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  2099  2100  2101  2102  2103  2104  2105  2106  2107  2108  2109  2110  2111  2112  2113  2114  Next

Comments 105301 to 105350:

  1. What should we do about climate change?
    @Peter Lang: "They cannot because of, so far and probably always, insurmountable technical constraints (like the sun doesn't shine at night)." It seems our friend Peter is forgetting the Earth is a sphere. The sun is always shining *somewhere*. The wind is always blowing *somewhere*. Rivers are always running, and tides ceaselessly come and go. Again, the idea is not to shut out nuclear, but to use it along with renewables in a mixed solution. Oh well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
  2. What should we do about climate change?
    Re: Peter Lang (254) Thanks for the answer to my question. It was...sufficient.
  3. What should we do about climate change?
    Peter, 242:
    CBDunkerson, "Also, 100% nuclear is NOT the only option (which is good since it isn't possible)." Who said anything about 100% nuclear?
    254:
    “And this task will require every energy source available: NPP, wind, solar, geothermal, tidal. All of them, in bulk quantities”. I do not agree.
    Congratulations on reformulating the Pareto Principle. You are not the first person I have talked with who pushed nuclear energy as The Solution to a problem they didn't acknowledge existed. It's actually quite common. What is your opinion on my cynicism? Is corner clipping a concern, especially in the regulatory environment you are advocating?
  4. Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    @Don Gisselbeck: yep, that's the danger of some of the 'denialist' memes floating around - they enter the broad body of stuff that "everyone knows", despite being completely (and provably, in many cases) false. This is exactly what makes progress in climate action so difficult.
  5. What should we do about climate change?
    Daniel Bailey, Where you lost credibility with me was when you were challenged, several times, to elucidate your position on AGW and the dangers we face from human-produced, fossil-fuel-derived CO2 emissions. And failed to respond. I have decided I can be more effective, and get to a wider audience, if I stick to what I know something about. I’ll talk about cutting CO2 emissions, costs of doing so, security of supply etc, and leave others to join the dots in the way they want to. People have to be convinced of the graveness of the threat CO2 represents so they will want to leave the fossil fuels in the ground. I do not agree. That may apply to a few rich people who live in the concrete jungles and chatter (the chattering classes). Most people just want a life, the best life they can have. If nuclear electricity is cheaper than coal, as it could and should be, then no more coal power stations will be built (I agree there will be a transition period). If the Greens, Greenpeace, WWF, FOE, Australian Conservation Foundation came out and said it is urgent we go nuclear to cut CO2 emissions, the developed countries could gear up very quickly. Australia could have its first 1 GW NPP running before 2020 (even earlier if we really wanted to) and have all coal replaced by 2035 or 2040. Nuclear could and should be far cheaper than coal. It should be small and modular, made in factories, shipped to site and connected. It is not because of 40 years of the anti-nuclear propaganda that we see lots of on this (and other) web sites, togheter with a Lefties dream about renewable energy. Our CO2 emissions are far higher today than they would be if not for the success of anti-nuclear activists of the past 40 years. “And this task will require every energy source available: NPP, wind, solar, geothermal, tidal. All of them, in bulk quantities”. I do not agree. If we spend 80% of our effort, time and money on technologies that can provide only 5% to perhaps 20% of the solution (i.e. renewables), and spend only 0% to 20% of our time and effort on the technologies that can provide 80% to 95% of the solution (e.g. nuclear) then we waste all our wealth for no result. We are doing worse than this because, not only do we spend no effort, time, of funds on nuclear, we actually prohibit nuclear!
  6. What should we do about climate change?
    #243: "France built the nuclear generating capacity at the rate of about 3GW per year." For completeness, you should point out that France was going nuclear in the early '80s, well before: a. GHG levels were at the frightening levels they are today b. the anthropogenic source for GHGs was as clearly understood as it is today c. climate change was as clearly established as it is today d. wind and/or solar was a viable technology at all e. Chernobyl. There are choices and imperatives today that were not the case in the 80s. One has to see this French economic miracle you describe in context. That's neither pro nor con but it is necessary for a rational discussion. France has an almost 20% sales tax, many food products are from within France, thus the workers are paid a first world wage. Most of the big ticket items, health, education, child care, are subsided by the government, thus bring down their costs.
