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  2110  2111  2112  2113  2114  2115  2116  2117  2118  2119  2120  2121  2122  2123  2124  2125  Next

Comments 105851 to 105900:

  1. What should we do about climate change?
    Thanks Kevin. I'm interested in the cheap solar energy claim, as well. In a quick and lazy research, I found this on Wikipedia: Cost of electricity by source. It shows solar photovoltaic energy as the most expensive, and solar thermal the second one (see table). It's a very interesting subject that would deserve more posts. Maybe the discussion that follows would bring in more information. The link about investment from Google is also good news. Thanks Marcus.
  2. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    #98, Joe Blog: However you define the 2nd law, the usual model of the greenhouse effect is "in compliance" with it.
  3. What should we do about climate change?
    Yes, indeed Arkadiusz. Of course the idea of developing the Sahara for just Africa isn't considered! Instead Europe seems to be interested in mainly exploiting another African resource to support our own life styles.
  4. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:22 PM on 27 October 2010
    What should we do about climate change?
    EU Commission, concluded that the cost is only the acquisition of solar energy in the Sahara. To get from the source 100% of Europe's demand (for electricity), you must cover the solar panels (the latest, yet non-existent generation), more than 30% of the Sahara. It would also develop entirely new ways of transmission of this energy. The current could generate up to 30% of losses.
  5. Berényi Péter at 21:05 PM on 27 October 2010
    Climate sensitivity is low
    There was a discussion of MEP (Maximum Entropy Production) principle and its possible bearings on climate sensitivity under The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect. We were asked to move it to this thread. MEP theme was started here and after some lengthy exchanges there's a clarification attempt. If valid, it would mean equilibrium climate sensitivity, whenever "forcings" are small enough to warrant a linear approximation, is moderate (no positive feedbacks). There could still be large shifts in climate, either forced or unforced, but they would not fit into the standard climate sensitivity formalism and entirely different analytical techniques would be required to uncover them (e.g. topological analysis of the entropy production rate function over the phase space of climate states).
  6. What should we do about climate change?
    oops that last comment of mine was in response to perseus.
  7. What should we do about climate change?
    addition: Not only are your views about renewables wrong, but your support for a fossil fuel back up plan with desperate geo-engineering add ons is junk.
  8. Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
    Fixing broken link in #16: "slow feedbacks [...] I wouldn't consider there is a scientific consensus yet (see for example James Annan's comment here (7/3/09 1:58 PM)"
  9. What should we do about climate change?
    Concentrating solar wouldn't work very well in the UK or the Northern hemisphere in general. Biomass, wind farms, photovoltaics, solar water heating, ground source heat pumps, tidal and numerous other alternatives are appropriate here in the UK. perseus: "Moreover whilst some renewables work well up to a percentage of power, further increases lead to grid instability and expensive storage is necessary." Your view about renewables assumes that technology and engineering is stuck in a time warp with no innovation. Here in the UK a lot of work and effort is taking place to develop new ways of managing renewables connected to the grid. Including a big smart grid test project involving some 14,000 homes and businesses. The problem we have now is that the old grid was designed for the generating sources developed over 70 years ago, it will be changed to suite todays needs. That includes better energy management at the customer end with smart devices that know when the grid is under strain (actually quite easy, you just monitor the frequency, which is what the human controllers do manually). Basically your basing your ideas on ideas that are being bypassed by research and development.
  10. Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
    Thanks for your clarification in #15, Mark. When I read about 6 ºC, I also thought of slow feedbacks (Hansen et al 2008 and Lunt et al 2009), about which I wouldn't consider there is a scientific consensus yet (see for example James Annan's comment here (7/3/09 1:58 PM)). In any case, slow feedbacks would be something more to take into account. In Gavin's own summary: "even with the (substantial) uncertainties in the calculations and underlying assumptions, the conclusion that the Earth System sensitivity is greater than the Charney sensitivity is probably robust". Lenton et al 2005 (published in Climate Dynamics) addresses the question of long-term Charney sensitivity. Their Figure 9.c would be the graphical summary: "A conservative estimate of known conventional fossil fuel resources is 4,000 GtC and this forms the basis for scenarios C [red curve], emitting this reserve rapidly, and D [cyan curve], emitting it slowly.". This is considering only fast feedbacks. Anyway, I think that, in the long term, the uncertainties are mainly in the emission scenario rather than the climate sensitivity The IPCC don't go beyond 2011, but they have a graph with the temperature up to 1.000 ppm here. Cheers.
