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

Comments 105601 to 105650:

  1. gallopingcamel at 16:32 PM on 31 October 2010
    What should we do about climate change?
    archiesteel (#193), You are so right! The way forward is to avoid putting all one's eggs in one basket. To do that one needs to use technologies that have sound fundamental economics. Ones that can only survive until the subsidies run out make no sense. Right now hydro and coal can survive without subsidies. Nuclear is already economic in some countries (e.g. France, China and Russia).
  2. What should we do about climate change?
    @CBDunkerson "Yes, there are numerous safety precautions taken with nuclear power... precisely BECAUSE it is so very dangerous. No matter how 'safe' those precautions make it there is still a possibility of error or disaster which simply does not exist with renewable power. Imagine a terrorist attack on a wind farm... worst case scenario it takes out the power and maybe some cows get crushed by falling wind turbines. Things could be just a bit worse with a nuclear plant. Radiation release. Stolen radioactive materials. Possible meltdown." When all is said and done, risk needs to be quantified and balanced in the context of sometimes competing constraints. It goes without saying that the elephant in the risk room is dangerous climate change which will have consequences that are many orders of magnitude worse than that from any conceivable nuclear incident or indeed any other conceivable industrial accident. If one had to make a choice between another Chernobyl scale incident and 5C warming over the next 100 years, there could only be one rational choice. Did the Chernobyl incident make even one species extinct? Impossible to quantify, but the increased death toll this year alone from extreme weather events exacerbated by warming, has very likely exceeded the death toll from Chernobyl by a very large margin. There is good reason to believe that another Chernobyl is unlikely. Modern Gen III+ reactor designs have a probability risk assessment of a core damage incident (core melt) of order of 1 in 10^7 years of operation and of large radiation release of the order of 1 in 10^8 years. This is a couple of orders of magnitude better than the US NRC requirements. Some might say with some justification that it's not such a great idea, but heavily modified RMBK (Chernobyl design) reactors are still operational and haven't gone bang. Nobody will ever build anything like RBMKs ever again. They had a very high positive void coefficient with the accompanying risk of high thermal positive runaway feedback. Modern PWRs have a negative void coefficient. Much is made of the threat of terrorist or military attack on NPPs. Consider the effect of catastrophic damage by an attack on a large hydro dam. In 1975, the Banqiao dam in China collapsed killing 26,000 people directly and another 145,000 from famine and disease in the following weeks. In contrast, the death toll from Chernobyl is probably still under 100. I've never heard of objections to hydro on the grounds that it might be a military target, but the consequences could be just as bad or worse than completely pulverizing a reactor core and injecting a large proportion of the radioactive materials into the atmosphere. Why the double standard and where is the rational attitude to risk? Remember, hydro is a renewable. I'm not trying to minimize the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster, and am aware that there is a bigger story than just the number of dead. Any attempt to trivialize nuclear safety is plain dumb. What I am calling for is a rational attitude to risk which seems to fly out the door as soon as the word nuclear is mentioned.
  3. gallopingcamel at 16:25 PM on 31 October 2010
    What should we do about climate change?
    Peter Lang & quokka, Thanks for your devotion to pointing out the contribution that NPPs can make to improving our lives while reducing CO2 emissions. Our fossil fuel based civilization is in a race against time to find new sources of power. As you said, wind, solar and photo-voltaic sound great in theory but fail dismally when implemented on a large scale as in Denmark, Spain and Germany. Someone has to take it on the chin to convince the rest of us to try something else. It reminds me how great communism appeared to be until it was put into practice. For you "Renewables" advocates, don't feel too bad; some of us spent many years working on fusion power but that proved to be another "crock" at the end of a rainbow. Remember that "LFTRs are what fusion power wanted to be!"
  4. What should we do about climate change?
    KR @187 “Peter Lang - If you have no wind for weeks at a time, then you have the wrong power mix. There should be solar plants in the network as well, possibly "in place of"”. That would be even more expensive and still would not provide a reliable power supply without fossil fule back up. Nuclear = $4,000/kW (based on recent contract for 5400 MW in UAE Or, for equivalent dependable power supply: Wind = $2900/kW (ABARE, 2010) Solar thermal = $8,000/kW (Andasol 1) Grid enhancements = $1,000/kW Gas back-up = $1000/kW Total for wind and gas = $12,900/kW for equivalent dependable power.
