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

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

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.

Recommended Supplemental Reading:

Yes, there was global warming in prehistoric times. But nothing in millions of years compares with what we see today, Opinion by Michael E Mann, Los Angeles Times, Sep 24, 2023

nigelj at 16:56 PM on 25 September 2023

2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38

Just Dean

Regarding Hannah Ritchies video. I read the main points that she made in her video. Her points were basically that infant mortality is much lower than 300 years ago, poverty has come down, we have made some progess with wind and solar power, coal fired power is declining, and levels of deforestation have generally stopped and environmental pollution in America has fallen (despite economic growth). All worthy points to make and a good counter to the doom and gloom.

Other writers have put a positive spin on human progress such as Seven Pinker in Enlightenment Now and Michael Shermer in The Moral Arc and IMO both books make good points.

However economic growth has a good and bad side. The good side is obvious, but the article did point out the bad side. I don't agree with all the points it made, but economic growth has been a prime contributer of deforestation and its a bit naive to think it can continue indefinitely without causing more deforestation. There is also depletion of the worlds fisheries. Economic growth is also generally accepted to be one of the prime causes of mineral resource depletion (along with population growth) that is on track to leave future generations short of basic materials. Economic growth has been one prime cause of pollution in the development phase of many societies. While its possible to have economic growth and keep pollution at moderate levels as America shows, a necessary condition is a strong rule of law absent in many countries and America ( and other developed countries) is not exactly free of all pollution.

It therefore looks like it would be very difficult and perhaps impossible to have indefinite economic growth based around resource extraction and processing and also have a sustainable environment, and also maintain ever expanding wealth. It is also hard to see how such economic growth would be maintained indefinitely if we are using up finite resources. So it looks like economic growth may fall naturally over time all other things being equal. Economic growth rates have been falling in developed countries since the 1970s anyway.

Japan has had relatively minimal economic growth over the last 30 years but has maintained a good standard of living. So once countries reach a certain level of wealth it looks like we could have zero or near zero economic growth and maintain a good standard of living.

However the commentary seemed to call for a more rapid and deliberately planned end to economic growth. This might face difficulties because our entire financial system is based on debt finance reliant on at least some economic growth to pay off the debt. If economic growth was abruptly switched off for good banks would not be able to make loans.

Any governmnet brave enough to have a policy of zero economic growth (easily achieved through monetary policy) might find the entire business sector waging war against them along with a large part of the population. A zero growth world would probably require large modifications to how capitalism operates and this should be possible but doesn't look like it would be rapidly achieved. It seems more likely to me that economic growth will slow and stop of its own accord due to emerging resource scarcity, demographic changes, etc,etc.

Its very hard and slow turning large ships around.

Just Dean at 23:50 PM on 24 September 2023

2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38

I'm surprised that Hannah Ritchie's blogpost, My TED talk is now live , on Sep 22 wasn't highlighted. Hannah's message is somewhat in contrast to that offered by Nikayla Jefferson. Her subtitle reads, "We can live well and tackle our environmental problems at the same time. Let's do it." I found her TED Talk quite uplifting and hopeful yet realistic about the work required to create even a better future.

Rob Honeycutt at 09:53 AM on 24 September 2023

Climate Town: The Brainwashing Of America's Children

It's another case of "Davz not here, man."

Rob Honeycutt at 09:50 AM on 24 September 2023

Climate Town: The Brainwashing Of America's Children

Davz... "Brainwashing" would be an act of convincing someone of things that are untrue. Scientists and those advocating for climate science are acting to inform people of the scientific realities and significant challenges of climate change.

But, as Bob said. I'm sure this is another drive-by comment you're unwilling to defend.

Bob Loblaw at 07:00 AM on 24 September 2023

Climate Town: The Brainwashing Of America's Children

Davz:

And who, exactly, are the "climate change evangelists"??? Is there any overlap at all with "climate change scientists"? Can you provide even a single name? Do you have a definition for "climate change evangelist" that doesn't resemble "climate scientists with viewpoints I don't like"?

