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. Stephen Baines at 10:23 AM on 1 November 2010
    The Grumble in the Jungle
    Ed Davies @8 It might be hard as the Times of London was forced to retract the original article by Jonathan Leake and pulled it from the web. There are of course many websites that site the article as truth despite the retraction. You'd barely know there was a retraction. Real Climate had a post on the retraction when it came out
  2. Hockey stick or hockey league?
    Boofy: "Seriously guys, chart pretty much anything human related and you get the same shape." As Tom Dayton points out, Boofy scores an own goal with that one ... Yes, Boofy, that's the point, recent warming is human-related, related to our exponential increases in CO2 emissions ...
  3. Stephen Baines at 10:00 AM on 1 November 2010
    Hockey stick or hockey league?
    To futher Tom Dayton's point, skeptics would have you believe that the increase in photographs was a function of previously unspecified natural processes rather than the increase in people using cameras. Any attempt to show that photographs came from cameras and that people were responsible for the action of said cameras would further be dismissed as a consequence of incomplete or biased data ("Squirrels have been growing in number with urbanization. Why have you've never determined how many photographs they take?"), improper and probably inscrupulous modeling of the interactions between electromagnetic radiation and imaging materials ("You've never considered how variations in solar radiation could affect the potential for good photographs") or not in line with what the true scientific genuises of the past understood ("Galileo never used one, so cameras must not exist!").
  4. Hockey stick or hockey league?
    But Boofy, skeptics claim that temperature is not human related.
  5. Hockey stick or hockey league?
    Boofy... Hmmm, what about preindustrial photograph levels? Is there a medieval photograph period? Sorry, good try but it's not the same.
  6. Hockey stick or hockey league?
    Spooky!! I charted the number of photographs taken by people per year and I got the same hockey-stick graph! Now just to figure out if CO2 causes photographs or it's the other way... Seriously guys, chart pretty much anything human related and you get the same shape.
  7. gallopingcamel at 08:48 AM on 1 November 2010
    What should we do about climate change?
    archiesteel (#215), I am a sucker for all kinds of de-centralized energy efficient technologies. I had compact fluorescents when they were only available from Amway; I have an electric car and am looking seriously at roof top PV which almost makes sense here in Florida. While these things are great fun they simply cannot compare with nuclear power when it comes to reducing CO2 emissions on a vast scale.
  8. What should we do about climate change?
    #221: "insuring the risks involved in achieving 100% renewable energy." Turns out its not the renewable technology that's the problem for Germany, its the EU's wacky trading system. As more wind turbines go online, coal plants will be able to reduce their output. This in itself is desirable -- but the problem is that the total number of available CO2 emission certificates remains the same. In other words, there will suddenly be more certificates per kilowatt of coal energy. That means the price per ton of CO2 emitted will fall. ... As a result, there was very little incentive for big energy companies to invest in climate friendly technologies. -- der Spiegel, 2/2009 That means that viable technology for GHG reduction must overcome not just the technical issues, but must also fight an economic/political headwind as well.
  9. Hockey stick or hockey league?
    facepalm #5: This isn't just climate change deniers, it's any conspiracy theorist. It's why you can never, ever convince them, no matter what evidence you provide. Conspiracy Theory 101: 1. Any evidence that would tend to disprove the conspiracy is fraudulent and, therefore, further proof of the conspiracy. 2. Any individual who argues against the conspiracy is, ipso facto, part of the conspiracy. So there is no hope of ever convincing any of the "It's a hoax" people. They have too much invested in it, and a mental framework that permits them to discard all contrary evidence without a second thought. The only thing we can do is provide rational evidence for rational people who simply are not yet in posession of the facts. In other words, do what Skeptical Science is doing.
  10. The Grumble in the Jungle
    Would it not be better to cite the original article or at least the newspaper and date?
  11. Skeptical Science Firefox Add-on: Send and receive climate info while you browse
    Same trouble as Lazarus (Firefox 3.6.12 on Mac OX X 10.5.8). Are we supposed to submit a separate report for each argument?
  12. What should we do about climate change?
    MunichRe seem to think it worthwhile insuring the risks involved in achieving 100% renewable energy. Would they really be considering this if they believed they were going to lose money ? Or do they think that the losses would be less than those involved in pay-outs due to increasing global warming ?
  13. What should we do about climate change?
    CBD: "And the primary point continues to be that disputing the safety of solar and wind in comparison to nuclear is just pathetic." Peter Lang: "Nuclear is some 10 to 100 times safer than coal for generating electricity..." I say X, you dispute Y. So long as you continue to do this intelligent conversation is literally impossible.
