like Iran wishes to produce nuclear power under its own control and without any assistance from other countries, as a means to provide a replacement for oil. Presumably it is also doing so without the so-called restrictions of health and safety regulations, planning, etc. so despised by the fans of nuclear. This would seem to place Iran firmly within the 'nuclear, do or die' fan-club. Also, if it does come to pass that nuclear is allowed to be expanded without petty restrictions (although who decides which are petty and which aren't, is another question unanswered), then who decides which countries are allowed it and which countries aren't ? Or does that not even have to be considered, because it is so essential that we build nuclear now ? Are we are going to 'get into bed with anyone', as long as they are pro-nuclear and willing to build ? Where is the dividing line and who decides ? So, going all-out for nuclear allows Iran to build nuclear too, yes ? -
thingadonta at 19:19 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
My main point is this. Strong AGW proponents generally look at the geological record and claim that what is going on now is faster than before, so things are generally going to get worse then before (or just as bad as before, but only if it was bad enough before). There are several major problems with this reasoning. Take a look, for example, at scaddenup's post in #4 "If it went 6 degrees in 1000 year for same size pulse (at 55Ma), then getting 6 degrees in 200 years is going to be a whole lot worse." 1. We don't know it went up 6 degrees in 1000 years at 55Ma. The resolution is not <5,000 years. 2. Even if it did, then how will it go up 6 degrees in the next 200 years (a five fold rate of increase, or a 25 times rate of increase from 5,000 years) with the same size pulse?. Shouldn't it be 5,000/1000 years? He takes linear projections of current rates, compares them with past unknowns up to 25 times or more that rate, and claims an outcome worse than ever. This is self-reinforcing reasoning, like a stereo mic screeching on feedback. The geological record generally indicates that major climate changes associated with c02 generally occur slowly, even under similar size emission rates as human c02 today. AGW proponents, see this past geological data, and the last several decades of climate changes and emission data, and based on linear projections, conclude that what is happening now has therefore never happened so fast, and so things, by inference, are going to get a whole lot worse than before. But there is another (more valid, for mine) possibility; the reason that climate changes haven't occurred as fast before, even with similar size c02 rate pulses (e 55Ma, 183 Ma, Zeebe et al 2009), is that there are negative feedbacks that kick in to slow the rate of climate change, which negative feedbacks have not yet been observed, understood or incorporated into the IPCC models. The time frames within the geological record, rather than imply that things are 'much worse' now, actually support this contention. It is the same sort of inconsistency with Lovelock's recent statements (and his recent book) about his Gaia hypothesis. He originally claimed the Earth was (like) a self-regulating organism-meaning there are negative feedbacks that negate pertubations within the Earth system. But as far as recent climate change is concerned, he has now abandoned these negative feedbacks, and claims, in contradiction to what he said before, and the basic foundation of his whole idea, that the Earth, essentially doesn't self-regulate and there are essentially no effective negative feedbacks. He also can't claim the rates are now too severe for the Earth to 'cope', because these same feedbacks operated in previous similar climate perturbations, which he himself has described. These sort of inconsistencies will come throuh the major journals with time, because they are irrefutable. The mics are screeching too loud for people not to ask the sound be turned down. The basic foundation of the geological record, as noted by Darwin and Lyell, is gradualism. The geological record is fundamentally a slow process (yes, with major pertubations, described like a soldier's life-long periods of boredom punctuated by short periods of terror). The catastrophists (for mine, similar to today's AGW proponents) were the ones who were resisting evolution by natural selection, not the gradualists, partly because they wanted to speed things up, and partly because they couldn't handle natural change, as opposed to human-controlled change. For mine, the same sort of mentality has unfortunately infused today's climate change science. -
scaddenp at 18:54 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Oh, and further on projecting linearly. You seem to be assuming that rates of temperature will DECREASE because of some possible negative feedback. However, the evidence is that most of the feedbacks are positive. Furthermore AR4 models mostly didnt include carbon-cycle feedbacks as they are slow (but positive). So no, cant project linearly - the heating rate may INCREASE as carbon-cycle feedback cut in- and they come into play long before geological negative feedbacks do.We sure hope that current thinking on methane hydrates hasnt over-estimated their stability. -
