Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2101 2102 2103 2104 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 2116 Next
Comments 105401 to 105450:
-
Peter Lang at 20:15 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
JMurphy, I'd suggest you need to decide which you believe is more important: cutting emissions substantially or prohibiting nuclear power. The choice is that simple. Get to grips with it. If you are on this web site you clearly believe you are capable of objective research and analysis. So this is a new topic to get your teeth into. How can we cut emissions by the amounts and on the time scale I presume you believe is necessary, realistically? -
Stephen Baines at 20:12 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
I actually don't get what Thingdonta is on about here at all. As scaddenp says, it's clear from the data that the run up in temperatures was faster prior to the PETM than was the reduction was slow afterward and that ocean chemistry changes were relatively fast. If Thingdonta is going to question those points he/she needs to provide some references for us to look at. I also don't get the whole argument that the geological record reveals that things always chagne slowly. The sudden changes in northern hemisphere temps during the last glacial cycle (ocean current shifts) clearly shows that the geological record, when sufficiently time resolved, can reveal very fast and large dynamics - faster even than todays. That such sudden and large changes are not often observable in much of the geological record says more about the limits of that record than it does about the time scale and amplitude of actual dynamics. I also thought the report was pretty clear on a number of points that thingadonta seems to think it ignored - like the role of CO2 as an amplifier rather than a driver of glacial interglacial dynamics, of the fact CO2 has little to due with sudden climate change in Greenland. Both are completely consistent with our current thinking on the current effects of CO2 and mentioned in the text. As for Dolomite deposition in response to increasing CO2 -- I'm not clear how increasing acidity through CO2 would promote Dolomite formation. I was taught that such precipitation happened when conditions become more alkaline, not more acidic. Also wouldn't formation of dolomite reduce alkalinity (and increase acidity) by removing base cations and bicarbonate? I'm confused there. -
JMurphy at 19:58 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
quokka wrote : "Apologies for being off topic, but I find it difficult to take neocon beatups targeted at the next Middle Eastern war." I don't know what you mean but the political aspect of nuclear power is one of the drawbacks that its most ideological supporters always fail to mention. A country like Iran wishes to produce nuclear power under its own control and without any assistance from other countries, as a means to provide a replacement for oil. Presumably it is also doing so without the so-called restrictions of health and safety regulations, planning, etc. so despised by the fans of nuclear. This would seem to place Iran firmly within the 'nuclear, do or die' fan-club. Also, if it does come to pass that nuclear is allowed to be expanded without petty restrictions (although who decides which are petty and which aren't, is another question unanswered), then who decides which countries are allowed it and which countries aren't ? Or does that not even have to be considered, because it is so essential that we build nuclear now ? Are we are going to 'get into bed with anyone', as long as they are pro-nuclear and willing to build ? Where is the dividing line and who decides ? So, going all-out for nuclear allows Iran to build nuclear too, yes ? -
thingadonta at 19:19 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
My main point is this. Strong AGW proponents generally look at the geological record and claim that what is going on now is faster than before, so things are generally going to get worse then before (or just as bad as before, but only if it was bad enough before). There are several major problems with this reasoning. Take a look, for example, at scaddenup's post in #4 "If it went 6 degrees in 1000 year for same size pulse (at 55Ma), then getting 6 degrees in 200 years is going to be a whole lot worse." 1. We don't know it went up 6 degrees in 1000 years at 55Ma. The resolution is not <5,000 years. 2. Even if it did, then how will it go up 6 degrees in the next 200 years (a five fold rate of increase, or a 25 times rate of increase from 5,000 years) with the same size pulse?. Shouldn't it be 5,000/1000 years? He takes linear projections of current rates, compares them with past unknowns up to 25 times or more that rate, and claims an outcome worse than ever. This is self-reinforcing reasoning, like a stereo mic screeching on feedback. The geological record generally indicates that major climate changes associated with c02 generally occur slowly, even under similar size emission rates as human c02 today. AGW proponents, see this past geological data, and the last several decades of climate changes and emission data, and based on linear projections, conclude that what is happening now has therefore never happened so fast, and so things, by inference, are going to get a whole lot worse than before. But there is another (more valid, for mine) possibility; the reason that climate changes haven't occurred as fast before, even with similar size c02 rate pulses (e 55Ma, 183 Ma, Zeebe et al 2009), is that there are negative feedbacks that kick in to slow the rate of climate change, which negative feedbacks have not yet been observed, understood or incorporated into the IPCC models. The time frames within the geological record, rather than imply that things are 'much worse' now, actually support this contention. It is the same sort of inconsistency with Lovelock's recent statements (and his recent book) about his Gaia hypothesis. He originally claimed the Earth was (like) a self-regulating organism-meaning there are negative feedbacks that negate pertubations within the Earth system. But as far as recent climate change is concerned, he has now abandoned these negative feedbacks, and claims, in contradiction to what he said before, and the basic foundation of his whole idea, that the Earth, essentially doesn't self-regulate and there are essentially no effective negative feedbacks. He also can't claim the rates are now too severe for the Earth to 'cope', because these same feedbacks operated in previous similar climate perturbations, which he himself has described. These sort of inconsistencies will come throuh the major journals with time, because they are irrefutable. The mics are screeching too loud for people not to ask the sound be turned down. The basic foundation of the geological record, as noted by Darwin and Lyell, is gradualism. The geological record is fundamentally a slow process (yes, with major pertubations, described like a soldier's life-long periods of boredom punctuated by short periods of terror). The catastrophists (for mine, similar to today's AGW proponents) were the ones who were resisting evolution by natural selection, not the gradualists, partly because they wanted to speed things up, and partly because they couldn't handle natural change, as opposed to human-controlled change. For mine, the same sort of mentality has unfortunately infused today's climate change science. -