  11. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:46 PM on 27 October 2010
    Measuring CO2 levels from the volcano at Mauna Loa
    Early attempts to measure CO2 in the USA and Scandinavia found that the readings varied a lot due to the influence of growing plants and the exhaust from motors. the prevailing winds are offshore breezes, which bring clean air from high in the atmosphere down to the observatory This not completely precise. The influence e.g. of wind on measurements of CO2 for a long time ago was a scientist of Luxembourg physicist dr. F. Massen (Seasonal and Diurnal CO2 Patterns at Diekirch., 2007; and Pattern of CO2 and other atmospheric gases during a cold weather inversion., 2009.) Interestingly, he concluded that this effect can be estimated also for measurements over land and ... that the measurements from Mauna Loa, Barrow vs. example, can be used to statistically based validation of old - historical measurements of CO2, leading to the paper: Accurate estimation of CO2 background level from near ground measurements at non-mixed environments., 2009). In this work a more precise description of why it is the type of Mauna Loa station gives the best results: ” The daily pattern of the CO2 mixing ratio depends essentially on the presence and/or the strength of the near ground inversion layer. This layer (which exists mostly at night, during the morning hours or at late afternoon) prevents a thorough mixing up of the atmosphere and coincides usually with large CO2 peaks (Massen, 2007). During the midday hours, solar heating is normally at a maximum and creates the strongest convective air movements. As a consequence, the atmospheric boundary layer is well mixed up, and CO2 mixing ratios fall to their daily minimum. This minimum is seen as the most representative measure of the regional CO2 background level. The inversion periods are much shorter and less intense at the border of open sea or at smaller islands, where a quasi continuous breeze mixes up the boundary layer at most periods of the day. As a consequence, the daily CO2 variation is much lower at these locations; that are considered as the most suitable for background CO2 measurements.”
  12. What should we do about climate change?
    transjasmine, just your first paragraph has many fallacies - if only you had read more on this site. Anyway, here are the threads you need to read to help with your misunderstandings : Does Breathing Contribute to CO2 Build-up in the Atmosphere ? Global Warming 'Positives' CO2 - Everyone's Favourite Pollutant ClimateGate Like I say, that is just from your first paragraph - there is a lot more but I don't have time at the moment to point you in the right directions. Maybe later...unless someone else can be bothered to waste their time on this ! Basically, perhaps you had better start here : Newcomers Start Here
  13. It's cooling
    The deniers jumped on the same cooling train back in 2008 and predicted that we were going to enter a Maunder Miniumum due to the combination of the lowest solar minimum in more than 100 years and a negative PDO. With 2010 smashing all sorts of records, the deniers were proven dead wrong, but they are getting away with it. The MSM is all over tiny dicrepancies in the predictions of the real scientists, but dead quiet on the massive failure of the skeptic cooling predictions from 2008. Those predictions were all over the blogs and deniers even went on television proclaiming rapid cooling. Henrik Svensmark is one of the most high profile ones. Last month was the warmest (by far) in the UAH record, despite maximum cooling effect from the lowest solar slump in more than a century, despite the cooling effect from the much heralded (by deniers) negative PDO, and despite the onset of the second strongest La Nina on record. Nature is turning all the natural drivers to Max Cool and September was still the warmest by far. Food for thought. 2011 will flatten out and perhaps cool slightly, due to the strong La Nina, so the deniers will make their usual noise and the MSM will bite, hook, line and sinker and make first page material out of pretty much every single bit of denier disinformation. 2012 temperatures will come back with a vengeance, however, as we will likely enter an El Nino, and the solar cycle will have gained some momentum, in addition to the always present and increasing warming from the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases.
  14. What should we do about climate change?
    Bern@16, I cannot give your reply the detailed answer it needs here. You might be interested in the “Zero Carbon Australia – Stationary Energy Plan- Critique”. http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/ This provides cost estimates for solar thermal and wind power, with biomass and hydro backup, to meet our projected demand for electricity. The cost is around $500/MWh ($270 to $1,200/MWh), but these costs are based on highly optimistic assumptions. The power supply would be unreliable.