  5. What should we do about climate change?
    #194: "That is why the gas industry loves renewables and promotes it like mad." No, that's not what happened in Texas, where wind is cutting into fossil fuel industry profits: the growth of wind in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) over the next three years will reduce the growth in gas consumption nationwide by an amount equivalent to 12.5% of the average annual growth in U.S. gas consumption over the last five years. ... The growth of Texas wind will have a more modest impact on the growth in generation from U.S. coal and gas plants, slowing the annual growth in gas-fired generation by 7.6%, and in coal-fired generation by 4.2%. And from Scientific American, April 2010: With their lower prices, wind producers are pushing gas generators out of the market, Gülen said. "That's why gas plants are complaining," Chang said. "All the traditional resources are complaining." The notion that 'wind doesn't replace coal' is very popular on a coal lobby website with ties to a The Institute for Energy Research, a lobbying group that is happy to spread the usual tripe about climate researchers: ... issues that are perceived to be an imminent crisis can mean more funding. The more threatening an issue is perceived to be the more likely it is to receive funding. Crises like the sensationalized climate change scenarios provide issues that ensure headlines ... This has little to do with the nuclear discussion. But the fossil fuel lobby clearly has an agenda that is tilted against wind. Don Quixote: Dost not see? A monstrous giant of infamous repute whom I intend to encounter. Sancho Panza: It's a windmill. Don Quixote: A giant. Canst thou not see the four great arms whirling at his back?
  6. Hockey stick or hockey league?
    Dr. Mandia @1 is being too modest ;) Go here to read Dr. Mandia's excellent overview of paleo reconstructions (some derived using no tree ring data or Mann's methods) all of which all have hockey-stick shapes...and that list is by no means comprehensive. Yet, more Hockey Sticks than you can, well, shake a stick at. It is almost 2011-- time for the "skeptics" to get with the times and move on. The real scientists have...and a long time ago now too.
  7. Eric (skeptic) at 14:05 PM on 31 October 2010
    What should we do about climate change?
    #193 archiesteel, you said "Germans are quite happy with their move to solar". From the following article, it sounds like the Germans who are happy about solar are the 500,000 Germans who are subsidized by their neighbors. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/03/31/31greenwire-slashed-subsidies-send-shivers-through-europea-32255.html "Currently, utilities must buy solar power at 39 euro cents (52 U.S. cents) per kilowatt hour for 20 years. That is nearly eight times the market price, and the difference is passed on to consumers, who pay an average $5 extra each month in electricity fees per household. The feed-in tariff turned 500,000 Germans into profitable residential energy producers."
  8. What should we do about climate change?
    Muoncounter @182, you quoted "White, 2007: The normalized CO2 emissions, in tonnes of CO2 per GWeh, ranges from 14 to 33 for the wind systems, 974 for coal, and 10 and 34 for nuclear fission using gas centrifuge and gaseous diffusion enriched uranium, respectively." The figures for coal and nuclear are about correct (there is a range of estimates of course but these are in the ball park of what is well established). However, the wind figues are not comparable because wind power cannot substitute for coal power; only nuclear can do that (to any significant extent). As quokka pointed out, wind power does not shut down fossil fuel power stations. In fact, it demands more of them be built to back up for the wind power. That is why the gas industry loves renewables and promotes it like mad. That is why the gas industry funded the "Zero Carbon Australia - Stationary Energy Plan".
  9. What should we do about climate change?
    @quokka: "I find it impossible to find any sense in this." That's because Europeans still remember Tchernobyl, and (justifyable or not) are wary about the safety issues with nuclear. In any case, Germans are quite happy with their move to solar, and they expect to push capacity to 66 GW by 2030 (about 10% of the power consumption). "China in particular is building 80 GW of nuclear by 2020." They also plan on having 100 GW of Wind power and 20 GW of Solar power by that time (combined, 50% more than nuclear). Their PV cell-making factories are also becoming more efficient, churning out PVs at reduced cost. See, the Chinese aren't dumb. They know that putting all your eggs in the same basket, as you and Peter Lang seem to be advocating, is foolish. You also have yet to tell me how I can put a Nuclear reactor on my farm, while I can already install wind turbines and PVs in order to be a consumer-producer. *That* is the true revolution in renewables, i.e. the ability to decentralize production. Funny how, in your shameless sales pitch for nuclear, both you and Peter Lang avoid talking about this. A mixed solution is ideal. Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is really speaking on behalf of a particular industry (an immoral act).