scaddenp at 18:54 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Oh, and further on projecting linearly. You seem to be assuming that rates of temperature will DECREASE because of some possible negative feedback. However, the evidence is that most of the feedbacks are positive. Furthermore AR4 models mostly didnt include carbon-cycle feedbacks as they are slow (but positive). So no, cant project linearly - the heating rate may INCREASE as carbon-cycle feedback cut in- and they come into play long before geological negative feedbacks do.We sure hope that current thinking on methane hydrates hasnt over-estimated their stability. -
Peter Lang at 18:41 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Australia prohibits nuclear energy and subsidises coal, gas, and renewables. The NSW Government is attempting to privatise its government owned fleet of electricity generators. To try to get the maximum price on the sale it is guaranteeing coal at about half price and is opening a new government owned coal mine to supply it - for $1.3 billion (that's a lot of money in Australia). Wind power is subsidised by well over 100%. Solar is subsidised by about 1000%. Government is subsidising transmission to wind power sites (by $1 billion). That is what the anti-nuclear and pro-renewable forces are achieving. The fossil fuel industry loves renewables. It means fossil fuels will continue. The fossil fuel industry realises, even if the general population doesn't, that renewables are just a useless token gesture and they cannot operate without fossil fuels. -
dorlomin at 17:37 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
thingadonta at 14:54 PM on 3 November, 2010 This is exactly why the Royal Society has retracted its position on Climate Change recently, = = = = = = = = = = = You may be working to a different definition to retraction to me, all I seen was a clarification. -
dorlomin at 17:35 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
IIRC the 120 and 183 million year ago events referenced in the article are closely related to anoxic oceanic events that created the conditions for the formation of some of the worlds most famous oil provinces. Ironic really. -
chris1204 at 17:25 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
From the comments policy: 'No accusations of deception. Any accusations of deception, fraud, dishonesty or corruption will be deleted. This applies to both sides. Stick to the science. You may criticise a person's methods but not their motives. •No ad hominem attacks. Attacking other users or anyone holding a different opinion to you is common in debates but gets us no closer to understanding the science. For example, comments containing the words 'religion' and 'conspiracy' tend to get deleted. Comments using labels like 'alarmist' and 'denier' are usually skating on thin ice.•No politics. Rants about politics, ideology or one world governments will be deleted. •No profanity or inflammatory tone. Again, constructive discussion is difficult when overheated rhetoric or profanity is flying around.' Now from Marcus: 'What a load of hogwash, Thingadonta.' and 'Now, *you* might be prepared to gamble our future in order to protect the profits of the fossil fuel industry, but many of us would prefer to adopt a more rational position!' I'm sorry to say it but none of this passes for civilised discourse. It certainly doesn't fit in with my interpretation of the comments policy. Of course, it's pretty normal for the blogosphere - hence, people are desensitised. I'm picking out Marcus today but other commentators on other threads can be just as feral. -
Peter Lang at 17:23 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
quokka, I also checked the 200,000 figure but I calculate the equivalent would be about 30,000 wind turbines (on an equal total energy basis). I suspect my figures is higher than yours because you may have forgotten that the wind turbines have an expected life of 20 years and the NPP 60 years, so you need to multiply your figure by 3. -
Peter Lang at 16:51 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
quokka's comment: "The figure in the article of equivalence to 200,000 2GW wind turbines is wrong. Probably more like 10,000 which is still a lot." gives me the opportunity to explain another point that is often not properly understood. It's pedantic regarding quokka's comment but an important point for those who think wind and solar can provide our electricity supply. Wind turbines on their own cannot replace any (virtually any) nuclear or fossil fuel capacity. The reason is because wind power is not 'dispatchable'. What this means is that wind cannot be 'dispatched' (or directed) by the electricity market operator to supply the power needed at the time needed. The confusion comes because of the commonly made claim "the wind farm will provide the energy to power x homes". The statement is false. This is on the basis of energy. But we also need the power at exactly the time it is demanded. Wind and solar cannot provide that. The statement should say: "the wind farm will generate sufficent energy over a period, so that if the energy could be stored and dispatched on demand, it could provide the power demanded by x homes at all times." -
gallopingcamel at 16:28 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Barry Brook (#277) is pointing out that if you want to get something done (as opposed to exchanging hot air with one another) you need to welcome all kinds of people into your tent. Yes, even camels! -
gallopingcamel at 16:23 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Rob Painting (#283), Forcing governments to waste money is not a problem. The problem is to persuade those in government to spend our tax dollars with the same restraint as they spend their own. -
Marcus at 16:13 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
For the record, Thingadonta, a retraction would read like this: "we unreservedly apologize to the people of the world for asserting that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are the primary cause of recent global warming. There is, in fact, insufficient evidence to back this claim. We also apologize for asserting that global warming will persist into the future-if CO2 emissions fail to be curbed." Now, I've read their document fairly closely, & I see no such retraction. So if you're going to make that claim, could you at least quote the relevant passage? -
Peter Lang at 15:54 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Could those advocating solar power and wind power - as the better way to reduce CO2 emisisons from electricity generation - please show me the effect of solar power and wind power on a country's CO2 emissions; and also show the cost per tonne CO2 saved. -
Marcus at 15:50 PM on 3 November 2010Hockey stick or hockey league?