  15. Measuring CO2 levels from the volcano at Mauna Loa
    ATTN: All FYI After analysis, the concentration for CO2 in a sample of local air is reported for purified dry air (PDA) which does not occur in the earth’s atmosphere and is comprised of nitrogen, oxygen, the inert gases, which are the fixed gases, and CO2. The composition of PDA (i.e., the relative amounts of the fixed gases and CO2) is fairly uniform through out the atmosphere and is independent of location, elevation, pressure, temperature, humidity, biological and human activities except for minor local variations in particular with respect to CO2. This is the origin of the term “well-mixed atmospheric gases.” For PDA at STP (i.e., 273.15 K and 1 atm. pressure), there are presently about 390 ml, 17.4 millimoles, 766 mg, or 0.000766 kg of CO2 in 1 cubic meter. The density of PDA at STP is 1.29 kg per cubic meter. The concentration of CO2 in PDA is 390 ppmv. In real air there is no uniform distributon of the masses of the consituents including water vapor and clouds in the atmosphere in space and time as is shown by daily weather maps of the various regions of the earth. High pressure cells have more mass of the gases than do low pressure cells, and thus there is no uniform distribution of CO2 in the atmosphere. Air containing water vapor is less dense than dry air and has less mass of the fixed gases and of CO2 both of which will vary with humidity. Mountains are a prominent geological feature of the continents and the density of the air in them is less than at sea level and diminishes rapidly with elevation. Real air is the term for local air at the intake ports of an air separation plant and usually contains aersols, reactive gases, volatile organic compounds, water vapor, fog, rain, snow, CO2, nitrogen oxygen and the inert gases which are the fixed gases and comprise about 99% of PDA. The metric used for CO2 in climate model calculations is ppmv and is incorrect since the concentration of CO2 is only valid for PDA. The metric that should be used is either mass per unit volume or moles per unit volume. This is flaw in climate model calculations since the mass of the air is complex function of the variable mentioned above. The mass of CO2 per unit volume in local air will usually be less for elevation upto ca 30,000 ft. (i.e., the height of the tallest mountains) than that calculated for PDA. Climate models that use concentation of CO2 for PDA will give results that are to slighty too high. Moist tropical air (e.g.,90 deg F and 100% humidity) can contain 20% less CO2 than PDA. For much useful into on the properties air go to Universal Industrial Gases Inc.'s website at http://www.uigi.com/air.html By Harold, the chemist.
  16. Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
    Re: Albatross #11 The 6 C I gave was for 2 doublings of CO2, as our current emissions pathway is along the IPCC SRES A1. Warming by 2100 seems almost certain to be less than this, but even the 3-4 C we may see by then is an absolutely massive change. It's not just warmer nights and evenings, but climate zones moving hundreds of miles north and hundreds of millions of people needing to protection against rising seas.
  17. What should we do about climate change?
    I'm afraid relying on conservation, nuclear or renewables is merely tinkering at the edges, and it could be like cutting off a few of the the Hydra's heads! Jeavons paradox reminds us that efficiency savings may not be as great as expected. Moreover whilst some renewables work well up to a percentage of power, further increases lead to grid instability and expensive storage is necessary. Nuclear is limited unless we move to thorium. However bear in mind that most of our carbon emissions are non grid based and widely diversified. Although I generally support most 'green' initiatives, we really have focus on reducing the key drivers. Economic, and population growth, the latter being a delayed effect. Consumption is a social illness which our politicians and media encourage us to participate in so we need political change. With regards to technologies as unpopular as these are I suggest the following should be our focus Carbon capture and storage Reforestation in the tropics and possibly beyond depending on albedo effects 'Reversible geoengineering' such as increased cloud cover (yes this could be an oxymoron) but only in conjunction with genuine carbon reduction initiatives. 'Industrial geoengineering', by focusing on carbon reductions in transport emissions rather than on industry which according to NASA has a net cooling effect Increased research into technologies such as algae based Biofuels and artificial carbon capture from the atmosphere should be encouraged.