  10. What should we do about climate change?
    Very often the people who believe and advocate the extreme alarmist views of the dangers of climate change are the same people who propagate alarmist views about nuclear power. This damages their credibility. I’d urge contributors to take this point seriously. I’d urge you to seriously look at the evidence about nuclear power in a similar way as you believe you have done on climate change.
  11. Hockey stick or hockey league?
    I don't know anyone that shows THE Hockey Stick (Mann et al 1998/99) to a newcomer in order to educate them on climate change. The only reason we're talking about a 12-year old study that has been superseded (and generally corroborated) by newer studies is because the skeptics believe that the TAR graphic changed human consciousness and political will on climate change. The discussion they propagate is political, rather than scientific. Science has moved on, but they cannot.
  12. Hockey stick or hockey league?
    Great post, John. I think it's worth keeping in mind why the deniers so viciously attack the HS and anyone who supports it. While John is obviously right in saying, "the original 1998 hockey stick by Mann, Bradley and Hughes didn't prove that humans are causing global warming", the simple fact is that if you show the HS to a climate science newcomer he/she will instantly leap to exactly that conclusion. I've seen it happen. Even if these newbies reach an accurate conclusion via faulty logic, it's still a devastatingly effective visual aid. Therefore, the deniers conclude, it MUST be neutralized, via whatever means necessary. And we've already seen them resort to some cringe-inducing means, with more to come, I'd guess.
  13. What should we do about climate change?
    CB Dunkerson @176 You say:
    defining 'safety' based on what HAS happened in the past rather than what COULD happen in the future.
    Please explain what you believe COULD go wrong? How many fatalities? What is the probability of such an occurrence (immediate and latent fatalities per TWh and over what time period)? Why do you believe the ExternE study is wrong? Please explain why the researchers who contributed to ExternE (and the many other authoritative studies around the world over the past 40 years) have it wrong? Have you considered that perhaps it is you that is biased, rather than those who have actually looked seriously at the authoritative studies (as distinct from those who have simply accepted, without questioning, the material published by anti-nuclear groups).
  14. What should we do about climate change?
    Sorry about the repeat send of a previous message. I am not sure why this is happening.
  15. What should we do about climate change?
    CBDunkerson "And that's despite a ridiculously pro-nuclear bias, limiting the study area to exclude all previous nuclear disasters, and defining 'safety' based on what HAS happened in the past rather than what COULD happen in the future?" Clearly, you haven't understood. But you could hardly expect to in 10 minutes. Here is the link to ExternE? http://www.externe.info/ . You probably need to start here because you have no understanidn about the subiect.
  16. What should we do about climate change?
    #187: "claims that renewables don't reduce CO2 production difficult to believe." Perhaps the source of the data for those claims explains why. Wind Integration: Does it reduce pollution and GHG emissions? -- published at 'coalpowermag.com' And a 'study' from natural gas industry consultant Bentek Energy
  17. Hockey stick or hockey league?
    For those that claim the hockey stick is wrong: The hockey stick-shape temperature plot that shows modern climate considerably warmer than past climate has been verified by many scientists using different methodologies (PCA, CPS, EIV, isotopic analysis, & direct T measurements). Consider the odds that various international scientists using quite different data and quite different data analysis techniques can all be wrong in the same way. What are the odds that a hockey stick is always the shape of the wrong answer?
  18. What should we do about climate change?
    Peter Lang - If you have no wind for weeks at a time, then you have the wrong power mix. There should be solar plants in the network as well, possibly "in place of". It's important to site renewable supplies in a way consistent with local climate. I must admit that I too find your advocacy for nuclear a bit off-putting, and your claims that renewables don't reduce CO2 production difficult to believe. There are certainly a lot of countries and businesses investing renewables. http://www.xkcd.com/808/
  19. What should we do about climate change?
    Sorry, please use this link for the UKERC 2006 Intermittency report
  20. What should we do about climate change?
    A review here gives costs for each electricity generating technology, including by country, which is a bit of an eyeopener: Estimates of electricity production costs I disagree with Peter Lang's posts about renewables' effects on CO2 reduction. Renewables punch above their weight, as what they put on the grid means that the lowest-efficiency/most expensive fossil plant drops off the grid. This is known as the merit-order effect. Merit order In practice this means the CO2 emissions savings tend to be from the dirtiest coal plant. * The UKERC 2006 TPA Intermittancy report deals with the subject of intemittency and shows that the efficiency losses in FF plant range from zero and 7% of the emissions savings from wind. This means that the wind savings range from 93- 100% of the emissions from the most polluting FF plant.* * Actually, this may not always true as it depends on the relative price of gas, coal and oil. Which brings me to Ann's concern: any tax on carbon has to be global otherwise, as she rightly implies, FF usage will just be transferred to the market where it is cheapest. However, a global carbon tax and a level playing field by taking away the annual $550+ Billion subsidies to fossil fuels will make renewables competitive enough to make fossil fuels way too expensive to burn.
