Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  2102  2103  2104  2105  2106  2107  2108  2109  2110  2111  2112  2113  2114  2115  2116  2117  Next

Comments 105451 to 105500:

  1. What should we do about climate change?
    Archiesteel: "Solar, Wind and Hydroelectric are all safer than current nuclear power production," Peter: "I see. And what do you base that on?" Seriously? You're actually going to argue that sunlight, wind, and/or water are more dangerous than nuclear radiation? Are you arguing just for argument's sake or are you truly that delusional? Yes, there are numerous safety precautions taken with nuclear power... precisely BECAUSE it is so very dangerous. No matter how 'safe' those precautions make it there is still a possibility of error or disaster which simply does not exist with renewable power. Imagine a terrorist attack on a wind farm... worst case scenario it takes out the power and maybe some cows get crushed by falling wind turbines. Things could be just a bit worse with a nuclear plant. Radiation release. Stolen radioactive materials. Possible meltdown.
  2. What should we do about climate change?
    JohnD "what is the actual payback time in terms of energy input, and carbon emissions, that goes into the manufacturing, installation and maintenance of these renewable sources and extra infrastructure required when the real operating efficiencies are allowed for?" I'll refer you to Professor Barry Brooks article here to answer this question. John, thank you for your question. I don't take much interest in discusions about energy return on energy invested (ERoEI) because I feel it is irrelevant given that the fuel for nuclear power is effectively unlimited. So, from my perspective, such discussion are a distraction from what is important.
  3. The Grumble in the Jungle
    Peter #6 - Indeed - the reality is being acted out on the ground! Good to see the refutations mounting up - this is already the best source for quick factual debunks and is improving all the time. Cheers - John
  4. Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
    Wow ClimateWatcher misquotes a post to make a point. ON THAT POST. That is magnificently Brazen. CW Said "There are 3 problems with even small sounding global warming. Firstly, 2 °C is a very optimistic assessment: ..... if the skeptical Dr Roy Spencer is correct here then we’re on course to get more like 3.5 °C." My ellipses added. Actual quote from MarkR "There are 3 problems with even small sounding global warming. Firstly, 2 °C is a very optimistic assessment: WE ARE CURRENTLY ON COURSE TO DOUBLE CO2 TWICE SOON AFTER 2100. If the skeptical Dr Roy Spencer is correct here then we’re on course to get more like 3.4 °C, but if most climate science is correct then we’ll get 6 °C." My Emphasis. Now thats what I call chutzpah.
  5. What should we do about climate change?
    JohnD "what is the actual payback time in terms of energy input, and carbon emissions, that goes into the manufacturing, installation and maintenance of these renewable sources and extra infrastructure required when the real operating efficiencies are allowed for?" I'll refer you to Professor Barry Brooks article here to answer this question. John, thank you for your question. I don't take much interest in discusions about energy return on energy invested (ERoEI) because I feel it is irrelevant given that the fuel for nuclear power is effectively unlimited. So, from my perspective, such discussion are a distraction from what is important.
  6. What should we do about climate change?
    Peter Lang at 15:46 PM, apart from the $ payback time for solar and wind energy installations, including the large and ongoing subsidies needed, what is the actual payback time in terms of energy input, and carbon emissions, that goes into the manufacturing, installation and maintenance of these renewable sources and extra infrastructure required when the real operating efficiencies are allowed for?
  7. What should we do about climate change?
    Archiesteel, "Solar, Wind and Hydroelectric are all safer than current nuclear power production," I see. And what do you base that on? Greenpeace, I suppose. Google: "ExternE NewExt" and get your facts straight, rather than propogating wrong beliefs. Don't forget that solar and wind cannot provide power on demand so you have to include the risks from back-up generators or storage to make a fair comparison. Even if you don't do this you find that solar is far more dangerous than nuclear and wind slightly safer (but it is not an apples to apples comparison without back up or storage). archiesteel, I'd urge you to challenge your beliefs too.
