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  2103  2104  2105  2106  2107  2108  2109  2110  2111  2112  2113  2114  2115  2116  2117  2118  Next

Comments 105501 to 105550:

  1. Hockey stick or hockey league?
    great post!
  2. What should we do about climate change?
    By the way, I will not respond directly to you until you say whether or not you agree with AGW theory. I'm starting you're only trying to recuperate the concern people have with CO2 to make your industry more appealing.
  3. What should we do about climate change?
    @Peter Lang: did I say it was the solution to our energy supply? No, I didn't. Why should I trust anything you say when you put words in people's mouth? As for being "so silly it's not worth discussing it," that's just a cop-out and you know it. The fact is that, right now, Germany's power grid is being put under stress by such independent producers. Is this sufficient for our energy needs? Of course not. We need a mixed solution: large-scale and decentralized solar/wind power production, hydro-electrical *and* nuclear. Also, small-scale independent producers can benefit from this - why would you prevent the little guy from doing his part *and* benefiting from it at the same time? Because it means less money for Big Nuclear? It's quite clear you have a pro-nuclear agenda. You've made that abundantly clear through your repetitively arrogant posts. You've also proved to all of us here that you're a *terrible* salesman for nuclear. Oh, and I'm not going to grace Brave New Climate with hits. I would have, but you've completely turned me off by using them as your primary source over and over again. As I said, you make a very poor spokesperson for nuclear. I truly hope you're not an industry shill, because if you are someone is not getting his/her money's worth. "It is impossible to explain to people with strong beliefs" I don't have strong beliefs. In fact, as I've repeatedly stated, I'm in favor of Nuclear being part of a mixed solution. That, however, does not fit into your "only nuclear" propaganda, and so you are now trying to discredit me and ridicule my position.
  4. Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    I presume the reason for using the average as the base level is that if you just compute change from the starting year it could, and would, be argued, that the first year just happened to be an abnormally high (in this case) year. However given the smooth shape of this anomaly graph it is clear that there was nothing abnormal about 2002, as it turned out, and that therefore you could switch to making it the zero level. Or am I misunderstanding something statistical?
  5. What should we do about climate change?
    archiesteel, The reason I don't bother answering your question about private individuals selling power to the grid and thinking that that is a solution to our energy supply problems is because it is so silly it is not worth trying to discuss it. If you want to know why, go to Brave New Climate and find out. Or have a go at crunching the numbers yourself. It is impossible to explain to people with strong beliefs but no understanding of any of the fundamentsla od energy generation, transmission, distribution, costs, financing and importantly no sense of proportion.
  6. Stephen Baines at 15:05 PM on 1 November 2010
    Hockey stick or hockey league?
    It may help if Boofy realizes that many of the predicted patterns of climate change resulting from antorpogenic CO2 were made well before they were observed, or looked for. That's what scaddenp means when he refers to "validation" of theory. The consistency with which theoretical predictions have been borne out by observation is what underlies the current scientific consensus. It's not based on a simple appeal to correlation. All that said, a strong correlation can be very useful scientifically.
  7. Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    Seconding Doug H's comment; the canary is dying and we're still digging. Related material: Khan, S. A., J. Wahr, M. Bevis, I. Velicogna, and E. Kendrick (2010), Spread of ice mass loss into northwest Greenland observed by GRACE and GPS, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L06501, doi:10.1029/2010GL042460. http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2010/2010GL042460.shtml (pay wall) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100323161819.htm I know, clunky link usage, but in this case the URL identifies the source and that seems significant to me in this case.
  8. What should we do about climate change?
    @gallopingcamel: "I am a sucker for all kinds of de-centralized energy efficient technologies." That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about private individuals producing electricity through renewables, and selling the excess production to power companies. Please explain to me how I can do this with nuclear.
