Recent Comments

Prev  2105  2106  2107  2108  2109  2110  2111  2112  2113  2114  2115  2116  2117  2118  2119  2120  Next

Comments 105601 to 105650:

105601. daisym at 04:12 AM on 29 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        RE: Daniel Bailey #72 Thank you for responding. What you wrote makes sense. I understand that we won't see temperatures coming down very quickly because of the reasons you explained. The main question I was asking was: "Energy is being generated by wind and solar devices. As a result, no CO2 was introduced into the atmosphere from energy produced by these devices. If the equivalent energy had been produced from carbon fuels, then "X" tons of CO2 would have gone into and warmed the atmosphere. How much of a potential global temperature increase was averted by using wind and solar devices?" This is what I was lamenting in my earlier comment. 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? If a dietician can estimate the effect of 100 calories per day (either added to or removed from the diet) on a persons weight, I'm hoping that climate scientists can do the same thing regarding the net change in CO2 (and thus temperature) resulting from generating power by wind and solar devices, instead of carbon fuels.
105602. muoncounter at 04:09 AM on 29 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        #95: "There are about 10-15 trillion barrels of unconvential oil which are heavy and extra heavy crude oils, tar sand and oil shale." Plans for oil shale recovery come and go whenever there is a price shock. Oil shale production is characterized by high front-end capital and operating costs and long lead times between capital investments and operating revenues. The potential for changes in economic conditions, energy markets, capital markets, government leadership and policies, and public support for oil shale projects, imposes greater risks than many other energy project investments. -- Oil Shale Roadmap, 2004 That problem is anathema to an oil industry dogged by price and demand concerns. Nor is oil shale a 'free in Nature' as you specify in #95. The extraction process is an environmental mess, especially involving the water requirements: Current water supply from the Colorado River Basin System is likely to be adequate to support the initial phases of oil shale industry development. However, the quantity of water required for a large-scale industry, producing 2-4 million barrels per day or more, could present a significant hurdle. -- same source (And that's what keeps this on topic -- warming climate means disruptions to water supplies.)
105603. h pierce at 04:06 AM on 29 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Eric Those folks are so filthy rich that they can afford their own power systems and many have back up power. After all you can't have all that really expensive wine in cellar and steaks in the freezsr go bad. Or no power for the heated pool and sauna.
105604. h pierce at 03:58 AM on 29 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Peak oil only refers to oil that can be recoverd by present convential methods. These are (1)flow from the reservior under natural pressure,(2)pumping, (3)water flodding and (4)gas injection suchas CO2. At the temperature and pressure in the reservor CO2 can be a super critcal fluid which has good solvent power for many materials. A super critical fluid has a density greater than the gas phase but less than the liquid phase. The CO2 on Venus is supercrical fluid not a gas. The critical temperature and pressure for CO2 31.1 deg C and 72.9 atm, resp. Above 31.1 deg C CO2 will not form a true liq phase no matter how much presssure is applied. The oil coming out of the damaged BP well in the Gulf of Mexico was flowing at pressure of ca 3000 psi iirc. It probably a real good idea to get as much of this high pressure oil out the reservor. An earth quake that cause release of this deep oil would be a true catastrophe and there would no easy way to stop it. There is nat seepage in the Gulf and this oil washes up on the beach as tar balls. In fact there huge amount of oil coming from nat seepage but lots gets eaten by microbes. Wind, solar, concentrated solar power aren't really going to make a dent in power usage especially in cold climates and at higher latitudes where there are about 8 hrs sunlight. Icing of the blades of wind turbines is a problem in really cold climates. The main draw back of these power surces is that these are unreliable (i.e., producing or not producing power) and unpredicatable (i.e., the amount of power produced is quite variable). The most important draw back is that for every megawatt of power from these sources there must be availble the same amount of power from convential sources. When it is -40 deg C in really cold climates, you must have stable and reliable power for furnance fans and electric heaters. Many farms in cold climate have beck up generators in case of power failure. At -30 to-40 deg C you will freeze to death quite quickly unless you can get heat PDQ. Go over to WUWT and read the article about how the Spanish gov shafted all the people who invested their life savings and mortaged the properties for wind farms. A lot of them are face with bankruptcy.
105605. Eric (skeptic) at 03:55 AM on 29 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        h pierce brings a good point about culture (diamonds). First of all, asking Americans to change their culture is not going to work. Non-Americans on this forum who aren't familiar with American culture may not realize this. Imagine a country road with driveways every 200-300 meters or more. Properties will be 20 to 40,000 square meters or more. The driveway is another several hundred meters and leads to a house in the open (no shade trees or winter protection partly due to wildfire concerns, partly for the view). The property may contain some hunting area or a range, a tree harvesting area, or a rough road down to the river. I could write a book, not just a paragraph, about the benefits of such a lifestyle. Changing the equation might include the cost of convenience offset by self sufficiency. For example, do the property owners desire 100% constant and reliable electric power or is they willing to put up with somewhat intermittent power at a lower cost? Are they willing to pay less for a limited range heavy vehicle registration (e.g. haul from home supply store)? Would they be willing to save on commuting costs but still have a reliable and comfortable service (e.g. privately-run luxury van) using express lanes or similar incentives? What I propose is in addition to many good alt energy production suggestions above along with alt energy basic research.
105606. michael sweet at 02:23 AM on 29 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        H pierce: "The transportation sector will always use hydrocabon fuels" What do you think people will do in 50 years after the full affects of peak oil? The AGW problem will just make us adjust sooner to the shortage of fossil fuels. I noticed a great many bases for wind generators the last time I flew over Texas. In the US wind is supposed to be more cost effective than solar. Spain got 40% of their energy from wind one month last spring. Does anyone have informed comments about wind energy?
105607. Argus at 02:10 AM on 29 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Ann #92: " – as far as I know – they have never actually replaced fossil fuel based plants. " I think Denmark have replaced some old fossil burning plants already, they do have a lot of wind power, and they are definitely aiming towards closing them all. The following is a rough Google translation of (part of) an article recently found on the Swedish TV website, svt.se: "By essentially a proliferation of wind power, Denmark shall be completely free of fossil fuels by 2050. After two years of work, the Government's Climate Commission presented its ambitious proposal, which is claimed to be surprisingly cheap (costing one half percent of GDP in 2050, scientists believe). Each year between 2015 and 2025, one offshore wind farm that generates 200 megawatts each, is erected. Wind power as a share of energy production should be increased from (now) 20 percent, to 60-80 percent in 2050. When there is no wind energy will be met by biomass and waste incineration."