Peter Lang at 18:41 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Australia prohibits nuclear energy and subsidises coal, gas, and renewables. The NSW Government is attempting to privatise its government owned fleet of electricity generators. To try to get the maximum price on the sale it is guaranteeing coal at about half price and is opening a new government owned coal mine to supply it - for $1.3 billion (that's a lot of money in Australia). Wind power is subsidised by well over 100%. Solar is subsidised by about 1000%. Government is subsidising transmission to wind power sites (by $1 billion). That is what the anti-nuclear and pro-renewable forces are achieving. The fossil fuel industry loves renewables. It means fossil fuels will continue. The fossil fuel industry realises, even if the general population doesn't, that renewables are just a useless token gesture and they cannot operate without fossil fuels. -
dorlomin at 17:37 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
thingadonta at 14:54 PM on 3 November, 2010 This is exactly why the Royal Society has retracted its position on Climate Change recently, = = = = = = = = = = = You may be working to a different definition to retraction to me, all I seen was a clarification. -
dorlomin at 17:35 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
IIRC the 120 and 183 million year ago events referenced in the article are closely related to anoxic oceanic events that created the conditions for the formation of some of the worlds most famous oil provinces. Ironic really. -
chris1204 at 17:25 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
From the comments policy: 'No accusations of deception. Any accusations of deception, fraud, dishonesty or corruption will be deleted. This applies to both sides. Stick to the science. You may criticise a person's methods but not their motives. •No ad hominem attacks. Attacking other users or anyone holding a different opinion to you is common in debates but gets us no closer to understanding the science. For example, comments containing the words 'religion' and 'conspiracy' tend to get deleted. Comments using labels like 'alarmist' and 'denier' are usually skating on thin ice.•No politics. Rants about politics, ideology or one world governments will be deleted. •No profanity or inflammatory tone. Again, constructive discussion is difficult when overheated rhetoric or profanity is flying around.' Now from Marcus: 'What a load of hogwash, Thingadonta.' and 'Now, *you* might be prepared to gamble our future in order to protect the profits of the fossil fuel industry, but many of us would prefer to adopt a more rational position!' I'm sorry to say it but none of this passes for civilised discourse. It certainly doesn't fit in with my interpretation of the comments policy. Of course, it's pretty normal for the blogosphere - hence, people are desensitised. I'm picking out Marcus today but other commentators on other threads can be just as feral. -
Peter Lang at 17:23 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
quokka, I also checked the 200,000 figure but I calculate the equivalent would be about 30,000 wind turbines (on an equal total energy basis). I suspect my figures is higher than yours because you may have forgotten that the wind turbines have an expected life of 20 years and the NPP 60 years, so you need to multiply your figure by 3. -
Peter Lang at 16:51 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
quokka's comment: "The figure in the article of equivalence to 200,000 2GW wind turbines is wrong. Probably more like 10,000 which is still a lot." gives me the opportunity to explain another point that is often not properly understood. It's pedantic regarding quokka's comment but an important point for those who think wind and solar can provide our electricity supply. Wind turbines on their own cannot replace any (virtually any) nuclear or fossil fuel capacity. The reason is because wind power is not 'dispatchable'. What this means is that wind cannot be 'dispatched' (or directed) by the electricity market operator to supply the power needed at the time needed. The confusion comes because of the commonly made claim "the wind farm will provide the energy to power x homes". The statement is false. This is on the basis of energy. But we also need the power at exactly the time it is demanded. Wind and solar cannot provide that. The statement should say: "the wind farm will generate sufficent energy over a period, so that if the energy could be stored and dispatched on demand, it could provide the power demanded by x homes at all times." -
gallopingcamel at 16:28 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Barry Brook (#277) is pointing out that if you want to get something done (as opposed to exchanging hot air with one another) you need to welcome all kinds of people into your tent. Yes, even camels! -
gallopingcamel at 16:23 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Rob Painting (#283), Forcing governments to waste money is not a problem. The problem is to persuade those in government to spend our tax dollars with the same restraint as they spend their own. -
Marcus at 16:13 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
For the record, Thingadonta, a retraction would read like this: "we unreservedly apologize to the people of the world for asserting that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are the primary cause of recent global warming. There is, in fact, insufficient evidence to back this claim. We also apologize for asserting that global warming will persist into the future-if CO2 emissions fail to be curbed." Now, I've read their document fairly closely, & I see no such retraction. So if you're going to make that claim, could you at least quote the relevant passage? -
Peter Lang at 15:54 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Could those advocating solar power and wind power - as the better way to reduce CO2 emisisons from electricity generation - please show me the effect of solar power and wind power on a country's CO2 emissions; and also show the cost per tonne CO2 saved. -
Marcus at 15:50 PM on 3 November 2010Hockey stick or hockey league?