  18. What should we do about climate change?
    Bern@16 - "Why design systems to deliver 100% all night?" Well, not all night maybe, but on those really hot nights in Perth, there is no doubt that everyone will keep their air conditioners going, at least until the early hours of the morning!
  19. What should we do about climate change?
    @Peter Lang, I'd have to disagree with your comment that solar thermal with storage can "only provide a few hours of full power generation when the sun is not shining" - the output post-sunset depends on the amount of storage you have. If your demand curve *needs* full output after sunset, then you need to make larger storage tanks and increase the size of your collectors, that's all. But given most (all?) demand curves show a significant decrease post-sunset, why design the system to deliver 100% all night? I agree with you, though, that the cost is an issue - the price per MWh delivered is important. But I'm also interested - was the cost for solar thermal based on the limited scale projects that have been deployed in the past, or on projected costs of large-scale baseload generators? I'm sure the early nuclear systems cost a bit more than they do now, given the 60-odd years of (highly subsidised) development that's gone into them. The bigger problem with nuclear, at least in Australia, though, is political. 60-odd years of scaremongering about the dangers of nuclear waste will be hard to overcome...
  20. What should we do about climate change?
    Further to Barry Brook's comment, the $165/MWh cost for solar energy is not comparable with the cost of energy from nuclear. Nuclear provides power on demand, whereas solar provides power when the sun is up and the sky is relatively clear. They do not provide much power in winter. Even solar thermal power stations that have some storage (such as molten salt storage) can only provide a few hours of full power generation when the sun is not shining. There is no such thing as a solar baseload power station and probaly never will be (other than with huge subsidies). I agree with the statement: "Most importantly, we must stop listening to disinformation."
  21. What should we do about climate change?
    john chapman, its interesting to me that you would suggest curbing the population growth, how exactly would one do that? i have an opinion on this issue relating to global climate change but i'll let you answer before i rant.
  22. What should we do about climate change?
    Marcus, I'm sorry, I have to dispute this on a number of grounds. First, you're quoting a few cherry-picked assumed costs, not real-world costs. Second, you're not considering LCOE. I have an article in press in the journal Energy (the DOI is 10.1016/j.energy.2010.10.039 but it's not online yet), and based on a meta-review of the last 10 years of authoritative energy literature (encompassing the IEA, EIA, MIT, IPCC, RAE, NREL, NEEDS etc), normalised to 2009 USD, we found the median LCOE for nuclear was $54/MWh (n=8), and for solar thermal it was $165/MWh (n=4). Your statement is not supported.
  23. What should we do about climate change?
    hmm now what could we do to fix this huge problem? how about some kind of tax, we'll call it a tax on carbon, something that everyone has to pay because we all breathe, don't take into account that plants and tree's need Co2 to survive, its poison a dreadful poison. ignore climate gate the scientists were joking about falsifying data. oh just ignore the ice cores showing co2 following temperature, the ice cores were joking as well, just to confuse you haha do you get it? ignore ice core and sea core data showing just 500,000 years ago a temperature 5 degree's higher than today which heated at a faster rate 15 degrees per century. ignore the urban heat island effect and the iris effect. ignore the fact that a small period known as the Holocene climatic optimum was warmer than it is today. so what can we do about global warming? absolutely nothing, its a natural occurrence you may as well try and stop the sun from burning.
  24. What should we do about climate change?
    Also, Bern, you can find more info on Concentrated Solar Power here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power
  25. What should we do about climate change?
    The closest I can get, Bern, is this: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58867I20090911?pageNumber=1. I hope that helps. Also, I've heard of capital costs for coal power stations of between $1.80 & $2.20 per watt. Its also worth noting that the Coal Industry enjoys many tax breaks-especially in Australia. Water costs, waste disposal costs, land rehabilitation costs, diesel fuel costs-*all* are, in part or full, covered by tax payers!
