Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 2121 Next
Comments 105651 to 105700:
-
archiesteel at 01:28 AM on 30 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
Sorry for the snappy response, please ignore the second part of my comment. @tj: I did explain. If we end up with forced mass migrations, it's going to be a lot more complicated today (because of borders, private property laws and civilization in general) than it would have been 10,000 years ago when people could migrate more freely. -
transjasmine at 01:22 AM on 30 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
i wasnt bating anybody, i was expressing my opinion based on the comments DSL made, if i have misunderstood those comments i'm sorry but please do explainModerator Response: Feel free to disagree with others here, certainly. Inputs are valued, but please refrain from using inflammatory terminology like "Globalist" or saying "make sure _______'s A** is clean before you put your head up it". That is being very inflammatory and in violation of the Comments Policy. Keep it clean and comments won't get deleted unless they are also off-topic. -
What should we do about climate change?
Ann - I guess what I'm trying to say is that we're stuck with some warming; the effort now goes into limiting that, mitigating/minimizing the costs and problems we're going to face as a result, and trying to avoid critical points such as permafrost CO2 release and clathrate venting that would double the effects. We can't 'turn off' global warming - a planet ain't going to stop on a dime. That's going to cost us - but we can avoid making matters worse. And perhaps, a century or three from now, CO2 levels may decrease. -
What should we do about climate change?
Ann - Nothing is "instant". We are, first of all, stuck with some amount of additional warming based upon the climate moving to equilibrium with the CO2 we've already emitted; another 40-60 years worth. And we don't have the gazillion dollars sitting around to replace every power plant, car, truck, ship, train, etc. this year. But every bit of change will help. Making nuclear more affordable than coal power plants, encouraging solar/wind power development, even increasing the average mileage of autos en route to making electric or renewable fuel cell cars practical - every bit is a step in the process. Your "instant off" calls (my interpretation, mind you) are the kind of thing that make people throw their hands in the air, say "Can't be done!", and go away. I think it's important to take all available paths that move us away from CO2 accumulation as quickly as possible - including popular support, technology development, government subsidies, regulations, permit actions (for building new renewable power generation), etc. But it will take some time. -
Nick Palmer at 01:06 AM on 30 October 2010Skeptical Science Firefox Add-on: Send and receive climate info while you browse
Oops - sorry - didn't put in a link to the original... link to "information is beautiful" page -
archiesteel at 00:59 AM on 30 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
@tj: "what the heck do national borders and private property have to do with anything." Mass migrations due to climate change will certainly cause problems with national borders and private property issues. "DSL now to me you just sound like a globalist" And you sound like a troll.Moderator Response: Please take the high road and not respond in kind to the baiting. Your contributions here have more value if they don't end up in the Deleted Comments bin. -
Ann at 00:48 AM on 30 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
@muoncounter #129 #123: "Are you sure the cake is not going to be eaten ?" muon:I'll bite on the cake/carrot analogy. Everyone eats the cake in preference to the carrots. Tastes good, is in plentiful supply. Unfortunately, this cake was made with flour derived from beans - and you know the result of that. Nobody notices that this is a problem for a while, until the room becomes unpleasant. Want more cake now? Nice extension to my analogy ... Yup, bring on the cake. I don't care if other people suffocate. Isn't that exactly how people react nowadays ? They know the rise in CO2 may be catastrophic in the end, but it doesn't stop them (including me, I must admit) from driving their cars, using electricity etc. "even in the most optimistic scenario, deploying nuclear power (or green power) will slow down, but not stop global warming." muon: What's wrong with that? I was in the assumption we want to stop global warming. Slowing down global warming may have a very limited use. It will buy us more time to come up with real solutions. But it is dangerous if people start thinking alternative energy is the definite answer to the problem. Especially when you consider that there are far more valuable uses for petrochemicals than their heat content. We are in no position to turn down alternative energy sources based on current thinking. Look what kind of mess our current thinking has put us in! I don't want to turn down alternative energy sources. They will be urgently needed, if only to overcome peak oil. I want to raise the question: Will the worldwide deployment of nuclear or green energy stop climate change ? Is it the definite answer to the problem ? Until now I heard nothing that convinced me this would be the case. -
transjasmine at 00:48 AM on 30 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
DSL now to me you just sound like a globalist, what the heck do national borders and private property have to do with anything. guess next you will be saying humans are a cancer lets get to reducing the population! i'm sure you have read sustainable developmentModerator Response: Please take the high road and refrain from baiting others with loaded terminology. Your contributions here will have more value if they don't end up in the Deleted Comments bin. -
archiesteel at 00:40 AM on 30 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
@RSVP: "This is interesting, because it takes 1.5E23 Joules to raise the air temperature 30 degrees, which is ten times the amount of energy actually coming from the Sun." Good thing the sun is emitting this energy constantly, huh? It's not clear what you're trying to do, here, RSVP, but if you're trying to disprove the Greenhouse effect you're wasting your time. The fact is you haven't demonstrated that waste heat is anything more than about 1% of GHG forcings. You lost that debate. Time to move on. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:31 AM on 30 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Energy is not always moves from warmer to colder places because there are different forms of energy in space and time leading to the advantage of the accumulation of heat over its dissipation - entropy - it is "cliché" but "cliché" is and (here), significantly. Where does most of the "imbalance" of energy in the atmosphere of the Earth (or Earth is more heated, and loses less energy - the primary side effect of the discussion here) the interesting tries to explain: „Earth and Ocean Science”- A 1st order global energy model based on observed TOA radiant flux and ocean and atmosphere heat data - cloud changes in the satellite era. Comparing the changes in OLR and RSW (2000 - 2010), comes to the conclusion that far outweighs "heating" (decreasing RSW) ocean (accumulating heat) by the SW, it’s have advantage over retention of heat (decreasing OLR) through the atmosphere: “CERES data since 2000 clearly show SW changes – this drove the ocean heat content increase measured in ARGO. Most of recent warming is driven by changes in reflected SW. SW changes imply changes in global cloud cover over the period.” Regarding this point: 'enhanced greenhouse effect of CO2GHG interacting with Water Vapour', again had to go to the discussion of the reaction - sensitivity, of the system: Earth - the atmosphere. An interesting critique of messages posted on the SkS on this topic is here. -
