Recent Comments

Prev  2101  2102  2103  2104  2105  2106  2107  2108  2109  2110  2111  2112  2113  2114  2115  2116  Next

Comments 105401 to 105450:

105401. michael sweet at 07:25 AM on 30 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Ann, If we had a carbon tax it would reduce carbon mining right away and make use of nuclear or renewables more cost effective. One reason fossil fuels are so cheap is because they do not pay for all the damage they do. A carbon tax could charge them for the mess they make. The carbon tax could be adjusted until fossil fuel use was at what was decided is a good level.
105402. Ann at 07:14 AM on 30 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Dunkerson, #136 I'm not sure this is true. A switchover to nuclear (or renewable) power would certainly stop the ongoing rise of fossil fuel prices... but I don't think it would cause them to reverse course. This isn't just a 'supply and demand' issue after all. Rising fossil fuel prices have been driven by increasing extraction and transportation costs. Neither of those would go down if we were suddenly using less fossil fuel... indeed, they would probably go up. You may be right. Although fossil fuel prices are at least partly controlled by speculation (remember crude oil prices rising steeply in the beginning of 2008). The point is: will we ever reach the stage that alternative energy has become so cheap that part of the fossil fuels will not be mined at all, since it isn’t economically interesting ? That mines will be closed before they are exhausted ? As we see the efforts in Canada to extract oil from tar sands in spite of the enormous amount of energy it costs, it doesn’t seem that way.
105403. Tarcisio José D at 07:02 AM on 30 October 2010
        Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
        The water vapor in the atmosphere plays the role of GHG but also has the job of conductor of heat as is a locomotive pulling a train heating. To solve the problem of global warming we need a mechanism to pierce the layer of GHG taking the heat for the top. This work is carried by water that evaporates from the soil. Unfortunately our soil is impermeable. “What should we do about climate change?” We need to fix the environment's thermostat. The negative feedback for an incoming heat is provided by water vapor. See for yourself on this animation:
        
        
105404. Ann at 07:02 AM on 30 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        KR #134, 135 Nothing is "instant". We are, first of all, stuck with some amount of additional warming based upon the climate moving to equilibrium with the CO2 we've already emitted; another 40-60 years worth. And we don't have the gazillion dollars sitting around to replace every power plant, car, truck, ship, train, etc. this year. I understand every change takes time and it wouldn’t be fair to demand that the changes must take place now or not at all. I am not against renewable energy, reducing energy consumption, reducing ecological footprint etc. And I fully understand the need to take action. But I am asking questions as to the actual effect all these measures will have, as all proposed measures to fight climate change are indirect: installing more nuclear power, installing solar/wind power SHOULD theoretically reduce the use of fossil fuel. Will it ? When can we expect to see the first effects, an actual reduction in the worldwide use of fossil fuels ? When will we have the first proof that this approach actually works ? Reducing our ecological footprint SHOULD reduce global energy consumption. But will it ? Or to use my party analogy again –probably to the aggravation of some people- : If a couple of people at the party decide they will not eat the cake, are you sure there will be more cake left at the end of the party ? My experience at parties is different. The cake is gone at the end of the evening, no matter what. I think measures to fight climate change should be targeted at a direct reduction of carbon/CO2 from the carbon cycle (atmosphere, oceans, land) . Because in the long run that is all that matters. The other measures will only slow down global warming, but will not stop it. Your "instant off" calls (my interpretation, mind you) are the kind of thing that make people throw their hands in the air, say "Can't be done!", and go away But on a site like this- skeptical science – We should at least be allowed to ask some skeptical questions ? We musn’t censor ourselves and say: these issues you cannot bring up, these questions you cannot ask.
105405. scaddenp at 07:00 AM on 30 October 2010
        Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
        Also Richard " they ought to be deducted from the anthro emissions budget. ". Human contribution to GHG gas rise is determined by isotope ratio not budgets (natural CO2 cycle is tricky).
105406. KR at 06:37 AM on 30 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Peter Lang - There are a set of requirements for useful large scale wind and solar power, namely: - Average capacity matched to average demand, meaning that peak wind/solar production could be considerably higher, but won't always be dropping below demand levels. - Long distance transmission lines to average regional variation. Long range DC power lines, supplies in areas 100's of miles apart, so somewhere wind is hitting turbines. - Energy storage. You mentioned only hydro; there are also the large battery systems, molten salt systems, reverse hydro using mines, isobaric pressure storage, and so on. Storage is reasonably inexpensive on the scale for minute, even hour time frames (local surges/sags), fairly expensive for day scale, and probably unreasonably expensive for week long power dips. But at the very worst, if storage was not available in sufficient quantities to cover lengthy supply down times, it would be easily sufficient to buffer both ramp-up and ramp-down times of fossil fuel backups. Especially if the power utilities watched the weather, and predicted potential dips prior to them occurring! Expensive? Perhaps - change is always at a price. Avoiding CO2 emissions via wind/solar? Definitely. Your 70% fossil fuel uptime figure seems extremely high; I suspect you're scaling the solar/wind resource capacities at peak power rather than average. And - whenever the fossil fuel system isn't running, we aren't contributing CO2.