105608. gallopingcamel at 02:05 AM on 29 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Marcus (#51) and Argus (#84), Yes, those are real numbers and they surely cast doubt on the viability of future nuclear power projects in the USA . However, the prospects look much brighter in some other countries including China where NPPs are being built for $1.5/We. In France they already built their fleet of NPPs, so they enjoy raking in huge sums by exporting electricity to Germany, Italy, the UK and Denmark. Apparently the French have a base cost of less than $0.05/kVAh. http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/10/25/2060-nuclear-scenarios-p4/ Finally, I pay Florida Power & Light about $0.12/kVAh for my electric power. That company has a wide variety of generating technologies but their lowest cost sources right now are their two NPPs. This is based on inside information that I hope to be able to share on this blog when (if?) I get permission.
105609. Berényi Péter at 01:38 AM on 29 October 2010
        The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
        #107 Philippe Chantreau at 07:40 AM on 28 October, 2010 BP, I'm curious. Is it your personal opinion that the atmospheric greenhouse effect has been falsified indeed, as G&T or Kramm seem to argue? No, it is not falsified and at the present level of discussion never will be (as it belongs to the "not even wrong" category). Therefore the very title of that infamous paper is misleading. Gerlich and Tscheuschner in their reply to Halpern at al. say: "In other words, we analyze the rationale and the inner contradiction of derivations of the atmospheric greenhouse effects communicated in the standard climate literature from the viewpoint of a physicist. In part, we are arguing within the context of the standard assumptions put forward by mainstream global climatologists. Nowhere we offer our own model, and we never will." And it is exactly that's what they do. Current formulations of the atmospheric greenhouse effect fail to meet standards of theoretical physics. It is as simple as that. The correct response of course is not to debunk the messenger, but to understand the message and having completed that task to present such a clear definition of the concept, that makes sense even for theoretical physicists. This job is not done so far. Of course I would never deny atmospheric emissivity in thermal IR has a role in maintaining quasi-adiabatic thermal structure in the troposphere. Without it (in a pure N₂ - Ar atmosphere for example) vertical thermal profile would be much closer to an isothermal model. It may even be interesting to analyze the effect of adding some more IR emitter to an already saturated narrow emission band, but analyzing its effect on what? Let's consider the problem of average temperatures. It is often stated with no atmospheric greenhouse effect "equilibrium temperature" would be 255 K (-18°C). In fact it is the approximate effective temperature of Earth as it is. However, as you can see, geographic distribution of outgoing thermal IR radiation at TOA (Top of Atmosphere) is very uneven. Effective temperature of an object is defined as the actual temperature of an isothermal perfect black body with the same surface area and same radiative power output. For the Earth this temperature does not depend on its IR emissivity, neither on the IR emissivity of any atmospheric ingredient. It is perfectly determined by ASR (Absorbed Shortwave Radiation), that is, short wave (visible & near IR) albedo and incoming solar radiation flux. Outgoing longwave radiation is not only uneven, but neither it is thermalized perfectly, because at such low temperatures no material approximates a black body and due to the semitransparent nature of atmosphere radiation escaping to space originates in different layers with vastly different temperatures. Therefore it is a tricky business to assign (radiative) temperature to each and every point of the globe. Nevertheless it can be done. If it's useful or not, is another matter entirely. If the surface of the globe is divided up into a grid, having measured the distribution of OLR (Outgoing Logwave Radiation), effective temperature can be calculated for each gridcell, then one can take the (area weighted) average of these temperatures. As <T>⁴ ≤ <T⁴>, the finer the grid the smaller this average will be. A decreasing series bounded from below is convergent, therefore with a fine enough grid we can calculate a well defined unique average temperature for the globe as it is seen from the outside. This temperature is much smaller than the oft quoted -18°C, it is certainly somewhere below -30°C. In defining the atmospheric greenhouse effect it also has the advantage of having a chance to be the correct choice to compare average surface temperature against, because comparing average temperatures to an effective temperature hardly makes sense in the first place (like apples to oranges). Is the atmospheric greenhouse effect more than 45°C then (instead of 33°C)? One also wonders what is the correct choice for surface? I know we live at the bottom of the atmosphere, so the special surface separating it from the rest of the globe is important for us. However, at least from the 16th century on we are moving away from an anthropocentric viewpoint, not by pure chance, but it has turned out the Universe is not centered around mankind after all, at least not in any trivial sense. So the correct question to ask is "Which surface is the important one for the climate system?" The question put this way has a unique straightforward answer: the upper surface of crust. The interface between the atmosphere and ocean is a busy one, both material and heat flows are several orders of magnitude higher there than those between the crust and atmosphere/hydrosphere combined. The whole AGW issue is started by the realization of a small, but in a geological sense still fast flow of the element carbon from crust to atmosphere effected by industry. It can be considered a "forcing" precisely because this interface is usually much more "closed" than the one between air and ocean. So when talking about "average surface temperature" we'd better compute it along a true boundary surface of the climate system, that is, along the surface of land and bottom of ocean. This average would be less than 7°C and much more stable than the usual one. In this case is the atmospheric greenhouse effect 25°C? or 37°C? I have no idea if average temperature of the globe as it is seen from space is increasing, decreasing or just fluctuating around some value. Neither do I know if among the several possible definitions of atmospheric greenhouse effect which one has a trend and in what direction. But it would certainly be interesting to know. Average temperature is probably not as important as some say. Entropy fluxes could be calculated in a similar, although slightly more complicated manner (one would need spectral resolution as well) and that would be way more informative than average temperature at an arbitrary interface.
105610. h pierce at 01:26 AM on 29 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        MC "...free in Nature.." means not in incombined form such as most metals and most elements. The most abundant materials free in Nature are water, the gases in the atmosphere. This includes small amount of gold, silver and coppper. There are about 10-15 trillion barrels of unconvential oil which are heavy and extra heavy crude oils, tar sand and oil shale. Coal which can be converted to liquid hydrocabons is not included in this catatgory. During WW II Germany obtained most of its fuel from coal using the Fischer-Tropsch proccess as does South Africa. Google "SASOL"' Shell R&D has several pilot projects in north western Colorado in the oil shale basin that uses in situ resistive heating to produces liquid hydrocarbons from kerogene, a waxy material in the shale. Obtaining hydrocabons from oil shale is well-known. During WW II the US Navy has a pilot plant in the Green River basin. They found that heating a ton of average oil shale would yield 25-30 gallons of liquid hydrocarbons and about 10,000 cubic feet of methane and ammonia. "Nope again. The oil companies I worked for are skeptical of climate change because it threatens their bottom line." No way. The transportation sector will always use hydrocabon fuels. If I were the CEO of a big oil company, I would tell the goverment "no carbon taxes and regulations of emisions or I will shut this company down, dismantle the refinery and move it and HQ to a tax haven." If workers can go on strikes so can compsnies. Presently, I pay a carbon tax of Can $0.9935 per Gj of natural gas which costs Can $4.976 per Gj in British columbia. That a tax rate 19.96% The general sales tax on junk food and beer is 12%. No sales tax on good food. Note: Fossil fuels are use for producing distilled spirits. Are you willing to pay a lot more for whisky, vodka, etc. You want to pay a carbon tax on propane for the barbie? In BC there free passes on the carbon tax for low income wage earners who receive a carbon tax credit, for companies exploring for nat gas, oil and minerals, cement producers and smelters making aluminium, lead and zinc. In the domestic economy the cosummer will eventually pay all carbon taxes. I have already noticed that the cost food in the supermarket has risen across the board since trucks bring it to the store. If a goverment can regulate ghg emission and impose carbon taxes, it can not only seize control of the means of production but every aspect of your life. Would you like the lady premier running your life? I don't think so!