Ken Lambert, it may well be that you could get a good correlation between Chinese GDP & Delta T (actually, you wouldn't, because the upsurge in GDP has only been in the last 10 years-whereas the warming upsurge began in 1979, & can be traced back to 1950), but that would be insufficient; you'd then need some kind of scientific theory that showed the correlation was meaningful. In this case we have basic chemistry (burning C(x)-H(x+2) in oxygen generates CO2) & basic physics (the C-O bond in CO2 is very good at absorbing long-wave radiation as it tries to escape out into the vacuum of space). We also have the negative correlation between CO2 emissions & stratospheric temperatures-which further backs up the original positive correlation between CO2 & tropospheric temperatures. Certainly, when it comes to the regurgitation of material, the Denialist Cult has everyone beaten-hands down-& that regurgitation is usually of the same, pseudo-scientific nonsense that has been debunked elsewhere. I guess though that, in the absence of any *alternative* theory for why global temperatures are rising in the face of falling sunspot numbers, that's all the Denialist Cult actually has! -
Marcus at 15:36 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
What a load of hogwash, Thingadonta. When talking about future impacts, we aren't even looking at geological time-frames. Nor can we assume that the same negative feed-backs will come into play (as the current warming is outside of the natural cycles). Indeed, given that two of the key feedbacks from warming will be *positive*-like our oceans having reduced CO2 uptake & a reduced ice-albedo effect-its likely the future trends are an *underestimate*. If the warming trends we've seen-during a period of solar quiescence-are anything to go by, though, then the best case scenario doesn't look very promising (namely a further warming of approximately +1.0 to +1.5 degrees between now & the end of this century). If, however, the sun leaps into a period of increased activity (which also suggests reduced cloud albedo) & those other positive feedbacks I mentioned come into play, then the worst case scenario becomes an "all bets are off" situation. Now, *you* might be prepared to gamble our future in order to protect the profits of the fossil fuel industry, but many of us would prefer to adopt a more rational position! Also, please stop repeating that piece of Denialist Propaganda about the Royal Society retracting its position on Climate Change. Those of us that were paying attention know full well that they did nothing more than reiterate the case for AGW, & the reality of future uncertainty. What they did say, though, was that "though things might not turn out as bad as we think, they might also turn out *worse* than we think". Funny how the denialists never mention that bit! -
Albatross at 15:31 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Thingadonta @12, "Negative feedbacks can kick in- such as a dolomite precipitation increase in the oceans to offset acidity" Can, could, might. Can we deal with reality please? Also, please support your assertions with facts and numbers from the reputable literature. Really, making such unsubstantiated assertions boils down to nothing more than wishful thinking on your part. "This is exactly why the Royal Society has retracted its position on Climate Change recently" Simply not true. Honestly, I don't think it is worth engaging you if you are going to blatantly misinform like this. I could critique more of your misinformation (e.g., claims about simply extrapolating current temperature trends, or nonsensical claims about linearity), but perhaps someone else might have more patience than I do. -
scaddenp at 15:26 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Again, look at the data. No, you cant assume linearity - the models dont. However, the PETM data does show you that betting on geological negative feedbacks is futile. The temperature went up with the CO2 injection, all the way to 6 degree which accords with models. The geological negative feedback to reduce it happened over 100,000 year time scale. Look at the figures in that paper I referenced. So far you betting on some great unknown invalidating physics models that work perfectly well for the geological record. Sounds like a very high risk proposition to me. -
thingadonta at 14:54 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