105407. Peter Lang at 06:13 AM on 30 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        muoncounter @143 "I can't seem to find any mention of backup generators at any of the Texas windfarms." The fossil fuel generators that are connected to the grid have to be cycled to 'firm' for wind power. When the wind blows, the power from fossil fule generators has to be cut back. Whe the wind power decreaes, the power output from the fossil fule generators has to increase. Where we have sufficient hydro capacity and energy storage, then hydro energy can be saved when the wind blows. This is expensive.
105408. Peter Lang at 06:00 AM on 30 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Ann @130, “First let’s discuss your proposal to fight climate change” No, those are your words not mine. My proposal is for cutting CO2-e emissions, not fighting climate change. The connection is for others to make. I am also advocating the transmission from fossil fuels to nuclear for many reasons: energy security, cheaper electricity in future to power a world that wants a better life, health and safety, reduced use of resources and others. “Fossil fuel will continue to be used until all reserves have been depleted. Don’t you agree with that assumption?” No. The Stone Age didn’t end because we ran out of stones. It finished because we developed better technologies. We have the better technologies now, but for reasons best known to those involved, part of society wants to ban its use. Ann, perhaps it is time for you to reveal your agenda. If it involves trying to get the wealthy nations to make a major lifestyle change, then good luck. That is not a realistic option. It is so far from being realistic there is no point in discussing it. @106 you said “I think it’s admirable that Denmark has such ambitious goals concerning renewable energy, and if they achieve these goals it will be a lesson and an example for many countries.” This statement is wrong and displays a complete misunderstanding of the actual situation with renewable energy in Denmark as pointed out by quokka at #116.
105409. Peter Lang at 05:40 AM on 30 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Archiesteel @132 “@Peter Lang: "Renewables cannot make any significant contribution now or for a very long time, if ever." That is a political statement, not a scientific one. It's hard not to think you don't have a personal stake in Nuclear Power when you make such sweeping declarations. I do not have any personal stake in nuclear power. But I have crunched the numbers. I reiterate the statement I made and you quoted. It is the unfounded belief and advocacy of renewables that is political. A details proposal for making Australia’s energy emissions free by 2020 using renewable energy was published recently. Zero carbon Australia – Stationary energy plan - Critique For some reason all the effort is in advocating renewables and opposing nuclear. This is irrational. Non-hydro renewables provide about 1% of our energy and cannot provide much more because of their intermittent nature and not viable storage. Nuclear can directly replace fossil fuel electricity generation. Nuclear has a far lower footprint and mentioned in an earlier post. It is the advocacy of renewable energy and the opposition to nuclear that I find is the political movement. Those behind the movement are the same ones that got us into so much trouble so many times before, including setting back by at least 40 years the transition from fossil fuels to emissions free energy
105410. muoncounter at 05:39 AM on 30 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        #141: "not much if any because of the extra emissions from the fossil fuel back up generators" I can't seem to find any mention of backup generators at any of the Texas windfarms. I'm not doubting your numbers, but why is there no mention of what would have to be 9.4 GW backup generator capacity?
105411. h pierce at 05:15 AM on 30 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        dr2chase @110. Get out an atlas and study the US and Canada which are really big countries. Once out the cities the land opens up and goes on forever and there are large distances between small cities, towns, and villages in the rural areas. Much of The US and Canada is very cold in the wintertime and riding a bicycle is risking sure death. BTW, how much food can you carry on bicycle? There are lots of national and state parks which can only be accessed by a car or truck. How do you get the kids to hockey practice at 5 AM in the wintertime? Or other sporting events in various cities? About every other vehicle on the interstate highways out of the cities is a freight truck. In Canada there are freight trains coming into Vancouver about every 30 minutes bringing bulk commodities suchas grain, sulfur, metalurgical coal, potash, shipping containers, chemicals for export to eastern countries. The reason people like their cars is quite simple: A car is absolute freedom and nothing is ever going to change that. When was freedom day for you?
105412. Peter Lang at 05:07 AM on 30 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Daisym @103 How much CO2 emissions are avoided by wind generation? The answer is not much if any because of the extra emissions from the fossil fuel back up generators. Here is a short explanation. Look at the links above for more and for the numbers. 1. The answer is complicated if looked at in detail. It changes as the penetration of wind power increases. The proper way to do such analyses requires a Loss of Load Probability analysis. However, that is way beyond what we can do here. So lets simplify: 2. Assume we have a grid who’s generation capacity is comprised of wind and gas only 3. Peak demand is 1GW (we’ll reserve the reserve capacity margin for now) 4. Average annual capacity factor for wind is 30% 5. High wind season is 6 months long and average capacity factor is 40% 6. Low wind season is 6 months long and average capacity factor is 20% 7. Wind power can drop at up to 20% of installed capacity per hour (over a large area of wind farms). look at the wind farm performance charts for August (Google ‘windfarmperformance’) 8. We need roughly 1 GW of gas capacity to back up for 1 GW of wind capacity (we can argue about the details of that statement later). So we need the capital investment for 1GW of wind (about $2.9 billion on current Australian costs, ref ABARE, 2010) plus about 1GW of gas turbines (about $1 billion), plus grid enhancements (about $1 billion). 9. If gas generators could back up for wind power with no efficiency penalty, gas would provide roughly 70% of the energy. 10. To get the least emissions from the gas generating system we need to use the higher efficiency combined cycle gas turbines (CCGT). But they cannot start and stop as quickly as the open cycle gas turbines (OCGT). So we need a mix of both. Ideally, during the low wind period, we’d have about 800MW of CCGT. During the high wind period we’d have mainly OCGT. However, we need more OCGT to be able to follow wind changes. It happens that the mix requires more installed capacity than just OCGT alone. 11. Having wind in the system requires us to have more OCGT (higher emissions) than if we did not have wind. So this is one reason the emissions are higher than the wind industry would have you believe 12. Another reason is that because wind power can drop so quickly, and the operators do not know when it is going to occur or how far or how fast the power drop from the wind farms might be, they have to be conservative and keep more gas turbines on standby, on spinning reserve and part loaded than they would if there was no wind power in the system. 13. When a gas turbines is running part loaded, it is less efficient and consumes more gas (emits more CO2) than when it is fully loaded. The Ken Hawkins Calculator explains all this very well) 14. Gas turbines consume fuel (and emit CO2) when starting and stopping. More starts and stops are required when backing up for wind than if there is no wind in the system. 15. When you put it all together, the total emissions from the back up generators with wind power are little different than if there was no wind power. With coal in the mix, and forcing them to cycle as we are doing in Australia causes the emissions to be even higher than with a gas only back-up system. 16 Three studies have been conducted where the actual fuel used was measured. These studies were conducted in Netherlands, Colorado and Texas. The studies have been compared with the calculator output and show the calculator output is good. The references are provided in the link I provided above. Hope this provides some background. If you want more on this, can I encourage you to read the material I’ve linked because it is not easy to write it all, and keep every detail correct, in a blog post.