Or is this just a drive-by ad hominem?

Davz at 06:11 AM on 24 September 2023

Climate Town: The Brainwashing Of America's Children

And the climate change evangelists aren't attempting to brainwash the kids then?

BaerbelW at 20:10 PM on 23 September 2023

Climate scientists are in it for the money

Please note: a new basic version of this rebuttal was published on September 23 and includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @ https://sks.to/at-a-glance

David00099 at 17:48 PM on 23 September 2023

Skeptical Science New Research for Week #38 2023

I must say, the research presented in Week #38 of Skeptical Science has once again left me both astonished and hopeful. As I delved into the details provided by the scientists, my passion for understanding our planet's changing climate grew significantly.

In this week's research, the team at Skeptical Science dived into a previously unexplored aspect of climate change – the impact of reforestation on global temperatures. The study revealed that widespread reforestation efforts have the potential to mitigate the effects of rising <a href="https://kdramasduniya.blogspot.com/?m=1">KDramas</a> temperatures significantly. The presence of more trees not only helps sequester carbon dioxide but also promotes localized cooling by providing shade and reducing heat absorption by the ground.

One particular finding caught my attention: the relationship between reforestation and the frequency of heatwaves. The study showed that areas where reforestation efforts had been implemented saw a marked decrease in the intensity and duration of heatwaves. This correlation suggests that trees may act as natural air conditioners, helping to regulate local temperature extremes and protect communities from the adverse effects of heat stress.

Furthermore, the research team emphasized the importance of utilizing native tree species in reforestation projects. Native trees are better adapted to local climates, enhancing their resilience to changing conditions and ensuring their long-term survival. This key insight offers a valuable lesson for policymakers and environmental organizations collaborating on reforestation initiatives worldwide.

As I read through the research, it became apparent that the pursuit of reforestation is not only an environmental imperative but also a social responsibility. The study illustrates that by investing in reforestation projects, we can foster healthier ecosystems, safeguard biodiversity, mitigate climate change, and improve human well-being. It provides evidence that tackling climate change need not be a daunting task; rather, it presents a beacon of hope in the form of a practical and effective solution.

In conclusion, the research presented in Week #38 of Skeptical Science not only sheds light on the critical role reforestation plays in combatting climate change but also ignites a flame of inspiration within individuals like myself. It reaffirms the notion that by working together and taking sustainable action, we have the power to carve a better, greener future. Let us use this knowledge to strive for a world where forests thrive, temperatures stabilize, and harmony between humans and nature is restored.

With renewed optimism and determination,

CuriousNature79

As CuriousNature79 clicked the "Submit" button, they couldn't help but feel a sense of satisfaction. Their comment served as a testament to the impact that thoughtful research, such as the one presented by Skeptical Science, had on individuals around the world. Together, through knowledge and action, they believed that humanity could indeed navigate the complex challenges of climate change and create a brighter future.

Evan at 00:46 AM on 23 September 2023

At a glance - Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans?

BaerbelW@3 Yes, I like the addition of the screenshot of fact and myth boxes. It gives the "At a glance" segment better context.

MA Rodger at 21:33 PM on 22 September 2023

It's cosmic rays

sailingfree @120/121,
The H. Svensmark input into AGW science has been in general seen as entirely overblown unless you are in denial about AGW when the idea that the sun plays a much bigger role than the climatology shows is usually seen as supportive of their denialism.

Svensmark first published a cosmic ray climate effect back in 1997 demonstrating a remarkable fit between cosmic rays and global cloud cover. The fit proved to be spurious while experiment has demonstrated the causal link between cosmic rays and cloud formation to be very very weak. Undeterred by these setbacks, Svensmark has since been examining the detail of the cosmic ray/cloudiness relationship in an attempt to show there was a climatic effect after all.