"By contrast, recent warming has occurred at the rate of between +0.12 per decade(last 60 years) to +0.16 per decade (last 30 years)-which represents a much more rapid rate of warming-" Yes, but you can't project this rate indefinitely, you would be assuming linearity. To determine whether such a linearity assumption is correct, you need longer time scales, such as the geological record. (Eg Negative feedbacks can kick in- such as a dolomite precipitation increase in the oceans to offset acidity). The geological record shows that such earth processes generally take longer time scales, meaning that it is "highly likely" (to borrow an IPCC term) that the linear assumptions of AGW projections, based on empirical data on the timescales of recent decades, cannnot be projected into the future with any deree of certainty. This is exactly why the Royal Society has retracted its position on Climate Change recently, stating we cannot know, or project, with any degree of reliability of certainty, what is going to happen in climate in the next 100 years, based on skeptical scientific objections based on data like the geological record, from its own members.Response: We examine elsewhere exactly what the Royal Society has to say about climate change. -
scaddenp at 14:03 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Thingadonta - what you dont see in the PETM data is anything resembling much a lag between the rapid CO2 rise and the rapid temperature rise. BOTH went up (and ocean acidified) fast enough to test limits of rate determination in analysis from sediment cores. Maybe it was 1000, maybe 5000, MAYBE less??. But not 10000. The important thing is that the record confirms what you would expect from the physics - shove a whole lot of methane into the atmosphere and temperature are going rise quickly. We are seeing that kind of temperature rise now. -
Rob Painting at 13:54 PM on 3 November 2010The Grumble in the Jungle
For the IPCC statement to be correct, the claim has to originate in peer-reviewed literature. It does not And your stipulation originates from where exactly?. This from the IPCC AR4: "The Working Group II Fourth Assessment, in common with all IPCC reports, has been produced through an open and peer-reviewed process. It builds upon past assessments and IPCC Special Reports, and incorporates the results of the past 5 years of climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability research. Each chapter presents a balanced assessment of the literature which has appeared since the Third Assessment Report[1] (TAR), including non-English language and, where appropriate, ‘grey’ literature". The Amazon reference was within an AR4 Working Group 2 assessment, and the aforesaid "grey literature" is based upon peer-reviewed science. Sorry, but invoking the Chewbacca defense, is not part of a rational discussion. -
muoncounter at 13:48 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
#288: "How effective has nuclear power in France been in mitigating CO2 emissions?" From the World Nuclear News? Well, at least that's different from coalpowermag.com. #289: "France's CO2 emisions" Again, I cite eia.doe.gov CO2 Per capita (metric tons per person) 1980 - 8.9 1990 - 6.33 2000 - 6.56 2008 - 6.48 But let's not split hairs; these are way better numbers than the US (19-21 tons per capita). It's just not one-to-one that CO2 drops as nuclear goes up. -
scaddenp at 13:46 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Agnostic - if the primary forcing is change in solar than CO2 amplifies this through a slow feedback. The orbital variation that changes solar is happening all the time - but it is very slow and so are CO2/CH4 feedbacks. However, at PETM, you had a massive injection of CO2 (probably originally CH4 that then oxidized). Whatever the initial trigger, it was this that warmed it. -
Marcus at 13:45 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
For the record, if temperatures rose by 6 degrees in the space of 1,000, then that equates to an average rate of +0.06 degrees *per decade*. By contrast, recent warming has occurred at the rate of between +0.12 per decade(last 60 years) to +0.16 per decade (last 30 years)-which represents a much more rapid rate of warming-in spite of the lack of the obvious forcings in past climate change events (like long-term volcanism & Milankovitch cycles). -
Peter Lang at 13:34 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Muoncounter "Oddly enough, France's CO2 emissions have slightly increased since 1990; during this 20 year period, your IEA graphic shows that their nuclear power grew by about half." France's CO2 emisions in 1990 were 6.06 t CO2-e/capita and in 2008 were 5.74 t CO2-e/capita. -