  21. What should we do about climate change?
    quokka the US is probably going to loose its leadership in all the renewable energy sector. Estimates are that it invest about half of what China does. In relative terms, it invest less than almost any european country. And yes, China "game plan" is to invest a lot and gain the leadership in the modern energy production and distribution sector. USA should play the same game, but apparently they're not willing to.
  22. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    I have updated all appropriate charts in all posts with the new DMI data. The overall DMI average trend increases slightly from 0.376 to 0.383 degrees C/decade. I also calculated trends for the difference between the Lansner and DMI Summer "above zero" data, which was 0.024 degrees C/decade. Whilst this error may seem small, it effectively doubles the real trend which is most likely due to small bias errors in transitions between models.
  23. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    I now have the updated 2010 ECMWF T1279 model (used by DMI since January 2010) daily 2m temperature values for >80N, (courtesy of DMI). From this data the average Summer “above zero” temperature is 0.48 degrees C for 2010. Although this is indeed a relatively low value, it is from the first Summer data from the new T1279 model time series, and as DMI have pointed out this model change alone could easily account for small bias steps (similar to those seen elsewhere in the series). It is obviously too early to say yet for trends from the T1279 model. If the Lansner “pixel count” errors (-0.23 degrees C for 2009, -0.14 degrees C for 2010) are also factored in we can explain the apparent Summer "cooling" as an artifact due to a combination of these two errors. Bias errors are discussed (with respect to corrections applied to different overlapping satellite sensor data) in some of the references in the advanced article. The ERA-Interim does attempt to resolve these bias differences. The daily ERA-Interim re-analysis values are not readily available for Summer 2010 yet. Given the relatively low variability of Summer temperature values from 1989 to date and the very small positive summer “above zero” trend of 0.1 degrees C/decade in the ERA-Interim daily "above zero" data there is no reason to expect large deviations for summer 2010 values. The Summer monthly ERA-Interim values for >80N (JJA) give what is statistically speaking a flat line trend between 1989 and 2009. Given that melt season temperature rises as well as falls are constrained by the ice melt temperature (whilst the ice exists) this is to be expected.
  24. What should we do about climate change?
    #181 archiesteel 1. German PV solar has an installed nameplate capacity of ~13 GW. The capacity factor is ~12%. The amount of electricity generated from solar PV is about the same as one EPR nuclear power plant. But at around ten times the cost. Germany could have had ten EPR's for the cost of solar PV and that would represent a significant CO2 abatement. I find it impossible to find any sense in this. 2. Lumping together solar and wind with hydro under the banner of renewables is very misleading. Hydro is readily dispatchable. Solar and wind are not. This is critically important. Furthermore hydro is resource limited and cannot grow indefinitely. The issue is not whether solar and wind can generate some electricity with low life cycle CO2 emissions, because they clearly can. The issue is whether they can displace fossil fuels in baseload electricity generation. This is far more problematic. We do know that nuclear can because of the French example. As to "hot or not", the hand wringing over nuclear is very much a Western political affliction. The major Asian economies are all committed to nuclear power and China in particular is building 80 GW of nuclear by 2020. To put this in perspective it is the equivalent of about 660 GW of solar PV in Germany. Germany currently has 13 GW. The cost of new nuclear in China is substantially cheaper than wind and hugely cheaper than solar. China has announced the investment of $180 billion in a "nuclear city" - a giant technology park for manufacture of nuclear components, R&D, education and training etc. The intent is obvious - a massive gearing up for large scale nuclear deployment. There are many countries now very seriously considering or planning for nuclear - including a number of middle eastern and north African states. Italy is reconsidering nuclear. Vietnam is proceeding with nuclear and recently called for regional cooperation to develop nuclear power. South Africa is planning for much increased nuclear. Of course it remains to be seen how widespread new nuclear deployment develops but worldwide it is simply untrue that renewables are not and nuclear is not. It is very obvious also that if the US keeps on dithering, it's lead in nuclear science and engineering will be lost to the Asian countries and the latter will become the worlds major exporters of nuclear technology and engineering and that is their game plan.