105611. KR at 00:59 AM on 29 October 2010
        Climate sensitivity is low
        Berényi - Further reading into non-equilibrium thermodynamics is proving interesting; in particular the internal fluctuations of such a system. You are correct, the climate is a non-equilibrium system, due to the energy flows. So: You hypothesize that maximal entropy production will prevent positive feedback to greenhouse gases, minimizing climate sensitivity. First objection to your hypothesis: I would hold that the climate has stable stationary states, where there is a local max of entropy. Given the internal fluctuations (including seasons, PDO, ice ages) over the history of the climate, I would find it difficult to believe that the climate could find nearby local entropy maxima to switch to based on small linear forcings; surely the climate would have long since hit those maxima based simply on climate variability. not impossible, but highly unlikely. There may indeed be critical points (ice age initiations, major clathrate/permafrost upheavals); those are points of concern, but certainly not involved in response to small linear forcing changes. Second objection: Climate sensitivity has been measured, and shown to have positive feedback. Your claim that the MEP effect would cause "no positive feedback" (your words) is thereby falsified. Until you recognize this (and you've spent quite some time ignoring this issue raised repeatedly both by me and also by 'e'), the conversation will go nowhere, and I will continue to consider this a lengthy thought experiment unrelated to the real world.
105612. Alexandre at 00:35 AM on 29 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        quokka #50 Very interesting graph, thanks. Eyeballing it, I'd say it's as variable as weather. Local wind farms are indeed very variable. What I said is that this variability is climatologically predictable in the long term and meteorologically predictable in the short term, allowing you to manage the various sources. And if you have a extensive grid, say covering all Australia, you could smooth out most of the variance. Ok, I don't know much about Australian winds, but that's what I conclude from this study, about an extensive grid over Europe and northern Africa, that could smooth out even seasonal variability. They mention energy costs within the range of 3~4.5 Euro cents per kWh. High wind power penetration by the systematic use of smoothing effects within huge catchment areas shown in a European example Anyway, of course you cannot rely only on wind energy. You will need the occasional backup. But it can be an important part of the final mix, significantly lowering emissions.
105613. KR at 00:29 AM on 29 October 2010
        The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
        The line "greenhouse effect contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics" is indeed not from G&T. The quote this is based upon, from the introduction of their paper, is: "The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. While much shorter, I think the abbreviated line accurately conveys the meaning of G&T's quoted words, although the shorthand line skips major portions of G&T's strawman argument. Berényi - do you indeed feel that the greenhouse effect does not exist?
105614. muoncounter at 23:51 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        #90: "these fuels have high energy density and are readily prepared from abundant crude oil, which exists free in Nature, " False on two counts; crude oil is not abundant any longer and its most definitely NOT free. Perhaps the illusion of 'cheap oil' came from generations of allowing consumers and producers to get a free pass on cleaning up their own waste products: ie, pollutants including CO2. #91: "The reason big oil and many mining companies are quite skeptical of cilmate change is because they have not experiend any at their field site." Nope again. The oil companies I worked for are skeptical of climate change because it threatens their bottom line.
105615. muoncounter at 23:37 PM on 28 October 2010
        Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
        #71: "For there are other sources, too, such as outgassing from warming oceans and variable (unknown) outputs from various sources, such as wetlands." There's little or no empirical evidence that ocean outgassing makes a measurable contribution to atmospheric CO2 increase. Compare the monthly MLO record to landlocked stations along the same latitudes -- all the way around the globe -- and you see no differences. But 'unknown outputs'? No doubt those will be hard for you to document. "Land use change wasn't mentioned." And a good thing too, as land use change is now removing terrestrial carbon sinks. As far as increasing rates of change in atmospheric CO2, all the graphs of the annual data I've seen are concave up. That means the slope is increasing.
105616. Ann at 23:27 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        I will also post an on-topic comment :-) As much as I think we need to invest in renewable energy to replace fossil fuel based energy, I think this in itself is not going to stop climate change. It is even dangerous to put too much trust in the whole renewable energy story. The problem is that all renewable energy plants are just installed in addition to the existing power plants, until now – as far as I know – they have never actually replaced fossil fuel based plants. All measures that are taken to fight climate change should deal directly with the problem. Encouraging renewable energy, reducing ecological footprint are indirect methods at the best. It is like trying to stop a leak not at the source, but way downstream. The real issue is the extra carbon we bring into the carbon cycle by burning fossil fuels, carbon that otherwise would stay buried deep down in the earth’s crust. The carbon is exchanged between the atmosphere, the oceans, plants, rocks etc, and temporary shifts may take place (f.i. through deforestration or reforestation), but what matters in the long run is the total amount of carbon that is circulating in the system. None of the current initiatives to stop global warming prevent the further addition of carbon to the carbon cycle. If we continue like this, eventually all carbon that is now stored as fossil fuels will become part of the carbon cycle. It may take a bit longer (if we decrease our energy consumption and use more renewable energy) or shorter, but this will the end result. So, for me the viable options are: - encourage energy companies somehow to keep the remaining fossil fuels in the ground. I am really phantasizing now, cause I don’t see that happening. I think we have to calculate with the assumption that every last drop of petroleum and every last lump of coal will eventually be burnt. - carbon capture and sequestration : harvest the energy of fossil fuels, but keep the carbon behind and store it back in the ground. - mechanical trees: actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and sequester the CO2. - reforestation is a short-term solution, as in the long run forests emit just as much CO2 as they absorb. But short-term it can be part of the solution and buy us more time. Regarding geo-engineering: these are short term and emergency solutions at best. I wouldn’t like to live in a world that is only able to survive because we are constantly controlling and readjusting the climate.
105617. h pierce at 23:11 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        The reason big oil and many mining companies are quite skeptical of cilmate change is because they have not experiend any at their field site. Many of comapnies have had operation in the field for over a century. Moreover, they don't want the boys in Brussels taking over and running their companies.