  9. What should we do about climate change?
    @Peter Lang: "You have revealed you do not have the most basic understanding of what 'risk' means. I've pointed you to What is Risk? A simple explanation about five times so far and it is clear than you and others either haven't even bothered to read it or you haven't understood it." You didn't point me to that a single time (you did point CBDunkerson and possibly others to it, but I don't have time to read all the messages). Considering that you yourself have chosen not to respond to some of my arguments (such as the ability for individuals to produce and sell surplus solar/wind energy to power companies), I don't see why I should respond to arguments you have used in discussion with others. The fact you are wrong on something that simple (which link you've given to who) makes me question why we should trust you on more complex matters. In any case, as far as risk goes: an environmental catastrophe such as Chernobyl is not possible with Wind or Solar power. Furthermore, why do you insiste on gas generators as backup for wind/solar? Why not a nuclear solution for that as well? Again, I don't think any of us are against use of nuclear power. What we're objecting to is your "nothing but nuclear" approach. It's hard to have a rational conversation with someone who is so clearly biased. Also, for the record, can you state whether or not you agree with AGW theory? The fact you won't also makes your whole intervention suspect.
  10. Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    The scariest feature of the Grace rate plots is that the level of the Baffin, Newfoundland and Greenland seas have been dropping over the past 9 years. However, if we assume that the rate contours are artifically extended into these seas by the contour software and should really be zeroed at the coastline, then it appears that the rate of loss in southeast Greenland has slowed/dropped by at least 3 cm/yr while the rated has increased by about 4cm/yr in the west. Pretty poor/confusing data plot!
  11. Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    Can we quantify what this means for likely sea level rise? My understanding was that any Greenland melt was expected to take several hundred years; how does this rate compare?
  12. Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    If the sewage pumps stop +6m isn't enough even today, the backpressure from the ocean waves can reach pretty high. One way to show this kind of data would be to title it:'Greenland mass change 2002-2010', and set the zero at the beginning of the measurement period. It's commonly done thus in faunistics. If the direction of the change is the only thing needed to show there's no need to compute the average, shortly. And I see Bern already said this.
  13. Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    In response to the graph issue - perhaps the clearer option for general consumption would be to graph "Ice mass change since 2002". That way, the zero would be at the top, and it should be clear that the change has been overwhelmingly negative.
  14. Hockey stick or hockey league?
    Why do we have this correlation / causation argument all the time. Causation always, always involves correlation. But correlation is a weird kind of tree - only some fruit is causation, the rest of the crop is just the human propensity to see patterns.
  15. Hockey stick or hockey league?
    Boofy - no. The correlation of temperature with the known forcings is a prediction of climate theory. The "hockey stick"s are a form of validation - one of many.
  16. Hockey stick or hockey league?
    You seem to be confusing correlation and cause and effect.
    Response: Comparing hockey sticks are an example of correlation. But cause and effect are demonstrated by the many other human fingerprints. Satellite measurements of infrared radiation (commonly known as heat) being trapped at CO2 wavelengths is evidence of causation. Surface measurements of increased downward infrared radiation at CO2 wavelengths provide additional confirmation of causation. A cooling stratosphere coupled with a warming troposphere are also signatures of greenhouse warming. The falling diurnal cycle, falling annual cycle, shrinking thermosphere and rising tropopause are all further pieces that build a complete, consisten picture.

    The lesson here is that to properly understand climate, you need to consider the full body of evidence as a whole. Don't get hung up on a single bit of data like the hockey stick. That's just one piece of the puzzle amongst the many lines of evidence for human caused global warming.
  17. Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    The color-coded map is indeed nightmarish, and not just because it's still Halloween (at least here in the US). I wish that when the mass loss graph was drawn it didn't have the zero line/average indicated that way, though. I've had trouble in showing this to people and watching them make the mistake that John warns people about in the caption. I think it might be better to label the Y axis with 0 at the top, and add a blue line at the average, say.
    Response: I've had to explain that graph so many times to confused readers, I decided to get proactive and explain it in the caption this time. I don't like using the term 'anomaly' as it's a scientific term that has little meaning to the average person. But when I use change or variation, it seems to create even more confusion so I opted for the technically more precise but more opaque anomaly.