  7. What should we do about climate change?
    Peter Hogarth, Woops! Yes, that was a typo on hydro. I meant to say 0% to 15%. Sorry. I agree, that hydro is extremely valuable. It has fast response (0% to 100% power in about 75 seconds). The way hydro is used in France is ideal. It is following the load changes and can do so faster than fossil fuels or nuclear. A perfect match. Pumped hydro is ideal for matching with nuclear and coal, but not economic with intermittent renewables. You may be interested in this analysis of a possible pumped hydro scheme in the Australian Snowy Mountains. It would link existing reservoirs, provide up to 8 GW of power and store up to 50GWh of energy each day. If matched with 28 GW of nuclear capacity, the two together could provide the supply meet all the National Electricity Market's current demand. [Our demand (2007) was 33 GW peak, 25 GW average, 17 GW baseload in summer and 20 GW basload in mid winter.] Don't skip the reviewer's comments because this explains why pumped hydro can be economical when matched with a reliable, low cost power supply that provides consistent power through the times of low demand and then generates from storage during peak and shoulder periods. That is, it is used daily. Many comments on this thread are highly informative too. Regarding, the management of once-used-nuclear-fuel, quokka and I both addressed that on earlier posts on this thread. If there are questions on that, we can take it up again. I feel it is a trivial issue from a technical perspective (I agree it is a major pubic concern). The price of uranium and the volatility of it is irrelevant. The fuel makes up about 3% of the cost of electricity from nuclear. Double or quadruple the price of uranium and it makes no significant difference to the cost of electricity from nuclear. There is no shortage of uranium as there is for oil, so no reason to be concerned about escalating fuel prices. That is not where the threat to nuclear is. The threat to nuclear is from political activity and public disruption. It is the threat to the investors and, therfore, the invstment risk premium they require to encourage them to invest their money in it. It is worth keeping the increasing costs in perspective. The cost of wind farms rose 25% in Australia last year (that is part of an ongoing trend). The cost of solar thermal in the USA increased 30% last year (and, remember, that is for day time, summer time power only.) The costs of renewables are far higher than nculear when you compare aon a proerly comparable basis.
  8. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Great work as always Peter. Thanks!
  9. What should we do about climate change?
    Peter Lang wrote : "I wonder if they are using fear of climate change as a means to push their other left wing agendas. I think many people are concerned about this." Comments like this (and others you have posted over at BRAVE NEW CLIMATE and here - including your refusal to give your opinion on global warming) put you squarely in the corner of the so-called skeptics like Monckton, who see conspiracies (particularly left-wing/Marxist/Communist ones - delete as applicable) everywhere. In fact, it also very telling how some so-called skeptics make such a big thing on the nuclear-power issue - either to try to highlight differences among those who accept AGW ("Look, they can't even agree on energy production : how can we trust them on anything !"); or to try to regain some of their conservative, comfort-blanket ideology by forcefully pushing a nuclear agenda they see as being anti-green and anti-lefty. Unfortunately for you, Peter Lang, you are the best advertisement for the blinkered thinking behind the 'nuclear now, whatever' thinking. Thank you.
  10. What should we do about climate change?
    Peter Lang at 08:44 AM on 2 November, 2010 Your figures for hydro in France are a bit misleading (a typo?). Move the cursor on your nice link to the times of peak generation, Hydro will be around 15%. It plays a significant role in filling the base to peak load gap. The UK planned a similar scheme when Nuclear was "the answer" to the 70s oil crisis, and did actually build half of the intended pumped hydro capacity (about 10GWhr of energy storage). Economical large scale (or distributed small scale) energy storage would be a good aim, even for supplementing Nuclear, but especially for mitigating the intermittent nature of any significant contribution from solar/wind. "Economical" is the tricky bit. On the downside I note even France has still not resolved its high level nuclear waste storage problems and only recently has put a plan in place to open its first deep repository by 2025 (which is not yet licenced). Political problems are just as real as technical ones. The extreme price volatility of non-renewables (including Uranium) over the past few decades (and especially recently) is also not being factored in to the price comparisons and "economics" are notoriously short term. I am not against Nuclear, but the current build of Gen III reactors may run out of fuel before the end of their design life if current rates of use accelerate (going by the industries own figures). Current and Gen III build Nuclear is (in climate terms) a temporary measure but may be necessary short term to fuel the next transition, and it is what's next that interests me.