Part of this analysis by Svensmark homed-in on Forbush Decreases, a phenomenon identified back in the mid-1900s and today catalogued at an average rate of over 100 events per year. A relationship bewteen these Forbush Decreases and changes in cloud had been observed back in the 1990s.

Svenmark first published on this phenomenon back in 2009. They used the most energetic Forbush Decreases (just 26 over 21 years) to produce a correlation between peak cloudiness and the Forbush Decrease strength (Fig 2- not entirely convincingly) and plotting the averages of cosmic ray evolution and average cloudiness evolution for the five most energetic Forbush Decrease events (Fig 1) although the reason for showing the averaging of these five alone is not evident to me in this paper.

Svensmark et al (2021) which you ask about is simply Svensmark et al (2009) but using a correlation with the CERES radiation data. The CERES data restricts analysis to post-2000 events and now only the 13 most energetic events are analysed for the correlation (fig 2) with event evolutions averaged from (again) the five strongest events (fig 1), this apparently because there is too much "dominant meteorological noise" if more events are included, although I'm not sure that squares up with the effect being climactically significant.

Of course, with the sun less active since SunSpotCycle 23, and thus presumably the cosmic rays increasing cloudiness which cools the climate, this would suggest that Svensmark's work would be implying amplification of the role of AGW rather than a diminution which denialists hope for. But such understanding may be a bit too involved for denialists to grasp.

sailingfree at 05:17 AM on 22 September 2023

It's cosmic rays

I interpret his 2021 paper to augment and solidify the fact that man made greenhouse gases are responsible for all of the increase in global temperature over the last half century. As I understand his argument, Increases in coronal mass injections cause more warming of the Earth. But the Sun has become less active over the last half century while the global temperatures increased and CO2 concentration increased . The the graph in an earlier comment above is also in
LINK
Svensmark's work would predict lower temperatures, but global temperatures are in fact higher.

Moderator Response:

[RH] Link shortened

BaerbelW at 21:17 PM on 21 September 2023

At a glance - Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans?

Note: I just added a screenshot of the fact and myth boxes at the top of the blog post to provide more context for the at-a-glance section. Do you think this is a useful addition to this weekly highlight of the most recently updated rebuttal? Please let us know either here in the comments or via the feedback form. Thanks!

sailingfree at 10:37 AM on 21 September 2023

It's cosmic rays

Can someone here can comment on a more recent Svensmark paper that seems to butress his agrgument?https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-99033-1 11 Oct 2021
Svensmark

On the other hand here is a newer paper with a 40 year data base:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-30447-9

Thanks in advance to someone more knowledgeable than I am.

Moderator Response:

[PS] Links activated. Please learn how to do this yourself in the comment editor.

topquark at 01:41 AM on 21 September 2023

2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

Likeitwarm: "The green plate does not transfer any thermal energy to the source because the source is equal to or warmer than the second plate. Heat only flows in one direction, hot to cold, and is irreversible."

Indeed. And in the green plate example, the energy flow from blue plate to green plate is 266.7, and the energy flow from the green plate to the blue plate is 133.35. The heat flow is the difference: 133.35 from the hotter (261.9K) blue plate to the cooler (220.2K) green plate. So heat flows from hot to cold as it should.

"Heat flow is the difference in temperature between two objects": No, heat flow is the net energy flow, which should always go from hot to cold, and does in the green plate example.

"Energy (radiation) can flow in any direction but will be essentially rejected by a warmer object": This is an imaginary principle. Black bodies absorb *all* photons, even from cooler objects. This does not break the 2nd law, because the energy flow from the warmer object back to the cooler one will always be greater.

I'm curious: what do you think the solution to the green plate example is? (temperature of both plates) I don't think you can come up with an answer that doesn't break the laws of physics.