  18. gallopingcamel at 12:35 PM on 1 November 2010
    What should we do about climate change?
    Ann, It goes against the grain to support France but when it comes to CO2 policy they are being unfairly treated. Take a look at this link: http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/10/25/2060-nuclear-scenarios-p4/ The comments by Tom Blees address some of your concerns and explain why France is not getting any credit for their achievements in reducing CO2 emissions.
  19. Hockey stick or hockey league?
    Dhogaza: My point was that nearly everything human related has risen that way. CO2 emissions, photographs, electrical wiring, immunizations, crude oil pumped, waste landfill created. Why single out CO2?
    Response: "Why single out CO2?"

    Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat. So when we emit billions of tonnes of a greenhouse gas into the air, we expect to see warming occur. And it has. The fact that CO2 emissions and temperature show similar hockey sticks isn't the only case for human-caused global warming, of course. Corroborating this is many independent observations finding human fingerprints throughout climate change.

    10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
  20. Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    This puts me in a very difficult position. When looking at purchasing waterfront property, do I buy at the +6m level, or +20m, or what??? More seriously, this is, as David Horton stated, a terrifying image. Whatever we do now, the rollercoaster has tipped over the starting ramp, and we're in for one hell of a ride...
  21. What should we do about climate change?
    Moderator: Formatting worng again. Sorry. I am not sure what I did wrong.
  22. What should we do about climate change?
    formatting of previous post got messed up. Moderator: please delet it. Ann @219 “OK, to illustrate the difference between a direct and an indirect approach: the hole in the ozone layer is a problem that has threatened mankind, .. In this case, a direct approach was taken: prohibit the use of CFCs that break down the ozone in the atmosphere. An indirect approach could be: allow CFCs, but promote the use of alternatives, and hope that in the end no manufacturer is going to use CFCs anymore.” I agree with the direct approach. But that is not what you are proposing when you advocate CCS and renewables but not nuclear. You are advocating that society (government) picks the technologies to use. Direct approach would be to restrict CO2 emissions. I oppose picking technology winners. I gave you reasons why CCS is a ridiculous approach to take. Instead, I’d suggest, as a first step we should remove all the impediments to low cost clean electricity generation. That could be done relatively quickly if we wanted to. Our governments could remove the blocks and send a clear message to investors that nuclear is wanted urgently; we could move start making real progress. Such a change of policy woiuld be most effective and would take effect fastets if it was led by those who have most strongly opposed it in the past (Left aligned political groups and the environmental NGO’s – the same ones who are most alarmist about the dangers of climate change)
  23. Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    Still, not to worry, CO2 is, after all, a plant food, and I'm sure Greenland (note the name) was ice free in the MWP (now free to blossom after we broke the hockey stick) but whatever, sunspots, volcanoes, it's all perfectly natural, and any link to any kind of human activity of any kind is obviously wrong cause Ayn Rand said so.
  24. Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
    That second image is terrifying - like a great purple cloud of doom. We really are up the proverbial creek without, it seems, a paddle.
  25. What should we do about climate change?
    CB Dunkerson "I say X, you dispute Y. So long as you continue to do this intelligent conversation is literally impossible." I agree with this statement. So perhaps you should go back and reread my post 204. Don't pick out on sentence and quote it out of context. I've answered you. You have not answered me.
  26. What should we do about climate change?
    Ann "Despite having 80% of their power generated by nuclear plants, France's carbon dioxide emissions have increased slightly between 1990 and 2007." You have misundersood, again! I was referring to the emissions from electricity, not from all sources. I've been referring to emissions from electricity all along, as I have repeatedly stated. France's emissions from electricity are near zero. France's total emissions from electricity generation are about the same as from just two of Australia's power staions! The point I am making is that if we allowclean electricity to be cheap, it will displace oil for transport and gas for heating and, therefore, reduce emissions from all fossil fuel use. We can do this by removing the impediments to clean electricity generation. We need to establish a truely level playing field for electriticy generation technologies. Remove all the ridiculous impediments we've placed to block nuclear and to support all other industries, especially fossil fuels. In an earlier post I gave a list of some of the most obvious impediments to nuclear and support for the other technologies.