  25. What should we do about climate change?
    #158: "The actual measurements that have been made (in Netherlands, Texas and Colorado), suggest that wind power avoids little if any emissions." The headlines regarding the rate at which wind farms are growing required posing the question in #153. Your objection to my quote from a wind industry group was certainly warranted. However, citing measurements made in Texas is not a meaningful point of reference: Texas is home to a large refining and industrial industry, thousands of old oil and gas wells (many still flaring methane) and Texans loooove to drive them big ol' cars. So the state that simultaneously has the largest wind energy capacity in the US is also the worst carbon emitter in the US. Denny and O'Malley 2006 It was found that wind generation could be used as a tool for reducing CO2 emissions but alone, it was not effective in curbing SO2 and NOx emissions. Environmental impacts of wind energy projects, NAS Based on U.S. Department of Energy projections for wind-energy development in the United States, the committee estimated that by 2020, wind energy will offset approximately 4.5 percent of the carbon dioxide that would otherwise be emitted by other electricity sources. White 2007 The normalized CO2 emissions, in tonnes of CO2 per GWeh, ranges from 14 to 33 for the wind systems, 974 for coal, and 10 and 34 for nuclear fission using gas centrifuge and gaseous diffusion enriched uranium, respectively.
  26. What should we do about climate change?
    @Peter Lang: Renewables currently provide 18% of energy production worldwide. Germany's solar power output in snow at 4,1 GW, 1.1% of the country's energy, but it is expected to get to 25% by 2050. Renewable energy in Germany is now 16% of total energy production. It's clear you are not being objective in your argument, and that your enthusiasm for nuclear energy has clouded your judgement. Again, many of us are not discounting nuclear, but your nothing-but-nuclear attitude is highly suspicious. It's hard not to believe you have a personal stake, sorry. "I see. And what do you base that on? Greenpeace, I suppose" No, physics. Nuclear power requires complex and extensive security protocols in order to keep it safe. Nuclear waste disposal is a serious issue (just remember the debate about Yucca mountain). "archiesteel, I'd urge you to challenge your beliefs too." You first - although I suspect they're not actually beliefs, but rather self-interest. Doesn't really matter: renewable are hot, nuclear is not. You didn't even address the argument of private client-producers contributing to the power grid. In other words, you are sticking to your guns and refusing to hear any other argument in favor of renewables...
  27. What should we do about climate change?
    I wonder how anyone could calculate the externalities due to nuclear plants and facilities decommissioning, long term storage and possible accidents related to them. As far as I know, there's still no well assessed solution. Indeed, the EternE study left them out; hence the 0.2-0.7 EUR-cents per KWh estimate should be considered as a lower bound. A few words on subsides. Given that externalities are by definition a market failure, we can not rely on any self-regulating mechanism. Then, even dropping all the direct and indirect subsides is not enough, we need to internalise the costs.
  28. What should we do about climate change?
    CBDunkerson "And that's despite a ridiculously pro-nuclear bias, limiting the study area to exclude all previous nuclear disasters, and defining 'safety' based on what HAS happened in the past rather than what COULD happen in the future?" Clearly, you haven't understood. But you could hardly expect to in 10 minutes. Here is the link to ExternE? http://www.externe.info/ . You probably need to start here because you have no understanidn about the subiect.
  29. What should we do about climate change?
    CB Dunkerson "In short... you're wrong and even a study biased towards your position STILL says you're wrong." Why do you say that ExternE is biased one way or another?
  30. What should we do about climate change?
    CBDunkerson What did you look at? Did you look at figure 1 and figure 2 here? Can you interpret them? Did you read the article?