  26. Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
    The projections for warming due to a CO2 doubling - 3 Deg, 6 Deg etc need to be considered in the context of time scale. Most estimates of temp change that fall into that 3 Deg band are based on the Charney Sensitivity - how much the climate will change to a doubling considering only shorter term factos, typically on time scales up to a few decades at most. The full temperature response to a forcing may take centuries to manifest as it involves other feedbacks on longer time scales - Ice Sheet changes, altered vegetation patterns and ocean currents. These are the ones suggesting figures up towards 6. One area that often seems to get under-represented when we consider the impacts of any temperature change is the impacts on food production. Our domestic crops co-evolved with us during the Holocene and are often quite tied to temperature regimes. The argument is sometimes put that it has been warmer in the past. Yes it has but we weren't trying to feed 9-10 Billion people at the time. A few DegC change means that every ecosystem on the planet will experience an adaptation pressure due to temperature and precipitation changes. Ecosystems can adapt, but they need time to do so. The pace of these changes, perhaps more than therir absolute magnitude is a huge ecosystem stressor. The risk is that they cannot adapt fast enough. And the technical term for many of these ecosystems is 'farm paddock'. The big risk from AGW, because it compounds with all the other environmental pressures, is the threat to food supply, and the flow on social chaos that may follow. And just a few degrees can cause that in a world that is already close to not being able feed everyone.
  27. What should we do about climate change?
    John Chapman, there is nothing fanciful about concerns regarding the waste & terrorist implications of nuclear energy. The US has enormous problems dealing with the accumulated nuclear waste of the past 60 years, & it doesn't take much nuclear waste to build a dirty bomb. Not to mention the danger posed by the facilities themselves were someone to fly a plane into it!
  28. What should we do about climate change?
    Marcus, you don't happen to have a link to that info, do you? I'm curious if they discussed costs for any other electricity sources. I saw some numbers that suggested a modern coal-fired power station would cost only $1.50 or so per watt up-front, but would cost another $0.50 per watt per year in fuel costs (can't remember where I saw that, unfortunately).
  29. What should we do about climate change?
    Well Barry, according to a talk given by G Poornima & L Isensee, the cost of installing a Concentrated Solar Power (as of 2009) comes out to between $2.50 to $4.00 per watt. By contrast, most nuclear power stations cost around $5.00 to $6.00 per watt to build-then have fuel & waste disposal costs on top of that! Its worth noting that the high cost of nuclear power comes even after *60 years* of development & many hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies for the industry!
  30. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    Yes, RSVP, GHGs of course do slow the escape of waste heat. But GHGs do that equally as they slow the escape of heat from all other sources, including the Earth's heat resulting from incoming solar radiation. That's why the orders of magnitude lower quantities of waste heat make it inconsequential to worry about. That's also why GHG increase is consequential to worry about: GHGs slow the escape of heat from all sources.
  31. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    #348 CBDunkerson (resending after cleaning up, and adding just a little more) The follow, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law ...starts by saying... "The Stefan–Boltzmann law, also known as Stefan's law, states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body per unit time" note the words, "per unit surface area", and "per time" You are right in thinking along the lines "what goes up, must come down", but for some reason you are ignoring the idea that the time it takes to "go up, and down" could vary (depending on conditions). As I was saying about the heat sink on the back of an audio amp. They dont make them bigger for nothing. The more surface area, the faster the heat can radiate, so as to not allow the amp to overheat (for instance). Likewise to our earlier analogy, the viscosity of water is a real force that impedes flow. So in the same way they have to actually spend more money for larger pipes to get large amount of water to where it needs to go in a timely manner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscosity And more to the point, if the heat flow outward is being restricted by GHGs (and that is a big IF), it could only be helping the accumuation of waste heat. AND as the surface area of the Earth is finite, this will limit the amount of energy released per unit time. If you wait long enough. If there was a break in waste heat emmision, the Earth would have a chance to get rid of it, but we never stop emitting this heat.
  32. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    #348 CBDunkerson The follow, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law ...starts saying... "The Stefan–Boltzmann law, also known as Stefan's law, states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body per unit time" note the words, "per unit", "per time" You are right in saying thinking alone the lines "what goes up, must come down", but for some reason you are ignoring the idea that time it takes to "go up, and down" could vary. As I was saying about the heat sink on the back of an audio amp. They dont make them bigger for nothing. The more area, the faster the heat can radiate, so as to not allow the amp to overheat (for instance). Likewise to our earlier analogy, the viscosity of water is a real force that impedes flow. So in the same way they have to actually spend more money for larger pipes to get large amount of water to where it needs to go in a timely manner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscosity And more to the point, if the heat flow outward is being restricted by GHGs (and that is a big IF), it could only be helping the accumuation of waste heat.