Ken Lambert, it may well be that you could get a good correlation between Chinese GDP & Delta T (actually, you wouldn't, because the upsurge in GDP has only been in the last 10 years-whereas the warming upsurge began in 1979, & can be traced back to 1950), but that would be insufficient; you'd then need some kind of scientific theory that showed the correlation was meaningful. In this case we have basic chemistry (burning C(x)-H(x+2) in oxygen generates CO2) & basic physics (the C-O bond in CO2 is very good at absorbing long-wave radiation as it tries to escape out into the vacuum of space). We also have the negative correlation between CO2 emissions & stratospheric temperatures-which further backs up the original positive correlation between CO2 & tropospheric temperatures. Certainly, when it comes to the regurgitation of material, the Denialist Cult has everyone beaten-hands down-& that regurgitation is usually of the same, pseudo-scientific nonsense that has been debunked elsewhere. I guess though that, in the absence of any *alternative* theory for why global temperatures are rising in the face of falling sunspot numbers, that's all the Denialist Cult actually has! -
Marcus at 15:36 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
What a load of hogwash, Thingadonta. When talking about future impacts, we aren't even looking at geological time-frames. Nor can we assume that the same negative feed-backs will come into play (as the current warming is outside of the natural cycles). Indeed, given that two of the key feedbacks from warming will be *positive*-like our oceans having reduced CO2 uptake & a reduced ice-albedo effect-its likely the future trends are an *underestimate*. If the warming trends we've seen-during a period of solar quiescence-are anything to go by, though, then the best case scenario doesn't look very promising (namely a further warming of approximately +1.0 to +1.5 degrees between now & the end of this century). If, however, the sun leaps into a period of increased activity (which also suggests reduced cloud albedo) & those other positive feedbacks I mentioned come into play, then the worst case scenario becomes an "all bets are off" situation. Now, *you* might be prepared to gamble our future in order to protect the profits of the fossil fuel industry, but many of us would prefer to adopt a more rational position! Also, please stop repeating that piece of Denialist Propaganda about the Royal Society retracting its position on Climate Change. Those of us that were paying attention know full well that they did nothing more than reiterate the case for AGW, & the reality of future uncertainty. What they did say, though, was that "though things might not turn out as bad as we think, they might also turn out *worse* than we think". Funny how the denialists never mention that bit! -
Albatross at 15:31 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Thingadonta @12, "Negative feedbacks can kick in- such as a dolomite precipitation increase in the oceans to offset acidity" Can, could, might. Can we deal with reality please? Also, please support your assertions with facts and numbers from the reputable literature. Really, making such unsubstantiated assertions boils down to nothing more than wishful thinking on your part. "This is exactly why the Royal Society has retracted its position on Climate Change recently" Simply not true. Honestly, I don't think it is worth engaging you if you are going to blatantly misinform like this. I could critique more of your misinformation (e.g., claims about simply extrapolating current temperature trends, or nonsensical claims about linearity), but perhaps someone else might have more patience than I do. -
scaddenp at 15:26 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Again, look at the data. No, you cant assume linearity - the models dont. However, the PETM data does show you that betting on geological negative feedbacks is futile. The temperature went up with the CO2 injection, all the way to 6 degree which accords with models. The geological negative feedback to reduce it happened over 100,000 year time scale. Look at the figures in that paper I referenced. So far you betting on some great unknown invalidating physics models that work perfectly well for the geological record. Sounds like a very high risk proposition to me. -
thingadonta at 14:54 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
"By contrast, recent warming has occurred at the rate of between +0.12 per decade(last 60 years) to +0.16 per decade (last 30 years)-which represents a much more rapid rate of warming-" Yes, but you can't project this rate indefinitely, you would be assuming linearity. To determine whether such a linearity assumption is correct, you need longer time scales, such as the geological record. (Eg Negative feedbacks can kick in- such as a dolomite precipitation increase in the oceans to offset acidity). The geological record shows that such earth processes generally take longer time scales, meaning that it is "highly likely" (to borrow an IPCC term) that the linear assumptions of AGW projections, based on empirical data on the timescales of recent decades, cannnot be projected into the future with any deree of certainty. This is exactly why the Royal Society has retracted its position on Climate Change recently, stating we cannot know, or project, with any degree of reliability of certainty, what is going to happen in climate in the next 100 years, based on skeptical scientific objections based on data like the geological record, from its own members.Response: We examine elsewhere exactly what the Royal Society has to say about climate change. -