  8. What should we do about climate change?
    Archiesteel, Germany has spent something like EUR 46 billion on subsidies to get less than 1% of its electricity generation from solar. And that electricity is available during the day and summer only. A hopeless waste of money. Germany, Spain and Denmark are the classic examples of what not to do. is one study on Germany. Others have been released recently. Just to be clear, I am advocating we transition to least-cost, low-emission electricity at a rate that is economically rational. I also say that renewables will make an insignificant contribution to our energy supply based on the fact they are far too expensive and they depend on intermitten, low energy density 'fuels'. Therefore we should not be spending all our effort arguing for renwables (which is what happens on most sites like this) while continuoually repeating the tired old anti-nuclear arguments (all of which have been refuted reoeatedly). I argue we should remove all the impediments to nuclear and rmove all the regulations that favour fossil fuels and renewable energy. We should establish a mechanism so that any type of generator can appeal regulations that advantage one type over another. We need a level playing field. If we had that, nuclear would have an enormous advantage ver the others - eventually, because it will take a long time to eradicate all the imposts we've built in over the past 50 odd years.4 Nuclear has proven it can do the job. Non-hydro renewables have proven, so far, they cannot. They are a massive waste of a countries wealth - meaning funds wasted on supporting these schemes cannot be spent on health, education, infrastructrure and addreessing the real environmental problems. You suggest that I argue for nuclear being part of the solution. I do! I argue for the selection of technologies being on a rational basis, not belief and wishful thinking. On that basis I expect nuclear will supply about 80% of our electricity (as in France), with the balance made up of hydro, gas, oil coal and a few percent of a range of renewables, all of which are effectively irrelevant in the overall scheme of things. In other words, we should put our focus and effort where it is needed, not on the fringe technologies.
  9. What should we do about climate change?
    @Peter Lang: "It is about the safest of all electricity generation technologies." Yeah, good luck with that one. Solar, Wind and Hydroelectric are all safer than current nuclear power production, if only because such they do not produce radioactive waste (and, at least for the first two, aren't potential terrorist targets). Look, we get it. You like nuclear, and you see it as the sole solution to curb CO2 emissions (by the way, I'm assuming you agree that we need to cut CO2 emissions to counter global warming - is this true?). People here disagree, and think that renewables also have a role to play. At this point, I think we have to agree to disagree.
  10. What should we do about climate change?
    @adrian smits: are you seriously arguing that the nuclear industry is over-regulated?
  11. What should we do about climate change?
    @Peter Lang: "I do not have any personal stake in nuclear power." I didn't say you, I said you sounded like you did - and your insistence on nothing but nuclear is bound to turn people off of it. It is the unfounded belief and advocacy of renewables that is political. And yet, as the German example shows up (and I notice you didn't reply to that part), it *is* possible to have a significant power supply from renewables. Why are you ignoring the great opportunity Solar and Wind offer to small client/producers? "Ann, you seem to be arguing for anything but nuclear. I wonder why? What is your real reason?" It is you who are insisting that nuclear is the only way forward. Any strategy that puts all of the eggs in the same basket is doomed to fail. I'm sorry, but your posts really sound like ads for the Nuclear Industry. You'll get more traction if you start selling Nuclear as *part* of the solution, rather than the only way to go. "The wind industry, like most industry organisations, presents the most favourable view possible of its industry." Like the Nuclear industry as well, right? The criticism of wind not prevent CO2 emissions can also be applied to Nuclear. Again, I'm not opposed to nuclear power as part of the alternative to fossil fuels, but the pro-nuclear bias in your messages seems a bit extreme.
  12. The Grumble in the Jungle
    Interesting to see the following in the Guardian today Amazon drought leaves Brazil's Rio Negro dry http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2010/oct/26/amazon-drought-brazil#/?picture=368055072&index=7 Peter
  13. The Grumble in the Jungle
    No problem for me, a great explanation, far better than I did when I was arguing the point at the time!
  14. What should we do about climate change?
    Modern nuclear power plants can be built at a fraction of the cost of the older systems if our regulators would just catch up with the new technology and get out of the way!
  15. What should we do about climate change?
    @153 muoncouter quoted this statement from the wind energy advocates: "Wind energy is already making a significant contribution to saving CO2 emissions. The 158GW of global wind capacity in place at the end of 2009 will produce 340 TWh of clean electricity and save 204 million tons of CO2 every year. Has anyone considered how we could trade CO2 emissions, or tax them, if we don't have a reliable way of measuring the emissions or how much is avoided? The wind industry, like most industry organisations, presents the most favourable view possible of its industry. These figures about the emissions avoided by wind farms are based on the assumption that wind energy displaces emissions from fossil fuel generated electricity as if there was no efficiency loss in the fossil fuel generators. This assumptions is false. It has been known for some time that the penalty is substantial and recent studies confirm that wind power avoids little if any greenhouse gas emissions. The question is, how could we trade or tax emissions when we can continually misrepresent the emissions avoided by wind farms?