thingadonta at 13:31 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
#4 scaddenup "...but the important bit is how high did temperature go. If it went 6 degrees in 1000 year for same size pulse, then getting 6 degrees in 200 years is going to be a whole lot worse." No, the important thing is the rate, not the magnitude, that is basic physics. We don't know that it went 6 degrees up in 1000 years at 55Ma, let alone 6 derees in 200 years. You are mixing up AGW dogma with what we do and don't know. The question is: what is the rate, not: "the rate is X....therefore its going to be worse". Many AGW proponents do this, they confuse results with theories, and theories with results: if you are trying to determine a projected outcome of an unknown rate, you dont approach the issue by saying: this is the outcome therefore this is the rate. -
Riduna at 13:28 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
In its conclusion, the statement refers to a change in the position of the earth relative to the sun, prompting the release of atmospheric CO2, That may explain why ice cores show CO2 lagging temperature but I do not see how the geological record shows which was responsible for global warming - change in the earths’ position relative to the sun or increase in atmospheric CO2. How do we know if CO2 was the trigger or only the amplifier? Should we be concerned that in the absence of a shift in the earths’ position relative to the sun, rising atmospheric CO2 is begining to increasingly trigger-happy? -
quokka at 13:26 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Oddly enough, France's CO2 emissions have slightly increased since 1990; during this 20 year period, your IEA graphic shows that their nuclear power grew by about half.
But not by burning fossil fuels in electricity generation. Electricity production has gone up but emissions from it have not. France's CO2 emissions from electricity generation are, from memory, ~80 grams/kWh. Denmark for example is in the range 500 to 800 (figures vary according to source). I really don't understand what you are getting at. How effective has nuclear power in France been in mitigating CO2 emissions? Try this: French reactor reaches generation landmark "To place one PWh (the lifetime production) in context with other sources, it is roughly equal to the amount of electricity obtained from burning either 350 million tonnes of coal, 220 million tonnes of oil or 60 billion cubic metres of gas." "The nuclear reactors at Gravelines have saved 1000 million tonnes of carbon dioxide that would have been emitted to the atmosphere had coal been burnt instead. The high-level waste from the plant – which has been subjected to reprocessing – fills a volume about one-third that of an Olympic-sized swimming pool." The figure in the article of equivalence to 200,000 2GW wind turbines is wrong. Probably more like 10,000 which is still a lot. -
Peter Lang at 13:24 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Rob Painting @283 You might want to read from the start of the thread. We can't go over all this again. For your benefit, the principal points are: 1. nuclear is the least cost way to make substantial and sustained cuts to emissions from electricty generation 2. only nuclear can be built fast enough at the scape required 3. renewables cannot do the job required and are unlikely to be able to in the forseeable future. They cannot replace fossil fuel electricity generation 4. Nuclear is about the safest of all electricity generation technologies when compared on a properly comparable basis. It is about 10 to 100 times safer than coal generation, and we accept coal as safe enough, although we'd always like better. So that is the standard. But 10 to 100 times safer is ridiculous, given that by demanding that we've made it so expensive we cannot afford to have it at all. We'd prefer coal, it seems. 5. Subsidies for renewables are very high given the insignificant amount of energy they generate. Nulcear subsidises renewables in most polaces and also subsidises coal in Germany. 6. We need to make low emissions electricity generation as cheap as possible to speed up the rate of cutting emisisons world wide. Raising the cost of electricity is exactly the wrong policy. See previous posts on this thread, and the links, for substantiation of these statements. -