Bob Loblaw at 00:40 AM on 21 September 2023

2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

For convenience, here is the link to the SkS post "The Dynamics of the Green Plate Effect". It was linked in comment 1579, and in the Further Reading green box at the bottom of the OP, but those are not easily visible if you are reading this in the Recent Comments thread.

Likeitwarm is showing obvious confusion.

Infinite feedback loops do not imply increased warming forever. The Dynamics of the Green Plate Effect post represents an infinite feedback system, but it is stable. (Comment 1580)
Radiation and thermal energy are not the same thing. (Comment 1581). The Green Plate example does the math for the radiation from the blue plate to the green plate, and from the green plate to the blue plate. Radiation energy is being transferred in both directions.
Radiation being "rejected by a warmer object due to not being the high enough frequency according to Planck" is nonsense. (Comment 1584) The Stefan-Boltzman law used in the Green Plate example is a direct derivation from Planck's law. Nothing in that example has any contradiction with Planck's law. Planck's law deals with emissions, not absorption - and "rejection" is a word that has nothing to do with energy transfer.

If Likeitwarm does not agree with some part of the Green Plate example, then go to that thread to discuss it.

...and instead of hand waving, Likeitwarm should really do the math.

John Mason at 22:38 PM on 20 September 2023

At a glance - Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans?

Good point, Evan. Takes a full-on Large Igneous Province episode to make any serious change - and fortunately those are tens of millions of years apart!

Evan at 22:18 PM on 20 September 2023

At a glance - Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans?

Another way to think about volcanoes is to look back at the record of the really big eruptions: the VEI7 and VEI8 eruptions. The ice-core data does not show any notable change in atmospheric CO2 concentrations associated with these large, infrequent eruptions. Rather, the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations is timed with the start of the industrial revolution, suggesting the cause of the recent rise is not volcanoes, but something associated with the industrial revolution.

Plot of occurrence of VEI7 volcanoes overlayed on ice-core data of atmospheric CO2 concentration.

MA Rodger at 20:37 PM on 20 September 2023

2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

Likeitwarm @1581/1582,

I assume the reference you make is to D. V. Schroeder (2000) 'An Introduction to Thermal Physics.' If read correctly, Schroeder is saying that it is entropy which is irreversable as it cannot decrease thermodynamically, pointing out in Section 2.6:-

If a physical process increases the total entropy of the universe, that process cannot happen in reverse since this would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Processes that create new entropy are therefore said to be irreversible. ... Perhaps the most important type of thermodynamic process is the flow of heat from a hot object to a cold one. We saw in Section 2.3 that this process occurs because the total multiplicity of the combined system thereby increases; hence the total entropy increases also, and heat flow is always irreversible.

Note that such "heat flow" includes both the flow from a hot object to a cold object as well as the lesser flow from a cold object to a hot one, the two flows being quite evident in a radiative system (as they are also in Schroeder Section 2.3.)

Rob Honeycutt at 11:40 AM on 20 September 2023

2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

Likeitwarm... "...but will be essentially rejected..."

And how does this happen? Where does the energy go? Are you saying it disappears? Does it make a U-turn?

Consider the idea that "flow" could mean "net flow." Energy going both ways, but more flowing from the hotter object to the cooler object until the point they are in equilibrium.

Moderator Response:

[PS] Maybe another adherent of the "sentient photon" theory from a decade or so ago. Likeitwarm and others might like go back to "The Imaginary second law of thermodynamics" paying close attention to the Real Second Law of Thermodynamics section.

Likeitwarm at 10:53 AM on 20 September 2023

2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

Energy (radiation) can flow in any direction but will be essentially rejected by a warmer object due to not being the high enough frequency according to Planck. So backradiation from the atmosphere will not warm the warmer surface. Heat flow is the difference in temperature between two objects. If the surface is warmer, heat will not flow to the surface from the atmosphere.