  16. What should we do about climate change?
    The thrust of my comment (#69) was to ask the question: If we forego use of carbon fuel energy sources by whatever extent our windmills and solar arrays can generate clean energy, why can't scientists estimate the effect this will have on global temperatures? Your comparison to calories and dieting is an excellent way to look at this: By subsidizing the manufacture and deployment of wind and solar energy devices, government has (in effect) put us on a carbon fuel energy diet, because these devices cut CO2 emissions by reducing our consumption of carbon fuels… or by reducing future increases in carbon fuel consumption. Like the dietician, why can't the scientist estimate how reducing CO2 emissions will change global temperatures? In this comparison, CO2 emissions represent the “calories” that change atmospheric CO2 content. And because atmospheric CO2 content is a proxy for global temperature, total atmospheric CO2 content thus represents global temperature or “weight.” The scientist can tell us how much “weight” (global warming) we’ll gain if we continue to consume carbon fuels. They can surely tell us how much “weight” we’ll lose when we replace a portion of our carbon fuel consumption with carbon-free wind and solar energy consumption. But scientists haven’t told us what effect the “Wind and Solar Energy Diet” will have on global temperatures. And I asked the question: “Why haven’t they?” If government has put us on a wind and solar energy diet as the solution to the manmade CO2 (i.e. global warming) problem, how can we even estimate that it will work if no one prepares the estimate? Is our faith in the wisdom of government bureaucrats so certain? Why are scientists silent on the efficacy of government’s solutions? Doesn’t government rely on scientists to provide this information? I want to see scientists prepare various timeline scenarios that show how and when we can reach the atmospheric target which will stabilize global temperatures at the “best” temperature (whatever that may be). Armed with this information, government would then have the tools they need for making better informed public policy decisions. But scientists haven’t done this. In the absence of this, and despite all the pioneering climate research that’s been done, science has done real no service to humanity. Science has identified this problem, but seems to have no interest in providing government with a workable scientific solution. Why is this?
  17. What should we do about climate change?
    Why energy cheaper than from coal is important see this slide show. See Slides 29 to 38 Energy cheaper than coal is important (Slide 31) Population is stable in the developed world (about 1.2 billion) (Slide 34 Population is increasing in the developing world (currently world population is about 6.9 billion and projected to be over 9 billion by 2050). The projected increase is in the developing world. Prosperity stabilises population (Slide 35 - children per woman versus GDP per capita) Stable replacement rate is 2.3 children per woman. (slide 36) Countries with $7,500 GDP per capita have fertility rate below the stable replacement rate. (slide 37) Prosperity depends on energy (slide 38). This video, from 4 to 16 mins explains why we need to focus on providing clean electricity cheaper than from coal It makes these points: Conservation will not stop energy growth Energy and coal use is growing rapidly in the developing nations. The US uses 12,000 kWh per person in 2010; total US consumption = 3.8 PWh Assume US could halve its energy use to 6000 kWh per person by 2050, to 1.9 PWh total. The rest of the world grows energy use to get to the same per capita consumption (6000 kWh per person). Total world consumption grows from 15.4 PWh now to 37.7 PWh in 2050. So, even if the US halved its per capita electricity consumption, world consumption would grow from 15.4 to 37.7 PWh. Can’t do it with taxes. The answer is to produce electricity cheaper than from coal. We can produce electricity cheaper than we do today so that alone will improve economic productivity, reduce poverty, improve standard of living, and reduce population growth.
  18. The Grumble in the Jungle
    MikeCC - This is a basic rebuttal, one of a series adressing the skeptic arguments. Eventually all arguments will have a basic/intermediate/advanced version. It will take some time for this process to be complete. Hope that helps.