105618. h pierce at 23:04 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        RE: Fossil Fuel Are Forever! Harold the Chemist says: Boats, planes, freight trains and trucks, military and emergency vehicles, heavy machinery used agriculture, construction, forestry and mining, cars and light trucks, recreational vehicles, and so forth will always require and use hydrocarbon fuels because these fuels have high energy density and are readily prepared from abundant crude oil, which exists free in Nature, by fractional distillation and blending of the distillate fraction, low energy processes which do not involve the breaking of chemical bonds. Even catalytic cracking of the heavy ditillate fractions into lighter fractions for fuel formulation is a relative low energy process. In the heavy industries, only fossil fuels can supply the heat energy and high process temperatures either directy or indirectly (e.g. the electric furnace) required by lime and cement kilns, smelters, steel mills, foundries and metal casting planets, all facilities manufacturing ceramic materials (glass, bricks, tiles, porcelin ware, etc), refineries and chemical plants and so forth. Diesel-electrical generating systems are used extensively throughout the world for primary and back-up power and for power generation in many delveloping countries and at remote locations (e.g., diamond and gold mines, resort islands, drilling rigs, movie sets, etc). Electrical generators using gasoline are quite portable and are used for small snd modest power requriments. Many processes in food production require large amounts of heat for baking, cooking and steam for sterilization, etc which can provided economically by fossil fuels. Drying of grain for storage requires enormous amounts of heat which can only be provided economically by fossils fuels. Energy for space heating especially in cold climates and hot water production and for electricity generation, in particular for refrigeration, communication systems, hospitals and emergency services, is provided most reliably and economically by use of fossil fuels. FYI: A Boeing 747 takes off with 346,000 US gallons of fuel for a long intl. fight. At large airports big jet are more numerous that house sparrows. The largeset cruise ship ever built, the Oasis of the Ocean can carry about 6,000 passengers and 5,000 crew members. These large cruise ships cary enormous amounts of fuel. The most wasteful use of energy is diamond mining. Tons of ore are sometimes processed to obtain a few carats of rough diamonds. About 80% of gold production goes to the jewerly industry. Who among you wants to tell the ladies, "No more diamonds, gold, sliver, platinium, rubies, emeralds, etc for jewerly because we must save the planet from over heating." They would become outraged, ponce on you, take off the Pradas and pound you into hamburger which they would feed with glee to the dingo dogs! I don't want read any more foolish comments about getting rid of fossil fuels. Ain't ever going to happen.
105619. adelady at 22:40 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        daisym "But nobody will tell us how much of a temperature reduction to expect from government’s solutions. Why is this so? Why are scientists silent on this?" Why? Because the very, very unpleasant truth is that we've really mucked it up for this and the next couple of generations. We can reduce our emissions instantly - meaning over the next 20 years. We can set some clever energetic people onto the task of sequestering carbon from the atmosphere (not from using geological carbon fuels) but actually extracting some of the surplus CO2 'pulse' we've injected into our oceans and atmosphere. But in the end, temperature is set to keep on rising for quite a while even with instantaneous cessation. The reason people don't talk about it? Because making that sort of thing the general topic of conversation can lead to despair and hopelessness. People need to feel that they can do some good. We need the occasional blast from the likes of "Storms of my Grandchildren" James Hansen. Mostly we need to keep plugging away at politicians on renewable power, urban design, public transport and all the rest of it.
105620. Ann at 22:39 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Regarding the safety of nuclear energy: I recently saw a television program about the French nuclear power plants. Title of the program: “Nothing to report”. Ever since nuclear power plants in France have been privatised, the operators cut corners wherever they can to save costs. Regarding the risk of nuclear pollution, instead of the “zero risk” policy from earlier days, they have adopted a “calculated risk” policy. The replacement of parts that are past their usable lifetime is delayed. Instead of a fixed staff, temporary workmen are hired from subcontractors, people who don’t have the necessary skills and don’t have a clue about the risks they are running. If anything goes wrong, the subcontractors take the blame. Nuclear inspectors are put under pressure to put “nothing to report” in their reports, even if they find flaws in the installation. What was most striking for me: this isn’t propaganda from the anti-nuclear lobby. These words and criticism came from people who have worked for many years in the nuclear industry, who used to be proud of their work, and have seen the situation deteriorate, and the risk of disasters increase. And this is France, for Gods sake. A highly developed and technologically advanced country . It makes you wonder what happens with nuclear power plants in developing countries like India, where environmental rules are not that strict, where public health is less protected, where low cost is even more a driver for all decisions. For me, fighting global warming with nuclear energy is like choosing between pest and cholera.
105621. Tom bond at 22:07 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Argus (No 84 ) said "To the moderator: What happened to the principle of keeping comments relevant to the current thread, and deleting any off topic comments? About 90% of this thread is a detailed discussion about the pros and cons of nuclear power and its economy. Hardly relevant to the title "What should we do about climate change?" " I think you have missed the intent of the pro nuclear commentators. All are very passionate about climate change and are actively researching the best way to reduce CO2 emissions without destroying our very high standard of living. The only example of a large developed country reducing carbon emissions without compromising living standards is France. In just 20 years France constructed 58 nuclear power stations replacing almost all its fossil fuel generation. Today France has low carbon emissions (per capita) compared to all other G20 countries, a strong economy, exports 4B euros of non carbon energy energy annually to Britain, Germany and Italy, has a social welfare and health system that is the envy of Europe and their citizens retire at 60. If all G20 countries had followed France's lead 30 years ago climate change would not be the issue it is today. Thus the debate about the pros and cons of nuclear power is very relevant to what we should do about climate change.
105622. quokka at 21:48 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        #81 adelady With respect to geothermal, nobody doubts that there is a huge amount of heat in granite rock a few Ks below the surface. Engineered Geothermal is a great story - huge reserves, potentially baseload power, small environmental footprint. The problem is that no electricity generation on a commercial scale has even been demonstrated and at best is several years away. Geodynamics was said to be the company closest with it's facility in the Cooper Basin in SA, but they have had their share of problems, are well behind schedule and still are to make a decision on a proposed 25 MW commercial scale demonstration plant. They have had federal govt. financial assistance. It's worth following developments, but far too early to make a judgment as to whether EGS is going to be any more than at best a bit player. I hope it is, but at this stage it would be folly to bet the future on it. It's worth keeping an eye on Geodynamics