  14. What should we do about climate change?
    @Peter #160 Why do you believe replacing coal power stations with nuclear (in an economically rational way) is not effective at cutting emissions? It is proven that it works. See France for example. I looked up France Carbon dioxide emissions rise slightly despite reduction efforts Despite having 80% of their power generated by nuclear plants, France's carbon dioxide emissions have increased slightly between 1990 and 2007. Obviously, France will not be able to obtain much more CO2 reductions from deploying even more nuclear power. The article states: “Had there been zero economic growth during the same period, carbon dioxide output would have decreased by more than 30 percent.” I think this is exactly the point I want to make. You cannot look at these things in isolation. You cannot suppose one parameter will change and the rest will stay constant. Economic growth, energy efficiency, population growth are all connected. Using energy more efficiently will result in an overcapacity in energy, which will result in more economic growth, which results in a netto increase in the energy demand. Therefore nuclear (or green energy) will – according to me – not result in a decrease of CO2 emissions. But I am willing to listen to any argument, any proof that proves me wrong. Why do you believe CCS would be more direct than replacing coal with nuclear (or any economically viable low emission technology that would be capable of replacing coal)? OK, to illustrate the difference between a direct and an indirect approach: the hole in the ozone layer is a problem that has threatened mankind, but it is a problem that was effectively solved by internationally coordinated actions (that should give us at least some hope that the climate problem can be solved as well, although it is much more complex). In this case, a direct approach was taken: prohibit the use of CFCs that break down the ozone in the atmosphere. An indirect approach could be: allow CFCs, but promote the use of alternatives, and hope that in the end no manufacturer is going to use CFCs anymore. You understand the difference ? The first approach works. The second approach might work. Or it might not. Similarly, promoting either green energy or nuclear energy is at best an indirect approach to reduce CO2 emissions. It doesn’t guarantee that global CO2 emissions will be lower (and until now, worldwide CO2 emissions are still rising). Nuclear energy will only ultimately reduce global CO2 emissions if - for every nuclear plant that is built, effectively a fossil fuel plant is shut down (and not just adding nuclear plants to the total installed power) - AND: if the fossil fuel that is saved this way doesn’t get burnt in another place. F.i. decreasing demand leads to decreasing fossil fuel prices, and as a result some power plant in Tajikistan will burn more fossil fuel. On the other hand, CCS effectively catches CO2 and removes it from the cycle, permanently. Or I should rather say, before I get corrected: CCS effectively prevents new carbon from entering the cycle. (By the way, France has coal plants with CCS as well). The earth/human society/the economy is a complex system of communicating vessels. The only thing that matters in the end is not how much CO2 reduction we can get from one power plant, but the global amount of CO2 reduction we can achieve. The common assumption is: many small measures will result in one big change. My question is: Is that so ? Why do you believe that CCS can remove 85% to 90% of CO2 emissions? That's what CCS manufacturers claim. Perhaps it can’t. The point is: for every ton of CO2 that enters the atmosphere, a ton should be removed. CCS is a really good start, since it removes CO2 at the source: where it is produced. What is the real reason you are anti-nuclear. I challenge you to challenge your beliefs - your underlying fears. You may not have noticed it, but for the sake of my argument, nuclear and green energy are exactly the same: they are what is called in economics “substitutes” for fossil fuel. A substitute may replace an earlier product. Or it may not. It depends on a lot of conditions (whether the substitute is actually better, cheaper, and of course it depends on the demand for the good). I have indeed issues with nuclear energy, but in this discussion they are irrelevant. Firstly, you need to prove that a solution actually works to solve a problem. If it does, we can discuss about advantages and disadvantages. If it doesn't work, it doesn't make sense to discuss any further.
  15. What should we do about climate change?
    Peter Lang wrote : "We require nuclear to be 10 to 100 times safer than coal? Why? We accept the safety of coal, so why do we demand that nuclear be 10 to 100 times safer?" Well, that's quite a range you have there - is that for different countries ? And anyway, coal plants are there now but perhaps might not be in certain locations if present-day regulations had been in force when they were originally built, and that would be fine by me. Would you be happy to have limited regulations for all dirty/dangerous power plants or only for nuclear ones ? But, even so, an accident in any nuclear power plant has got to have the potential to be at least anywhere between 10 to 100 times worse, if the worst were to happen. Or can you guarantee that the worst won't happen ? Plus, looking for lists of industrial accidents, mainly in the energy sector, the list for nuclear is a long one - the only similar comparisons for scale of disaster come with the coal and oil industries. I have yet to find any lists of disasters with regard to the renewable sector. List of Industrial Disasters List of Civilian Nuclear Accidents List of Civilian Radiation Accidents Who would rather be living next to a nuclear power plant than any other form of energy plant, if the worst were to happen ?