  11. What should we do about climate change?
    Re: Peter Lang It is with great interest that I have been following this thread. Over the course of your many comments I feel I have learned a great deal that I was unaware of in regards to NPP. I feel you have brought some valuable points to the table as well, challenging (from your point of view) the 'sacred cows' of green energy (wind and solar). Those in advocacy of wind and solar, on the other hand, have not been remiss in putting forth their positions as well. Makes for a lively debate and a good read by those of us in the background. Where I feel you have made your best mark, Peter, is when you challenged the perceptions and preconceptions of the advocates of wind and solar. However, the same lens of analysis can also be applied to your position as well. Where you lost credibility with me was when you were challenged, several times, to elucidate your position on AGW and the dangers we face from human-produced, fossil-fuel-derived CO2 emissions. And failed to respond. Either you feel it is a grave threat, or you don't. So what's the harm in stating your position on it? If, as Ann posits, it is a grave threat to humanity, then it's simply not good enough to remove restrictions on NPP and let the market replace coal-fired electrical power plants. People have to be convinced of the graveness of the threat CO2 represents so they will want to leave the fossil fuels in the ground. Or they will use it all. No matter how universal or cheap NPP becomes. Or solar. Or Wind. Or tidal or geothermal (did I leave any out?). To summarize Ann's point: In order to fully replace fossil fuel CO2 production, we have to educate the public & replace the world's fossil fuel energy sources at the same time. And this task will require every energy source available: NPP, wind, solar, geothermal, tidal. All of them, in bulk quantities. So you either believe in the dangers that CO2 represents, and are part of the solution, or you don't. So, Peter, which is it? The Yooper
  12. The Grumble in the Jungle
    Stephen Baines, thanks. Couple of points, though: 1. According to RealClimate it was the Sunday Times, not the Times. These are different papers though both are part of the Murdoch empire. 2. Just because the article has been retracted doesn't stop it being cited, though of course it might make it harder to link to. 3. The retraction is, though not strictly relevant to this post, of sufficient interest to be worth mentioning - particularly for those who come here via Google as a result of more recent citations of the article. Maybe instead of "An article in a British newspaper claimed..." it would better be "An article in the January 31st, 2010 edition of the British Sunday Times newspaper, subsequently retracted, claimed...". (I'm assuming here that the original publication date is the same as that given on the PDF linked from the RealClimate page.)
  13. What should we do about climate change?
    Peter Lang - An excellent question, I have no idea. They've done proof of concept work, I don't think they've published economic data. They're using full spectrum solar units - visible light goes into the photovoltaic conversion, the rest to heat their thermal cell to 750-950 degrees C to make the reaction possible. So solar utilization is excellent. But again as to cost, considering the need for lithium carbonate or (less efficiently) potassium carbonate, ??? Given the use, irregularity of sunlight would be irrelevant as long as the rate of CO2 removal over time was sufficient. It's also interesting in terms of (possibly) producing a possible carbon neutral fuel for transportation use. I think we're still a long way away from battery electric cars being generally practical.
  14. What should we do about climate change?
    Peter, My skepticism comes not from "scary nuclear" (OMG! Teh radiations!), but from a cynicism that the safety measures will be observed in a cost-cutting race for the short-term bottom line. This especially holds for pleads of "removing blocks and imposts". France still hasn't figured out what to do with the spent fuel waste, other than piling it together and watching it for an initial term of 300 years. That is not reasonable in my opinion. The 2005 WHO study is one of the works discussed by the 2009 NYAS study. Talking about "insurmountable technical constraints" does not give you the high ground to call others "irrational and unreachable".
  15. What should we do about climate change?
    KR, What is the cost per tonne CO2 avoided/removed?
  16. What should we do about climate change?
    In the list above "Export" should have been "Others" During the day France exported up to 7.3GW of power with maximum exports at the time of peak demand. The large export of electricity demonstrates that France's power is low cost compared with the cost of generating electricity in the neighbouring countries. The large export at peak time demonstrates that, not only is France's basload electricity cheap (relative to its neighbours) but so is the cost of its peak power. France's electricity is cheap (relative to its neighbours). It has supported a strong economy and high standard of living. It is safe and clean. It has been proven reliable over a period of 40 years. What more could anyone want? For those who are the most ardent supporters of immediate action to cut CO2 emissions, it absolutely stunns me that they are so strongly opposed to nuclear power (and are totally opposed to investigating it in an unbiased way - similar to what they claim they have done on "dangerous AGW"). It makes me wonder about their real agendas, and whether they really have been objective on "Dangerous AGW". If they are so emotively driven on nuclear, are they just as emotively driven on "Dangerous AGW"? I wonder if they are using fear of climate change as a means to push their other left wing agendas. I think many people are concerned about this. I'd urge the real thinkers to consider whether tieing many other agendas to climate change is helping or hindering getting in place the policies to cut emissions. If we cannot be economically rational, it's going to be a long hard fight and slow progress. I, for one, am strongly opposed to economically irrational policies. Especially when I am firmly convinced that we can have low emisisons and a strong economy, and reliable, secure energy supply. So why risk wrecking the economy when we don't have to.