archiesteel at 00:28 AM on 30 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
@Peter Lang: "Renewables cannot make any significant contribution now or for a very long time, if ever." That is a political statement, not a scientific one. It's hard not to think you don't have a personal stake in Nuclear Power when you make such sweeping declarations. Right now, German citizens are generating *too much* solar power in peak insolation periods, and it risks damaging their power grid (the proposed solution is a more flexible European grid). I think Nuclear is part of the equation, but your aggressive opposition to renewable is both unfounded and suspect. -
transjasmine at 00:24 AM on 30 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
whether there were people or not is irrelevant, the issue here is c02 is causing dangerous climate change, that's the whole point of this site correct? dangerous climate change is happening and c02 is the catalyst. but ok, i've looked for the actual study and i cant find it so i'll give a link to a video in which the participants explain or w/e http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zS0SWVIRaZ8&p=4874B5A951DA8DA4&index=5&playnext=5Moderator Response: The presence of people who will be affected indeed is relevant to this particular page on this site. It is relevant also to the page you can find by typing "It's Not Bad" into the Search field at the top left of this page. -
Nick Palmer at 00:22 AM on 30 October 2010Skeptical Science Firefox Add-on: Send and receive climate info while you browse
Oops - sorry - didn't put in a link to the original... link to "information is beautiful" page -
Ann at 00:20 AM on 30 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
Re: Daniel, I expressed myself rather strongly, on purpose, to get a reaction and start a discussion. People take too much for granted that either renewable energy or nuclear energy is going to save the planet, and this complacency is dangerous. The danger is that even dedicated people, who are genuinely concerned about the future of our planet start thinking it suffices to switch to green energy and reduce their ecological footprint. I just don’t like the current boy’s scouts mentality surrounding all actions to fight climate change. E.g. “if we all do our best, we can avert the danger”. The battle against climate change will either be won or lost. We shouldn’t do our best. We should do whatever it takes to avert the danger. To me that means: controlling the amount of carbon that is actually entering the carbon cycle. Via carbon capture and sequestration, artificial trees, reforestation. Carbon trading is an essential part of this solution. -
Nick Palmer at 00:18 AM on 30 October 2010Skeptical Science Firefox Add-on: Send and receive climate info while you browse
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/ Have you seen this image from information is beautiful? Although obviously nowhere near as comprehensive as your website, it still might be quite useful I feel?
-
JMurphy at 00:12 AM on 30 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
transjasmine, instead of just posting what you believe to be true, why not post some links to some evidence of the great benefit of high CO2 to today's agriculture and today's world full of people. You do realise that in the past, there were less/no people at various times - especially when CO2 was much higher ? Basically, as usual, you need to read more here and here. -
DSL at 00:09 AM on 30 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
Transjasmine, who said the world was going to end? When CO2 levels were 18 times higher, and the oceans were 70-120 feet higher, were humans around--in particular, 7 billion humans with their rigid national borders, provincialism and racism, private property system, and survival dependent on a fragile global economic system? If we were having this discussion 10,000 years ago, I'd say, "global warming? so what? we'll migrate." You're not being very critical. Think about the details. Think about what a mere one foot sea level rise would do to the world in its current state. Think also about an increasingly acid ocean, as all that CO2 begins to saturate it. It doesn't mean that you won't be able to go swimming. It means that a large chunk of the world's food supply is going downhill. No, the world's not going to end. It's going to keep on spinning. -
Ann at 23:56 PM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
Hi Peter, Now, how to answer this… I don’t want to raise any more misunderstandings. First let’s discuss your proposal to fight climate change. I don’t doubt that fossil fuel power plants can be replaced by nuclear power plants, and that this will cut CO2 emissions for electricity generation. But it also mean more fossil fuel will become available for other purposes (rule of supply and demand). If less fossil fuel is burned in power plants, more will be used for vehicles like airplanes, ships, etc. Fossil fuel will continue to be used until all reserves have been depleted. Don’t you agree with that assumption? So, the amount of CO2 that will end up in the atmosphere eventually is not at all dependent on the amount of green or nuclear power we deploy. It can be directly deduced from the level of atmospheric CO2 today + the amount of carbon that is currently stored underground, in the shape of fossil fuel. (OK, and taking into account aborption of CO2 by oceans, plants, rocks etc.) So. My conclusion: A transition to nuclear energy will not stop climate change. You might even conclude that nuclear energy and green energy will actually worsen climate change. How’s that ? Scenario 1: If most of the power plants remain fossil fuel based, techniques can be deployed to capture and sequester the produced CO2. These techniques are not used yet, but at least it is a possibility. Scenario 2: If however most of the fossil fuel power plants are replaced by nuclear power plants or renewables, the fossil fuel that would be burned in a power plant will be used for vehicles. There will be no way to capture the CO2 produced by these vehicles. Result: Scenario 2 results eventually in a higher atmospheric CO2 level than scenario 1. Prove me wrong. As for my proposal to fight climate change, I don’t want to mix this up in the current discussion. Anyway, I am trying to prove that solution A is invalid. It is irrelevant to the discussion whether a completely different solution B is valid or not. -
muoncounter at 23:43 PM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