  16. What should we do about climate change?
    #198: "fail dismally when implemented on a large scale as in Denmark, Spain and Germany." The study used to show Denmark's wind 'failed dismally' appears to be a product of the same fossil fuel industry lobby mentioned in #196. A press release from the Institute for Energy Research (IER) indicated that it had commissioned the report ... If there is a flaw in the Danish system, it would seem to be an obvious fix: Return the revenue from exported power to the consumer.
  17. gallopingcamel at 01:24 AM on 1 November 2010
    What should we do about climate change?
    As someone trained in "Radiation Safety" and with years of experience overseeing operations involving radiation at lethal levels, I have the greatest respect for safety issues. Today's nuclear power plants are demonstrably much safer than any of the alternatives available, including wind power. No professionals in the nuclear power industry are advocating reducing radiation safety standards; all we want is for the licensing process to be made comparable with the regulations covering fossil fuel plants.
  18. What should we do about climate change?
    @gallopingcamel: what about decentralized power production by consumer-producers, which wind and solar power allow? Isn't it better to spread out power production, using the same philosophy as the Internet, and empowering citizens in the process, or do you only support large corporations?
  19. What should we do about climate change?
    Peter Lang: Can anybody name any non-nuclear power generation accidents? Not building nuclear power plants is certainly irrational but the level of public protest against building a nuclear vs coal powerstation does not bear comparision so it is no surprise that more nuclear plants are not built. If you want to confront protesters with your shouts of "But it's 100 times safer than coal!" feel free. It's not comparisons of safety that the public make but comparisons of fear. "Which is more scary, coal or nuclear?" has long been answered by the public to the detriment of the latter. It's not the people at this website who plan power station building, it is the politicians who think that renewables are the sole solution. In 20 years time when a large number of renewable projects have been built even Greenpeace will grudgingly accept the necessity of nuclear as part of the solution. As for the practice of denial I don't think that 'our side' is immune but I would hope that they would be more likely to admit it and change when presented with evidence and not rhetoric. If we didn't follow the evidence we wouldn't be here engaging the skeptics. I favour solutions that recognize reality and that is that nuclear is not going to happen yet, not a fantasy land where building renewables is going to stop and we are all going to begin a massive nuclear program. It is that reality that you seem be be in denial of.
  20. What should we do about climate change?
    @Peter Lang: "We require nuclear to be 10 to 100 times safer than coal? Why? We accept the safety of coal, so why do we demand that nuclear be 10 to 100 times safer?" Because the potential threat is higher as well. The greater the threat, the higher the security threshold must be. Anyone would be more concerned about the safe handling of C4 as opposed to some firecrackers... "And the same people who call climate sceptics “deniers” practice denial themselves." Wait, aren't you one of the people who'd call climate skeptics "deniers" as well? I mean, you *do* believe that AGW theory is correct, right? Following your logic, wouldn't that mean you're in denial yourself?
  21. gallopingcamel at 01:14 AM on 1 November 2010
    What should we do about climate change?
    archiesteel, (#209), Burning fossil fuels makes very poor use of an important resource and that is why I advocate building a large nuke each week or a small nuke each day. In the long run fission power is inevitable unless something even better such as fusion (Hot or Cold?) comes along. This is simply a matter of economics based on the fact that fission fuel reserves dwarf fossil fuel reserves.