  17. What should we do about climate change?
    On a completely different topic than the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power: I just found an article on separating and sequestering atmospheric CO2; the authors of the study (Licht et al 2009) use a mix of solar thermal and photovoltaic power to capture CO2, breaking it down into O2 and solid carbon or at higher temps O2 and carbon monoxide. They indicate that the CO might be useful as feed stock with hydrogen to produce recycled diesel or jet fuel. Their energy efficiency for the process is estimated at 34%-50%. According to the somewhat more approachable article that led me to this reference (Photonics Spectra Oct. 2010), the authors indicate that ~700km^2 of photovoltaics (and much of the worlds annual lithium carbonate production, mind you) could drop CO2 levels to pre-industrial in 10 years if pushed. I'm certain that they're being a bit (!!!) optimistic, but it's an interesting read.
  18. What should we do about climate change?
    This shows what technologies are generating France’s electricity on any given day (including today). (if the charts are blank change the date to yesterday). Move your mouse left and right over the stacked area chart and watch the changes on the pie chart below. Notice the following (for 1 November): Nuclear = 77% to 87% Coal = 1% to 2% Gas = 1% to 3% Hydro = 0% to 1 Wind = 1% to 4% Export = 1% to 8% Scroll down to the “Emissions de CO2” chart. Notice that the total emissions from all Frances electricity generation are 1,400 to 3,255 tonnes per hour. Just two of Australia’s coal fired power stations produce that amount. This is what I suggest we should be striving for. It is proven, economic, safe, accepted, reliable, secure, and given France an economic advantage and higher standard of living than it would have without it. France built the nuclear generating capacity at the rate of about 3GW per year. At that rate Australia could replace all its coal fired power station in around 15 years from start. I would suggest 20 years from start would be definitely achievable. Wind and solar are only being built in France because France is forced, by EU regulation, to produce 23% of its electricity generation from renewables. If it could build nuclear it would, but that is not allowed. If it could build hydro it would, but it cannot. So it is forced to build wind and solar capacity. That is an example of the very worst of “picking winners”. That si what the renewable energy advocates are forcing on us.
  19. Don Gisselbeck at 08:15 AM on 2 November 2010
    Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    When the story of uplift in Greenland due to ice loss appeared on Yahoo, at least one comment seriously claimed that Greenland was ice free when the vikings arrived.
  20. Berényi Péter at 08:09 AM on 2 November 2010
    Climate sensitivity is low
    Well, I have looked into the issue a bit deeper and have found that my point 1. in #85 under The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect is actually not a valid claim. It says "If IR optical depth of the atmosphere is increased by a small amount by adding to it some well mixed greenhouse gas while everything else is held constant, entropy production rate would decrease". In fact it is only true if optical depth is high enough, that is, in a high IR opacity approximation. For optically thin atmospheres the opposite is true. In other words there is a limit value of IR optical depth for which entropy production rate is at its maximum. I still think IR optical depth of the real atmosphere has to be close to this value (due to MEP), but it would need some deeper analysis and actual data to determine if it is below or above this threshold at the moment. Under these circumstances the original argument may not work without restrictions, however, the very existence of an "optimal" IR optical depth suggests a negative water vapor feedback (on overall IR opacity).
  21. What should we do about climate change?
    CBDunkerson, "Also, 100% nuclear is NOT the only option (which is good since it isn't possible)." Who said anything about 100% nuclear? However, you say it isn't possible. On what basis do you say that? "Arguments can be made that 100% solar or 100% wind, both requiring significant grid and power storage improvements, could be made to work." Arguments can be made for anything? What is your point? Do you think that cost and economics is irrelevant? Do you believe that the laws of physics are going to change? Or are you just hoping they will? If so why do you hope that? Getting to the real question: Why do you want anything but the proven, available, economic (if we removed the blocks and imposts) technology that can provide our power needs - nuclear? That question is really asking: why do you have aphobia about nuclear power?
  22. Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    Chris G @ 33 - missed that, thanks. I note in the Khan 2010 paper abstract, that they have now deployed far more permanent GPS stations around the Greenland coast (now up to 51). Was it 3 that were used in the WU study?. Spread of ice mass loss into northwest Greenland observed by GRACE and GPS "In addition to showing that the northwest ice sheet margin is now losing mass, the uplift results from both the GPS measurements and the GRACE predictions show rapid acceleration in southeast Greenland in late 2003, followed by a moderate deceleration in 2006. Because that latter deceleration is weak, southeast Greenland still appears to be losing ice mass at a much higher rate than it was prior to fall 2003. In a more general sense, the analysis described here demonstrates that GPS uplift measurements can be used in combination with GRACE mass estimates to provide a better understanding of ongoing Greenland mass loss; an analysis approach that will become increasingly useful as long time spans of data accumulate from the 51 permanent GPS stations recently deployed around the edge of the ice sheet as part of the Greenland GPS Network (GNET)."