scaddenp at 14:03 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Thingadonta - what you dont see in the PETM data is anything resembling much a lag between the rapid CO2 rise and the rapid temperature rise. BOTH went up (and ocean acidified) fast enough to test limits of rate determination in analysis from sediment cores. Maybe it was 1000, maybe 5000, MAYBE less??. But not 10000. The important thing is that the record confirms what you would expect from the physics - shove a whole lot of methane into the atmosphere and temperature are going rise quickly. We are seeing that kind of temperature rise now. -
Rob Painting at 13:54 PM on 3 November 2010The Grumble in the Jungle
For the IPCC statement to be correct, the claim has to originate in peer-reviewed literature. It does not And your stipulation originates from where exactly?. This from the IPCC AR4: "The Working Group II Fourth Assessment, in common with all IPCC reports, has been produced through an open and peer-reviewed process. It builds upon past assessments and IPCC Special Reports, and incorporates the results of the past 5 years of climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability research. Each chapter presents a balanced assessment of the literature which has appeared since the Third Assessment Report[1] (TAR), including non-English language and, where appropriate, ‘grey’ literature". The Amazon reference was within an AR4 Working Group 2 assessment, and the aforesaid "grey literature" is based upon peer-reviewed science. Sorry, but invoking the Chewbacca defense, is not part of a rational discussion. -
muoncounter at 13:48 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
#288: "How effective has nuclear power in France been in mitigating CO2 emissions?" From the World Nuclear News? Well, at least that's different from coalpowermag.com. #289: "France's CO2 emisions" Again, I cite eia.doe.gov CO2 Per capita (metric tons per person) 1980 - 8.9 1990 - 6.33 2000 - 6.56 2008 - 6.48 But let's not split hairs; these are way better numbers than the US (19-21 tons per capita). It's just not one-to-one that CO2 drops as nuclear goes up. -
scaddenp at 13:46 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Agnostic - if the primary forcing is change in solar than CO2 amplifies this through a slow feedback. The orbital variation that changes solar is happening all the time - but it is very slow and so are CO2/CH4 feedbacks. However, at PETM, you had a massive injection of CO2 (probably originally CH4 that then oxidized). Whatever the initial trigger, it was this that warmed it. -
Marcus at 13:45 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
For the record, if temperatures rose by 6 degrees in the space of 1,000, then that equates to an average rate of +0.06 degrees *per decade*. By contrast, recent warming has occurred at the rate of between +0.12 per decade(last 60 years) to +0.16 per decade (last 30 years)-which represents a much more rapid rate of warming-in spite of the lack of the obvious forcings in past climate change events (like long-term volcanism & Milankovitch cycles). -
Peter Lang at 13:34 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Muoncounter "Oddly enough, France's CO2 emissions have slightly increased since 1990; during this 20 year period, your IEA graphic shows that their nuclear power grew by about half." France's CO2 emisions in 1990 were 6.06 t CO2-e/capita and in 2008 were 5.74 t CO2-e/capita. -
thingadonta at 13:31 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
#4 scaddenup "...but the important bit is how high did temperature go. If it went 6 degrees in 1000 year for same size pulse, then getting 6 degrees in 200 years is going to be a whole lot worse." No, the important thing is the rate, not the magnitude, that is basic physics. We don't know that it went 6 degrees up in 1000 years at 55Ma, let alone 6 derees in 200 years. You are mixing up AGW dogma with what we do and don't know. The question is: what is the rate, not: "the rate is X....therefore its going to be worse". Many AGW proponents do this, they confuse results with theories, and theories with results: if you are trying to determine a projected outcome of an unknown rate, you dont approach the issue by saying: this is the outcome therefore this is the rate. -
Riduna at 13:28 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
In its conclusion, the statement refers to a change in the position of the earth relative to the sun, prompting the release of atmospheric CO2, That may explain why ice cores show CO2 lagging temperature but I do not see how the geological record shows which was responsible for global warming - change in the earths’ position relative to the sun or increase in atmospheric CO2. How do we know if CO2 was the trigger or only the amplifier? Should we be concerned that in the absence of a shift in the earths’ position relative to the sun, rising atmospheric CO2 is begining to increasingly trigger-happy? -
quokka at 13:26 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Oddly enough, France's CO2 emissions have slightly increased since 1990; during this 20 year period, your IEA graphic shows that their nuclear power grew by about half.