105413. Peter Lang at 04:47 AM on 30 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Daisym @103 "Government is heavily subsidizing wind and solar, but what effect will use of wind and solar have on global temperature? Is this giving us enough "bang for the buck"? Will it stop the increase in global temperature, or merely slow it down? We're not being told. I doubt that anyone has done the calculations, else why haven't we been told?" The calculations have been done. Wind power avoids little if any GHG emisisons. The cost per tonne CO2 avoided is very high. Cost and quantity of greenhouse gas emissions avoided by wind generation Emissions cuts realities
105414. erikbays at 04:02 AM on 30 October 2010
        It's cooling
        This page is correct that this is the best overall way to measure the Earth's heat, but in terms of the global warming discussion this argument is disingenuous. The IPCC sets the terms for the discussion. It is their argument that must be validated or disproven. The skeptics are simply responding to them. For example, when the IPCC makes a statement such as, "current temperatures are probably warmer than any other time in 1,000 years," or "The current rate of warming is unprecedented," this is based on a comparison with historic surface temperatures. According to the NAS even surface temperatures from proxies like tree rings are not that reliable earlier than about 500 years ago. But there is no way at all to get total ice volume or temps from specific layers of the ocean from the medieval warm period or earlier. For all we know, if we take all this into account, we might not be warming that much at all right now compared to 1,000 years ago. Skeptics talk in terms of surface temperatures because that is how the IPCC tends to talk. To respond to the skeptics with this argument is comparing apples to oranges.
        Moderator Response: This topic is addressed on the page Hockey stick is broken.
105415. Daniel Bailey at 03:49 AM on 30 October 2010
        It's not bad
        @ DSL (70) Don't blame John for that one. The, um, moderator was trying to keep from having to delete archiesteel's comments and to provide a teaching moment at the same time. I'm sure the moderator would appreciate it if you can think of a more appropriate way to have handled it.. And I'm sure the same mod appreciates you taking 'the road to Loch Lomond' (the high road). ;)
105416. DSL at 03:21 AM on 30 October 2010
        It's not bad
        Oh, transjasmine, where art thou? You said, on an inappropriate thread, that the proper argument was whether or not CO2 was dangerous, and that where humans are has nothing to do with anything. Briefly: there's a very good chance that warming will decrease global land ice and cause thermal expansion of the world's oceans. The resulting sea level rises would then force significant numbers of people away from their coastal homes. In some cases, the rise may cause significant migrations of people over national borders. Nationalist attitudes in target countries will hinder this migration and intensify the migratory pressure. Forced migration will be in addition to the pressure of migration by choice, as people with means will choose to move northward to avoid the longer, hotter summers. John, "bait" is a pretty strong word for this situation. That's a pretty tired worm, and, as a fish, I'm to the point where I don't have the heart to bite this one even gently.
105417. michael sweet at 03:18 AM on 30 October 2010
        The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
        Ken: It appears to me that you do not understand the terms in the equation you are trying to use. I have not loked at this equation carefully before and have only your description to go on. It seems to me that the equation follows the heat and not the temperature. You calculate the change due to the measured increase in temperature as 2.8 w/m2. The 2.1 w/m2 is the measured increase in water backradiation and lowered surface albeido. The other atmospheric forcings are estimated at 1.6 w/m2. It adds up to a net forcing of 0.9 w/m2. Your interpretation of no insulating effect of the atmosphere seems to me to disregard the water backradiation and the other forcings. Trenberth has separated the insulation effect from the radiation effect for the purposes of calculation. It appears to me that your calculation confirms Trenberths. You need to show that Trenberths 2.1 w/m2 or the 1.6 w/m2 are in error to show that heat is not accumulating. Since they have large error bars (especially the other forcings) they might be higher or lower. Since the S-B cooling rises with the 4th power it will ultimately limit the temperature rise. The rise depends on how much CO2 is added to the atmosphere.