  19. What should we do about climate change?
    ”I just think that the proposed measures to – fight climate change or reduce CO2 emissions, any way you want it – are indirect and therefore not as effective as they could be. And perhaps even not effective at all.” Why do you believe replacing coal power stations with nuclear (in an economically rational way) is not effective at cutting emissions? It is proven that it works. See France for example. Why do you argue that replacing coal with nuclear is an indirect way to cut emissions but then argue for CCS? Why do you think CCS would be a more direct way of cutting emissions? You still have the coal mining, the burning of the coal and making of CO2 (plus all the other particulates and toxic emissions) the waste from coal mining, the fly ash, the transport, the leakage from CCS and the mass suffocations when the CCS pipes leak or fracture (which will happen). ”The effectiveness of deploying green energy, or nuclear energy in the battle against climate change rather hinges on the assumption that this will cause humanity to leave a substantial part of all fossil fuels in the ground. If this assumption is wrong, the ultimate effect of these efforts will be 0. I think we should directly try to control the amount of CO2 or carbon that enters the carbon cycle. Through the development of the CCS (carbon capture and sequestration) technique that can remove up to 85-90 percent of CO2 emissions of coal powered plants,” Why do you believe CCS would be more direct than replacing coal with nuclear (or any economically viable low emission technology that would be capable of replacing coal)? Why do you believe that CCS can remove 85% to 90% of CO2 emissions? This seems like an enormous leap of faith. Just as big a leap of faith as thinking that solar thermal with energy storage may be able to provide base-load generators by 2030. Those are enormous leaps of faith. I don’t believe either of these technologies will be viable as much more than demonstrations and heavily subsidised ways to keep the gas industry and coal miners happy through a few more elections (the gas industry loves wind and solar because that means lots of gas). Ann, you seem to be arguing for anything but nuclear. I wonder why? What is your real reason? Nuclear is by far the least cost way to cut emissions from electricity generation. It is about the safest of all electricity generation technologies. It has by far the smallest footprint. Most importantly it is well proven. The other technologies you are hoping for are decades from being available at the scale needed, and probably will neve be viable except as a small token contribution. What is the real reason you are anti-nuclear. I challenge you to challenge your beliefs - your underlying fears.
  20. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    Government and business fund research everywhere. I am sure you would have no problem getting research money from fossil fuel companies - they already fund misinformation. Oil companies spend enormously on research and many have serious internal grunt. You might ask why they havent invalidated climate theory from their own resources if it was that easy? My guess - misinformation is far more likely to succeed, cheaper and effective.
  21. The Grumble in the Jungle
    Why are you reacting to an event that happened back in January? I can appreciate that it was a point that needed tackling. But it does seem odd that it has taken this long.
  22. The Grumble in the Jungle
    And the terminology difference in the "how much of Holland is below sea level/river level/could be flooded". It would be nice of the MSM pointed out to people that indeed the Amazon forests are threatened, the glaciers are melting, Holland will be flooded. Instead of, I'm sure quite unintentionally, leaving the public with the impression that the report was "full of errors". Now don't anyone tell me it was intentional or I'll be left with no childish illusions at all (and I could have made a lot of money if the tooth fairy had been around in recent years, I can tell you).
  23. What should we do about climate change?
    Peter @145, “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. Sorry, I didn’t want to put words in your mouth. Although it amazes me that your goal would be to cut CO2 emissions but you don’t want to connect it with climate change. For what other reasons would you ever want to reduce CO2 emissions ? “Ann: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 You (and several other people on this forum) are convinced that the use of fossil fuels will go down drastically once we start deploying nuclear/renewable energy on a massive scale. To the extent that not all available fossil fuels will ever be mined. People will at a certain point in the future just lose their interest in fossil fuels. You may be right. I am not convinced. Anyway, it is a very important assumption, and an assumption that should be backed up by scientific research. Because the answer to this question determines how much CO2 is eventually going to end up in the atmosphere (and therefore the magnitude of the climate change that awaits us). 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. I don’t have an agenda. I just think that the proposed measures to – fight climate change or reduce CO2 emissions, any way you want it – are indirect and therefore not as effective as they could be. And perhaps even not effective at all. The effectiveness of deploying green energy, or nuclear energy in the battle against climate change rather hinges on the assumption that this will cause humanity to leave a substantial part of all fossil fuels in the ground. If this assumption is wrong, the ultimate effect of these efforts will be 0. I think we should directly try to control the amount of CO2 or carbon that enters the carbon cycle (sorry if I start to sound repetitive, it’s just I am answering different people). Through the development of the CCS (carbon capture and sequestration) technique that can remove up to 85-90 percent of CO2 emissions of coal powered plants, through appliances that can remove CO2 from the air (artificial trees), through reforestation. However, that requires a carbon trading mechanism to be accepted worldwide.