But not by burning fossil fuels in electricity generation. Electricity production has gone up but emissions from it have not. France's CO2 emissions from electricity generation are, from memory, ~80 grams/kWh. Denmark for example is in the range 500 to 800 (figures vary according to source). I really don't understand what you are getting at. How effective has nuclear power in France been in mitigating CO2 emissions? Try this: French reactor reaches generation landmark "To place one PWh (the lifetime production) in context with other sources, it is roughly equal to the amount of electricity obtained from burning either 350 million tonnes of coal, 220 million tonnes of oil or 60 billion cubic metres of gas." "The nuclear reactors at Gravelines have saved 1000 million tonnes of carbon dioxide that would have been emitted to the atmosphere had coal been burnt instead. The high-level waste from the plant – which has been subjected to reprocessing – fills a volume about one-third that of an Olympic-sized swimming pool." The figure in the article of equivalence to 200,000 2GW wind turbines is wrong. Probably more like 10,000 which is still a lot. -
Peter Lang at 13:24 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Rob Painting @283 You might want to read from the start of the thread. We can't go over all this again. For your benefit, the principal points are: 1. nuclear is the least cost way to make substantial and sustained cuts to emissions from electricty generation 2. only nuclear can be built fast enough at the scape required 3. renewables cannot do the job required and are unlikely to be able to in the forseeable future. They cannot replace fossil fuel electricity generation 4. Nuclear is about the safest of all electricity generation technologies when compared on a properly comparable basis. It is about 10 to 100 times safer than coal generation, and we accept coal as safe enough, although we'd always like better. So that is the standard. But 10 to 100 times safer is ridiculous, given that by demanding that we've made it so expensive we cannot afford to have it at all. We'd prefer coal, it seems. 5. Subsidies for renewables are very high given the insignificant amount of energy they generate. Nulcear subsidises renewables in most polaces and also subsidises coal in Germany. 6. We need to make low emissions electricity generation as cheap as possible to speed up the rate of cutting emisisons world wide. Raising the cost of electricity is exactly the wrong policy. See previous posts on this thread, and the links, for substantiation of these statements. -
Peter Lang at 13:11 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Daniel Bailey @267, "However (there always seems to be a however, doesn't there?), let's be pragmatic. While an end-goal of 100% of energy needs supplied by NPP can be an admirable goal (if there exists no other practical alternatives no wean us off fossil fuels), in the world most of us inhabit there exists no possibility of that happening." Firstly, I never advocated 100% nuclear! So let's get that straightened out for a start. Second, you say (with my rephrasing) "in the world most of us inhabit there exists no possibility of [a high proportion on NPP] happening. It will take time to get there. Three decades from when we start. So, I agree that will not happen in the world we inhabit now. I am arguing it is where we should be heading. It should be the vision we are striving for. So we should put the policies in place to be heading in that direction, not trying to prevent them (as most people clearly are). If a remarkable breakthrough is made with renewables systems (generation, storage and transmission), then certainly, we will adapt the plan. But there is no sign of that happneing and to wait means we keep emitting more CO2 for longer. "in the world most of us inhabit there exists no possibility of that happening." It is go nuclear or continued high emissons. Take your pick. Which do you want? Renewables are not viable (except as a token gesture). I get the impression that despite your statements about black or white on DAGW advocacy etc, you'd prefer to chat than actually tackle the problem. It seems you'd prefer to have higher emissions than nuclear. That is the impression I get from the chat by many on this web site. By the way, I'll tell you something else that is not going to happen "in the world most of us inhabit there exists no possibility" that renewable energy and energy efficency will have much impact on cutting GHG emissions! That is the reality. Refer to: Replacing Hazelwood Coal Power station Zero carbon Australia – Stationary energy plan - Critique Emissions cuts realities -
scaddenp at 13:09 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Whoops, make that C13 CO2. -
muoncounter at 13:00 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
#3: "They nowhere mention aspects of the geological reord that do not fit the paradigm that human c02 causes rapid, onoing (little/no negative feedback) climate change." On the contrary, they do mention that current conditions do not fit within constraints established by the geological record. This is well-researched and very clearly presented: While these past climatic changes can be related to geological events, it is not possible to relate the Earth’s warming since 1970 to anything recognisable as having a geological cause (such as volcanic activity, continental displacement, or changes in the energy received from the sun). This recent warming is accompanied by an increase in CO2 and a decrease in Arctic sea ice, both of which – based on physical theory and geological analogues - would be expected to warm the climate. --emphasis added. Human activities affecting geological scale changes? As a geologist, that should alarm you. -
Shub at 12:59 PM on 3 November 2010The Grumble in the Jungle
It is pretty clear, Rob. Only it is not correct. For the IPCC statement to be correct, the claim has to originate in peer-reviewed literature. It does not. In making a claim, it has to first originate and be grounded from a substantive source, and the reference cited for the claim should directly refer to that source - pretty basic stuff in science. The IPCC claim on the Amazon fails both tests. As it is evident, the basic premise of your article rests on taking Nepstad's word for it. These issues have been discussed at length, and at several venues. -
quokka at 12:58 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
#280 JMurphyI wonder where you would draw the line at such a devil-may-care attitude ? Is it OK for Iran to embrace that "energy synergy" ?