105623. John Chapman at 20:53 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        I'm a bit behind... but in response to #9 (waste + terrorists). It might not take much nuclear waste to make a bomb, but the issue is the technology. For the 400+ power stations in the world and the plethora of terrorists, none have succeeded (or even tried?) yet. And what if they did fly a plane into a nuke power station? My point is that such scenarios are still a better option than global warming - unless there is a viable energy alternative. That debate is above. For waste, digging numerous great holes in geologically stable Australian outback, suitable encasement, etc would do the trick nicely. We don't seem to have worried about the typical 4 tonnes p.a. of U238 each coal-fired power station emits from their chimney stacks! As for #14 - curbing population growth. Removing benefits to 3rd-plus-more child would be a start (as I gather Germany does). A taxi driver I had the other day was onto his 8th child and wanted more because his father had had 12! In this country Canberra will happily pay benefits for those children, education, health, housing benefits, etc. (Am I allowed to say he was from Africa?) Anyway, I'm not sure if I have the answer, but at least it should be raised as a serious issue in politics and solutions explored.
105624. skagedal at 20:27 PM on 28 October 2010
        Skeptical Science Firefox Add-on: Send and receive climate info while you browse
        I have the same experience as fredb. I use Firefox 3.6.11 on Windows XP. Are there blocking calls in the code...? Seems like a very cool thing!
105625. Argus at 20:15 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Peter Lang (#58): "What is the basis for implying that the nuclear figures are over-optimistic" --- Just take alook at Marcus (#51)! Those are the real costs. Your figures are pure fantasy. The poor Finnish people will have to pay forever for the scandalous new Olkiluoto 3. Building the plants is one thing. Then we have to take care of the radioactive waste 'forever'. That is going to cost as much as building the plants, but that will be our grandchildren's worry, not ours, right? To the moderator: What happened to the principle of keeping comments relevant to the current thread, and deleting any off topic comments? About 90% of this thread is a detailed discussion about the pros and cons of nuclear power and its economy. Hardly relevant to the title "What should we do about climate change?"
        Moderator Response: The current topic does include the possibility of nuclear power as an option. All comments are still moderated for compliance to the comments policy. If you wish a more in-depth discussion of, say, solar power or geothermal or tidal, please kick start the flow of discussion with a comment in that direction. That way we all can benefit.
105626. Peter Lang at 19:42 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Nuclear costs much more than it should and could cost in the Western democracies. This is mainly because ofd the regulatory impediments we have built up over the past 40+ years. Some examples of the sort of impediments and regulatory distortions to the market that are blocking nuclear in Australia are: 1. nuclear power is prohibited 2. high investor risk premium because of the politics 3. Renewable Energy Targets 4. Renewable Energy Certificates 5. Feed in Tariffs for renewables 6. Subsidies and tax advantages for renewable energy 7. Subsidies and tax advantages for fossil fuel electricity generators 8. subsidies for transmission and grid enhancements to support renewable energy 9. massive funding for research into renewable energy 10. massive subsidies for research into carbon capture and storage(CCS) 11. Guarantees that the government will carry the risk for any leakage from CCS 12. No equivalent guarantee for management of 'once-used-nuclear-fuel' 13. Massive subsidies and government facilitation for the gas industry, coal seam gas and coal to gas industries (despite the latter putting toxic chemicals into the ground water and the Great Artesian Basin water) 14. Fast tracking of the approvals process for wind power, solar power, gas industry, coal industry while nuclear industry remains prohibited from even fair comparative studies by Treasury, Productivity Commission, ABARE, Department of Climate change and more. We can just imagine what the approvals process would be like for a nuclear power plant!!
105627. scaddenp at 18:10 PM on 28 October 2010
        Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
        Ned - Richard is a NZ skeptic. You can imagine the conversations. Lately to accuse NIWA of fraud about NZ warming. Richard, without a reference to contradict the established carbon accounting, what is your point here? Ned provides the evidence for acceleration by the way though I think that pretty irrelevant - 1960s rates are scary enough.
105628. johnd at 17:30 PM on 28 October 2010
        Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
        Richard Treadgold at 16:05 PM, regarding land change use, in particular deforestation which has been ongoing for centuries. From 1100 to 1500 significant deforestation took place in Western Europe, global deforestation accelerating from the mid 1800's with the result that only about half of the Earth's original mature tropical forests remain. It is also clear how seasonal plant growth causes significant variation in CO2 levels globally, with dramatic annual variations regionally. The question that needs to be answered, is, is that CO2 that would have been sequestered by the now missing forests being considered as a forcing, and has it been adequately accounted for given that considerable deforestation took place before 1750, particularly in the northern hemisphere, 1750 being the base from which the effects of anthropogenic CO2 are referred back to.
105629. Sciguy420 at 17:19 PM on 28 October 2010
        It's the sun
        OK, so your graphs show basically nothing. They either cover too short of time so that a supposed correlation or lack there of is most likely a figment of one's imagination... OR ... they lack a 'key' as is the case with the graph labeled "reconstructed temperatures" which makes it a bunch of squiggly lines... one marked 2004 one marked medieval warming. If the lines represent different ways of measuring the temperature of the past? why the difference? Shouldn't we be focusing on data that has been reliably taken... not theoretically? Can't we agree that regardless of how steep the upward trend of some graph is that our actions are not helping?
105630. gallopingcamel at 17:12 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        lin (#79), That is a really good question. Today's nuclear power plants consume about 0.7% of the Uranium in the fuel. While this is pretty inefficient it still makes sense in a world where Uranium costs $106 per kilogram and even after processing, reactor grade Uranium costs only $2,500 per kilogram (cf. Gold at $42,000/kg). Thanks to Jimmy Carter, NPPs in the USA use a "Once Through" fuel cycle so 99.3% of the fuel ends up as high level nuclear waste. Even so, the cost of the fuel is a tiny part of the cost of generating nuclear power. According to the EIA, NPP fuel averaged $0.00529/kVAh in the USA (2008): http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat8p2.html Even with a "Once Through" fuel cycle, proven reserves of Uranium and Thorium will last thousands of years. Fortunately, 4th generation fission reactors are capable of burning over 99% of the fuel which means that we can expect the Uranium and Thorium reserves to last at least 100,000 years. To get a feel for the issues involved in a rapid expansion of NPP generating capacity, you should spend some time on "Brave New Climate". This is a web site run by Barry Brook who is a "general all around egg-head" (I mean that in the nicest possible way). This link should get you started: http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/10/14/2060-nuclear-scenarios-p3/
105631. fredb at 17:11 PM on 28 October 2010
        Skeptical Science Firefox Add-on: Send and receive climate info while you browse
        I think this is great ... but have a problem. After installing (Firefox 3.6.12 in Ubuntu 10.10), my firefox tab freeze for extended period and it all becomes unusable. Disabling the add-on, all works fine again. :(
105632. adelady at 16:38 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        I like this as a summary. Got to page 7-8 and check out the estimates on geothermal and solar. Compare to the estimates in the upper section of p7. http://www.abare.gov.au/publications_html/energy/energy_10/ch_1.pdf
105633. quokka at 16:32 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        #79 lin How long will the uranium last? Try here: are uranium resources sufficient? The answer is, at the very least more than long enough until the next generation of reactors with advanced fuel cycles dramatically reduce the need for mined uranium. A recent MIT study came to the same conclusion. As for thorium, there is substantially more thorium than uranium available.
105634. Richard Treadgold at 16:05 PM on 28 October 2010
        Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
        scaddenp, The assertion was straightforward, as I quoted it:

        the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels

        Land use change wasn't mentioned. No, I can't supply a reference for what you ask. But I didn't mention it either. You forgot my question: What is the evidence for an acceleration in the rising atmospheric level of CO2? When you say "temperature-induced rises in CO2 are feedbacks, not forcings", does that mean they don't form part of the increased amount in the atmosphere? But of course they do, and they are not anthropogenic, so they ought to be deducted from the anthro emissions budget. That's all I meant. Cheers.
105635. Ned at 16:00 PM on 28 October 2010
        Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
        Richard Treadgold writes: It's incorrect to assert that the whole increase comes from fossil fuel use. For there are other sources, too, such as outgassing from warming oceans Richard, there are two problems with this. First of all, the oceans are a net sink of CO2. That is, the net flux of CO2 is from the atmosphere to the ocean, not the reverse. See lots of papers on the subject, including Takahashi 2009 and Sabine 2004. Secondly, we know the total fossil fuel flux to the atmosphere quite well, and it's clearly larger than the annual increase in atmospheric CO2. In other words, fossil fuels account for more than 100% of the atmospheric increase (with the excess being taken up by oceans and the biosphere). Richard also writes: It's also incorrect to assert that the increase in atmospheric concentration is accelerating. The Mauna Loa record shows no sign of that. In fact, graphing the yearly change (the data given at the Mauna Loa site) shows that since about 1998, the rate of increase has actually slowed. So would you cite your source for the acceleration, please? From the Mauna Loa data, the linear trend in CO2 for each of the past decades is as follows: 1960-1969: +0.8 ppmv/year 1970-1979: +1.2 1980-1989: +1.6 1990-1999: +1.6 2000-2009: +2.0 That is a very clear acceleration. It's a bit disturbing that someone acting as "Convenor, Climate Conversation Group" would be so seriously mistaken on multiple basic facts about CO2 in the Earth system. What kind of "climate conversations" are you having, and who are you having them with? Somehow, you seem to have picked up a lot of misinformation.
105636. lin at 15:49 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        If we start building a lot of uranium powered stations, how long until we start running out of uranium? How long would thorium last if we started building them?
105637. quokka at 15:41 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        #74 lin

        Can anyone tell me if a nuclear power station anywhere in the world has been successfully decommissioned yet? If so, how much did it cost?