105418. Tarcisio José D at 02:18 AM on 30 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Mr. Moderator. Look to the quetion. What should we do about climate change? And look to my answer. It's pertinet.
        Moderator Response: Yes, which is why I did not delete it. But your contention that water vapor is the control knob, and that we can control it directly, are incorrect; further discussion of the first of those issues belongs on the other thread.
105419. Ken Lambert at 02:13 AM on 30 October 2010
        The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
        KR #113 Yes, I have making the same assumption as Dr Trenberth. ie. the surface temperature increase is the same as the increase in Earth's radiating temperature. The approx numbers are: Date / Temp Increase / S-B Cooling Forcing (W/sq.m) 1750 / 0.0 / 0.0 1800 / 0.0 / 0.0 1850 / 0.03 / -0.11 1900 / 0.03 / -0.11 1950 / 0.15 / -0.57 1975 / 0.25 / -0.94 2000 / 0.72 / -2.70 2005 / 0.75 / -2.80 It could be done in smaller increments but the point is that S-B cooling is rising rapidly with the 4th power.
105420. Daniel Bailey at 02:13 AM on 30 October 2010
        The Grumble in the Jungle
        Great title, and great explanation, Rob! Much ado about nothing, like the Himalayan Glacier typo. The Yooper
105421. Tarcisio José D at 01:58 AM on 30 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Ann #130 So. My conclusion: A transition to nuclear energy will not stop climate change. That is rigth. “What should we do about climate change?” We need to fix the environment's thermostat. The negative feedback for an incoming heat is provided by water vapor. See for yourself on this animation:
        
        
        
        Moderator Response: The role of water vapor is the subject of a different thread. Search for "water vapor " in the Search field at the top left.
105422. dr2chase at 01:47 AM on 30 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        @Ann - I hesitate to dive into what is looking more like a fight than a discussion, but... An 80% reduction in CO2 emissions is what I understand is the goal. Not 100%. An 80% reduction means that we still, ultimately, drill all the oil, but it takes five times longer. And, oil drilling is expensive; if we make conservation and non-fossil alternatives cheap enough, the lower price of oil will not justify aggressive drilling. It's not a case of wave-a-wand and it happens; as time goes by, the remaining oil will be more and more expensive to extract, and the sooner we can put cheap alternatives on the market, the sooner (reduced) price pressure will reduce the drilling rate. Economic incentives (carrots and sticks) probably help accelerate this, but there is a price for oil, relative to alternatives, that will cut its consumption by 80%. I'm agnostic about the whole renewables-vs-nukes argument; the thorium reactors sound good, but we've heard too-cheap-to-meter before (I assume we are about as over-optimistic as we ever were). I assume that we need an improved grid -- if we add nukes, certainly in the beginning we're going to be happier siting them far from population centers, till we can demonstrate that real live thorium plants really are safe and boring. Or, if we add wind/tidal/hydro/solar, we want a big grid to give us geographical diversity. Either way, a grid is helpful, and a grid is technology that we understand now.
105423. JMurphy at 01:45 AM on 30 October 2010
        Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
        Come on, transjasmine, you still haven't put forward anything scientific, or anything based on any form of original scientific evidence, to argue against the topic of this thread. Do you have anything except opinion ? If not, what's the point ?
105424. CBDunkerson at 01:45 AM on 30 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Ann #125: "As the demand for fossil fuel plummets (this is part of YOUR assumption, not mine), fossil fuel prices will collapse. Nuclear energy will have to remain competitive with ever lowering fossil fuel prices." I'm not sure this is true. A switchover to nuclear (or renewable) power would certainly stop the ongoing rise of fossil fuel prices... but I don't think it would cause them to reverse course. This isn't just a 'supply and demand' issue after all. Rising fossil fuel prices have been driven by increasing extraction and transportation costs. Neither of those would go down if we were suddenly using less fossil fuel... indeed, they would probably go up. Consider Hawaii for instance. Currently they get most of their electricity from oil... which is less expensive to ship that far than coal or natural gas. If they switch over to wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, and/or the other renewable energy sources they have in ridiculous abundance there is no way that 'oil power' is going to make a comeback. Even if it suddenly became 'free' to extract and process and oil company's decided to sell for zero profit... it would still cost just as much to ship across the ocean. We might see a change to fossil fuels being used primarily near where they are extracted... since that kind of local usage might well cost less than nuclear/renewable would in the same area. However, that would be on a much smaller scale than current fossil fuel usage.
105425. archiesteel at 01:28 AM on 30 October 2010
        Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
        Sorry for the snappy response, please ignore the second part of my comment. @tj: I did explain. If we end up with forced mass migrations, it's going to be a lot more complicated today (because of borders, private property laws and civilization in general) than it would have been 10,000 years ago when people could migrate more freely.
105426. transjasmine at 01:22 AM on 30 October 2010
        Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
        i wasnt bating anybody, i was expressing my opinion based on the comments DSL made, if i have misunderstood those comments i'm sorry but please do explain
        Moderator Response: Feel free to disagree with others here, certainly. Inputs are valued, but please refrain from using inflammatory terminology like "Globalist" or saying "make sure _______'s A** is clean before you put your head up it". That is being very inflammatory and in violation of the Comments Policy. Keep it clean and comments won't get deleted unless they are also off-topic.