And would you trust the only nation to have used nuclear weapons and the nation that has threatened to use nuclear weapons on more occasions than all other nations combined to be the arbiter of who shall and shall not use nuclear power? Most of the non-aligned nations think not. Apologies for being off topic, but I find it difficult to take neocon beatups targeted at the next Middle Eastern war. -
scaddenp at 12:52 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
thingadonta - can I recommend Zeebe et al 2009 and its cites? Getting rates out of geological records is indeed difficult but the high-res Walvis ridge record would suggest <5000 years and maybe <1000 years. I cannot see how you can conclude that this means rate in past infer no danger now. In past in might be assumed that CO2 feedback raised temperatures slowly because the feedback cycle is slow (not for PETM however), but the important bit is how high did temperature go. If it went 6 degrees in 1000 year for same size pulse, then getting 6 degrees in 200 years is going to be a whole lot worse. Note that CO2 injection was 'fast' as was the temperature rise - as you would expect from the physics. Note too, contrary to what you state, that the ocean chemistry change was exceedingly fast - it is the ocean chemistry change that is marker after all. I'd say the record was on the contrary warning that you can produce very fast change. You can infer that from basic physics and chemistry as well. While the article might raise some questions for you, you will see that published science it is based on does not have the holes you infer. For instance, the source of CO2 is inferred from stable isotopes - its not from natural marine cycle. PETM has some major mysteries - what caused the depleted-O13 CO2 injection and how it was sustained. However, the effects of such a change of ocean chemistry, biodiversity and global climate are no mystery at all - they merely confirm what physics and chemistry would predict. -
muoncounter at 12:43 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
#281:"decline in CO2 emissions starting in 1979" EIA data for international CO2 only goes back to 1980, but the US data show that CO2 emissions fell as early as '74-75. That was a direct consequence of the Arab oil embargo after the 1973 war. Oddly enough, France's CO2 emissions have slightly increased since 1990; during this 20 year period, your IEA graphic shows that their nuclear power grew by about half. Just a thought, in view of Barry's Brook's comment: Since the AGW deniersphere doesn't find CO2 to be a problem and they tend to worship the fossil fuel industry, what are their opinions on the nuclear future you propose? Are pro-nuclear folks hammering away at them with as much vigor as we've seen here? -
Rob Painting at 12:40 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
At the same time they are forcing governments to waste extraordinary amounts of money and national wealth on subsidising renewables. - Peter Lang How do they force governments to waste money?. And why do fossil fuel subsidies keep getting conveniently neglected when discussing subsidies?. -
Peter Lang at 12:31 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
CBDunkerson @265, ” This in response to a post (#238) wherein I advocated the use of nuclear power; "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." It is simply impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who CONSTANTLY makes false statements about the very content of the dialog. Your advocacy of nuclear power is SO combative and SO irrationally over the top that you actually manage to turn OTHER advocates of nuclear power off it.” OK. I get your point (and others have made the same point). I’ll try to clear it up once and for all, and then let’s stop winging about how I argue the case I am trying to put. My impression is that the anti-nuclear and renewable advocates have dominated energy policy for the past 40 odd years. And their dominance is increasing not decreasing. To support this statement I point out that all the so called environmental NGOs are strongly anti-nuclear and strongly pro-renewables. They want nuclear banned, and/or they want to apply so many impediments to it that it is not competitive. At the same time they are forcing governments to waste extraordinary amounts of money and national wealth on subsidising renewables. For no significant benefit. That is the political and policy environment we are in. My position is I want to see an economically rational level playing field. I also believe 40 years of damge has to be recovered and society will have to pay to correct the massive mistake it has made. So, yes, society in the western democracies will have to take the necessary steps, including some subsidies to nuclear until it can be competitive again in the western democracies. The precedent has been set with the massive subsidies we’ve paid to renewables, so arguing this case should not be opposed. My position is we need a level playing field for the selection of electricity generation technologies. We should define our requirements and then establish a fair and balanced regulatory regime for all technologies on an equal basis. If renewables can do the job, that is great. That is my position regarding how the technologies should be selected for each new generating opportunity. This it is an extension and improvement to the Australian Energy Market Operator’s “Statement of Opportunities” . On a different track, I consider what technologies are best able (now and in the forseeable future) to meet what I believe are our requirements. From what I know: 1. coal generates about 80% of Australia’s electricity. Baseload amounts to about 75% of our electricity consumption. 2. Nulcear is best able to replace coal and meet our requirements for baseload electricity. 3. Nuclear and pumped hydro could meet all our requirements now. That would provide very low emissions electricity, and at the least cost (if we removed the impediments). 4. Solar and wind cannot provide baseload power. They are unlikely to be able to for a very long time, if ever. I doubt solar will ever be viable for baselod generation. 5. We are wasting enormous amounts of our wealth chasing the renewable dream. 6. I support a mix of technologies as long as it is economically rational 7. I expect an economically rational mix of technologies to generate electricity to meet the requirements of the Australian National Electricity Market (NEM) would comprise something like: 80% nuclear and pumped hydro, 5% hydro, 15% wind and biomass (if we could implement it now). 8. I am not sure about the 15% wind and biomass; I may be being generous. Anything more than this I believe would be irrational. That is my advocacy for a mix of technologies. I agree with you. However, I suspect you are advocating a much higher proportion of renewables than I am just because you want them and don’t like nuclear. I also suspect you want the government to mandate the higher proportion and to subsidise it, just because you believe in it. If so, I hope you will now be prepared to argue the case on a rational basis. -