        Yes. Nuclear decommissioning It's also important to understand that a lot of consideration is given in the design stage to decommissioning for modern nuclear power plants and they will be much cheaper to decommission than for example, the old Magnox reactors in the UK.
105638. Peter Lang at 15:30 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        This compares six options for cutting Australia's CO2 emissions from electricity generation. http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/01/09/emission-cuts-realities/ The six options compared are: 1. Business as usual Replace coal in the BAU case with 2. Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGT) 3. CCGT and nuclear 4. Wind, CCGT and Open Cycle Gas Turbines (OCGT) 5. Solar Thermal and CCGT 6. Solar Thermal, Wind, CCGT and OCGT The options are compared on the basis of: a) CO2 emissions avoided compared with BAU, b) capital expenditure c) electricity cost (for the replacement technologies) d) avoidance cost (cost per tonne of CO2 avoided) Nuclear is by far the least cost option. All Australia's coal fired power stations could be replaced with nuclear by about 2035 to 2040. Then we'd be replacing gas power stations. If we want to make substantial cuts to CO2 emissions from electricity generation, want security of supply, want low cost electricity so electricity can displace fossil fuels used in heat and transport, then we need to embrace nuclear power.
105639. Daniel Bailey at 15:21 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Re: lin Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant at Charlevoix, Michigan (USA) was decommissioned, starting in 1997 and ending about 2003. Costs were $390,000,000. See quokka's link above for some valuable info as well. The Yooper
105640. scaddenp at 15:09 PM on 28 October 2010
        Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
        Richard, I believe the assertion is that the cause of CO2 rise is anthropogenic. That's fossil fuel and land use change. Temperature-induced rises in CO2 are feedbacks, not forcings. Now can you please supply a reference for the relative percentage of CO2e (not CO2 as that doesnt tell the whole story) that comes from fossil use, agriculture, and feedbacks? I would be very surprised if feedbacks are much of a issue yet.
105641. archiesteel at 15:09 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        @Peter Lang, you're forgetting an advantage Solar has over Nuclear: its scalability. It's easy to envision a large number of private utility clients generating power through local PV installations with the possibility of selling excess power. It's a lot harder to envision people having miniature nuclear reactors in their backyard... That said, Nuclear Power is safer than it used to be, and we shouldn't necessarily shun it (as long as stringent safety protocols are followed and proper disposal is carefully monitored). It should be part of a mixed energy strategy that needs to continue promoting renewables (which will push the technology further and drive down costs).
105642. quokka at 15:08 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        #51 Marcus

        like it or not, many of the life-time electricity costs for nuclear power are based off the assumed capital cost of $1,990/KWe-which comes directly from the World Nuclear Federation.

        I'm assuming that you are referring to the World Nuclear Association. You can read what they actually have to say here, and it is not what you are claiming: The Economics of Nuclear Power This piece draws heavily on the IEA 2010 Projection of Electricity Costs report. One thing is very clear is that the cost is highly dependent on region and that China and Sth Korea are doing it at low cost - from around $1.4 to $2.0 billion max per GWe. This in itself raises interesting questions. As the piece states, cost is a complex issue. In particular it is misleading to quote cost for first of a kind projects such as the Finnish EPR and claim they representative. The experience gained with first of a kind will most likely result in more efficient subsequent builds. This is not unique to nuclear. Finally, if a project is poorly executed or delayed, costs will blow out. Again, this is not unique to nuclear and can apply to any large civil engineering project. A representative view on cost is essential, and we have to look to authorities such as the IEA. By all means criticize their figures from an informed basis if you wish, but let's try to stick to the facts.
105643. lin at 14:56 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Can anyone tell me if a nuclear power station anywhere in the world has been successfully decommissioned yet? If so, how much did it cost? And how much to permanently store the high level waste?
105644. Richard Treadgold at 14:55 PM on 28 October 2010
        Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
        

        The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.

        Yes, the atmospheric level is rising. To say it is "building up" could be an emotive way of saying the same thing. It's certainly a slow rise, at an average over 51 years of about 1.43 ppmv per year. It's incorrect to assert that the whole increase comes from fossil fuel use. For there are other sources, too, such as outgassing from warming oceans and variable (unknown) outputs from various sources, such as wetlands. It's also incorrect to assert that the increase in atmospheric concentration is accelerating. The Mauna Loa record shows no sign of that. In fact, graphing the yearly change (the data given at the Mauna Loa site) shows that since about 1998, the rate of increase has actually slowed. So would you cite your source for the acceleration, please? Cheers, Richard Treadgold, Convenor, Climate Conversation Group.
        Moderator Response: See the post CO2 is not increasing
105645. Daniel Bailey at 14:48 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Re: daisym (69) OK, I'll take a crack at this:

        "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?"

        The rise in temperatures seen is driven by an energy imbalance. Due to the rise in human-emitted CO2 (a greenhouse gas), more energy is being retained in the lower troposphere than before the extra CO2 was released; this extra energy retained mostly (93% or so) has gone into the oceans, the rest into the air. Due to the immense thermal mass of the oceans, heating has been unequal. If no more extra CO2 were injected into the carbon cycle, the temperatures would eventually stabilize (after about 30 years or so). It's kind of like eating an extra 100 calories a day. Doesn't seem like much, eh? An extra pound or two a year, who cares? Work it off next year or two...but after 20 or 30 years, you have an extra 40-60 pounds, much tougher to lose. Until the calorie budget gets balanced, either by eating less, exercising more or a combination of both, none of the extra weight will be lost. CO2 and temperatures work much the same way. As long as humans inject extra CO2 into the carbon cycle, the energy imbalance continues, the climate warms, the weather patterns destabilize, Arctic ice melts, glaciers melt, more moisture enters the air (about 4% extra [the equivalent of the volume of Lake Erie] moisture is now carried in the atmosphere due to the warming of 0.8 C), etc. So the short answer is: temperatures will not start to plateau and then go down. Not until the extra CO2 causing the rise in temps gets removed through natural processes. Which takes time: Centuries to Millenia time; effectively, we have wrought a permanent change on our world. But if we don't stop emitting fossil fuel derived CO2, temps will continue to rise...

        "Carbon fuels have been laid to blame by scientists for causing global warming, yet government has yet to unveil a plan to show a timeline for how and when we can effectively discontinue their use."