  31. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    RSVP #353 "...I must be considering too much air (the problem at hand must be limited to a lower altitude). This makes sense, because we know that its much colder at 27,000 feet than "near the ground". " so continuing... with this idea... you can assume less air, and make the comparison for 2700 feet, one tenth of the height, so as to equal the amount of energy to raise the temperature of air 30 degrees, to that which is received in a twelve hour period. The question arises, as this is just the amount of energy to warm this amount of air 30 degrees, what is left to warm the surface as well? A surface that is contantly radiating during the full 24 hours. The altitude to consider must be lower then. So, lets take it down to 1000 feet for the comparison. Now there is energy for warming that amount of air 30 degrees, and double for the surface which is radiating constantly. The 30 degrees may as well be due to convection for all we need to care. Its doesnt really matter, since the object here is to figure out how much air to consider for a comparison of solar to the effects of waste heat. If you now only consider the mass of air associated with 1000 feet around the entire globe (instead of 27000 feet), the effects of waste heat as calculated earlier goes up 27 times. Crossing you fingers doesnt make this energy dissapear, yet it is always considered insignificant to what can be imagined as a greenhouse effect. I have lost the debate here not for what I have said, as the numbers speak for themselves, but for commitment to an entrenched theory. Whether the GHG is real or not shouldnt really matter to anyone that is truely concerned with global warming, since fossil fuels are running out anyway. Waste heat on the other hand will always be an inconvenient truth, whether it comes from nuclear, or changes in albedo due to urbanization, solar panels, highways, etc. For this reason, I understand how it is not an attractive topic, especially for those with optimism about the alternative energy sources.
  32. What should we do about climate change?
    Peter #175: So... your evidence that solar, wind, and hydro power are NOT safer than nuclear is that nuclear is safer than coal. Who could argue with such logic? BTW, the report you cite... doesn't cover solar at all, but finds hydro and wind to be safer than nuclear. And that's despite a ridiculously pro-nuclear bias, limiting the study area to exclude all previous nuclear disasters, and defining 'safety' based on what HAS happened in the past rather than what COULD happen in the future. In short... you're wrong and even a study biased towards your position STILL says you're wrong.
  33. What should we do about climate change?
    CBDunkerson "Are you arguing just for argument's sake or are you truly that delusional?" Are you capable of questioning your beliefs? Seriously are you? If so look at this, then ask your questions? I suggested in the post you replied to to Google: "ExternE, NewExt". Obviously you didn't bother. You just posted your comment based on your beliefs. Nuclear is about the safest of all electricity generation technologies on a properly comparable basis (life cycle analysis). It is about 10 to 100 times safer than coal.
  34. What should we do about climate change?
    daisym - I am not sure I understand you. You claim that scientist cant tell you what will happen to climate if you go to zero emissions? This seems to be at odd with published papers. Eg. Hare and Meinshausen or Matthews and Weavers. You will much more in references and citations for these. If these papers dont cover what you mean, can you explain more? Meinshausen has also published on what limitation on GHGs is needed to meet a 2deg limit.
  35. What should we do about climate change?
    Archiesteel: "Solar, Wind and Hydroelectric are all safer than current nuclear power production," Peter: "I see. And what do you base that on?" Seriously? You're actually going to argue that sunlight, wind, and/or water are more dangerous than nuclear radiation? Are you arguing just for argument's sake or are you truly that delusional? Yes, there are numerous safety precautions taken with nuclear power... precisely BECAUSE it is so very dangerous. No matter how 'safe' those precautions make it there is still a possibility of error or disaster which simply does not exist with renewable power. Imagine a terrorist attack on a wind farm... worst case scenario it takes out the power and maybe some cows get crushed by falling wind turbines. Things could be just a bit worse with a nuclear plant. Radiation release. Stolen radioactive materials. Possible meltdown.
  36. What should we do about climate change?
    JohnD "what is the actual payback time in terms of energy input, and carbon emissions, that goes into the manufacturing, installation and maintenance of these renewable sources and extra infrastructure required when the real operating efficiencies are allowed for?" I'll refer you to Professor Barry Brooks article here to answer this question. John, thank you for your question. I don't take much interest in discusions about energy return on energy invested (ERoEI) because I feel it is irrelevant given that the fuel for nuclear power is effectively unlimited. So, from my perspective, such discussion are a distraction from what is important.
  37. The Grumble in the Jungle
    Peter #6 - Indeed - the reality is being acted out on the ground! Good to see the refutations mounting up - this is already the best source for quick factual debunks and is improving all the time. Cheers - John
  38. Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
    Wow ClimateWatcher misquotes a post to make a point. ON THAT POST. That is magnificently Brazen. CW Said "There are 3 problems with even small sounding global warming. Firstly, 2 °C is a very optimistic assessment: ..... if the skeptical Dr Roy Spencer is correct here then we’re on course to get more like 3.5 °C." My ellipses added. Actual quote from MarkR "There are 3 problems with even small sounding global warming. Firstly, 2 °C is a very optimistic assessment: WE ARE CURRENTLY ON COURSE TO DOUBLE CO2 TWICE SOON AFTER 2100. If the skeptical Dr Roy Spencer is correct here then we’re on course to get more like 3.4 °C, but if most climate science is correct then we’ll get 6 °C." My Emphasis. Now thats what I call chutzpah.