thingadonta at 12:26 PM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
A couple of points about the Geological Society of London Statement. On page 4 it states there was a 'sudden' warming event 55Ma. 'Sudden' is a very ambiguous word in geological terms. The paper doesn't give a rate of what this warming was, but it does give a rough rate of time for the Earth to recover-100,000 years. The rate of warming could have been about as slow/fast, which would mean there would be no danger to human societies from current C02 emissions. They also state on page 5 that the rate of increase in C02 55Ma and also in the Jurassic 183Ma whuch lead to 'abrupt' warming, was about the same as current human c02 emission rates. 'Abrupt' is another ambiguous term in geological terms. Again, they nowhere state what the actual rate of 'abrupt' or 'slow' warming was, 55Ma and 183 Ma. If it occured over tens of thousands of years, as some research papers have indicated, there is no danger from 'similar' rates of human c0o2 emissions. The paper mentions the abrupt shift in climate in Greenland in ht epast, but this was not from c02 emissions. They mention that both the reducing c02 in the atmosphere and changes in ocean circulation patterns around Antartica drove cooler temperatures over the last 50 Ma. They don't however delineate which is the more important, but do note eleswhere that c02 follows coean circulation patterns, and does not drive them. So C02 drawdown in the last 50 Ma may have had very little effect on the growth of Antarctic Ice, but rather simply follows cooler ocean temperatures. The amount of positive feedback from c02 is not stated. Also: They nowhere mention aspects of the geological reord that do not fit the paradigm that human c02 causes rapid, onoing (little/no negative feedback) climate change. They nowhere mention that ocean chemistry changes in the geological record took up to tens of thousands of years during 'similar' rates of c02 emissions at 55ma and 183 Ma that they say are occuring by humans now, meanning there is no danger of human c02 emissions causing major rapid ocean acidification on human timescales. They nowhere mention that as oceans cool or warm, they release c02 as a function of c02 solubility with temperature. This means they haven't differentiated how much c02 follows temperature changes, and how much is causes temperature changes. They only note a correlation, and implicitly assume c02 is main driver of temperature, and not the other way round. Correlation is not causation, but they fail to mention this key aspect entirely. Too many holes in the paper to take seriously, and as a geologist, I am disheartened by their level of bias towards AGW, whilst not addressing the weaknesses in the science. -
quokka at 12:23 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
#279 muoncounter You can see the timeline for the deployment of NPPs in France here: Electricity generation by fuel: France The decline in CO2 emissions starting in 1979 looks highly correlated with the NPP deployment over a couple of decades. The IEA electricity generation by fuel charts for most countries are available here: http://www.iea.org/stats/index.asp -
JMurphy at 12:13 PM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Barry Brook wrote : "But if other people have other motivations, so what? Great, in fact! Common ground here is key. For instance, if a particular political party like the US Republicans love nuclear power, but are dismissive of climate change, then let's embrace the energy synergy and have them support climate action in an indirect way. We're not going to get anywhere by demanding absolutism, and your comment on there being no grey area is therefore dangerously misguided." I wonder where you would draw the line at such a devil-may-care attitude ? Is it OK for Iran to embrace that "energy synergy" ? -
Manwichstick at 11:59 AM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Great post btw -
Manwichstick at 11:58 AM on 3 November 2010Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record
Start stopwatch.... How long til someone posts "paleo data is unreliable" "too many uncertainties..." Ho hum. -
muoncounter at 11:42 AM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
#278: "France’s CO2 emissions per capita changed from trending up to trending down in the 1970’s, which happens to be when the rate of commissioning new nuclear power plants accelerated." Just about everybody's CO2 emissions dropped in the late 70's and early 80's due to the Arab oil embargo. Too soon to be due to France's switch to nuclear, which began as a result of those oil price shocks: The present situation is due to the French government deciding in 1974, just after the first oil shock, to expand rapidly the country's nuclear power capacity. -
Peter Lang at 11:29 AM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Dear Ann, @263 you asked: ” ”Peter: The point I am making is that if we allow clean electricity to be cheap, it will displace oil for transport and gas for heating and, therefore, reduce emissions from all fossil fuel use. “ I completely understand the point you are making. I am asking you to provide proof that your hypothesis is correct: If we provide enough cheap energy (e.g. nuclear), that it will automatically make mankind turn away from fossil fuel (even with fossil fuel still available in substantial amounts). Until now, reality proves otherwise (see France and see worldwide CO2 emissions). What makes you think it will be different in the future ?” Good question. I hope the following will address your question. The source of the data used below is IEA http://www.iea.org/co2highlights/ Download the Excel file. I’ve compared the CO2 emissions per capita and per GDP for France and Germany. These two countries are industrialised, have similar standard of living, climate, population density, vehicles, transport, road distances etc and they share the same electricity grid. I am sure you can find differences, but are they significant? If so, please quantify how much difference they make to the conclusions I draw below. Item France Germany Fr/Ge Nuclear proportion of electricity generation 76% 23% 3.28 kg CO2 per capita (total energy) 5,743 9,789 0.59 kg CO2 per capita (electricity and heat ) 792 4,107 0.19 kg CO2/GDP US$ (exchange rate) 0.24 0.38 0.63 kg CO2/GDP US$ (PPP*) 0.29 0.59 0.49 population (million) 64.1 82.1 0.78 * PPP = purchasing power parity Comparing France with Germany, we can see France has: - three times higher proportion of electricity generated by nuclear - 59% the CO2 emissions per capita from all domestic