105427. KR at 01:15 AM on 30 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Ann - I guess what I'm trying to say is that we're stuck with some warming; the effort now goes into limiting that, mitigating/minimizing the costs and problems we're going to face as a result, and trying to avoid critical points such as permafrost CO2 release and clathrate venting that would double the effects. We can't 'turn off' global warming - a planet ain't going to stop on a dime. That's going to cost us - but we can avoid making matters worse. And perhaps, a century or three from now, CO2 levels may decrease.
105428. KR at 01:10 AM on 30 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Ann - Nothing is "instant". We are, first of all, stuck with some amount of additional warming based upon the climate moving to equilibrium with the CO2 we've already emitted; another 40-60 years worth. And we don't have the gazillion dollars sitting around to replace every power plant, car, truck, ship, train, etc. this year. But every bit of change will help. Making nuclear more affordable than coal power plants, encouraging solar/wind power development, even increasing the average mileage of autos en route to making electric or renewable fuel cell cars practical - every bit is a step in the process. Your "instant off" calls (my interpretation, mind you) are the kind of thing that make people throw their hands in the air, say "Can't be done!", and go away. I think it's important to take all available paths that move us away from CO2 accumulation as quickly as possible - including popular support, technology development, government subsidies, regulations, permit actions (for building new renewable power generation), etc. But it will take some time.
105429. Nick Palmer at 01:06 AM on 30 October 2010
        Skeptical Science Firefox Add-on: Send and receive climate info while you browse
        Oops - sorry - didn't put in a link to the original... link to "information is beautiful" page
105430. archiesteel at 00:59 AM on 30 October 2010
        Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
        @tj: "what the heck do national borders and private property have to do with anything." Mass migrations due to climate change will certainly cause problems with national borders and private property issues. "DSL now to me you just sound like a globalist" And you sound like a troll.
        Moderator Response: Please take the high road and not respond in kind to the baiting. Your contributions here have more value if they don't end up in the Deleted Comments bin.
105431. Ann at 00:48 AM on 30 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        @muoncounter #129 #123: "Are you sure the cake is not going to be eaten ?" muon:I'll bite on the cake/carrot analogy. Everyone eats the cake in preference to the carrots. Tastes good, is in plentiful supply. Unfortunately, this cake was made with flour derived from beans - and you know the result of that. Nobody notices that this is a problem for a while, until the room becomes unpleasant. Want more cake now? Nice extension to my analogy ... Yup, bring on the cake. I don't care if other people suffocate. Isn't that exactly how people react nowadays ? They know the rise in CO2 may be catastrophic in the end, but it doesn't stop them (including me, I must admit) from driving their cars, using electricity etc. "even in the most optimistic scenario, deploying nuclear power (or green power) will slow down, but not stop global warming." muon: What's wrong with that? I was in the assumption we want to stop global warming. Slowing down global warming may have a very limited use. It will buy us more time to come up with real solutions. But it is dangerous if people start thinking alternative energy is the definite answer to the problem. Especially when you consider that there are far more valuable uses for petrochemicals than their heat content. We are in no position to turn down alternative energy sources based on current thinking. Look what kind of mess our current thinking has put us in! I don't want to turn down alternative energy sources. They will be urgently needed, if only to overcome peak oil. I want to raise the question: Will the worldwide deployment of nuclear or green energy stop climate change ? Is it the definite answer to the problem ? Until now I heard nothing that convinced me this would be the case.
105432. transjasmine at 00:48 AM on 30 October 2010
        Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
        DSL now to me you just sound like a globalist, what the heck do national borders and private property have to do with anything. guess next you will be saying humans are a cancer lets get to reducing the population! i'm sure you have read sustainable development
        Moderator Response: Please take the high road and refrain from baiting others with loaded terminology. Your contributions here will have more value if they don't end up in the Deleted Comments bin.
105433. archiesteel at 00:40 AM on 30 October 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        @RSVP: "This is interesting, because it takes 1.5E23 Joules to raise the air temperature 30 degrees, which is ten times the amount of energy actually coming from the Sun." Good thing the sun is emitting this energy constantly, huh? It's not clear what you're trying to do, here, RSVP, but if you're trying to disprove the Greenhouse effect you're wasting your time. The fact is you haven't demonstrated that waste heat is anything more than about 1% of GHG forcings. You lost that debate. Time to move on.
105434. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:31 AM on 30 October 2010
        The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
        Energy is not always moves from warmer to colder places because there are different forms of energy in space and time leading to the advantage of the accumulation of heat over its dissipation - entropy - it is "cliché" but "cliché" is and (here), significantly. Where does most of the "imbalance" of energy in the atmosphere of the Earth (or Earth is more heated, and loses less energy - the primary side effect of the discussion here) the interesting tries to explain: „Earth and Ocean Science”- A 1st order global energy model based on observed TOA radiant flux and ocean and atmosphere heat data - cloud changes in the satellite era. Comparing the changes in OLR and RSW (2000 - 2010), comes to the conclusion that far outweighs "heating" (decreasing RSW) ocean (accumulating heat) by the SW, it’s have advantage over retention of heat (decreasing OLR) through the atmosphere: “CERES data since 2000 clearly show SW changes – this drove the ocean heat content increase measured in ARGO. Most of recent warming is driven by changes in reflected SW. SW changes imply changes in global cloud cover over the period.” Regarding this point: 'enhanced greenhouse effect of CO2GHG interacting with Water Vapour', again had to go to the discussion of the reaction - sensitivity, of the system: Earth - the atmosphere. An interesting critique of messages posted on the SkS on this topic is here.