Peter Lang at 13:11 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Daniel Bailey @267, "However (there always seems to be a however, doesn't there?), let's be pragmatic. While an end-goal of 100% of energy needs supplied by NPP can be an admirable goal (if there exists no other practical alternatives no wean us off fossil fuels), in the world most of us inhabit there exists no possibility of that happening." Firstly, I never advocated 100% nuclear! So let's get that straightened out for a start. Second, you say (with my rephrasing) "in the world most of us inhabit there exists no possibility of [a high proportion on NPP] happening. It will take time to get there. Three decades from when we start. So, I agree that will not happen in the world we inhabit now. I am arguing it is where we should be heading. It should be the vision we are striving for. So we should put the policies in place to be heading in that direction, not trying to prevent them (as most people clearly are). If a remarkable breakthrough is made with renewables systems (generation, storage and transmission), then certainly, we will adapt the plan. But there is no sign of that happneing and to wait means we keep emitting more CO2 for longer. "in the world most of us inhabit there exists no possibility of that happening." It is go nuclear or continued high emissons. Take your pick. Which do you want? Renewables are not viable (except as a token gesture). I get the impression that despite your statements about black or white on DAGW advocacy etc, you'd prefer to chat than actually tackle the problem. It seems you'd prefer to have higher emissions than nuclear. That is the impression I get from the chat by many on this web site. By the way, I'll tell you something else that is not going to happen "in the world most of us inhabit there exists no possibility" that renewable energy and energy efficency will have much impact on cutting GHG emissions! That is the reality. Refer to: Replacing Hazelwood Coal Power station Zero carbon Australia – Stationary energy plan - Critique Emissions cuts realities -
scaddenp at 13:09 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Whoops, make that C13 CO2. -
muoncounter at 13:00 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
#3: "They nowhere mention aspects of the geological reord that do not fit the paradigm that human c02 causes rapid, onoing (little/no negative feedback) climate change." On the contrary, they do mention that current conditions do not fit within constraints established by the geological record. This is well-researched and very clearly presented: While these past climatic changes can be related to geological events, it is not possible to relate the Earth’s warming since 1970 to anything recognisable as having a geological cause (such as volcanic activity, continental displacement, or changes in the energy received from the sun). This recent warming is accompanied by an increase in CO2 and a decrease in Arctic sea ice, both of which – based on physical theory and geological analogues - would be expected to warm the climate. --emphasis added. Human activities affecting geological scale changes? As a geologist, that should alarm you. -
Shub at 12:59 PM on 3 November 2010The Grumble in the Jungle
It is pretty clear, Rob. Only it is not correct. For the IPCC statement to be correct, the claim has to originate in peer-reviewed literature. It does not. In making a claim, it has to first originate and be grounded from a substantive source, and the reference cited for the claim should directly refer to that source - pretty basic stuff in science. The IPCC claim on the Amazon fails both tests. As it is evident, the basic premise of your article rests on taking Nepstad's word for it. These issues have been discussed at length, and at several venues. -
quokka at 12:58 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
#280 JMurphyI wonder where you would draw the line at such a devil-may-care attitude ? Is it OK for Iran to embrace that "energy synergy" ?
And would you trust the only nation to have used nuclear weapons and the nation that has threatened to use nuclear weapons on more occasions than all other nations combined to be the arbiter of who shall and shall not use nuclear power? Most of the non-aligned nations think not. Apologies for being off topic, but I find it difficult to take neocon beatups targeted at the next Middle Eastern war.
Prev 2097 2098 2099 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 Next