#123: "Are you sure the cake is not going to be eaten ?" I'll bite on the cake/carrot analogy. Everyone eats the cake in preference to the carrots. Tastes good, is in plentiful supply. Unfortunately, this cake was made with flour derived from beans - and you know the result of that. Nobody notices that this is a problem for a while, until the room becomes unpleasant. Want more cake now? "even in the most optimistic scenario, deploying nuclear power (or green power) will slow down, but not stop global warming." What's wrong with that? Especially when you consider that there are far more valuable uses for petrochemicals than their heat content. We are in no position to turn down alternative energy sources based on current thinking. Look what kind of mess our current thinking has put us in! -
dr2chase at 23:26 PM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
@KR - My assumption is that we have perfectly good bike lanes, it's just that they're full of cars right now. For many cities and towns, that's enough of a change. For others, distance is an issue, and things get more complicated. -
Daniel Bailey at 23:19 PM on 29 October 2010Al Gore got it wrong
Re: transjasmine (14) Your comment was deemed in violation of the Comments Policy. Insinuations are troublesome. Sticking to reference-able facts is best. The Yooper -
Daniel Bailey at 23:14 PM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
Re: Ann (106, 121, 123, 125) I did see your comment at 106, but I was busy at the time formulating a response to daisym (103). Your summation of both the situation we face and your position is spot-on. From my closing comments at 108:"It is one thing to understand the various bits and pieces of the physics and mechanics of climate change. It is completely another thing altogether to synthesize it into one cohesive whole as Hansen has done."
As a species, we have been crawling on all fours across the lush savanna grasses. Some of us have raised up, erect on our knees & have sniffed smoke from a raging grass fire approaching quickly. It is not enough to merely shift the course of the herd, the task before us is to get the herd up off their hands and knees and stand...and to then run from the disaster that comes ever so swiftly now. Green energy tech, nuclear, hydro, tidal: all rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Not inherently bad things, but actions that address the symptoms only, not the underlying disease state itself. Only education can do that. Unless a critical mass of people can be reached and educated in a short amount of time to mobilize and take resolute action, it will be too late. What bitter medicine to swallow. It is little wonder few, even here, speak systemically. It may be that we have more time yet, wherein even a phased-in replacement of fossil fuels plus energy use efficiency and curtailment programs can allow us to turn the corner. That would be a wonderful, dreamlike end to the nightmare we are in. Or, instead of watching the clock wind down at the end of the 3rd quarter we discover, to our dismay and chagrin, that it is actually the 4th and last quarter...and time is all but gone. If it is a sin to calculate the worst outcome and to then plan accordingly, then sinner I be. The Yooper -
Peter Lang at 22:47 PM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
Ann, I don’t understanding what you are advocating. Do you have a better proposal? What is the solution you are arguing for? What is the time-line you are arguing for? If you set an impossibly short time frame, then there is no 'realistic' solution. But whatever time frame you set, nuclear will have to be a major contributor to cutting CO2 emissions from energy use. You are exaggerating, twisting or misunderstanding much of what I’m saying, so I’ve lost what it is you are trying to say. Here are some examples: “My statement is: “No matter what amount of nuclear power is provided, it will never reduce the burning of fossil fuels to zero (or even close to zero)."” What do you mean by “never”, and I didn't say "zero"? The transition will be progressive. I believe we can cut the use of fossil fuel used in electricity generation by 80% by 2050, and, if electricity is cheap, this will cut total emissions by 40% to 50%. Land use, land use change, agriculture, etc. will contribute more cuts. The point is we do have an alternative to fossil fuels for electricity generation and we should be putting our energies into allowing it, not prohibiting it. Unfortunately, the most ardent activists for fast reduction of CO2 emissions are also the people most stridently opposed to nuclear power. That makes others wonder: 'what is their real agenda?' It’s a fair question. “Do you really believe that the massive deployment of nuclear energy will cause humanity to abstain from burning fossil fuels?” I didn't say 'abstain'. That is misrepresenting what I said. But, eventually, there will be little use of fossil fuel. Eventually! It will take time and will never be zero, but surely that is irrelevant. “Massive deployment” is not a forced solution. It is an allowed solution. The problem is we have been preventing that solution by our irrational fears for 40+ years. We will overcome that. But it will take time. “Nuclear energy must become so cheap that it will replace fossil fuels everywhere in the world, including the less developed countries.” Yes. That will happen (eventually). Fossil fuels are little cheaper than nuclear now, and are more expensive in many places. The under-developed countries struggle to build any electricity system. Where nuclear is cheaper than coal, they will, and do, build nuclear. Why do you think all but one of the G20 countries have nuclear already or are on the path to get it? It certainly isn’t because it is more expensive than coal. And the cost could and should be far less than it is. “It must become so cheap that functioning coal plants will be shut down, because it is economically more beneficial to build a brand new nuclear plant.” All power plants reach the end of their economically viable date. As they reach the end of their lives, they are replaced by whatever type of plant seems it will give the lowest cost electricity over the life of the new plant (e.g., 60 years for nuclear, 40 years for coal, or 20 years renewables). The question about replacement of fossil fuels with low emission technology applies equally to replacing with renewables, except that renewables cannot do the job and are far more expensive. “There must be an oversupply of nuclear energy (both globally and locally), otherwise people will still resort to more expensive options e.g. fossil fuel.” They will implement whichever technology they expect will provide reliable power at least cost for the life of the plant. I don’t know why you think there must be an 'oversupply of nuclear'. What does this mean? Are you referring to availability of new plants or the fuel? There will be sufficient of both to meet demand. That is not a problem. And it is much easier to transport nuclear fuel around the world than coal - about 20,000 times smaller volume to transport for the same energy. And that is with the current technology that only uses 1% of the available energy. With Gen IV reactors we’ve mined enough uranium to provide all the world’s energy needs for all of this century. “This just isn’t realistic” I don’t understand what you are