  23. Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    TIS - "There is a good reason to be skeptical about the significance of the current behavior." Uh huh. It appears that you broken second link was actually a meant to be link to your own site. The article I assume is Jakobsson, 2010? You would do your readers a service if you linked to the article. Quote from article - "that Arctic sea ice cover was strongly reduced during most of the early Holocene; there appears even to have been periods of ice free summers in large parts of the central Arctic Ocean". A slightly more cautious assessment than yours perhaps? The article also points out the rather different forcings at work. These forcings are NOT present today which is what makes the ice loss significant. And to hammer home the important point yet again - its the rate of change compared to what happens with natural forcings that is the major concern.
  24. What should we do about climate change?
    CBDunkerson, You aregue that because nuclear is not popular it is not viable. "Unpopular" is a political poblem. It can be fixed. It is a matter of education for most people and assisting a few people to overcome their phobia about "scary nuclear". Some will fear it forever, but not many. Just go and live near a NPP and you would/might understand that (or might not). However, you argue, in effect, that because renewables are popular they can provide our electricity supply. They cannot because of, so far and probably always, insurmountable technical constraints (like the sun doesn't shine at night). The cost of storage is far tool high. So I conclude you are one of those people who is irrational and unreachable. Some might refer to such people as deniers. I note how this thread started off areguing that nuclear was uneconomical. Then that it was unsafe. And at last the real issue is revealed - "nuclear phobia".
  25. Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    Rob Painting #19, You might want to read my post above, it contains the words, "GRACE and GPS" as well as "Khan, S. A., J. Wahr, M. Bevis, I. Velicogna, and E. Kendrick" So, I do suspect that they have picked up on using GPS to account for rebound; though, I don't know if they used the same math as Wu.
  26. Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    #31: "look what has happened just three years after he said that...." Yep: even in climate science, despite 'all the uncertainty' some predictions turn out right. Makes you wonder if all those separate lines of evidence mean something ...
  27. Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    Muoncounter @29, Thanks for that link. What is interesting is that they were investigating differences between different methodologies and data sets back in 2007 (the article is dated August 2007). This is exactly how science works. I also found this statement concerning: "Abdalati says he is convinced that the Greenland Ice Sheet will continue to shrink at a significant and, perhaps, accelerating rate. Already he and his colleagues have new studies underway in which they are investigating the sensitivity of the ice sheet to rising temperatures and the specific mechanisms by which the ice sheet responds to increased warmth." [August 2007]. Well look what has happened just three years after he said that.... Do I want to read what Abdalati said above? No, of course not, but I'm not going to waste yet more time by going into denial as some in this thread are doing? Again, No.
  28. Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    John Kehr @26, Can you please refrain from suggesting nefarious goings on concerning these Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) data? Thanks. It baffles me that we can have these data/events staring us in the face and yet some people choose to think of creative ways of dismissing or questioning these troubling revelations. First, the studies using GRACE (e.g., Velicogna 2009), data do apply isostatic adjustments to the data--"GIA [Glacial Isostatic Adjustment] signal is removed from the GRACE data using independent models as described by Velicogna and Wahr [2006a, 2006b]." Second, as far as I can tell, IF Wu et al's (2010) proposed GIAs are correct (and there are reasons to believe that that they not be appropriate), they affect only the absolute values, not the trend. Regardless, data from multiple, independent groups and measurement platforms do point towards an accelerating rate of ice loss (e.g., Jiang et al. 2010). Third, surely you can do better than arguing the equivalent of "well the climate is always changing so this is nothing unusual". Climate scientists and glaciologists of course know very well that ice sheets are dynamic, complex systems which respond to multiple drivers, and consequently that they have grown and receded in the past. What is happening now with not only the GIS, but WAIS, Arctic sea ice, and other terrestrial glaciers/ice sheets and other metrics concerns people who study the cryosphere for a living, and so it should also concern reasonable and prudent people. Polyak et al. (2010) are concerned and not what is happening now with Arctic sea ice and note that what is happening can not be attributed to natural variability...do you really think that you know better than they do? This is still relatively early days in the AGW story, so do not make the mistake of equating what is happening now to what the situation will be decades or centuries form now-- the GIS (and WAIS) will, in all likelihood, look very much different by then. You can choose to ignore this image, but do so at the peril of future generations: Figure GL3. Difference (days) in summer 2010 melt duration compared to 1979-2007 mean, after Mote (2007). The 2400 m elevation contour is included to illustrate higher elevations of melting over the southern ice sheet. [Along the southwestern ice sheet, the number of melting days in August has increased by 24 days over the past 30 years-- NOAA]
  29. Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    #26: "So which is correct?" Is that the best question to ask? Here is the key message: “While differences in these studies still exist,” Abdalati concludes, “collectively, they very convincingly paint a picture of the Greenland Ice Sheet as having been close to balance in the 1990s, contributing a small amount to sea level, but becoming significantly out of balance and losing a substantial amount of ice to the sea in the last several years.”