  22. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    michael sweet #116 I can't find an equation for the 'WV and Ice Albedo feedback' which is stated for AD2005 at +2.1W/sq.m. I could make an estimate that it is linear back to zero back 255 years to AD1750 - or some other relationship (logarithmic? inverse square?) Please advise if you know this relationship. Read this again: "Dr Trenberth - a leading scientist (of travesty fame) uses a figure for positive feedback of +2.1 W/sq.m (Water Vapor + Ice Albedo), and a Figure of -2.8W/sq.m for S-B radiative cooling derived from the assumption of a 0.75 degK surface temperature rise since AD1750 which is importantly assumed to be approximately the same as the increase in the Earth's radiating temperature since AD1750." and "The positive feedback term of +2.1W/sq.m from Water Vapour and Ice Albedo implies a higher surface temp increase than the radiating Earth temp increase - which is the proposed 'enhanced greenhouse effect of CO2GHG interacting with Water Vapour' - I presume. It seems that the two are inconsistent. Would anyone care to comment on this?" I think I have covered the point. How can it be assumed that the S-B temperature increase around the Temp which the Earth radiates (assumed at 255 degK) is the same as the surface Temp increase (both 0.75 degK), if the enhanced greenhouse effect is already operative and producing a differential across the atmospheric column? If there is a WV + Ice albedo feedback of +2.1 W/sq.m then the surface temp increase of 0.75 degK should be significantly greater than the S-B radiating temp increase, should it not? Does not the enhanced CO2GHG theory state that for a doubling of CO2 we should see an approx 3degK surface temp increase for a 1 degK increase in the S-B radiating temperature. Now we have not had a doubling of CO2 at AD2005 wrt AD1750, but if there is a WV - CO2 feedback working then the surface temperature increase should be larger than the S-B radiating temp incease right now.
  23. What should we do about climate change?
    JMurphy, “I agree with MichaelM, and cannot understand how anyone can be advocating the relaxation of rules and regulations concerning nuclear builds - that is definitely the best way to put people off, especially if they believe they don't have a proper say about whether a nuclear power plant is going to be built in their own vicinity.” We require nuclear to be 10 to 100 times safer than coal? Why? We accept the safety of coal, so why do we demand that nuclear be 10 to 100 times safer? If the cost of the higher levels of safety was not an issue, then of course we would want it. But by running up the cost, as we have done, we make it more expensive than coal. Then it is uneconomic. So we stick with coal which causes 10 to 100 times more health effects and fatalities than nuclear per MWh. How dumb is that? Not only that, we continue to do so because of a phobia of all things nuclear. And the same people who call climate sceptics “deniers” practice denial themselves.
  24. Skeptical Science Firefox Add-on: Send and receive climate info while you browse
    I'm having a problem submitting a report. If I select an argument it turns yellow just as it should but if I then select view report no argument is listed. Also I can't select multiple arguments. If I select another one it goes yellow but the first deselects back to it's original colour. Any Ideas if it is something I'm doing wrong, a problem with my setup or a problem with this plugin? The site I'm trying to submit can be found here; http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/30/the-pinocchio-syndrome/
    Response: You submit each argument one at a time, not simultaneously. So select an argment, it turns yellow, hit the 'Send Report' button. At that point, the article is added to our database - you'll notice the 'Send Report' window will change. The text box for the Article Title and dropdowns for Type/Bias disappear. Now you can only add extra arguments. To do this, go through the same process - select an argument, hit Send Report.
  25. What should we do about climate change?
    Estimates of health effects of Chernobyl vary and it is difficult to attribute the exact cause of any cancer. However, also consider the economic impact: However, the magnitude of the impact is clear from a variety of government estimates from the 1990s, which put the cost of the accident, over two decades, at hundreds of billions of dollars.6 The scale of the burden is clear from the wide range of costs incurred, both direct and indirect: — Direct damage caused by the accident; — Expenditures related to: • Actions to seal off the reactor and mitigate the consequences in the exclusion zone; • Resettlement of people and construction of new housing and infrastructure to accommodate them; • Social protection and health care provided to the affected population; • Research on environment, health and production of clean food; • Radiation monitoring of the environment; and • Radioecological improvement of settlements and disposal of radioactive waste. — Indirect losses relating to the opportunity cost of removing agricultural land and forests from use and the closure of agricultural and industrial facilities; and — Opportunity costs, including the additional costs of energy resulting from the loss of power from the Chernobyl nuclear plant and the cancellation of Belarus’s nuclear power programme. Coping with the impact of the disaster has placed a huge burden on national budgets... Total spending by Belarus on Chernobyl between 1991 and 2003 is estimated at more than US $13 billion. Taken from Another WHO report
  26. What should we do about climate change?
    @Peter Lang: is your link supposed to tell us Chernobyl was no biggie? Because reading it sure doesn't make it sound like a breeze. Hint: thyroid cancer is no fun, even if you don't die from it. @GallopingCamel: so, you've gone from skeptic who didn't believe in CO2 warming the globe to gung-ho advocate of nuclear power as a way to reduce CO2 emissions. Did I miss something, here? Did Koch Industries buy a whole lot of shares in Nuclear companies? (I kid, I kid...) "As you said, wind, solar and photo-voltaic sound great in theory but fail dismally when implemented on a large scale as in Denmark, Spain and Germany." Yeah, except they don't. @quokka: the problem with Chinese dams is that they are often built in regions with high population densities. I'm not sure there'd be a lot of deaths if one of the dams in Northern Quebec was blown up, for example... @Eric (skeptic): Germans don't mind subsidizing renewables, which is why they're happy with the current push for solar energy. Don't let nuclear power fanatics tell you otherwise.