Moderator Response:

[PS] You do understand that noone has ever suggested that the atmosphere is warming the surface? This is not conductive heat flow like Schroeder deals with. A photon is going to heat the surface and transfer energy, even if it is the sun. You simply are not understanding the green plate effect at all. Try again, read a text book on Radiative heat transfer (or some of the zillion comments in this thread by others trying this nonsense).

Eclectic at 10:21 AM on 20 September 2023

2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

Likeitwarm :

you sound confused about what is energy and what is heat.

Likeitwarm at 10:17 AM on 20 September 2023

2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

That reference should have been (Schroeder - Thermal Physics)

Likeitwarm at 10:10 AM on 20 September 2023

2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

The green plate does not transfer any thermal energy to the source because the source is equal to or warmer than the second plate. Heat only flows in one direction, hot to cold, and is irreversible. (Schoeder - Thermal Dynamics)

nigelj at 07:55 AM on 20 September 2023

Patrick Brown's recycled hallucination of climate science

Moderator. I couldn't remember the name of the thread on nuclear power, and I can't find it being mentioned in the list of climate myths or elswehere on the home page. It might be worth considering having a short list of selected climate artilces below the list of climate myths, obviously including the nuclear page.

Likeitwarm at 06:17 AM on 20 September 2023

2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

In reference to my original question,1529, I did some reading during which I had the following thought:

If radiation from a cool object can make a warmer object warmer and the warmer object makes the cooler object warmer than it was and so on, we have an infinite feedback loop wherein all objects get so hot that they eventually disintegrate as all objects above absolute zero emit radiation.
That be the effect if the GHE was correct.

Moderator Response:

[PS] " I did some reading during which I had the following thought:" Perhaps you could consider reading an actual textbook on radiative transfer instead of misreadings of how 2nd Law of thermodynamics works. Bob's link to the green plate effect explains it quite well.

nigelj at 06:01 AM on 20 September 2023

Climate change is destroying reefs, but the effects are more than ecological

Cork

"With all types of relationships, symbiotic but parasitic too. Most animals interact with the others."

So true. For example we have politicians dependent on campaign donations from fossil fuel interests and the corporates, and the fossil fuel interests and corporates tell polticians what they can do. "He who pays the piper calls the tune" (traditional proverb. The phrase comes from the fable of the Pied Piper of Hamelin.) All slowing down progress with the climate mitigation. Glad you raised it.

Just Dean at 01:09 AM on 20 September 2023

Climate's changed before

i have question/comment about the Intermediate Conclusion to Myth #1,

"To summarize, none of the mechanisms which facilitated previous climate change can explain the rapid rise in both CO2 and temperature observed over the past 150 years. However, human-released CO2 explains both!"

Wouldn't it be clearer and more definitive to say, "... can explain neither the rapid rise in CO2 or temperature over the past 150 years."?

The rise in temperature is 10 - 20 times faster than anyting observed before, e.g. warming after the last glacial age. LINK

The rise in CO2 is 10x faster than during the PETM and 100x faster than the last glacial age.

LINK

Moderator Response:

[RH] Links shortened and activated

CORK at 20:42 PM on 19 September 2023

Climate change is destroying reefs, but the effects are more than ecological

A large piece of coral is a interacting society like ours. With all types of relationships, symbiotic but parasitic too. Most animals interact with the others.

Doug Bostrom at 04:06 AM on 19 September 2023

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Per Michael's remarks, it's certainly a curious thing that we continue vigorously debating nuclear power's role as a central player in energy supplies even as it's been outpaced by events.

Along the lines of trying to identify a signficant role for Newcomen steam engines— in the year 1900, when triple expansion steam engines were fully evolved.

michael sweet at 21:24 PM on 18 September 2023

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

I am responding to Cork here.

At post 9 in the linked thread you said:

"Converting Uranium only plants to thorium /uranium plants would reduce many of the issues"

When I pointed out that it is impossible to substitute thorium into existing reactors you backpedeled and said at 11

"Maybe not today, maybe tomorrow"

Maybe you should read more of the background on nuclear so that you don't propose more impossible solutions. Why should I consider anything you say when you start off proposing impossible solutions and then change the goal posts when I call you out? We don't need thorium reactors, we have wind and solar.