  27. What should we do about climate change?
    Archiesteel, @213, You have revealed you do not have the most basic understanding of what 'risk' means. I've pointed you to What is Risk? A simple explanation about five times so far and it is clear than you and others either haven't even bothered to read it or you haven't understood it.
  28. Stephen Baines at 10:23 AM on 1 November 2010
    The Grumble in the Jungle
    Ed Davies @8 It might be hard as the Times of London was forced to retract the original article by Jonathan Leake and pulled it from the web. There are of course many websites that site the article as truth despite the retraction. You'd barely know there was a retraction. Real Climate had a post on the retraction when it came out
  29. Hockey stick or hockey league?
    Boofy: "Seriously guys, chart pretty much anything human related and you get the same shape." As Tom Dayton points out, Boofy scores an own goal with that one ... Yes, Boofy, that's the point, recent warming is human-related, related to our exponential increases in CO2 emissions ...
  30. Stephen Baines at 10:00 AM on 1 November 2010
    Hockey stick or hockey league?
    To futher Tom Dayton's point, skeptics would have you believe that the increase in photographs was a function of previously unspecified natural processes rather than the increase in people using cameras. Any attempt to show that photographs came from cameras and that people were responsible for the action of said cameras would further be dismissed as a consequence of incomplete or biased data ("Squirrels have been growing in number with urbanization. Why have you've never determined how many photographs they take?"), improper and probably inscrupulous modeling of the interactions between electromagnetic radiation and imaging materials ("You've never considered how variations in solar radiation could affect the potential for good photographs") or not in line with what the true scientific genuises of the past understood ("Galileo never used one, so cameras must not exist!").
  31. Hockey stick or hockey league?
    But Boofy, skeptics claim that temperature is not human related.
  32. Hockey stick or hockey league?
    Boofy... Hmmm, what about preindustrial photograph levels? Is there a medieval photograph period? Sorry, good try but it's not the same.
  33. Hockey stick or hockey league?
    Spooky!! I charted the number of photographs taken by people per year and I got the same hockey-stick graph! Now just to figure out if CO2 causes photographs or it's the other way... Seriously guys, chart pretty much anything human related and you get the same shape.
  34. gallopingcamel at 08:48 AM on 1 November 2010
    What should we do about climate change?
    archiesteel (#215), I am a sucker for all kinds of de-centralized energy efficient technologies. I had compact fluorescents when they were only available from Amway; I have an electric car and am looking seriously at roof top PV which almost makes sense here in Florida. While these things are great fun they simply cannot compare with nuclear power when it comes to reducing CO2 emissions on a vast scale.
  35. What should we do about climate change?
    #221: "insuring the risks involved in achieving 100% renewable energy." Turns out its not the renewable technology that's the problem for Germany, its the EU's wacky trading system. As more wind turbines go online, coal plants will be able to reduce their output. This in itself is desirable -- but the problem is that the total number of available CO2 emission certificates remains the same. In other words, there will suddenly be more certificates per kilowatt of coal energy. That means the price per ton of CO2 emitted will fall. ... As a result, there was very little incentive for big energy companies to invest in climate friendly technologies. -- der Spiegel, 2/2009 That means that viable technology for GHG reduction must overcome not just the technical issues, but must also fight an economic/political headwind as well.
  36. Hockey stick or hockey league?
    facepalm #5: This isn't just climate change deniers, it's any conspiracy theorist. It's why you can never, ever convince them, no matter what evidence you provide. Conspiracy Theory 101: 1. Any evidence that would tend to disprove the conspiracy is fraudulent and, therefore, further proof of the conspiracy. 2. Any individual who argues against the conspiracy is, ipso facto, part of the conspiracy. So there is no hope of ever convincing any of the "It's a hoax" people. They have too much invested in it, and a mental framework that permits them to discard all contrary evidence without a second thought. The only thing we can do is provide rational evidence for rational people who simply are not yet in posession of the facts. In other words, do what Skeptical Science is doing.