  30. Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    TIS... I'd also say that you're jumping the gun a bit to call it "disingenuous." If the data had been available for 5 years and newer data were fully incorporated and the old data were being presented, THAT would be disingenuous. (BTW, this is a technique continually applied to the "hockey stick" issue.) If you look, Wu 2010 states in the abstract that "We conclude that a significant revision of the present estimates of glacial isostatic adjustments and land–ocean water exchange is required." That is from a paper published just 9 weeks ago, about the same time the GRACE data above is published. I'm confident everyone is reviewing Wu's findings. You have to give science just a little bit of time to do it's work. As you very well know, these issues are highly complex and take a lot of time to research in full detail.
  31. Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    TIS... Your second link is broken. The last info I got regarding when the Arctic was last ice free was this video lecture by Professor David Barber where he states that there is currently debate over whether the last time the Arctic was ice free was 1 million years ago or 14 million years ago.
  32. The Inconvenient Skeptic at 02:45 AM on 2 November 2010
    Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    Another study from September showed that the isostatic adjustment from the last glacial period is causing the ice loss to be overstated by about double. The recent article gives estimates of 104 +/- 23 Gt/yr for Greenland and in West Antarctica the loss is 62+/- 32 Gt/yr. So which is correct? The studies that give the higher results don't take the adjustment into account. Stating that the loss is 200+ Gt/yr as fact when there are “published” articles that give results that are half as much is a bit disingenuous. When taken into account with the other recent article that indicates that the Arctic was ice free during the summer in the early Holocene which would also indicate that the ice loss was even greater during that period than the current period. There is a good reason to be skeptical about the significance of the current behavior. John Kehr The Inconvenient Skeptic
  33. Stephen Baines at 02:18 AM on 2 November 2010
    Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    I don't think it's shameful to suggest AGW played a role in last winter. However, you can see how the effect of AGW on climate can be confusing to the lay person. Loss of sea-ice = equals changing wind patterns = cold winter in Europe BUT not so cold as similar conditions (extreme negative NAO) would have produced in past because AGW has shifted the baseline. Doesn't exactly trip off the tongue. Then there is the issue of what a bad winter is, and that definitition changed depending on where you were. It was colder than usual in the SE US last year, but not here in the NE US. Still it was considered a "bad" winter because of the amount of snow we had up here. That was a consequence of the extreme negative NAO combined with an ongoing El Nino that feeds moisture into the SE US. AGW could have affected the extent of the AO/NAO (through Arctic Sea ice) and the water vapor available for precip. Back to Greenland. Are those focal areas of ice loss related to particular sealevel exit points for the inland icesheet?
  34. What should we do about climate change?
    @Peter Lang: "."In Toronto, Canada (an probably other places) property values are far higher near the NPPs than near the coal fired power stations." The fact Peter Lang is *still* comparing nuclear to coal notwithstanding, there are no coal power plants left near Toronto. Now, I wonder if Peter Lang will *ever* say whether he accepts AGW theory or not. The fact he won't tends to lend credence to the theory that he's not speaking on his personal behalf.
  35. What should we do about climate change?
    @quokka: I do not dispute nuclear is part of the solution. I'm opposed to people who say renewables are not.
  36. What should we do about climate change?
    The continuing fictional works of Peter Lang; "1. you say nuclear is unpopular so we shouldn't advocate it." Fiction. I did NOT say that. Advocate all you like. You (well, not YOU, but nuclear advocates in general) may eventually change enough peoples' minds for nuclear to become 'near universal'. However, it seems more likely renewable energy will have become widespread before that change could take place. "2. You believe GHG emissions are a mjor risk, yet you preclude tackling them with the only viable technology available to make serious cuts" Again, fiction. Nuclear as a sole (or nearly so) power source is NOT viable at this time. Public support for it does not exist. Ergo, not viable. Also, 100% nuclear is NOT the only option (which is good since it isn't possible). Arguments can be made that 100% solar or 100% wind, both requiring significant grid and power storage improvements, could be made to work. However, the most logical course is a mix of energy sources... wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, nuclear, et cetera. Each where they are most accepted and practical. "5. You say: "just awareness of what it would do to property values."In Toronto, Canada (an probably other places) property values are far higher near the NPPs than near the coal fired power stations. These sorts of statements are made from ignoraance." Yes, because all the world is Toronto and built next to coal plants. Everyone knows that people the world over JUMP at the chance to live next to nuclear power plants. Seriously, truth time now... you're really an ANTI-nuclear campaigner out to drive people away from the technology by promoting totally irrational arguments in favor of it. Right? "'The simple fact' is that the other options, like renewable energy and energy efficency, have been looked at for at least 20 years and they can make no significant impact on cutting GHG emisisons. Believing that somehow a mircale will happen and renewables will suddenly become viable is living in a fantasy world." Renewables are already viable. There are several communities around the world which now generate more renewable power than they need. Germany is an example of an entire country which is well on its way to that situation (despite having relatively poor renewable energy resources). The US state of Hawaii is starting to switch over to renewables because it is so blessed with all manner of renewable energy sources that it can easily supply its power needs at costs much lower than the current generation of power by burning oil. This is the actual world. Already happening. Saying that what has already happened cannot happen... THAT is living in a fantasy world.