  24. What should we do about climate change?
    Muoncounter @153, You are quoting the wind energy advocates without questions what they are saying. 39% increase in capacity sounds great, doesn’t it? Until you realise that a 39% x 1% = 0.39%. Quoting figures like this is pure spin. It confuses many. So we put all our efforts into technologies that can achieve next to nothing, while we prohibit the technologies that can make a real difference. Irrational advocacy of renewable energy damages the credibility of all those pushing such schemes, and by extension damages the credibility of all they are arguing for. You quote this statement from the wind energy industry: “The 158GW of global wind capacity in place at the end of 2009 will produce 340 TWh of clean electricity and save 204 million tons of CO2 every year.” Please provide substantiation for that calculation. Where are the measurements that support it. I can tell you that they do not exist. The actual measurements that have been made (in Netherlands, Texas and Colorado), suggest that wind power avoids little if any emissions.
  25. What should we do about climate change?
    A carbon tax will increase not decrease world emissions. It will increase them over the long term. A carbon tax in the developed countries will reduce emissions in those countries (a little), but the emissions are exported to other countries. This is what Europe has already done by sending its manufacturing to Asia and then buying back the products with higher embedded emissions than if they'd been manufactured in Europe. More important, raising the cost of electricity generation in the developed countries means the cost of clean generators will be higher than they otherwise would. That means the developing world will build more fossil fuel plants than they otherwise would. Carbon tax is exactly the wrong policy to cut world emissions (especially while the impediments to cheap clean electricity remain in place).
  26. What should we do about climate change?
    dr2chase, #137 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. “ultimately drill all the oil” -> so the resulting CO2 ultimately still ends up in the atmosphere, but it will take 5 times longer ? Is there anything crucial to the fact that CO2 emission will be freed more slowly ? I understand it may be important as a transitional effect, but it will make no difference to the final state of the earth’s atmosphere, and therefore to the eventual magnitude of the climate change, correct ? 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%. Yes, I see that could help. But another thing that may happen: installing a lot of extra power beside the traditional fossil fuel plants will only increase mankind’s hunger for energy. It might accelerate the world population growth (in nature, the growth of a animal population depends on the available resources, I guess for people that mechanism will also be at least partly true). In such a scenario we might not even be able to discard with fossil fuel, even expensive fossil fuel.
  27. What should we do about climate change?
    Now on to Ann (ah, I think Michael Sweet has just got to this too). The idea that an increased supply of non-carbon sourced energy would make carbon sourced energy cheaper is only true under the current subsidies/low taxes and (apparently) zero-liability environment for fossil fuel companies. If we took away their direct tax subsidies, charging them full mineral extraction fees, took away their international protection via the US military and imposed a carbon tax that came anywhere near to covering what should be their liability for the damage their product is causing ... the price of their product would go up a lot, and wouldn't fall much at all when larger supplies of cleaner energy are available.
  28. What should we do about climate change?
    KR @147, I suspect you may have many misunderstandings about electricity supply and especially about wind energy. I can't cover it all here. The BraveNewClimate web site, 'Renewable Limits' tab might be worth a visit. By the way, The Australian National Electricity Market grid has the largest areal extent of any single grid in the world (so I am told). Wind farms are spread over the southern part of this grid. They span an area of 1200 km east-west by 800 km north-south. We commonly have no wind over that whole area for days at a time. One such period lasted about a week recently (May 2010). During that period there were about 65 5-minute periods where the wind generation was negative. That is, the wind farms were drawing more power than they were generating (by up to 4 MW negative).