  37. The Grumble in the Jungle
    Would it not be better to cite the original article or at least the newspaper and date?
  38. Skeptical Science Firefox Add-on: Send and receive climate info while you browse
    Same trouble as Lazarus (Firefox 3.6.12 on Mac OX X 10.5.8). Are we supposed to submit a separate report for each argument?
  39. What should we do about climate change?
    MunichRe seem to think it worthwhile insuring the risks involved in achieving 100% renewable energy. Would they really be considering this if they believed they were going to lose money ? Or do they think that the losses would be less than those involved in pay-outs due to increasing global warming ?
  40. What should we do about climate change?
    CBD: "And the primary point continues to be that disputing the safety of solar and wind in comparison to nuclear is just pathetic." Peter Lang: "Nuclear is some 10 to 100 times safer than coal for generating electricity..." I say X, you dispute Y. So long as you continue to do this intelligent conversation is literally impossible.
  41. What should we do about climate change?
    @Peter #160 Why do you believe replacing coal power stations with nuclear (in an economically rational way) is not effective at cutting emissions? It is proven that it works. See France for example. I looked up France Carbon dioxide emissions rise slightly despite reduction efforts Despite having 80% of their power generated by nuclear plants, France's carbon dioxide emissions have increased slightly between 1990 and 2007. Obviously, France will not be able to obtain much more CO2 reductions from deploying even more nuclear power. The article states: “Had there been zero economic growth during the same period, carbon dioxide output would have decreased by more than 30 percent.” I think this is exactly the point I want to make. You cannot look at these things in isolation. You cannot suppose one parameter will change and the rest will stay constant. Economic growth, energy efficiency, population growth are all connected. Using energy more efficiently will result in an overcapacity in energy, which will result in more economic growth, which results in a netto increase in the energy demand. Therefore nuclear (or green energy) will – according to me – not result in a decrease of CO2 emissions. But I am willing to listen to any argument, any proof that proves me wrong. Why do you believe CCS would be more direct than replacing coal with nuclear (or any economically viable low emission technology that would be capable of replacing coal)? OK, to illustrate the difference between a direct and an indirect approach: the hole in the ozone layer is a problem that has threatened mankind, but it is a problem that was effectively solved by internationally coordinated actions (that should give us at least some hope that the climate problem can be solved as well, although it is much more complex). In this case, a direct approach was taken: prohibit the use of CFCs that break down the ozone in the atmosphere. An indirect approach could be: allow CFCs, but promote the use of alternatives, and hope that in the end no manufacturer is going to use CFCs anymore. You understand the difference ? The first approach works. The second approach might work. Or it might not. Similarly, promoting either green energy or nuclear energy is at best an indirect approach to reduce CO2 emissions. It doesn’t guarantee that global CO2 emissions will be lower (and until now, worldwide CO2 emissions are still rising). Nuclear energy will only ultimately reduce global CO2 emissions if - for every nuclear plant that is built, effectively a fossil fuel plant is shut down (and not just adding nuclear plants to the total installed power) - AND: if the fossil fuel that is saved this way doesn’t get burnt in another place. F.i. decreasing demand leads to decreasing fossil fuel prices, and as a result some power plant in Tajikistan will burn more fossil fuel. On the other hand, CCS effectively catches CO2 and removes it from the cycle, permanently. Or I should rather say, before I get corrected: CCS effectively prevents new carbon from entering the cycle. (By the way, France has coal plants with CCS as well). The earth/human society/the economy is a complex system of communicating vessels. The only thing that matters in the end is not how much CO2 reduction we can get from one power plant, but the global amount of CO2 reduction we can achieve. The common assumption is: many small measures will result in one big change. My question is: Is that so ? Why do you believe that CCS can remove 85% to 90% of CO2 emissions? That's what CCS manufacturers claim. Perhaps it can’t. The point is: for every ton of CO2 that enters the atmosphere, a ton should be removed. CCS is a really good start, since it removes CO2 at the source: where it is produced. What is the real reason you are anti-nuclear. I challenge you to challenge your beliefs - your underlying fears. You may not have noticed it, but for the sake of my argument, nuclear and green energy are exactly the same: they are what is called in economics “substitutes” for fossil fuel. A substitute may replace an earlier product. Or it may not. It depends on a lot of conditions (whether the substitute is actually better, cheaper, and of course it depends on the demand for the good). I have indeed issues with nuclear energy, but in this discussion they are irrelevant. Firstly, you need to prove that a solution actually works to solve a problem. If it does, we can discuss about advantages and disadvantages. If it doesn't work, it doesn't make sense to discuss any further.