  27. What should we do about climate change?
    Did I mention that renewables also contribute to lower electricity prices? When they contribute to the grid, they lower the spot price as the most expensive other sources go off-line. The claim that you need "excessive" back up capacity for renewables is also a straw man, as you need similar back up capacity for conventional power stations.
  28. What should we do about climate change?
    I agree with MichaelM, and cannot understand how anyone can be advocating the relaxation of rules and regulations concerning nuclear builds - that is definitely the best way to put people off, especially if they believe they don't have a proper say about whether a nuclear power plant is going to be built in their own vicinity. And I still think there is something not right about a power source which leaves a by-product that has to be buried deep underground, and which leads to headlines like this in the UK : Lake District identified as prime site for burial of nuclear waste
  29. What should we do about climate change?
    "Politics is the art of the possible" and given the political climate it is impossible to sell the mass building of nuclear reactors. The public is prepared, at the moment, to pay extra for solar and wind. Give it another 20 years when temperatures are still rising and the, at present 70-year-old, skeptics have reduced in number and volume a larger program of building reactors will probably take place.
  30. What should we do about climate change?
    @203 "Chernobyl: the true scale of the accident", by World Health Organisation
  31. What should we do about climate change?
    CBDunkerson "And the primary point continues to be that disputing the safety of solar and wind in comparison to nuclear is just pathetic. What I think is pathetic is that you are not prepared to open your mind and understand. Why didn’t you answer the questions I put to you in #177, #178, #179. If you did, and read ant tried to understand the links I provided, you might begin to understand why nuclear is about the safest of all electricity generation technologies on a properly comparable basis. Nuclear is some 10 to 100 times safer than coal for generating electricity as you can appreciate from figure 1 in the link I provided. I point this out because coal is the only other technology, realistically, that can provide the electricity modern society demands. Just humour me and follow through on the energy risk analysis. Stop assuming you are correct before you’ve done some homework.
  32. What should we do about climate change?
    quokka, The New York Academy of Sciences says that earlier estimates "have largely downplayed or ignored many of the findings in the Eastern European scientific literature and consequently have erred by not including these assessments." IEEE Spectrum: One Million Chernobyl Fatalities? Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment The Banqiao and Shimantan Dam failures in 1975 were not an act of terrorism, but the result of a once in 2,000 year flood. The dams that were intentionally destroyed were coordinated for the purpose of protecting other dams by channeling the flood waters away. After the waters receded, the affected areas could be repopulated. The rebuilding project was finished in 1993 with an increased capacity. There is still a 30 kilometer area around the Chernobyl site that is cordoned off and patrolled by military forces, and an estimated five million people live in areas contaminated with radionuclides from the event.
  33. What should we do about climate change?
    quokka #199: Like Peter Lang, you are disputing an argument which was never advanced. The safety of nuclear vs fossil fuels is not in question. I had thought of the hydro dam possibility, but the potential death toll from a nuclear accident is just as great if not moreso. You cite Chernobyl, but that had a population of only about 14,000. A disaster like that, even if only likely to be triggered by some other catastrophe such as an attack or earthquake, in a major city would be far worse. And the primary point continues to be that disputing the safety of solar and wind in comparison to nuclear is just pathetic.