105435. archiesteel at 00:28 AM on 30 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        @Peter Lang: "Renewables cannot make any significant contribution now or for a very long time, if ever." That is a political statement, not a scientific one. It's hard not to think you don't have a personal stake in Nuclear Power when you make such sweeping declarations. Right now, German citizens are generating *too much* solar power in peak insolation periods, and it risks damaging their power grid (the proposed solution is a more flexible European grid). I think Nuclear is part of the equation, but your aggressive opposition to renewable is both unfounded and suspect.
105436. transjasmine at 00:24 AM on 30 October 2010
        Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
        whether there were people or not is irrelevant, the issue here is c02 is causing dangerous climate change, that's the whole point of this site correct? dangerous climate change is happening and c02 is the catalyst. but ok, i've looked for the actual study and i cant find it so i'll give a link to a video in which the participants explain or w/e http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zS0SWVIRaZ8&p=4874B5A951DA8DA4&index=5&playnext=5
        Moderator Response: The presence of people who will be affected indeed is relevant to this particular page on this site. It is relevant also to the page you can find by typing "It's Not Bad" into the Search field at the top left of this page.
105437. Nick Palmer at 00:22 AM on 30 October 2010
        Skeptical Science Firefox Add-on: Send and receive climate info while you browse
        Oops - sorry - didn't put in a link to the original... link to "information is beautiful" page
105438. Ann at 00:20 AM on 30 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Re: Daniel, I expressed myself rather strongly, on purpose, to get a reaction and start a discussion. People take too much for granted that either renewable energy or nuclear energy is going to save the planet, and this complacency is dangerous. The danger is that even dedicated people, who are genuinely concerned about the future of our planet start thinking it suffices to switch to green energy and reduce their ecological footprint. I just don’t like the current boy’s scouts mentality surrounding all actions to fight climate change. E.g. “if we all do our best, we can avert the danger”. The battle against climate change will either be won or lost. We shouldn’t do our best. We should do whatever it takes to avert the danger. To me that means: controlling the amount of carbon that is actually entering the carbon cycle. Via carbon capture and sequestration, artificial trees, reforestation. Carbon trading is an essential part of this solution.
105439. Nick Palmer at 00:18 AM on 30 October 2010
        Skeptical Science Firefox Add-on: Send and receive climate info while you browse
        http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/ Have you seen this image from information is beautiful? Although obviously nowhere near as comprehensive as your website, it still might be quite useful I feel?
105440. JMurphy at 00:12 AM on 30 October 2010
        Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
        transjasmine, instead of just posting what you believe to be true, why not post some links to some evidence of the great benefit of high CO2 to today's agriculture and today's world full of people. You do realise that in the past, there were less/no people at various times - especially when CO2 was much higher ? Basically, as usual, you need to read more here and here.
105441. DSL at 00:09 AM on 30 October 2010
        Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
        Transjasmine, who said the world was going to end? When CO2 levels were 18 times higher, and the oceans were 70-120 feet higher, were humans around--in particular, 7 billion humans with their rigid national borders, provincialism and racism, private property system, and survival dependent on a fragile global economic system? If we were having this discussion 10,000 years ago, I'd say, "global warming? so what? we'll migrate." You're not being very critical. Think about the details. Think about what a mere one foot sea level rise would do to the world in its current state. Think also about an increasingly acid ocean, as all that CO2 begins to saturate it. It doesn't mean that you won't be able to go swimming. It means that a large chunk of the world's food supply is going downhill. No, the world's not going to end. It's going to keep on spinning.
105442. Ann at 23:56 PM on 29 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Hi Peter, Now, how to answer this… I don’t want to raise any more misunderstandings. First let’s discuss your proposal to fight climate change. I don’t doubt that fossil fuel power plants can be replaced by nuclear power plants, and that this will cut CO2 emissions for electricity generation. But it also mean more fossil fuel will become available for other purposes (rule of supply and demand). If less fossil fuel is burned in power plants, more will be used for vehicles like airplanes, ships, etc. Fossil fuel will continue to be used until all reserves have been depleted. Don’t you agree with that assumption? So, the amount of CO2 that will end up in the atmosphere eventually is not at all dependent on the amount of green or nuclear power we deploy. It can be directly deduced from the level of atmospheric CO2 today + the amount of carbon that is currently stored underground, in the shape of fossil fuel. (OK, and taking into account aborption of CO2 by oceans, plants, rocks etc.) So. My conclusion: A transition to nuclear energy will not stop climate change. You might even conclude that nuclear energy and green energy will actually worsen climate change. How’s that ? Scenario 1: If most of the power plants remain fossil fuel based, techniques can be deployed to capture and sequester the produced CO2. These techniques are not used yet, but at least it is a possibility. Scenario 2: If however most of the fossil fuel power plants are replaced by nuclear power plants or renewables, the fossil fuel that would be burned in a power plant will be used for vehicles. There will be no way to capture the CO2 produced by these vehicles. Result: Scenario 2 results eventually in a higher atmospheric CO2 level than scenario 1. Prove me wrong. As for my proposal to fight climate change, I don’t want to mix this up in the current discussion. Anyway, I am trying to prove that solution A is invalid. It is irrelevant to the discussion whether a completely different solution B is valid or not.