  37. Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    #23: "you might just understand why '2 + 2 may equal 4' is not a "particularly shameful" link." Reminds me of an old oil field joke, which answers the question 'how much is 2+2?' with 'what would you like it to be?' Here's some perspective on winter 2010: The winter of 2009/2010 was characterized by record persistence of the negative phase of the North-Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) which caused several severe cold spells over Northern and Western Europe. This somehow unusual winter with respect to the most recent ones arose concurrently with public debate on climate change ... We show however that the cold European temperature anomaly of winter 2010 was (i) not extreme relative to winters of the past six decades ... The winter 2010 thus provides a consistent picture of a regional cold event mitigated by long-term climate warming. Isn't it shameful how some people have their own mathiness?
  38. Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    HR #20: "The attempted link between AGW and the severe winter in Europe and the US last year seems particularly shameful." Ummm... the 'severe' winter in Europe and the US last year was unquestionably due to cold winds out of the Arctic. Arctic winds do not normally reach that far South. Ergo, the cold winter was either just a random event with no particular long term significance OR evidence of a change in Arctic wind patterns. Guess what has been predicted to change Arctic wind patterns? If you said 'global warming' you might just understand why '2 + 2 may equal 4' is not a "particularly shameful" link.
  39. What should we do about climate change?
    CBDunkerson, I think your line of arguments is illogical on several counts. 1. you say nuclear is unpopular so we shouldn't advocate it. But if we dont advocate and educate it will remain unpopular. 2. You believe GHG emissions are a mjor risk, yet you preclude tackling them with the only viable technology available to make serious cuts 3. You say some parts of the world are not prepared to accept nuclear so we shouldn't argue for it. Yet many people weren't preared to accept dangerous AGW theory, yet that disn't stop believers arguing for it. So why do argue to not argue for the practical solution? 4. You say "Thus, to me, nuclear is not currently a viable option because people aren't ready to allow it to be." Where it is implemented it is accepted, supported. So it is a mattrer of education. 5. You say: "just awareness of what it would do to property values."In Toronto, Canada (an probably other places) property values are far higher near the NPPs than near the coal fired power stations. These sorts of statements are made from ignoraance. 6. You say: "That being the case we need to look at other options rather than dwelling in a fantasy world." 'The simple fact' is that the other options, like renewable energy and energy efficency, have been looked at for at least 20 years and they can make no significant impact on cutting GHG emisisons. Believing that somehow a mircale will happen and renewables will suddenly become viable is living in a fantasy world.
  40. Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    Icesat which is a separate data set is showing a loss of a similar magnitude to the GRACE data set, that is indicating the result is robust. From a submitted paper Sørensen et al (2010) "We find an annual mass loss of the Greenland ice sheet of 210 ± 21 Gt yr−1 in the period from October 2003 to March 2008. This result is in good agreement with other studies of the Greenland ice sheet mass balance, based on different remote sensing techniques". This year for northwestern Greenland the snowline's were quite high from early in the melt season. This is one of the factors that raised the vulnerability of the Petermann Glacier. Going forward it will raise the vulnerability of Ryder Glacier and others.
  41. Harald Korneliussen at 23:34 PM on 1 November 2010
    Skeptical Science Firefox Add-on: Send and receive climate info while you browse
    I noticed that the front page already had several annotations with arguments that haven't got a reply yet (but of course, with closely related arguments that have). Wasn't there a big list of arguments somewhere, including all the ones that don't have replies here as well as those which do? I can't seem to find it any longer.
    Moderator Response: Probably you are thinking of the Links page. Look in the horizontal blue bar at the top of this page. "Links" is near the right end.