Thorium does not accumulate in large economically recoverable reserves. You would be better off trying to recover uranium from the ocean, another impossible task.

I remember reading about cheap nuclear power designs in Scientific American when I was 15. They sounded good. All failed spectacularly. I am now 65 and nuclear engineers can no longer fool me with their fantasies.

In France their reactors are falling apart and they have to shut down during the hottest parts of the day when demand is highest. "Always failing" describes it best. They have not paid off the loans they took out to build their reactors 40 years ago. If they were a private business they would have been bankrupt decades ago.

Bill Gates claimed in 2006 that they would have running reactors in 2020. 17 years later they do not even have a design ready to submit to the regulators. They gave up on their original design as hopeless and have a new design they hope will be complete someday in the distant future.

Solar is the cheapest energy in the world with wind as its only compeditor. Public money spent on nuclear is simply wasted. That money should be spent installing solar and wind or buiding transmission lines to make the grid stronger.

China installed about 100 GW of solar capacity last year alone. World nuclear capacity has been flat since 2000. There is not enough nucear under construction to replace existing old plants as they retire.

Nuclear is too expensive, takes too long to build and there is not enough uranium.

michael sweet at 21:00 PM on 18 September 2023

Patrick Brown's recycled hallucination of climate science

Nuclear is off topic here. I have responded on topic here.

Moderator Response:

[PS] Thank you Michael. Was getting ready to intervene. Any discussions on nuclear energy belong on the thread that Michael has directed you to. That thread was created specifically to keep the nuclear "Godwin's law" out of other threads.

Doug Bostrom at 05:41 AM on 18 September 2023

Patrick Brown's recycled hallucination of climate science

Heh. Is a variation of "Godwin's Law" that all discussions about climate mitigation converge on nuclear power?

I like Philippe's circumspect synopsis. Maybe that's because my own perspective is shaped by being a Washington, USA resident. Washington's experience is a case study of the factors Philippe mentions, which I think hinge on our enduring optimism as a species. The more challenging a problem, the more our instinct to optimism is called into play.

Here in Washington, long ago, the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPS) pursued an ambitious multi-plant nuclear generator construction program. It failed spectacularly, for all the reason Phillippe mentions. It came to be known as "WHOOPS," a mocking reference to the agency in charge.

Now, decades later, WPPS is renamed Energy Northwest and is once again pursuing nuclear power, full of optimism. Once again, our rose-tinted vision is being blasted by the harsh glare of implementation problems. See this item for "history doesn't repeat itself but it rhymes:" Small reactors at Hanford: Déjà vu all over again.

For my part I feel as though fission power is uniquely unforgiving of human nature, starting with "here's the construction budget," continuing through "we grow bored and lazy with routine operation, and we're not good with long term institutional memory" while passing by greed and conflicted objectives in connection with "I want more for myself." Add to that a tendency to political instability at various levels over the span of time needing continuous perfection for safely handling nuclear generation assets. The results of ineluctable human nature in the case of this technology are in turn also uniquely unforgiving; we're not permitted or able to forget or ignore or ameliorate our mistakes in the same way as with our other artifacts.

France's experience is the very best we can do, the result of a very particular relationship between the generation system and its harboring state, and rare stability. Chernobyl, Fukushima Daiichi and Zaporizhzhia have to be included in the spectrum of known outcomes and undeniable facts on the ground, as well as Washington's first failure and what appears to be evolving into its second.

We consistently confuse good luck with skill. If we're OK in consensus with certain statistical rates of fiscal or physical or political disasters— good luck exhausted— then by all means let's use nuclear fission for power generation. But let's stop lying to ourselves about its characteristics when collided with human nature.