arguing is the realistic solution. Please explain. Renewables cannot make any significant contribution now or for a very long time, if ever. Cutting population growth: The best way to do that is to allow the underdeveloped world to develop as quickly as possible and to assist them to get cheap clean energy. Fertility drops as peoples standard of living rises and they can have more fulfilling lives through education and work rather than sitting at home producing and feeding children. Banning use of fossil fuels. Unrealistic. Banning access to energy causes wars. Carbon trading scheme. It would have to be international, based on consumption not production, and auditable. That is impossible. Carbon tax. That will raise the cost of electricity in the developed countries, avoid the real problem (which is impediments to low cost energy) and slow the rate that we develop low cost energy. That will slow the rate of uptake of low emissions electricity by the underdeveloped and developing countries. Raising the price of electricity is the wrong policy! Ann, what is your “realistic” solution to cutting emissions. -
RSVP at 22:06 PM on 29 October 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
CBDunkerson #352 "No, that is an observed fact which even most 'skeptics' no longer challenge." My post #317 was a very crude estimate of how much energy it takes to heat a mass of air comparable to a good part of the troposphere. As I said earlier, the calculation is not precise (nor has to be for what we are discussing) given that density varies with altitude, etc., It can be said that it approximate, and moreover, if making the same assumption about constant density, it can allow us in the same to compare and examine how GHG could possibly be raising the temperature of the atmosphere 30 degrees. That is, when you use the same value 5E21 J/C (which is the energy required to raise that 5E18 kg mass of air 1 degree centigrade), it would then require 150E21 (or 1.5E23) Joules to do so for 30 degrees (which is supposedly where GHGs have left things). According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Earth, the surface area of the Earth is 5.1E8 km2 or 5.1E14 m2. But only half of that is receiving sunshine at anyone time, which requires us to consider only 2.55E14m2. Likewise, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation, the average amount of energy received on the Earth's surface is around 1000 W/m2, multiplying by the surface gives us 2.55E17W. Assuming 12 hours of sunshine (43200 sec), we get 1.1E22 Joules from the Sun. This is interesting, because it takes 1.5E23 Joules to raise the air temperature 30 degrees, which is ten times the amount of energy actually coming from the Sun. Supposedly, the GHG effect represents only a fraction of a quantity of energy that is deficient in its totality to produce the said result. Furthermore, air temperature fluctuations (manifested as what we call "weather") change on a daily and hourly basis with excursions that fully "outwit" the theory. What does this all mean? For one thing, energy is being stored whether you like it or not, and it is being liberated from all whereabouts and materials, primarily the oceans. Second, in my calculations, I must be considering too much air (the problem at hand must be limited to a lower altitude). This makes sense, because we know that its much colder at 27,000 feet than "near the ground". But remember that the both calculations used the same mass of air, and you have been using a comparison of energy numbers to claim that GHGs dwarfs waste heat, aside from other claims about energy not accumulating. One more thing, and if you decide to reply, please dont pick what you may consider the easiest issue to contest. I was thinking maybe there is confusion about hot air and heat. There is a difference. Air may cool, but that doesnt mean the heat is lost, this having to do with idea that hot air disperses. By this I mean that if a huge warm mass of air spreads out, that heat may raise the temperature of air somewhere else very little. And as you say, since radiation radiates as the temperature to the fourth power, heat will be lost much slower for lower temperatures. -
JMurphy at 21:11 PM on 29 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
transjasmine, you still don't appear to be reading anything on this site properly, or are ignoring the majority of stuff which seems to go against your beliefs. Let me highlight the bits you missed/wanted to ignore : greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare....The major assessments by the U.S. Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council (NRC) serve as the primary scientific basis supporting the Administrator’s endangerment finding." Now, you probably don't want to accept that because of the mention of the IPCC bogeyman, but that's your problem. Facts are facts, whether you like them or not. "[Pollution] :...the addition of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or any form of energy (such as heat, sound, or radioactivity) to the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form." You seem to accept that the levels of CO2 have increased/are increasing, so you have to accept the above definition unless you want to appear incoherent...or have your own definition of pollution. Your thoughts on water vapour are desperate, so perhaps you should read more about it here. You won't, though, will you ? -
funglestrumpet at 21:10 PM on 29 October 2010Climate's changed before
What an enormous pity that this level of debate is not centre stage. One would think that given the urgency of the matter it would be possible to get a permaneant link printed on all newspaper title boxes directing those interested in the topic to this site. I have been interested in global warming for many years, yet have only happened on this site today by pure fluke. Please keep up the good work. -
Ann at 20:44 PM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
Peter, The analogy doesn't mean much to me. I prefer to stick with energy and facts and figures. OK, I will no longer mention my analogy. We do not have a problem with shortage of energy. Nuclear fuel is effectively unlimited. This is not the issue. My statement is not: “Nuclear power plants will not be able to provide the power currently provided by fossil fuel power plants.” My statement is: “No matter what amount of nuclear power is provided, it will never reduce the burning of fossil fuels to zero (or even close to zero)." So even in the most optimistic scenario, deploying nuclear power (or green power) will slow down, but not stop global warming. Do you really believe that the massive deployment of nuclear energy will cause humanity to abstain from burning fossil fuels ? Some pretty strong preconditions must prevail: - Nuclear energy must become so cheap that it will replace fossil fuels everywhere in the world, including the less developed countries. It must become so cheap that functioning coal plants will be shut down, because it is economically more beneficial to build a brand new nuclear plant. - There must be an oversupply of nuclear energy (both globally and locally), otherwise people will still resort to more expensive options e.g. fossil fuel. Of course an oversupply leads to a greater demand, and a faster population growth (population will always grow proportional to the available resources). Nuclear energy deployment will have to keep ahead of this exponentially rising demand. - As the demand for fossil fuel plummets (this is part of YOUR assumption, not mine), fossil fuel prices will collapse. Nuclear energy will have to remain competitive with ever lowering fossil fuel prices. This just isn’t realistic. -