105443. muoncounter at 23:43 PM on 29 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        #123: "Are you sure the cake is not going to be eaten ?" I'll bite on the cake/carrot analogy. Everyone eats the cake in preference to the carrots. Tastes good, is in plentiful supply. Unfortunately, this cake was made with flour derived from beans - and you know the result of that. Nobody notices that this is a problem for a while, until the room becomes unpleasant. Want more cake now? "even in the most optimistic scenario, deploying nuclear power (or green power) will slow down, but not stop global warming." What's wrong with that? Especially when you consider that there are far more valuable uses for petrochemicals than their heat content. We are in no position to turn down alternative energy sources based on current thinking. Look what kind of mess our current thinking has put us in!
105444. dr2chase at 23:26 PM on 29 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        @KR - My assumption is that we have perfectly good bike lanes, it's just that they're full of cars right now. For many cities and towns, that's enough of a change. For others, distance is an issue, and things get more complicated.
105445. Daniel Bailey at 23:19 PM on 29 October 2010
        Al Gore got it wrong
        Re: transjasmine (14) Your comment was deemed in violation of the Comments Policy. Insinuations are troublesome. Sticking to reference-able facts is best. The Yooper
105446. Daniel Bailey at 23:14 PM on 29 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Re: Ann (106, 121, 123, 125) I did see your comment at 106, but I was busy at the time formulating a response to daisym (103). Your summation of both the situation we face and your position is spot-on. From my closing comments at 108:

        "It is one thing to understand the various bits and pieces of the physics and mechanics of climate change. It is completely another thing altogether to synthesize it into one cohesive whole as Hansen has done."

        As a species, we have been crawling on all fours across the lush savanna grasses. Some of us have raised up, erect on our knees & have sniffed smoke from a raging grass fire approaching quickly. It is not enough to merely shift the course of the herd, the task before us is to get the herd up off their hands and knees and stand...and to then run from the disaster that comes ever so swiftly now. Green energy tech, nuclear, hydro, tidal: all rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Not inherently bad things, but actions that address the symptoms only, not the underlying disease state itself. Only education can do that. Unless a critical mass of people can be reached and educated in a short amount of time to mobilize and take resolute action, it will be too late. What bitter medicine to swallow. It is little wonder few, even here, speak systemically. It may be that we have more time yet, wherein even a phased-in replacement of fossil fuels plus energy use efficiency and curtailment programs can allow us to turn the corner. That would be a wonderful, dreamlike end to the nightmare we are in. Or, instead of watching the clock wind down at the end of the 3rd quarter we discover, to our dismay and chagrin, that it is actually the 4th and last quarter...and time is all but gone. If it is a sin to calculate the worst outcome and to then plan accordingly, then sinner I be. The Yooper
105447. Peter Lang at 22:47 PM on 29 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Ann, I don’t understanding what you are advocating. Do you have a better proposal? What is the solution you are arguing for? What is the time-line you are arguing for? If you set an impossibly short time frame, then there is no 'realistic' solution. But whatever time frame you set, nuclear will have to be a major contributor to cutting CO2 emissions from energy use. You are exaggerating, twisting or misunderstanding much of what I’m saying, so I’ve lost what it is you are trying to say. Here are some examples: “My statement is: “No matter what amount of nuclear power is provided, it will never reduce the burning of fossil fuels to zero (or even close to zero)."” What do you mean by “never”, and I didn't say "zero"? The transition will be progressive. I believe we can cut the use of fossil fuel used in electricity generation by 80% by 2050, and, if electricity is cheap, this will cut total emissions by 40% to 50%. Land use, land use change, agriculture, etc. will contribute more cuts. The point is we do have an alternative to fossil fuels for electricity generation and we should be putting our energies into allowing it, not prohibiting it. Unfortunately, the most ardent activists for fast reduction of CO2 emissions are also the people most stridently opposed to nuclear power. That makes others wonder: 'what is their real agenda?' It’s a fair question. “Do you really believe that the massive deployment of nuclear energy will cause humanity to abstain from burning fossil fuels?” I didn't say 'abstain'. That is misrepresenting what I said. But, eventually, there will be little use of fossil fuel. Eventually! It will take time and will never be zero, but surely that is irrelevant. “Massive deployment” is not a forced solution. It is an allowed solution. The problem is we have been preventing that solution by our irrational fears for 40+ years. We will overcome that. But it will take time. “Nuclear energy must become so cheap that it will replace fossil fuels everywhere in the world, including the less developed countries.” Yes. That will happen (eventually). Fossil fuels are little cheaper than nuclear now, and are more expensive in many places. The under-developed countries struggle to build any electricity system. Where nuclear is cheaper than coal, they will, and do, build nuclear. Why do you think all but one of the G20 countries have nuclear already or are on the path to get it? It certainly isn’t because it is more expensive than coal. And the cost could and should be far less than it is. “It must become so cheap that functioning coal plants will be shut down, because it is economically more beneficial to build a brand new nuclear plant.” All power plants reach the end of their economically viable date. As they reach the end of their lives, they are replaced by whatever type of plant seems it will give the lowest cost electricity over the life of the new plant (e.g., 60 years for nuclear, 40 years for coal, or 20 years renewables). The question about replacement of fossil fuels with low emission technology applies equally to replacing with renewables, except that renewables cannot do the job and are far more expensive. “There must be an oversupply of nuclear energy (both globally and locally), otherwise people will still resort to more expensive options e.g. fossil fuel.” They will implement whichever technology they expect will provide reliable power at least cost for the life of the plant. I don’t know why you think there must be an 'oversupply of nuclear'. What does this mean? Are you referring to availability of new plants or the fuel? There will be sufficient of both to meet demand. That is not a problem. And it is much easier to transport nuclear fuel around the world than coal - about 20,000 times smaller volume to transport for the same energy. And that is with the current technology that only uses 1% of the available energy. With Gen IV reactors we’ve mined enough uranium to provide all the world’s energy needs for all of this century. “This just isn’t realistic” I don’t understand what you are arguing is the realistic solution. Please explain. Renewables cannot make any significant contribution now or for a very long time, if ever. Cutting population growth: The best way to do that is to allow the underdeveloped world to develop as quickly as possible and to assist them to get cheap clean energy. Fertility drops as peoples standard of living rises and they can have more fulfilling lives through education and work rather than sitting at home producing and feeding children. Banning use of fossil fuels. Unrealistic. Banning access to energy causes wars. Carbon trading scheme. It would have to be international, based on consumption not production, and auditable. That is impossible. Carbon tax. That will raise the cost of electricity in the developed countries, avoid the real problem (which is impediments to low cost energy) and slow the rate that we develop low cost energy. That will slow the rate of uptake of low emissions electricity by the underdeveloped and developing countries. Raising the price of electricity is the wrong policy! Ann, what is your “realistic” solution to cutting emissions.