  33. What should we do about climate change?
    "97% of climate scientists". If this is based on Doran, then the 97% is even tighter than that - climate scientists actively publishing on climate change. While this might be simplification for radio, I think it is overstating a case which I believe is poor practise. Leave that to denialists. If you overstate something, then it is easy for someone to discount your entire argument on basis of that error. On the other hand, if the argument is understated, then close examiners looking to refute your argument will find things worse than they thought - and perhaps pause to reflect.
    Response: If I'm crunched for space, I usually say "climate experts" and if someone asks "what's a climate expert?", I say a climate scientist who is actively publishing peer-reviewed papers on climate science.
  34. What should we do about climate change?
    I'm curious to understand the justification and evidence for this statement: "... like solar-thermal generators that are now providing energy in Europe more cheaply than Nuclear generators"
  35. What should we do about climate change?
    John 97% of scientists? Should that be 97% of climate scientists or involved scientists or something. Or is that going to muck up your word count.
    Response: I'm just guessing here but I'd bet Kevin went with the simplification of "scientists" instead of "climate scientists" for the purpose of talking to a general radio audience.
  36. What should we do about climate change?
    John. Population? The real problem is consumption and associated waste (by humans). Was it here I read that ants have a couple of hundred times the biomass of the human population? They seem not to have run out of their resources. Probably because they reuse and recycle every single element required for life. Anyway, human population numbers will decline so long as the focus remains on educating girls and women. China's approach was probably the best they could do given the extreme problems they faced. But it was a disaster, and continues so, because of the failure to educate the population at large. The men and women who were born around the time the policy was introduced have been educated and acculturated to preference for male children and to desire 4 generations under one roof. http://www.thisis50.com/profiles/blogs/24-million-chinese-men-wont?xg_source=activity A system that encourages and supports later marriage and esp. later birth of a first child firstly reduces the generational overlap thereby reducing total population even with an unchanged birthrate. A policy and a program was necessary. This particular policy will continue to cause problems for a very long time.
  37. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    KR The second law is about entropy, heat flows from hot to cold is just sticking this in the most simple terms. If you state the second law as chaos increases, you are mostly just going to get blank stares back, but its not a bad approximation of the second law. But entropy increases or stays the same, is the second law... now if you modify the system however?
  38. What should we do about climate change?
    In australia solar may be viable, but this is not true for every corner of the globe... There is nothing wrong with the fourth and fifth generation thorium salt fast breeder reactors. There is as much disinformation floating around about this technology as anything. And this does offer a viable alternative to fossil fuels anywhere. Thorium is cheap, they are vastly more efficient than heavy or light water reactors. And produce a fraction of the waste... If the world was serious about cutting its reliance on fossil fuels, this should be the first avenue of investment.
  39. What should we do about climate change?
    Using less energy can, at best, offset the increases in population and energy demands. While solar has a role, especially in WA, the global solution for energy has to be nuclear. Any concerns about waste or terrorism (fanciful) are insignificant compared to the consequences of global warming. The other action is to curb population growth. China, to their credit, at least has aggressive nuclear energy plans and is doing something about population. One of the benefits of not having a democracy - one can make unpopular decisions!
  40. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Albatross - I agree. Berényi - MEP discussions probably belong on How sensitive is our climate, not here. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is quite secure, and the nonsense of Gerlich and Tscheuschner well disproven. MEP is off-topic here.
    Moderator Response: Agreed. Take it to that other thread, please.
  41. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    The message of the main text of this thread is that such assertion that "greenhouse effect contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics", as Gerlich and Tscheuschner made in their paper published in 2009, is false. I think that there is no objection to this message among the commenters here. The story of the principle of maximum entropy production (MEP) is related to the general title "The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect", but MEP is something distinct from the 2nd law, and is much less estabilished. I think that it is an interesting subject of academic science to discuss whether it holds in the real world. But I think that formulations of the model systems that should represent the real world is different among scientists (e.g. between Berényi Péter and Ozawa et al.), and that the answer to the preliminary question "maximum among what?" is different accordingly. So MEP does not seem to me helpful as a piece of policy-relevant science of climate at present.