transjasmine at 20:29 PM on 29 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
a study has been done that shows increased c02 actually has beneficial effects on the environment, such as increased biomass, faster growing times, increased yield, larger produce, and greater water efficiency (less need for water by plants in a c02 rich environment) "emissions of which, in his judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare" the current c02 level is about 380 ppm give or take, co2 itself is not hazardous to human health until 5000-10000 ppm, is it reasonable to expect co2 levels to rise that much? given that the definition of pollutant was so broad that it includes pretty much everything, including things that are already in the atmosphere. you could say then that water vapour is a pollutant and a far more prolific one as it makes up 90% of our atmosphere, if it is considered a pollutant, why is there only emphasis on c02 as a pollutant, i wont answer that because my comment will be deleted, but it ends in ganda. the idea that c02 can be considered a pollutant is a dangerous one i wont say why its something you all need to think about. btw look up the un document my global neighbourhood it was written in 1984 and has some striking similarities both to what we are discussing and to what is going on in the world todayModerator Response: Please provide a link to your source you refer to; failing that, how about the author, publication date, title and publisher so others here can benefit. Thanks! -
Peter Lang at 19:22 PM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
Ann, The analogy doesn't mean much to me. I prefer to stick with energy and facts and figures. We do not have a problem with shortage of energy. Nuclear fuel is effectively unlimited. The build rate of power stations is also not a limitation. We've built at the required rate 30 to 40 years ago and that was with early, big clunker designs. Smaller modular units will become available as soon as the market sends the signals. Investors will move from fossil fuels to nuclear as soon as we send the right signals. That hasn't happened yet in the western democracies. As time goes on, we start sending the right signals and people get over their fear of nuclear (as people who live with it have already), we will send the usual market signals to the electricity industry - "we want least cost electricity". We will slowly unwind the ridiculous requirements we currently place on nuclear power (and don't place on any other industry). -
MarkR at 19:22 PM on 29 October 2010Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
RE: #22/23/24, corrected 3.5 to 3.4 C (was a typo) The estimate is based on a doubling of CO2, which is the emissions pathway we're on, and for eventual warming, i.e. including the entire Charney sensitivity. The best estimate for low CO2 emissions is 1.8 C by 2100, but for a high emissions scenario (which we're currently on, and most 'climate skeptics' are working to maintain) it is 4 C. Of course, this is by 2100 and warming will not stop then; so I considered the full Charney sensitivity. The result was mainly for illustrative purposes, it's pretty close to what we expect and it demonstrates that even a few C of warming can have serious impacts. -
Ann at 18:30 PM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
@Peter I actually agree with you. We cannot stop the world from using fossil fuel. That is exactly my point. “There is an alternative to your proposal. The alternative is we allow (yes, allow) clean electricity to be cheaper than fossil fuel electricity. We allow it to be as cheap as we can.” So, to extend my party analogy: your solution is: we make the carrots tastier than the cake, and hope this way people won’t eat the cake anymore. But be aware that the number of visitors to this party is unlimited and will even grow, the more food you provide. Are you sure the cake is not going to be eaten ? As I see it, the whole plan to fight climate change now hinges on the assumption that the massive deployment of either green energy or nuclear energy will cause humanity to abstain from burning fossil fuels. How realistic is that ? -
Peter Lang at 18:13 PM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
Ann, I did see your comment, but I do not agree that trying to mandate the world stop using fossil fuel is a practicable suggestion. Are you going to try to tell the the people living in India, Indonesia and in the under developed countries they cannot have electricity? Are you going to tell them they cannot have hospitals, schools, industry, jobs, an improving standard of living and a fulfilling life because some rich people in the western democracies say so? Good luck. There is an alternative to your proposal. The alternative is we allow (yes, allow) clean electricity to be cheaper than fossil fuel electricity. We allow it to be as cheap as we can. To do that we remove all the impediments we've imposed on nuclear over the past 40+ years. I recognise we cannot do it all at once, but we can change our thinking from loading more and more requirements on nuclear to dismantling them. We can develop the next generation of nuclear power stations with the first requirement being low-cost electricity. With a clear signal from government that this is the direction we intend to take, the investor risk premium - that is raising the cost of nuclear in the western democracies - would reduce progressively over time and would increase on the fossil fuel technologies instead. But we prevent that while so many people who argue for reducing carbon emissions on one hand are at the same time strongly opposed to nuclear. The answer is clear. It has been for at least 30 years. -
Ann at 17:47 PM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
I am frankly amazed that nobody reacts on my earlier statement (#106): The massive deployment of green energy will not stop global warming (and of course the same applies for nuclear energy). You all agree ? Why the hell is green energy promoted in that case ? I just found a very good analogy : let’s say you organise a party. You have provided cake and carrots for snacks. And you think if you only provide enough carrots, nobody will eat the cake. I think not. No matter how much nuclear or green power is installed, it won't stop the world from using fossil fuels until they are depleted ! -
transjasmine at 17:14 PM on 29 October 2010It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low
oh ok, so back then it was a few things causing the warming but now its only co2? 386 ppm is relatively small considering our atmosphere has sustained life with a co2 count of 10000 ppm, albeit a rather long time ago.Response: "so back then it was a few things causing the warming but now its only co2"
No, CO2 is not the only driver of climate but currently it's the strongest climate forcing and also the fastest rising.