  34. What should we do about climate change?
    This was just posted on the BraveNewClimate web site by DV82XL, a Canadian contributor, and I thought some readers here might be intersted in the comment: @Gallopingcamel – First, and we have gone over this, there is no question that nuclear energy is less expensive if coal were held financially responsible for its environmental footprint, if only at the combustion end of the line. If every coal burner were forced to implement CCS, and vitrification of its ash stream , they would be out of business tomorrow. That they are not held fully accountable is the result of of a lack of legislation making them so, and that is a political issue, not an economic one. Trying to take an end run around this with some grand new design of NNP is just not going to work. Look. I have been in this fight for a very long time. I was active long before there was any talk of a nuclear renaissance – a time when one was regarded as slightly crazy even for considering nuclear energy as anything except undiluted evil. Thus those of us that were interested enough, and motivated enough, came to support nuclear energy for good solid technical reasons, and because we could think for ourselves. Yet I learned that attempting to appeal to reason only convinced a very limited number of people, and they would have probably convinced themselves, had they bothered to look into the subject prior. Attempting logic and facts with the doctrinaire antinuclear zombies, provoked not anger from them, but only giggles, so incapable were they of independent thought. And those that were in nether of the above groups had been so thoroughly brainwashed with the precautionary principal, and nonproliferation propaganda that they were unreachable without a lot of effort. Things have changed. The climate, has become the collective worry for the future, replacing thermonuclear Armageddon, and without much effort from our side, people are beginning to give nuclear energy a more nuanced look, more so than they have for decades. The antinuclear movement had become complacent and had not overhauled their arguments for years, and it shows. So it looks like nuclear energy might have a second chance.Great. But now everyone that was out in the cold designing reactors, planning fuel cycles, and such thinks that they have a shot, and are cutting each others throats attempting to sell their vision of how nuclear energy should be developed. Meanwhile they are loosing sight of the fact that the war is far from being won, and our enemies are regrouping. Right now it is a political duel between nuclear power and coal power – just look around the world – the countries with the most rabid (and effective) antinuclear movements are the ones with major coal sectors, (China excepted) this is not a coincidence. The coal industry is using their right to employ money-amplified free speech to persuade the world that nuclear energy is evil and that continued use of their product is mankind’s wisest course of action. This is where the fight is. The problem is this is a big enough battle as it is, and we do not have the advantage of having a huge industry behind us. So what is our response? To balkanize ourselves into camps backing one new technology or another, losing the support of what little backing we had from the established industry, and diluting the effort to build new reactors which at this point is the only practical path open to us. To do this we must win the hearts and minds of the masses, and you will not do that by floating technical arguments, and you won’t do that writing checks with your mouth that you expect your undeveloped designs to cash. We have to be out there vilifying coal and salving the fears people have with nuclear, as it is now. The future will come, it will, but not until the groundwork has been laid, and nuclear power is brought in from the cold.
  35. Danish translation of the Scientific Guide to 'Skeptics Handbook'
    Thanks for the Dutch translation, an excellent effort.
  36. gallopingcamel at 16:32 PM on 31 October 2010
    What should we do about climate change?
    archiesteel (#193), You are so right! The way forward is to avoid putting all one's eggs in one basket. To do that one needs to use technologies that have sound fundamental economics. Ones that can only survive until the subsidies run out make no sense. Right now hydro and coal can survive without subsidies. Nuclear is already economic in some countries (e.g. France, China and Russia).
  37. What should we do about climate change?
    @CBDunkerson "Yes, there are numerous safety precautions taken with nuclear power... precisely BECAUSE it is so very dangerous. No matter how 'safe' those precautions make it there is still a possibility of error or disaster which simply does not exist with renewable power. Imagine a terrorist attack on a wind farm... worst case scenario it takes out the power and maybe some cows get crushed by falling wind turbines. Things could be just a bit worse with a nuclear plant. Radiation release. Stolen radioactive materials. Possible meltdown." When all is said and done, risk needs to be quantified and balanced in the context of sometimes competing constraints. It goes without saying that the elephant in the risk room is dangerous climate change which will have consequences that are many orders of magnitude worse than that from any conceivable nuclear incident or indeed any other conceivable industrial accident. If one had to make a choice between another Chernobyl scale incident and 5C warming over the next 100 years, there could only be one rational choice. Did the Chernobyl incident make even one species extinct? Impossible to quantify, but the increased death toll this year alone from extreme weather events exacerbated by warming, has very likely exceeded the death toll from Chernobyl by a very large margin. There is good reason to believe that another Chernobyl is unlikely. Modern Gen III+ reactor designs have a probability risk assessment of a core damage incident (core melt) of order of 1 in 10^7 years of operation and of large radiation release of the order of 1 in 10^8 years. This is a couple of orders of magnitude better than the US NRC requirements. Some might say with some justification that it's not such a great idea, but heavily modified RMBK (Chernobyl design) reactors are still operational and haven't gone bang. Nobody will ever build anything like RBMKs ever again. They had a very high positive void coefficient with the accompanying risk of high thermal positive runaway feedback. Modern PWRs have a negative void coefficient. Much is made of the threat of terrorist or military attack on NPPs. Consider the effect of catastrophic damage by an attack on a large hydro dam. In 1975, the Banqiao dam in China collapsed killing 26,000 people directly and another 145,000 from famine and disease in the following weeks. In contrast, the death toll from Chernobyl is probably still under 100. I've never heard of objections to hydro on the grounds that it might be a military target, but the consequences could be just as bad or worse than completely pulverizing a reactor core and injecting a large proportion of the radioactive materials into the atmosphere. Why the double standard and where is the rational attitude to risk? Remember, hydro is a renewable. I'm not trying to minimize the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster, and am aware that there is a bigger story than just the number of dead. Any attempt to trivialize nuclear safety is plain dumb. What I am calling for is a rational attitude to risk which seems to fly out the door as soon as the word nuclear is mentioned.