  42. What should we do about climate change?
    Peter Lang wrote : "We require nuclear to be 10 to 100 times safer than coal? Why? We accept the safety of coal, so why do we demand that nuclear be 10 to 100 times safer?" Well, that's quite a range you have there - is that for different countries ? And anyway, coal plants are there now but perhaps might not be in certain locations if present-day regulations had been in force when they were originally built, and that would be fine by me. Would you be happy to have limited regulations for all dirty/dangerous power plants or only for nuclear ones ? But, even so, an accident in any nuclear power plant has got to have the potential to be at least anywhere between 10 to 100 times worse, if the worst were to happen. Or can you guarantee that the worst won't happen ? Plus, looking for lists of industrial accidents, mainly in the energy sector, the list for nuclear is a long one - the only similar comparisons for scale of disaster come with the coal and oil industries. I have yet to find any lists of disasters with regard to the renewable sector. List of Industrial Disasters List of Civilian Nuclear Accidents List of Civilian Radiation Accidents Who would rather be living next to a nuclear power plant than any other form of energy plant, if the worst were to happen ?
  43. What should we do about climate change?
    #198: "fail dismally when implemented on a large scale as in Denmark, Spain and Germany." The study used to show Denmark's wind 'failed dismally' appears to be a product of the same fossil fuel industry lobby mentioned in #196. A press release from the Institute for Energy Research (IER) indicated that it had commissioned the report ... If there is a flaw in the Danish system, it would seem to be an obvious fix: Return the revenue from exported power to the consumer.
  44. gallopingcamel at 01:24 AM on 1 November 2010
    What should we do about climate change?
    As someone trained in "Radiation Safety" and with years of experience overseeing operations involving radiation at lethal levels, I have the greatest respect for safety issues. Today's nuclear power plants are demonstrably much safer than any of the alternatives available, including wind power. No professionals in the nuclear power industry are advocating reducing radiation safety standards; all we want is for the licensing process to be made comparable with the regulations covering fossil fuel plants.
  45. What should we do about climate change?
    @gallopingcamel: what about decentralized power production by consumer-producers, which wind and solar power allow? Isn't it better to spread out power production, using the same philosophy as the Internet, and empowering citizens in the process, or do you only support large corporations?
  46. What should we do about climate change?
    Peter Lang: Can anybody name any non-nuclear power generation accidents? Not building nuclear power plants is certainly irrational but the level of public protest against building a nuclear vs coal powerstation does not bear comparision so it is no surprise that more nuclear plants are not built. If you want to confront protesters with your shouts of "But it's 100 times safer than coal!" feel free. It's not comparisons of safety that the public make but comparisons of fear. "Which is more scary, coal or nuclear?" has long been answered by the public to the detriment of the latter. It's not the people at this website who plan power station building, it is the politicians who think that renewables are the sole solution. In 20 years time when a large number of renewable projects have been built even Greenpeace will grudgingly accept the necessity of nuclear as part of the solution. As for the practice of denial I don't think that 'our side' is immune but I would hope that they would be more likely to admit it and change when presented with evidence and not rhetoric. If we didn't follow the evidence we wouldn't be here engaging the skeptics. I favour solutions that recognize reality and that is that nuclear is not going to happen yet, not a fantasy land where building renewables is going to stop and we are all going to begin a massive nuclear program. It is that reality that you seem be be in denial of.