"our atmosphere has sustained life with a co2 count of 10000 ppm"
In past periods when CO2 was much higher, solar output was also much lower. What really hurts species is when climate changes quickly - the species cannot adapt quickly enough. This is why in past periods when climate has changed quickly, it's been accompanied by mass extinctions. -
Peter Lang at 15:50 PM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
Pushing massive life style change will delay acceptance of the policies needed. For those who believe cutting CO2 emissions is urgent, I'd urge they should delay pushing for massive life style change. It is defeating your purpose. Pushing for polices, at this time, that many believe will seriously damage the economy, will increase resistance to those policies, slow the rate they can be implemented, and cause major compromises to get them through parliament. Instead of pushig for policies (that many beleive will seriously fdamage the economy) I'd suggest changing the approach. It is possible to have low emissions electricity and reduce the cost of electricity. This will have major benefits for the world, especially for the poorest people on the planet. And it will lead to the fastest reduction of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. It is a Win-Win. To achieve this means throwing off the anti-nuclear rhetoric. It means removing all the impediments to low-cost nuclear (as distinct from high-cost nuclear; high-cost nuclear is what the public demands in USA, UK, EU. I'd argue that is what we do not need and should not want). Low cost, clean electricity is what we should be aiming for. Not renewables. Forget that idea. And not a carbon tax on electricity generation - yet! -
What should we do about climate change?
dr2chase - I don't disagree on the preference for bicycles, just noting that US cities are rather deliberately designed to make them rather impractical. I've spent time in the Netherlands (Leiden in particular, lovely town), and bicycles work there. But in a lot of the US it's a long long ride with no bike lanes to get to the store, to the bookshop, to work, etc. I live near Washington DC, where everything is 45 minutes from everything else by car! Proper city planning is required to make bikes (and walking, and neighborhood electric cars) practical. Given the current development in the US, it's going to take some time, effort, and $$$ to make it practical. Which I despise, but can't do much about at the moment, other than encouraging pedestrian/cycle/mass transit friendly development, which I certainly do (supporting additional Metro lines, bike paths, etc.) -
dr2chase at 15:02 PM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
@KR - I think I disagree, but you may have something different in mind that I do. There's where we are now, where we could be with just changes in behavior, and where we could be when things change. Consider that the question is, what do we do about climate change? Cars, as they stand, are simply not an option. Either they go all electric (and the grid goes carbon free), or we radically change our use of them, or they go away. The reason to propose "bicycle" is that this is an extremely well-understood, incredibly efficient technology with few-to-no impacts to worry about. There are two concerns for bicycles. One is safety, but if cars are gone, then that is gone. Note, by-the-way, that this is innumerate, subjective safety, not real safety -- the risk from not-biking is far higher (it's relatively unhealthy, to a degree that dwarfs crash risks of cars or bikes). The second is distance, and there are distances at which a bike is not practical. However, there are known solutions to this problem, too. First, assuming we go for bikes, we will somewhat modify the infrastructure. Traffic lights are much less necessary, rotaries are often sufficient (for bikes). Bikes are small, their riders see and hear far better than anyone driving a car, this is not a crazy idea. Second, you get legs. Combine that with the better infrastructure, most people will find a trip in the 5-9 mile range tractable. Third, you can improve the bike. Aerodynamic fairings are a huge help. Entire aero fairings exist in tricycles you can buy, now. Not rocket science. Fourth, you can add an e-assist. This puts you at 20mph, easy. Again, an existing consumer product, not rocket science. Fifth, bikes enable mass transit. Right now, popular choices for getting to train, subway, and bus stops are walking and driving. Walking is too slow, driving (and parking) is too high-impact, which causes towns to get picky about where stops are. Insufficient parking also limits access to mass transit, which in turns cuts profitability and service levels (we see this NOW, in the Boston area). Bikes win here. Because biking is faster than walking, more people can get to the station without a car. Because bikes are low-impact, traffic and the parking lot are not an issue for siting the station. Because bikes can be parked in a small space, access is not limited by full parking lots. Another thing to throw into the pile-o-facts -- already, at least 1/3 of us live in places as dense as a Dutch town (Assen) with high ride share. It could be more -- the census data I used to figure that out, only considered "places" with population more than 50k. I live in a dense place not on that list, so I know it is more than 1/3. And I must add, sometimes it is hard to imagine a place without the cars. I grew up in the St. Pete/Clearwater area, and right now, it is hard to imagine a place more unfriendly to bikes, but mostly because the only arteries are filled with fast cars, and there are not even very good crossing points. HOWEVER, if there are no cars, it all changes -- bikes (and busses) get to use the arteries. That's not what you think when you look at it -- what you think is, "peak oil comes, these people are screwed". But that's not necessarily so -- it's dense, there's services close by, it's mostly flat. (It's also really hot, but that didn't stop me from biking when I was a kid.) -
The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Ken Lambert - Have you been accounting for the varying T^4 temperature relationship with radiated energy since AD1750? And was 1750 truly at equilibrium? (My opinion is that it would not, being near the end of the LIA, including the 1650, 1770, and 1850 Northern European minima with warming between them) Given the known inaccuracies of TOA radiation, PDO and other cyclic ocean heat sequestrations, etc., I don't believe you can do absolute imbalance calculations over 160 years like that. -
quokka at 14:54 PM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
#103 daisym, The contribution of low CO2 sources of electricity generation world wide are around these numbers: Hydro 16% Nuclear 14% Wind, Solar and Geothermal 3% In Europe and the US, nuclear is about 20%. Wind and solar make a trivial contribution to averting global warming. -
quokka at 14:35 PM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
#105 AnnI think it’s admirable that Denmark has such ambitious goals concerning renewable energy, and if they achieve these goals it will be a lesson and an example for many countries. Besides, it is also a smart strategy, as it will make Denmark eventually independent of foreign energy suppliers (and we don’t know what is going to happen on the energy market, but we can be sure it is going to be a bumpy ride).