  38. gallopingcamel at 16:25 PM on 31 October 2010
    What should we do about climate change?
    Peter Lang & quokka, Thanks for your devotion to pointing out the contribution that NPPs can make to improving our lives while reducing CO2 emissions. Our fossil fuel based civilization is in a race against time to find new sources of power. As you said, wind, solar and photo-voltaic sound great in theory but fail dismally when implemented on a large scale as in Denmark, Spain and Germany. Someone has to take it on the chin to convince the rest of us to try something else. It reminds me how great communism appeared to be until it was put into practice. For you "Renewables" advocates, don't feel too bad; some of us spent many years working on fusion power but that proved to be another "crock" at the end of a rainbow. Remember that "LFTRs are what fusion power wanted to be!"
  39. What should we do about climate change?
    KR @187 “Peter Lang - If you have no wind for weeks at a time, then you have the wrong power mix. There should be solar plants in the network as well, possibly "in place of"”. That would be even more expensive and still would not provide a reliable power supply without fossil fule back up. Nuclear = $4,000/kW (based on recent contract for 5400 MW in UAE Or, for equivalent dependable power supply: Wind = $2900/kW (ABARE, 2010) Solar thermal = $8,000/kW (Andasol 1) Grid enhancements = $1,000/kW Gas back-up = $1000/kW Total for wind and gas = $12,900/kW for equivalent dependable power.
  40. What should we do about climate change?
    #194: "That is why the gas industry loves renewables and promotes it like mad." No, that's not what happened in Texas, where wind is cutting into fossil fuel industry profits: the growth of wind in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) over the next three years will reduce the growth in gas consumption nationwide by an amount equivalent to 12.5% of the average annual growth in U.S. gas consumption over the last five years. ... The growth of Texas wind will have a more modest impact on the growth in generation from U.S. coal and gas plants, slowing the annual growth in gas-fired generation by 7.6%, and in coal-fired generation by 4.2%. And from Scientific American, April 2010: With their lower prices, wind producers are pushing gas generators out of the market, Gülen said. "That's why gas plants are complaining," Chang said. "All the traditional resources are complaining." The notion that 'wind doesn't replace coal' is very popular on a coal lobby website with ties to a The Institute for Energy Research, a lobbying group that is happy to spread the usual tripe about climate researchers: ... issues that are perceived to be an imminent crisis can mean more funding. The more threatening an issue is perceived to be the more likely it is to receive funding. Crises like the sensationalized climate change scenarios provide issues that ensure headlines ... This has little to do with the nuclear discussion. But the fossil fuel lobby clearly has an agenda that is tilted against wind. Don Quixote: Dost not see? A monstrous giant of infamous repute whom I intend to encounter. Sancho Panza: It's a windmill. Don Quixote: A giant. Canst thou not see the four great arms whirling at his back?
  41. Hockey stick or hockey league?
    Dr. Mandia @1 is being too modest ;) Go here to read Dr. Mandia's excellent overview of paleo reconstructions (some derived using no tree ring data or Mann's methods) all of which all have hockey-stick shapes...and that list is by no means comprehensive. Yet, more Hockey Sticks than you can, well, shake a stick at. It is almost 2011-- time for the "skeptics" to get with the times and move on. The real scientists have...and a long time ago now too.
  42. Eric (skeptic) at 14:05 PM on 31 October 2010
    What should we do about climate change?
    #193 archiesteel, you said "Germans are quite happy with their move to solar". From the following article, it sounds like the Germans who are happy about solar are the 500,000 Germans who are subsidized by their neighbors. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/03/31/31greenwire-slashed-subsidies-send-shivers-through-europea-32255.html "Currently, utilities must buy solar power at 39 euro cents (52 U.S. cents) per kilowatt hour for 20 years. That is nearly eight times the market price, and the difference is passed on to consumers, who pay an average $5 extra each month in electricity fees per household. The feed-in tariff turned 500,000 Germans into profitable residential energy producers."