energy consumption - 19% the CO2 emissions per capita from electricity and heat generation - 49% the CO2 emissions per GDP US$ (exchange rate) - 78% the CO2 emissions per GDP US$ (PPP) Conclusion: France, with three times higher proportion of electricity generated by nuclear, has much lower CO2 emissions than Germany’s on every measure - and five times lower from electricity and heat generation. It is clear, that the high proportion of nuclear is the reason for France’s low emissions. It is also interesting that France’s ratio of emissions from electricity to emissions from heat (mostly gas) is much higher than in Germany. Item France Germany Fr/Ge GWh/person (consumption) 7275 6400 1.14 TJ/person (consumption) 2456 5317 0.46 France emits 14% more CO2 per capita from electricity than Germany, but emits only about 46% as much CO2 per capita from heat generation. In France, electricity has displaced fossil fuels for heating to a greater extent than in Germany. As electricity becomes cheaper, the displacement of fossil fuels by electricity will be become faster (Economics 101). Therefore, if we want low emissions electricity to replace fossil fuels (world wide not just in the developing countries), then we need to make low emissions electricity as cheap as possible, not raise its cost. This chart compares the trend in per capita emissions of Australia, France and Germany from 1960 to 2006 I draw the following conclusions: 1. France’s CO2 emissions per capita changed from trending up to trending down in the 1970’s, which happens to be when the rate of commissioning new nuclear power plants accelerated. 2. Australia’s emissions per capita have continued to trend up and levelled off about 1998. We have no nuclear power. To me it is clear. We need low cost, low emissions electricity, and we need to implement it as fast as possible to displace fossil fuel energy use. The main focus must be on providing low cost clean electricity for the developing world. We must lead the way in the developed countries and develop and prove the technologies to meet that requirement. We must focus of providing low cost clean electricity. Raising the cost of clean electricity is exactly the wrong policy. I agree we should regulate emissions but not as the first step. The first step must be to remove the impediments to a level playing field for all electricity generators. We need to remove the impediments to nuclear. If we don’t do that we’ll paper over the issue and leave many of the imposts in place, and they will never be removed. That, of course, is exactly what the anti-nukes are striving for. Nuclear will remain far more costly than it should be. So the roll-out of low emission electricity generation will be slower. The reduction in world emissions will be slower. That is all economics 101. The sort of impediments and regulatory distortions to the market that are blocking nuclear in Australia are: 1. nuclear power is prohibited 2. high investor risk premium because of the politics 3. Renewable Energy Targets 4. Renewable Energy Certificates 5. Feed in Tariffs for renewables 6. Subsidies and tax advantages for renewable energy 7. Subsidies and tax advantages for fossil fuel electricity generators 8. subsidies for transmission and grid enhancements to support renewable energy 9. massive funding for research into renewable energy 10. massive subsidies for research into carbon capture and storage (CCS) 11. Guarantees that the government will carry the risk for any leakage from CCS 12. No equivalent guarantee for management of once-used-nuclear-fuel 13. Massive subsidies and government facilitation for the gas industry, coal seam gas and coal to gas industries (despite the latter leaking toxic chemicals into the ground water and the Great Artesian Basin water) 14. Fast tracking of the approvals process for wind power, solar power, gas industry, coal industry while nuclear industry remains banned from even fair comparative studies by Treasury, Productivity Commission, ABARE, Department of Climate change and more. We can just imagine what the approvals process would be like for a nuclear power plant! -
Barry Brook at 11:24 AM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
Daniel Bailey said:Let there be no mistake on this: there exists no play, no grey area, no middle ground; either you acknowledge the science and CO2's role in the warming we empirically see, or you don't. Black and white. It doesn't make you an advocate of AGW in the same sense that you advocate for NPP's. But it will either restore some needed credibility to you, or take it away completely should you disavow it.
This is a strange position to take. Of course climate change is a strong motivation for society to eliminate its dependence on fossil fuels. But if other people have other motivations, so what? Great, in fact! Common ground here is key. For instance, if a particular political party like the US Republicans love nuclear power, but are dismissive of climate change, then let's embrace the energy synergy and have them support climate action in an indirect way. We're not going to get anywhere by demanding absolutism, and your comment on there being no grey area is therefore dangerously misguided. -
scaddenp at 11:16 AM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
BP - solar PV is expensive, no doubt about it. However commercial solar power either uses concentrators on panel, or more commonly solar thermal for electricity production, which is much, much cheaper. A blanket "solar energy is not economically viable" is false. Do you object to the idea that all subsidies on fossil fuels should be dropped for starters so we have a level playing field. -
quokka at 10:33 AM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
#271 Peter Hogarth Here is an interesting development in fast reactors: "The idea of constructing a prototype Prism small modular reactor at the US Department of Energy's (DoE's) Savannah River site in South Carolina is to be jointly explored by GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) and Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS). "As part of a proposed demonstration of small reactor technologies that could take place at Savannah River, GEH and SNRS (partnership between Fluor, Northrop Grumman and Honeywell) signed a memorandum of understanding to consider the Prism design (Power Reactor Innovative Small Module)." Prototype Prism proposed for Savannah River -
Rob Painting at 10:29 AM on 3 November 2010What should we do about climate change?
In other words, solar energy is not economically viable at all. For government support is not for free, it is financed by tax money. So the logical extension of this line of thinking is that fossil fuels, which are heavily subsidized, are not economically viable either.
Prev 2101 2102 2103 2104 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 2116 Next