  39. What should we do about climate change?
    JohnD "what is the actual payback time in terms of energy input, and carbon emissions, that goes into the manufacturing, installation and maintenance of these renewable sources and extra infrastructure required when the real operating efficiencies are allowed for?" I'll refer you to Professor Barry Brooks article here to answer this question. John, thank you for your question. I don't take much interest in discusions about energy return on energy invested (ERoEI) because I feel it is irrelevant given that the fuel for nuclear power is effectively unlimited. So, from my perspective, such discussion are a distraction from what is important.
  40. What should we do about climate change?
    Peter Lang at 15:46 PM, apart from the $ payback time for solar and wind energy installations, including the large and ongoing subsidies needed, what is the actual payback time in terms of energy input, and carbon emissions, that goes into the manufacturing, installation and maintenance of these renewable sources and extra infrastructure required when the real operating efficiencies are allowed for?
  41. What should we do about climate change?
    Archiesteel, "Solar, Wind and Hydroelectric are all safer than current nuclear power production," I see. And what do you base that on? Greenpeace, I suppose. Google: "ExternE NewExt" and get your facts straight, rather than propogating wrong beliefs. Don't forget that solar and wind cannot provide power on demand so you have to include the risks from back-up generators or storage to make a fair comparison. Even if you don't do this you find that solar is far more dangerous than nuclear and wind slightly safer (but it is not an apples to apples comparison without back up or storage). archiesteel, I'd urge you to challenge your beliefs too.
  42. What should we do about climate change?
    Archiesteel, Germany has spent something like EUR 46 billion on subsidies to get less than 1% of its electricity generation from solar. And that electricity is available during the day and summer only. A hopeless waste of money. Germany, Spain and Denmark are the classic examples of what not to do. is one study on Germany. Others have been released recently. Just to be clear, I am advocating we transition to least-cost, low-emission electricity at a rate that is economically rational. I also say that renewables will make an insignificant contribution to our energy supply based on the fact they are far too expensive and they depend on intermitten, low energy density 'fuels'. Therefore we should not be spending all our effort arguing for renwables (which is what happens on most sites like this) while continuoually repeating the tired old anti-nuclear arguments (all of which have been refuted reoeatedly). I argue we should remove all the impediments to nuclear and rmove all the regulations that favour fossil fuels and renewable energy. We should establish a mechanism so that any type of generator can appeal regulations that advantage one type over another. We need a level playing field. If we had that, nuclear would have an enormous advantage ver the others - eventually, because it will take a long time to eradicate all the imposts we've built in over the past 50 odd years.4 Nuclear has proven it can do the job. Non-hydro renewables have proven, so far, they cannot. They are a massive waste of a countries wealth - meaning funds wasted on supporting these schemes cannot be spent on health, education, infrastructrure and addreessing the real environmental problems. You suggest that I argue for nuclear being part of the solution. I do! I argue for the selection of technologies being on a rational basis, not belief and wishful thinking. On that basis I expect nuclear will supply about 80% of our electricity (as in France), with the balance made up of hydro, gas, oil coal and a few percent of a range of renewables, all of which are effectively irrelevant in the overall scheme of things. In other words, we should put our focus and effort where it is needed, not on the fringe technologies.
  43. What should we do about climate change?
    @Peter Lang: "It is about the safest of all electricity generation technologies." Yeah, good luck with that one. Solar, Wind and Hydroelectric are all safer than current nuclear power production, if only because such they do not produce radioactive waste (and, at least for the first two, aren't potential terrorist targets). Look, we get it. You like nuclear, and you see it as the sole solution to curb CO2 emissions (by the way, I'm assuming you agree that we need to cut CO2 emissions to counter global warming - is this true?). People here disagree, and think that renewables also have a role to play. At this point, I think we have to agree to disagree.
  44. What should we do about climate change?
    @adrian smits: are you seriously arguing that the nuclear industry is over-regulated?