105448. RSVP at 22:06 PM on 29 October 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        CBDunkerson #352 "No, that is an observed fact which even most 'skeptics' no longer challenge." My post #317 was a very crude estimate of how much energy it takes to heat a mass of air comparable to a good part of the troposphere. As I said earlier, the calculation is not precise (nor has to be for what we are discussing) given that density varies with altitude, etc., It can be said that it approximate, and moreover, if making the same assumption about constant density, it can allow us in the same to compare and examine how GHG could possibly be raising the temperature of the atmosphere 30 degrees. That is, when you use the same value 5E21 J/C (which is the energy required to raise that 5E18 kg mass of air 1 degree centigrade), it would then require 150E21 (or 1.5E23) Joules to do so for 30 degrees (which is supposedly where GHGs have left things). According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Earth, the surface area of the Earth is 5.1E8 km2 or 5.1E14 m2. But only half of that is receiving sunshine at anyone time, which requires us to consider only 2.55E14m2. Likewise, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation, the average amount of energy received on the Earth's surface is around 1000 W/m2, multiplying by the surface gives us 2.55E17W. Assuming 12 hours of sunshine (43200 sec), we get 1.1E22 Joules from the Sun. This is interesting, because it takes 1.5E23 Joules to raise the air temperature 30 degrees, which is ten times the amount of energy actually coming from the Sun. Supposedly, the GHG effect represents only a fraction of a quantity of energy that is deficient in its totality to produce the said result. Furthermore, air temperature fluctuations (manifested as what we call "weather") change on a daily and hourly basis with excursions that fully "outwit" the theory. What does this all mean? For one thing, energy is being stored whether you like it or not, and it is being liberated from all whereabouts and materials, primarily the oceans. Second, in my calculations, I must be considering too much air (the problem at hand must be limited to a lower altitude). This makes sense, because we know that its much colder at 27,000 feet than "near the ground". But remember that the both calculations used the same mass of air, and you have been using a comparison of energy numbers to claim that GHGs dwarfs waste heat, aside from other claims about energy not accumulating. One more thing, and if you decide to reply, please dont pick what you may consider the easiest issue to contest. I was thinking maybe there is confusion about hot air and heat. There is a difference. Air may cool, but that doesnt mean the heat is lost, this having to do with idea that hot air disperses. By this I mean that if a huge warm mass of air spreads out, that heat may raise the temperature of air somewhere else very little. And as you say, since radiation radiates as the temperature to the fourth power, heat will be lost much slower for lower temperatures.
105449. JMurphy at 21:11 PM on 29 October 2010
        Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
        transjasmine, you still don't appear to be reading anything on this site properly, or are ignoring the majority of stuff which seems to go against your beliefs. Let me highlight the bits you missed/wanted to ignore : greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare....The major assessments by the U.S. Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council (NRC) serve as the primary scientific basis supporting the Administrator’s endangerment finding." Now, you probably don't want to accept that because of the mention of the IPCC bogeyman, but that's your problem. Facts are facts, whether you like them or not. "[Pollution] :...the addition of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or any form of energy (such as heat, sound, or radioactivity) to the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form." You seem to accept that the levels of CO2 have increased/are increasing, so you have to accept the above definition unless you want to appear incoherent...or have your own definition of pollution. Your thoughts on water vapour are desperate, so perhaps you should read more about it here. You won't, though, will you ?
105450. funglestrumpet at 21:10 PM on 29 October 2010
        Climate's changed before
        What an enormous pity that this level of debate is not centre stage. One would think that given the urgency of the matter it would be possible to get a permaneant link printed on all newspaper title boxes directing those interested in the topic to this site. I have been interested in global warming for many years, yet have only happened on this site today by pure fluke. Please keep up the good work.

Prev  2101  2102  2103  2104  2105  2106  2107  2108  2109  2110  2111  2112  2113  2114  2115  2116  Next