  47. What should we do about climate change?
    @Peter Lang: "We require nuclear to be 10 to 100 times safer than coal? Why? We accept the safety of coal, so why do we demand that nuclear be 10 to 100 times safer?" Because the potential threat is higher as well. The greater the threat, the higher the security threshold must be. Anyone would be more concerned about the safe handling of C4 as opposed to some firecrackers... "And the same people who call climate sceptics “deniers” practice denial themselves." Wait, aren't you one of the people who'd call climate skeptics "deniers" as well? I mean, you *do* believe that AGW theory is correct, right? Following your logic, wouldn't that mean you're in denial yourself?
  48. gallopingcamel at 01:14 AM on 1 November 2010
    What should we do about climate change?
    archiesteel, (#209), Burning fossil fuels makes very poor use of an important resource and that is why I advocate building a large nuke each week or a small nuke each day. In the long run fission power is inevitable unless something even better such as fusion (Hot or Cold?) comes along. This is simply a matter of economics based on the fact that fission fuel reserves dwarf fossil fuel reserves.
  49. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    michael sweet #116 I can't find an equation for the 'WV and Ice Albedo feedback' which is stated for AD2005 at +2.1W/sq.m. I could make an estimate that it is linear back to zero back 255 years to AD1750 - or some other relationship (logarithmic? inverse square?) Please advise if you know this relationship. Read this again: "Dr Trenberth - a leading scientist (of travesty fame) uses a figure for positive feedback of +2.1 W/sq.m (Water Vapor + Ice Albedo), and a Figure of -2.8W/sq.m for S-B radiative cooling derived from the assumption of a 0.75 degK surface temperature rise since AD1750 which is importantly assumed to be approximately the same as the increase in the Earth's radiating temperature since AD1750." and "The positive feedback term of +2.1W/sq.m from Water Vapour and Ice Albedo implies a higher surface temp increase than the radiating Earth temp increase - which is the proposed 'enhanced greenhouse effect of CO2GHG interacting with Water Vapour' - I presume. It seems that the two are inconsistent. Would anyone care to comment on this?" I think I have covered the point. How can it be assumed that the S-B temperature increase around the Temp which the Earth radiates (assumed at 255 degK) is the same as the surface Temp increase (both 0.75 degK), if the enhanced greenhouse effect is already operative and producing a differential across the atmospheric column? If there is a WV + Ice albedo feedback of +2.1 W/sq.m then the surface temp increase of 0.75 degK should be significantly greater than the S-B radiating temp increase, should it not? Does not the enhanced CO2GHG theory state that for a doubling of CO2 we should see an approx 3degK surface temp increase for a 1 degK increase in the S-B radiating temperature. Now we have not had a doubling of CO2 at AD2005 wrt AD1750, but if there is a WV - CO2 feedback working then the surface temperature increase should be larger than the S-B radiating temp incease right now.
  50. What should we do about climate change?
    JMurphy, “I agree with MichaelM, and cannot understand how anyone can be advocating the relaxation of rules and regulations concerning nuclear builds - that is definitely the best way to put people off, especially if they believe they don't have a proper say about whether a nuclear power plant is going to be built in their own vicinity.” We require nuclear to be 10 to 100 times safer than coal? Why? We accept the safety of coal, so why do we demand that nuclear be 10 to 100 times safer? If the cost of the higher levels of safety was not an issue, then of course we would want it. But by running up the cost, as we have done, we make it more expensive than coal. Then it is uneconomic. So we stick with coal which causes 10 to 100 times more health effects and fatalities than nuclear per MWh. How dumb is that? Not only that, we continue to do so because of a phobia of all things nuclear. And the same people who call climate sceptics “deniers” practice denial themselves.

Prev  2103  2104  2105  2106  2107  2108  2109  2110  2111  2112  2113  2114  2115  2116  2117  2118  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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