No it won't and paradoxically it may in fact make Denmark more dependent on foreign energy supplies. The reason is quite simple - the variability of wind power. I believe that Denmark exports much of it's wind power and also imports electricity from it's northern neighbours. As the proportion of wind in the grid increases, the dependence on something to back it up also increases. There will be days, and probably periods of a week or more when there is next to no electricity generated by wind. You can import electricity or for example burn gas but it's got to come from somewhere. All grand plans for powering Europe from renewables are utterly dependent on an expanded super grid, based on the assumption that the wind is always blowing or sun shining somewhere. Without going into the practicalities of this, the obvious conclusion is that nations would become critically dependent on importing electricity and if those imports fail, the lights would go out. This is a very serious question for energy security. Fossil fuels can be to some extent be stockpiled, and several years of nuclear fuels stockpiled, but imported electricity can go off in the blink of an eye. This might be acceptable between good friends, perhaps some western European nations, but how about western and eastern Europe, Russia, Middle East, Nth Africa? I'd suggest that all nations are going to think long and hard about their energy security and the degree that they may participate in super grids. It has huge implications for the limitations of renewables on a scale that could supplant fossil fuels in electricity generation. -
gallopingcamel at 14:17 PM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
dr2chase (#110), East Kilbride in Scotland is a strange place to live until you realize that it was built on a "Green Field" site by people who shared your notion that bicycles should be the dominant personal transport system. This was all done long before there was concern about rising concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. Sadly, not even the Scots could be persuaded to abandon the motor car, so East Kilbride remains a monument to the hubris of central planners. -
gallopingcamel at 14:06 PM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
muoncounter (#112), The author of that interesting study you quoted has been participating in this thread. While it is reasonable to call Peter Lang's study "pro-nuke", that is hardly a criticism when none of the alternative energy sources come close to eliminating CO2 emissions on the scale that nuclear power can readily achieve. -
Ken Lambert at 13:36 PM on 29 October 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
BP #110 Been following the discussion with great interest. As a humble applied scientist (Engineer) with a passable knowledge of thermodynamics, my interest has been in the purported imbalance of about +0.9W/sq.m oft quoted by Dr Trenberth, Hansen et al..which is adding energy to the 'Earth system' - atmosphere, land, oceans etc. This is the much feared AGW. I have been trying to piece together a complete set of forcings from NASA GISS data and IPCC AR4 - which includes S-B radiative cooling. Dr Trenberth - a leading scientist (of travesty fame) uses a figure for positive feedback of +2.1 W/sq.m (Water Vapor + Ice Albedo), and a Figure of -2.8W/sq.m for S-B radiative cooling derived from the assumption of a 0.75 degK surface temperature rise since AD1750 which is importantly assumed to be approximately the same as the increase in the Earth's radiating temperature since AD1750. These are the climate responses added to the net of all the forcings (+1.6W/sq.m) from Fig2.4 of AR4. (ie +1.6 + 2.1 - 2.8 = +0.9W/sq.m imbalance) Assuming an average of about 240W/sq.m incoming solar radiation (TSI of 340 minus 100 Reflected), and a current radiating temp for the Earth of 255 degK the sum is simply: (T2/T1)^4 x 240 viz: (255/254.25)^4 x 240 = 242.8W/sq.m, hence a increase of 2.8W/sq.m in outgoing IR or a forcing of -2.8W/sq.m. This implies that there is no 'insulating' effect of the atmospheric column in the Trenberth calculation which equates the surface and Earth radiating temperature increase to 0.75degK (AD1750 to AD2005). The positive feedback term of +2.1W/sq.m from Water Vapour and Ice Albedo implies a higher surface temp increase than the radiating Earth temp increase - which is the proposed 'enhanced greenhouse effect of CO2GHG interacting with Water Vapour' - I presume. It seems that the two are inconsistent. Would anyone care to comment on this? -
Phila at 13:33 PM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
#99 First of all, asking Americans to change their culture is not going to work. That explains why we still have slavery and segregation, support for gay marriage is stuck at about one percent, most cosmetics are tested on animals, you can smoke anywhere you like, and women still wear bloomers. Talking about "American culture" as though it's some monolithic, irreducible entity is an enormous ideological imposition. The concept is largely imaginary; to the extent that it exists, it's actually pretty malleable. I submit that "skeptics" know this as well as I do, if not better. There'd be little point in spending millions to prevent or forestall cultural change, otherwise. -
muoncounter at 13:12 PM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