  29. What should we do about climate change?
    #146, 147: Wind power seems to be more popular: More wind power capacity installed last year [2009] in the EU than any other power technology U.S. wind power capacity soared 39 percent last year [2009] Chinese wind power surpasses US More to the point of this thread, from the Global Wind Energy Council: Wind energy is already making a significant contribution to saving CO2 emissions. The 158GW of global wind capacity in place at the end of 2009 will produce 340 TWh of clean electricity and save 204 million tons of CO2 every year. Are these folks unconcerned by Peter Lang's objections in #141? Or those objections something out of Don Quixote?
  30. What should we do about climate change?
    This is a little late, but the short answer to daisym @69 asking "Why won't government and scientists prepare estimates of global temperature reductions to be expected by replacing SOME of our carbon fuels energy sources with power from windmills and solar panels?" is That's what the different emission scenarios are in the IPCC (and other) projections. They very carefully lay out "this is what we expect if we follow the current path of getting as much power from fossil fuels as possible" ... "this is what we expect if taxes/subsidies push x percent of power generation to non-carbon by y date", etc. So the "why won't" in your question makes the question wrong to begin with. They have.
  31. What should we do about climate change?
    @ hpierce: Those are standard complaints, they have standard answers. Love the patronizing tone, "Get out an atlas...." #1 Riding a bicycle in the winter risks death no worse than cross-country skiing does. I happily ride in 20 degree weather, if it routinely got colder than that, I would just put on clothes. At 20, I wear two layers -- a thin wool undershirt, and a windblock. Any more and I overheat. No idea how low I could go with serious layering. Plan B, is to ride a bike that is enclosed or semi-enclosed -- faster in good weather, more comfortable in bad weather. People who #2 The wide open space has few people in it, so their fuel consumption is less important. Perhaps they keep using cars for quite a while, at least for long-haul trips. Remember, at least 1/3 of the country already lives in places denser than a Dutch town, and that's not counting the sub-50k cities and towns. Looking at Montana (fewer than 1 million people total) I note that 10% live in Billings, which has a density of 3000 per square mile -- cities and towns less dense than that in the Netherlands hit 40% bike ride share. Other Montana cities over the threshold include Great Falls, Missoula, and Helena. #3 On my bike, 50lbs of load allows me to ride no hands. 100lbs is okay on the flats. 200 lbs is the official cargo limit. If I routinely carried more than 100 lbs up hills, I would get an electric assist. Trailers are also an option. #4 Bikes work fine in the dark, and they work fine in the winter. You can buy snow tires, with studs (best ones are from Finland -- this suggests that there are people in other countries who ride in the cold and dark, and survive). Any kid too small to ride their own bike, can ride on the back of mine. I took my daughter to school on the bike of my bike (uphill) yesterday morning. #5 Inaccessibility of a national park is a regulation, not a physical law. People on bikes (in particular, bikes very much like the one I ride every day) have traveled from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, traversing paths that are physically impossible for any car. A car is most assuredly NOT absolute freedom. Ever been stuck in a traffic jam? Ever had a mechanical failure and had to wait for a tow truck? Ever run out of gas? Ever gotten stuck in the snow/sand/mud? Heck, ever had to look for parking? Bikes suffer very little from these problems; they may be slow, but they go. And when they don't go, you can usually push them along on your own two feet. instead of waiting for assistance. Cars are exceptionally needy vehicles -- you just don't notice this because of their extensive (and often socialized) support infrastructure. And remember, the only thing special about my situation, is that I've put 10,000 miles on a bike in the last four years, and that does help the legs and lungs. I'm 50, well past peak fitness, with a commute distance that is about at the median (my fastest car commute is over the median). Over 100 million people in this country live in density similar to what I ride my bike through on the way to work. The vast majority of those people could do just what I do, if they cared to do it. You should also be careful to avoid thinking too narrowly about what a "bicycle" is -- suppose my example for evaluating the practicality of cars, was a MiniCooper or Smart Car. Bikes span the range from super-light folders, to e-assisted cargo bikes with 4" tires.
  32. 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.
  33. 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.
  34. 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:

  35. 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.
  36. 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).
  37. 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.
  38. 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.
  39. 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.
  40. 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
  41. 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?
  42. 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?
  43. 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.
  44. 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
  45. 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.
  46. 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). ;)
  47. 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.
  48. 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.
  49. 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.
  50. 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.

Prev  2102  2103  2104  2105  2106  2107  2108  2109  2110  2111  2112  2113  2114  2115  2116  2117  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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