  42. What should we do about climate change?
    The biggest problem with nuclear is actually not the risk, but rather the perception of risk. The simple fact is that a large percentage of people are afraid of it. Even many of those who support it in theory are strongly against having it nearby due to lingering radiation concerns or just awareness of what it would do to property values. The simple fact is that many parts of the world are not ready to accept large scale nuclear power yet. That's reality. Thus, to me, nuclear is not currently a viable option because people aren't ready to allow it to be. That being the case we need to look at other options rather than dwelling in a fantasy world. It's like the argument that abstinence is 100% effective against teen pregnancy... it may be true on paper, but it isn't grounded in reality because there is no way you can prevent teenagers from having sex. Ditto the extremes of 'free market' economic theory... you can just let corporations do what they want with no regulation because they'll avoid any impropriety because it would impact their bottom line. Which inevitably leads to mortgage derivatives, Enron, S&L, et cetera... yet people still keep drinking the cool-aid. Human behavior needs to be taken into account to develop reality based solutions. And right now human behavior isn't supportive of switching over to a nuclear powered world.
  43. Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    Murray et al 2010 I've only access to the abstract, but it suggests icesheet-ocean interactions are the primary control on the rate of ice discharge in SE Greenland glaciers. Hardly a startling revelation.
  44. Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    16.Lazarus I think you're referring to the 2010 paper by Wu et al in Nature Geoscience. Simultaneous estimation of global present-day water transport and glacial isostatic adjustment 15 AUGUST 2010 | DOI: 10.1038/NGEO938 It's not referred to in the Arctic Report Card. Neither is Murray et al 2010 Ocean regulation hypothesis for glacier dynamics in southeast Greenland and implications for ice sheet mass changes JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 115, F03026, doi:10.1029/2009JF001522, which suggest alternative explanations for de-glaciation in SE Greenland. John is it possible that the information is "mostly disturbing" and David Horton finds things terrifying because this report card is biassed in presenting such data? The attempted link between AGW and the severe winter in Europe and the US last year seems particularly shameful.
  45. Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    Lazarus @ 16 - Wu 2010 employ a novel technique, using (sparse) GPS data to calculate for glacio-isostatic uplift. No doubt it will take time for the scientific community to ascertain it's value/accuracy, but it is at odds with estimates using other methods. Going out on a limb here, Wahr and Velicogna, were authors of earlier GRACE studies using the GIA model estimates, so I doubt they've employed WU's methods. There is an upcoming post on the topic.
  46. Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    gpwayne #11: "Focussing on such a short period seems to compound the problem, and does rather contradict our oft-repeated claim that only trends are valid, not short term data." The length of time needed to determine a valid trend increases as the amount of 'noise' in the data does. If you look at the Mauna Loa CO2 data you've got a small annual cycle and a very smooth upward trend which can be clearly seen from just a few years' data (though we happen to have decades of confirmation). Temperature records on the other hand bounce all over the place and thus require much longer periods to determine a trend. The Greenland mass loss data seems to be somewhere in the middle... there is some noise, but note that every annual peak and every annual low is lower than the previous year. The 'noise' isn't great enough to ever 'break' the downward trend... just providing fluctuations around it. That is, if anything, a much clearer picture than we get from the noisier data sets... even when we have more data for them.
  47. Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    gpwayne: "I'm sure this graph would be less ambiguous - and more compelling - if the average was calculated like all trends, from a 30 year period." Isn't that a bit tricky if you only have 8 years of data? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Recovery_and_Climate_Experiment Launch date: March 17, 2002 To me what's compelling about this graph is how clean the data is: how well it follows the quadratic fit with the annual variation. The red line is a quadratic fit, isn't it? What period was it fitted over?
  48. Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    Wasn't there a problem with GRACE and rebound giving inaccurate readings? Has this been sorted and accounted for in this Report card?
  49. Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    Climate Sanity has a post that should help visualise what it probably all means in terms of volume and sea levels. Conversion factors for ice and water mass and volume
  50. Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    beam me up scotty. Since Jim Kirk and the Enterprise aren't streaking across the galaxy on a resue mission - and lets face it, there is only so much you can do by reconfiguring the deflector dish AGAIN. So, yep. Its up to us. So: "Ok, tell us what I must do" Convince Others. Of the reality, Severity and above all the Urgency. Individually we can do nothing, only when we all act together. If you were discussing what you could do to solve World Poverty the answer is that you individually could. For one person. You could lift another person out of poverty. Just not everyone. But your individual actions alone could solve the problem for another person. With AGW, you can't solve the problem for one person. Either it is solved for everyone, or it is not solved. So individual action counts for little when it is only a few individuals. So the most useful thing anyone can do is be part of arguing the case. The case for the mobilisation of Humanity against the greatest crisi in Human History. This may truely be a situation where the Pen IS mightier than the Sword. Or the Dollar, Or the Solar Panel on your roof. This is about mobilising Humanity. Everything else is a well intentioned sideshow.

Prev  2099  2100  2101  2102  2103  2104  2105  2106  2107  2108  2109  2110  2111  2112  2113  2114  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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