#109: "70% of greenhouse gas emissions come from our use of fossil fuels. Of this, 30% is from electricity generation." Excellent points. Here's an Australian study, admittedly very heavily pro-nuke, that details the cost of various emission reduction scenarios. Conclusions are sobering, but they demonstrate that emissions reductions are feasible: Business as Usual (mostly coal) is the least cost option but has the highest CO2 emissions. The Nuclear power option will enable the largest cut in CO2-e emissions from electricity generation. The Nuclear option is the only option that can be built quickly enough to make the deep cuts required by 2050. The Nuclear option is the least cost of the options that can cut emissions sustainably. Wind and solar are the highest cost ways to cut emissions. A mixture of solar thermal and wind power is the highest cost and has the highest avoidance cost of the options considered. Mixing these technologies does not reduce the cost, it increases the cost. At the same time, we live in this world: PGE profit gets federal tax boost Empire District Q3 Profit Rises El Paso Electric Q3 Profit Surges The list of electric utilities with impressive profits goes on and on. Some cite huge electricity demand during this hot summer as the reason their profits jumped. Isn't that just perfect? Making a mess that you don't have to clean up gets you more profits. Yet a 2000 study at MIT found the cost of carbon capture to be on the order of 3cents per kwH. Why couldn't utilities be required to use these 'windfall' profits to cover some of the cost of cleaning up their mess? Nah, that would be an alarmist scam. -
Sarah at 12:54 PM on 29 October 2010Satellite error inflated Great Lakes temperatures
Furthermore, Lake Superior summer temperatures measured at water intakes and by buoys have increased 3.5 degrees C in the last 100 years, with most of the increase occurring since 1980. (Austin and Colman, Limnology and Oceanography, 2008, 53: 2724-30). -
What should we do about climate change?
dr2chase - I would completely agree; it would be great to replace the 4-seat auto in the US for most trips. Unfortunately: - US cities are optimized for cars, not bikes. - Monied interests (GM, primarily) bought up and destroyed efficient streetcar companies decades ago in order to sell cars. It's still worth trying. I recently attended the Progressive X-Prize awards ceremony for autos, where $10M was offered as prizes for 100mpg cars. This would at least be a starting point, and many of the cars were electric. Search Flickr for "X-Prize" or google "X-Prize 100mpg" for some details. I would love to see minimalistic cars used instead of the @$$!#@* SUV's. Progressive X-Prize 100mpg contest Flickr contestant photos -
Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
Adrian smits - I just followed Daniel Bailey's comment, and looked at your previous postings. You have been present on the DMI thread - and apparently you have not read it. Your questions have been clearly answered there. -
dr2chase at 12:21 PM on 29 October 2010What should we do about climate change?
Regarding transportation (which some think demands hydrocarbon fuels). A good chunk of US transportation is devoted to hauling one person and a small amount of personal stuff a few miles. This could easily be done with bicycles. It might not be popular, but it is clearly possible, and it is fantastically more efficient than using a car for the same purpose. For hot climates, frequent steep inclines, and the fitness-challenged, an electrical assist for a bike is a big help, but uses much less energy than an electrical assist for a car. The Dutch experience suggests that this can be a much more popular method of transportation than here, and markets are emerging there for things like small, aerodynamically faired tricycles that go faster, keep the weather off, and provide some interior storage. There are also old and new cargo bike designs that, while much smaller than a car, can often carry bulky loads that will not fit in a car. (As a fat old guy who already rides a cargo bike 50 miles/week in a place where it snows, I'm not interested in hearing what people "can't" do, though I am well aware of what they "won't" do.) A non-trivial reduction in greenhouse emissions can come from diet -- this is especially important if you are biking enough to add another "day" or two of calorie burning to your weekly total. Much less meat, especially beef, lamb, pork, and deep sea fish. Not no meat at all, merely much much less, and more often poultry and small fish than mammals (less mercury in the small fish, too). Shipping, it's hard to say. We did use sails once upon a time, and we build more more interesting wind devices nowadays (traction kites, fancy windmills). However, I compared the size of the engine of a large ship (Emma Maersk, 110MW total) with the sunlight on its decks at the equator (22 MW, never mind conversion), and the power of the largest windmill built so far (6-7MW), it seems that it would be dicey. However, as near as I can tell, power required is quadratic in ship speed (I checked, it seems to not be cubic in this case) , and I don't know whether the full engine power is often needed. Once upon a time, we also moved quite a lot of cargo by barge and by train; presumably we could do that again. It would be different now, given the widespread use of standardized containers for cargo. -
Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
adrian smits - I'm afraid the DMI data doesn't show what you think it does. Take a look at the rather extensive explanation on DMI data on Arctic temperatures: Hide the Increase?. In short: Summer temperatures are pinned to just above zero C, due to the presence of ice. Average temps over the year are rising twice as fast in the Arctic as the global average. Some of the variance in the DMI data may be due to the fact that enough ice has melted to expose water at -2C, rather than ice at 0C.
Prev 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 2121 Next