  45. What should we do about climate change?
    @Peter Lang: "I do not have any personal stake in nuclear power." I didn't say you, I said you sounded like you did - and your insistence on nothing but nuclear is bound to turn people off of it. It is the unfounded belief and advocacy of renewables that is political. And yet, as the German example shows up (and I notice you didn't reply to that part), it *is* possible to have a significant power supply from renewables. Why are you ignoring the great opportunity Solar and Wind offer to small client/producers? "Ann, you seem to be arguing for anything but nuclear. I wonder why? What is your real reason?" It is you who are insisting that nuclear is the only way forward. Any strategy that puts all of the eggs in the same basket is doomed to fail. I'm sorry, but your posts really sound like ads for the Nuclear Industry. You'll get more traction if you start selling Nuclear as *part* of the solution, rather than the only way to go. "The wind industry, like most industry organisations, presents the most favourable view possible of its industry." Like the Nuclear industry as well, right? The criticism of wind not prevent CO2 emissions can also be applied to Nuclear. Again, I'm not opposed to nuclear power as part of the alternative to fossil fuels, but the pro-nuclear bias in your messages seems a bit extreme.
  46. The Grumble in the Jungle
    Interesting to see the following in the Guardian today Amazon drought leaves Brazil's Rio Negro dry http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2010/oct/26/amazon-drought-brazil#/?picture=368055072&index=7 Peter
  47. The Grumble in the Jungle
    No problem for me, a great explanation, far better than I did when I was arguing the point at the time!
  48. What should we do about climate change?
    Modern nuclear power plants can be built at a fraction of the cost of the older systems if our regulators would just catch up with the new technology and get out of the way!
  49. What should we do about climate change?
    @153 muoncouter quoted this statement from the wind energy advocates: "Wind energy is already making a significant contribution to saving CO2 emissions. The 158GW of global wind capacity in place at the end of 2009 will produce 340 TWh of clean electricity and save 204 million tons of CO2 every year. Has anyone considered how we could trade CO2 emissions, or tax them, if we don't have a reliable way of measuring the emissions or how much is avoided? The wind industry, like most industry organisations, presents the most favourable view possible of its industry. These figures about the emissions avoided by wind farms are based on the assumption that wind energy displaces emissions from fossil fuel generated electricity as if there was no efficiency loss in the fossil fuel generators. This assumptions is false. It has been known for some time that the penalty is substantial and recent studies confirm that wind power avoids little if any greenhouse gas emissions. The question is, how could we trade or tax emissions when we can continually misrepresent the emissions avoided by wind farms?
  50. What should we do about climate change?
    The thrust of my comment (#69) was to ask the question: If we forego use of carbon fuel energy sources by whatever extent our windmills and solar arrays can generate clean energy, why can't scientists estimate the effect this will have on global temperatures? Your comparison to calories and dieting is an excellent way to look at this: By subsidizing the manufacture and deployment of wind and solar energy devices, government has (in effect) put us on a carbon fuel energy diet, because these devices cut CO2 emissions by reducing our consumption of carbon fuels… or by reducing future increases in carbon fuel consumption. Like the dietician, why can't the scientist estimate how reducing CO2 emissions will change global temperatures? In this comparison, CO2 emissions represent the “calories” that change atmospheric CO2 content. And because atmospheric CO2 content is a proxy for global temperature, total atmospheric CO2 content thus represents global temperature or “weight.” The scientist can tell us how much “weight” (global warming) we’ll gain if we continue to consume carbon fuels. They can surely tell us how much “weight” we’ll lose when we replace a portion of our carbon fuel consumption with carbon-free wind and solar energy consumption. But scientists haven’t told us what effect the “Wind and Solar Energy Diet” will have on global temperatures. And I asked the question: “Why haven’t they?” If government has put us on a wind and solar energy diet as the solution to the manmade CO2 (i.e. global warming) problem, how can we even estimate that it will work if no one prepares the estimate? Is our faith in the wisdom of government bureaucrats so certain? Why are scientists silent on the efficacy of government’s solutions? Doesn’t government rely on scientists to provide this information? I want to see scientists prepare various timeline scenarios that show how and when we can reach the atmospheric target which will stabilize global temperatures at the “best” temperature (whatever that may be). Armed with this information, government would then have the tools they need for making better informed public policy decisions. But scientists haven’t done this. In the absence of this, and despite all the pioneering climate research that’s been done, science has done real no service to humanity. Science has identified this problem, but seems to have no interest in providing government with a workable scientific solution. Why is this?

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


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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