        Fossil fuel derived CO2 emissions are indeed to blame for the warming seen. Government has been dragging its heels as few in power have the political spine to walk away from the enormous dollars the fossil fuel industries represent. And then there is the potential damage to the economy it is felt will result without a viable replacement alternative. Business As Usual in Washington is safest, politically. The rest of your comment addresses why governments do or don't do things and energy alternatives; areas in which I typically don't delve. Hope what I did offer made some sense. The Yooper
105646. Peter Lang at 14:47 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Regarding solar PV, the pannels are only part of the cost. The total cost of average power for the new PV poewer stations (just commissioned) at Windora, Queensland is $110,000/kWy/y. Compared with $4,400/kWy/y for nuclear (based on the recently signed UAE contract). [Windora cost $4.5 million for 130kW, expected generation = 360MWh/y, = 32% capacity factor. Cost per average power = $109,500/kWy/y.]
105647. Peter Lang at 14:25 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        Marcus@29, you said: "By contrast, Andasol-in Spain-has an installed capacity of 100MW & cost US$380 million-or a cost of $3800 per MW of installed capacity." There severl inaccuricies in this statement. Firstly, Andasol does not have a capacity of 100 MW. It has a capacity of 50MW. It has only just been completed. They recently started development of a second plant of 50MW. So to say it 'has' a capacity of 100MW is false. Secondly, the cost of Andasol 1 was 300 million Euro (US$400 million) (50MW) or $8,000/kW, not $3,800/kW. http://www.nrel.gov/csp/solarpaces/project_detail.cfm/projectID=3 Thirdly, it is wrong to compare capacity of solar and nuclear. Nuclear provides power whenever the demand calls for it, 24/7/365. Solar provides power when the sun shines, in the day time and mostly in summer. Without storage it has a capacity factor of about 13% to 20%. With storage, at huge cost, this can be increased somewhat. The claim that solar thermal with energy storage is a baseload power station is not correct. Therefore, nuclear and solar must be compared on a properly comparable basis. The proper way to do this is with levelised cost of electricity (LCOE). However, that is complicated. For simplicity, let's compare Andasol 1 with a nuclear plant on the basis of the average energy they can supply per year. I'll use the contracted cost for the new nuclear plants being built in the UAE because it is from a recently signed contract, and the power station is the 'first in country' (which is higher cost than the 'settled down cost'). The cost is $20.4 billion for 5,400 MW, or $3,800/kW. Based on experience with the units in Korea they expect a capacity factor of about 90% (use 85% to be conservative). The cost of average power is $4,400/kWy/y. What about Andasol 1? 50MW (rated peak capacity), $8,000/kW capacity factor = 36% ('expected' but will no doubt be much lower in practice) cost of average power = $22,000/kWy/y On the basis of that rough calculation, the cost of electricity from solar (unreliable electricity at that) is 5 times the cost of reliable electricity from nuclear. Levelised cost of electricity: nuclear = $60-$100/MWh (of electricity that is always available) Andasol 1 = $400/MWh (for electricity that is available part time) On this more accurate basis, the cost of electricity from solar is 4-7 times the cost of solar. If we want to cut CO2 emissions, we must embrace nuclear - like France has. France has about the lowest cost electricity in Europe, by far the lowest CO2 emissions from electricity of any major country, exports more electricity than any other country (which demonstrates it is cheap and reliable). 76% of France's electricity is generated by nuclear power.
105648. daisym at 13:35 PM on 28 October 2010
        What should we do about climate change?
        The article tells us that: "Firstly, we should either use less energy, or use renewable energy sources, like solar-thermal generators..." What comes after that? While “Firstly” has a ring of common sense, I wonder what effect this will have on reducing global temperatures. 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? If worthwhile temperature reductions from these actions can be shown to consumers, it would go a long way to enhance public support. Of course, if estimates of temperature reductions are disappointingly low, that would explain why we’re not being told. Carbon fuels have been laid to blame by scientists for causing global warming, yet government has yet to unveil a plan to show a timeline for how and when we can effectively discontinue their use. Government hasn't seriously funded R&D to find a full time replacement for carbon fuels. Wouldn’t this be the cornerstone of a comprehensive national energy policy? Given government’s “solutions”, why isn’t the public being told where this is taking us? Government tries repeatedly to pass Cap and Trade. If it comes to pass, carbon trading will create a $10 trillion per year industry, depending where government sets the threshold to require use of carbon credits. One may argue the money involved, but how can such an industry reduce carbon fuel dependency? Obviously, the carbon trading industry would become too big to fail. The carbon trading industry would require continued use of large quantities of carbon fuels to survive. To me, it seems that the money from carbon trading will come from the pockets of consumers (through higher prices on all commodities), and do so without reducing global temperatures in any meaningful way. This is only a guess, since we haven’t been told. Government has surely calculated the tax revenues to be derived from, say, a 30% tax on Cap and Trade revenues. Given this, why would government WANT to replace carbon fuels? What would happen to the trading value of carbon credits if someone actually discovered the Holy Grail of energy that gives us a full time replacement for carbon fuels? It seems that government is betting the farm on wind and solar to save humanity from the threat of carbon fuels. But nobody will tell us how much of a temperature reduction to expect from government’s solutions. Why is this so? Why are scientists silent on this?
105649. muoncounter at 12:55 PM on 28 October 2010
        Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
        Welcome to the future... Strongest storm ever recorded in the Midwest smashes all-time pressure records Since winter storms form in response to the atmosphere's need to transport heat from the Equator to the poles, this reduced [due to global warming] temperature difference reduces the need for winter storms, and thus the models predict fewer storms will form. However, since a warmer world increases the amount of evaporation from the surface and puts more moisture in the air, these future storms drop more precipitation. During the process of creating that precipitation, the water vapor in the storm must condense into liquid or frozen water, liberating "latent heat"--the extra heat that was originally added to the water vapor to evaporate it in the first place. This latent heat intensifies the winter storm, lowering the central pressure and making the winds increase.
105650. Steve L at 12:46 PM on 28 October 2010
        Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
        Hi John, the one-liner for "Hide the decline" (#78) says that Mike Mann was quoted out of context. But isn't it Phil Jones's email that's being quoted?
        Response: Yes, thanks for pointing that out. Have fixed the line.
        

Prev  2105  2106  2107  2108  2109  2110  2111  2112  2113  2114  2115  2116  2117  2118  2119  2120  Next