  43. What should we do about climate change?
    Muoncounter @182, you quoted "White, 2007: The normalized CO2 emissions, in tonnes of CO2 per GWeh, ranges from 14 to 33 for the wind systems, 974 for coal, and 10 and 34 for nuclear fission using gas centrifuge and gaseous diffusion enriched uranium, respectively." The figures for coal and nuclear are about correct (there is a range of estimates of course but these are in the ball park of what is well established). However, the wind figues are not comparable because wind power cannot substitute for coal power; only nuclear can do that (to any significant extent). As quokka pointed out, wind power does not shut down fossil fuel power stations. In fact, it demands more of them be built to back up for the wind power. That is why the gas industry loves renewables and promotes it like mad. That is why the gas industry funded the "Zero Carbon Australia - Stationary Energy Plan".
  44. What should we do about climate change?
    @quokka: "I find it impossible to find any sense in this." That's because Europeans still remember Tchernobyl, and (justifyable or not) are wary about the safety issues with nuclear. In any case, Germans are quite happy with their move to solar, and they expect to push capacity to 66 GW by 2030 (about 10% of the power consumption). "China in particular is building 80 GW of nuclear by 2020." They also plan on having 100 GW of Wind power and 20 GW of Solar power by that time (combined, 50% more than nuclear). Their PV cell-making factories are also becoming more efficient, churning out PVs at reduced cost. See, the Chinese aren't dumb. They know that putting all your eggs in the same basket, as you and Peter Lang seem to be advocating, is foolish. You also have yet to tell me how I can put a Nuclear reactor on my farm, while I can already install wind turbines and PVs in order to be a consumer-producer. *That* is the true revolution in renewables, i.e. the ability to decentralize production. Funny how, in your shameless sales pitch for nuclear, both you and Peter Lang avoid talking about this. A mixed solution is ideal. Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is really speaking on behalf of a particular industry (an immoral act).
  45. What should we do about climate change?
    Very often the people who believe and advocate the extreme alarmist views of the dangers of climate change are the same people who propagate alarmist views about nuclear power. This damages their credibility. I’d urge contributors to take this point seriously. I’d urge you to seriously look at the evidence about nuclear power in a similar way as you believe you have done on climate change.
  46. Hockey stick or hockey league?
    I don't know anyone that shows THE Hockey Stick (Mann et al 1998/99) to a newcomer in order to educate them on climate change. The only reason we're talking about a 12-year old study that has been superseded (and generally corroborated) by newer studies is because the skeptics believe that the TAR graphic changed human consciousness and political will on climate change. The discussion they propagate is political, rather than scientific. Science has moved on, but they cannot.
  47. Hockey stick or hockey league?
    Great post, John. I think it's worth keeping in mind why the deniers so viciously attack the HS and anyone who supports it. While John is obviously right in saying, "the original 1998 hockey stick by Mann, Bradley and Hughes didn't prove that humans are causing global warming", the simple fact is that if you show the HS to a climate science newcomer he/she will instantly leap to exactly that conclusion. I've seen it happen. Even if these newbies reach an accurate conclusion via faulty logic, it's still a devastatingly effective visual aid. Therefore, the deniers conclude, it MUST be neutralized, via whatever means necessary. And we've already seen them resort to some cringe-inducing means, with more to come, I'd guess.
  48. What should we do about climate change?
    CB Dunkerson @176 You say:
    defining 'safety' based on what HAS happened in the past rather than what COULD happen in the future.
    Please explain what you believe COULD go wrong? How many fatalities? What is the probability of such an occurrence (immediate and latent fatalities per TWh and over what time period)? Why do you believe the ExternE study is wrong? Please explain why the researchers who contributed to ExternE (and the many other authoritative studies around the world over the past 40 years) have it wrong? Have you considered that perhaps it is you that is biased, rather than those who have actually looked seriously at the authoritative studies (as distinct from those who have simply accepted, without questioning, the material published by anti-nuclear groups).
  49. What should we do about climate change?
    Sorry about the repeat send of a previous message. I am not sure why this is happening.
  50. What should we do about climate change?
    CBDunkerson "And that's despite a ridiculously pro-nuclear bias, limiting the study area to exclude all previous nuclear disasters, and defining 'safety' based on what HAS happened in the past rather than what COULD happen in the future?" Clearly, you haven't understood. But you could hardly expect to in 10 minutes. Here is the link to ExternE? http://www.externe.info/ . You probably need to start here because you have no understanidn about the subiect.

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