  42. It's cooling
    Adrian- well I expect that next La Nina will start the chorus "start of cooling trend" again - until the next El nino. Not a constructive way to look at it perhaps? Wouldnt it be better to look that the temperature and compare with temperatures the last time the world have a similar magnitude of El Nino/ La Nina? With a TOA energy imbalance, you need iron-clad wishful thinking to propose that we are going to get cooler. On the other hand, if you are prepared abandon your denialism if its warmer in 5 years, then that would be progress.
  43. Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
    Oops, sorry for assisting Adrian to take the tread off-topic. The page that JMurphy links to is the most effective response.
  44. Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
    Adrian Smits #4 And according to UHA January 2010 was the hottest January in the 32 year satellite record, August was the second hottest month, and 2010 was the second hottest year, and we have just seen the hotest decade, yada yada yada. But rather than cherry picking hot or cold periods within the dataset how about we consider the trend over the entire record. It is clearly positive and recent data in no way contradicts that long-term trend.
    Moderator Response: Please respond on the appropriate thread. See comments by readers and moderators above.
  45. Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
    Mike @9, Good point. It is rather unfortunate that so much emphasis is placed on 2100 and doubling CO2. Hopefully the IPCC will rectify that in AR5. I'm not sure that +6 warming for doubling CO2 is the most likely scenario-- +3 C seems the most likely. That said, the IPCC might need to entertain other scenarios which allow for the fact that CO2 levels (or equivalent) will likely treble over pre-industrial levels circa 2100.
  46. Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
    I have replied to adrian smits on the Is Global Warming Still Happening ? thread.
    Moderator Response: Thank you!
  47. It's cooling
    adrian smits wrote (on the Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small? thread) : "According to UHA satellite data the last week hasn't been this cold in many years for this old rock and I expect before this la Nina ends its gonna get a lot colder yet! Lets just wait 4 maybe 5 more years and see where we are at before doing anything rash.After 14 years of nearly flat temperatures that's 1996 to now. Three or four years of actual cooling should put a stake in the heart of the AGW agenda." Firstly, could you provide the link to that amazingly devastating data ? (Well, you seem to think it is) Secondly, last month was higher than the same month of the previous year, as was every other month - and, generally, some of the highest ever recorded. Where is the cooling you believe in ? Thirdly, are you agreeing that if there are 4 or 5 more years of warming, you will finally admit that your so-called skepticism has been wrong ? Fourthly, you have already been shown to be wrong about your belief in cooling over the last 14 years, but perhaps you have some hidden evidence you would like to show ? If so, please prove that your belief has some substance. Lastly, what do you believe this hidden agenda is ? Some sort of conspiracy ?
  48. Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
    Adrian Smits, No obvious increase for a entended even if this was a real phenomenon, whould by no mean confirm than the heating is no longer ongoing. In non linear system, increase are done in step. See http://www.pnas.org/content/105/38/14308.full
    Moderator Response: The other, relevant, thread, please.
  49. Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
    Adrian Smits, Your post is off-topic. Anyhow, lower tropospheric temperatures inferred from AMSU data are still running above average (with respect to the mean calculated over the satellite record). Regardless, short-term variability/noise is a distraction from the long-term warming trend. And yes, temperatures have been rising since 1996. See Hansen's latest paper. Ironic that in response a post where the author is talking about temperature changes over many thousands of years and you choose to post about the change in global temperatures in the last couple of weeks. Anyhow, until a couple of weeks ago the UAH data for the mid troposphere were at record highs. The very recent decrease in positive global temperature anomalies of late is because the atmosphere is finally responding to the strong La Nina event. And there is no "agenda" here, just science, please take your rhetoric and spin and agenda somewhere else.
    Moderator Response: The other, relevant, thread, please.
  50. Isn't global warming just 2 °C and isn't that really small?
    Sorry for the off-topic reply, I hadn't seen John's response to adrian's comment.

Prev  2110  2111  2112  2113  2114  2115  2116  2117  2118  2119  2120  2121  2122  2123  2124  2125  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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