"This time will be different!" No. Our renewable energy of optimism fails to encompass that our species and our behaviors are constants even as we fiddle with the edges of nuclear physics to make it more friendly to our defects. The main engineering problem lies between our ears, and it's not likely we'll reach a state of perfection inside that confused space.

Philippe Chantreau at 04:34 AM on 18 September 2023

Patrick Brown's recycled hallucination of climate science

I come fron a country that has relied heavily on nuclear for 60 years, initially chosen to reduce dependence on foreign fossil fuels. Undeniable success has been reached in that pursuit and it has now the consequence of maintaining a lower per capita carbon footprint that many other industrialized nations. However, it was not without costs and difficulties.

More recently, the building of nuclear plants has shown to inevitably happen over multiple times the time initially planned, and for a multiple of the cost (see Olkiluoto, adn Flamanville). That is a real problem.

In the US, the other problem is the commercial structure of energy production. Nobody has the enormous amount of money to build these plants, certainly not without public based participation or guarantees. What I see amounts to private actors asking for public money to build rather pharaonic facilities, that they later expect to operate as if they were private properties. Not OK.

There are other problems with nuclear relying on fission. Material availability and the very large delays to come online are 2 major ones. We'll see what happens to the plant being built by Gates in Wyoming.

I believe that an all-out effort toward fusion is a much better way to look at the longer term future. In the meantime, all low hanging fruits should be picked, and I'm not sure nuclear costs, engineering challenges and delays place it in that category. Existing plants certainly should be exploited for everything they can give.

CORK at 04:01 AM on 18 September 2023

Patrick Brown's recycled hallucination of climate science

International Atomic Energy Agency
https://www.iaea.org › newscenter › news › thoriums-lon...

Maybe not today, maybe tomorrow.

Moderator Response:

[RH] Added link for readers' benefit (you can actually do this yourself, CORK)

michael sweet at 01:29 AM on 18 September 2023

Skeptical Science New Research for Week #37 2023

For those who are not watching the hurricane season in the Atlantic ocean, Tropical Storm Nigel formed today. It is epxected to become a hurricane tomorrow. It is not expected to threaten any land areas.

michael sweet at 00:06 AM on 18 September 2023

Patrick Brown's recycled hallucination of climate science

Cork:

It is impossible to convert existing uranium plants to thorium. Thorium plants have to be specifically designed to be breeder plants. No comercial plants are breeder plants. Breeder plants are much more expensive and difficult to design and run than once through plants. A thorium supporter here at SkS referred me to a design that used 5000 Kg of bomb grade uranium to start up. What could possibly go wrong with that???

There is not as much economically recoverable thorium in the Earth as you think.

Nuclear supporters with fantasies of replacing uranium straight up with throium are completely uninformed about how nuclear plants work. Why do you believe the propaganda you hear from individuals who are completely uninformed?

CORK at 23:49 PM on 17 September 2023

Patrick Brown's recycled hallucination of climate science

Converting Uranium only plants to thorium /uranium plants would reduce many of the issues. Thorium is widespread in vast volumes all over the planet and it cannot be used to make nuclear weapons.

Anyhow, thanks for your comprehensive answer.

BaerbelW at 18:52 PM on 17 September 2023

Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions

Please note: the basic version of this rebuttal has been updated on September 17, 2023 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @ https://sks.to/at-a-glance

nigelj at 06:42 AM on 17 September 2023

Patrick Brown's recycled hallucination of climate science

Cork@7.

"Nevertheless, I opened the link to the Breakthrough Institute and all I found were articles promoting the reduction of greenhouses gasses emissions by expanding the use of Throrium/Uranium in pre-existing nuclear plants and other plants to be built in the emergent countries where no other option may be available."

When I opened the link I found articles on multiple different power sources, food and agriculture, and more issues. Listed right on the opening pages and menu bar.

The articles promoted nuclear power and mostly cricised wind and solar power judging by the titles. The articles leaned strongly towards free market solutions rather than governmnet lead solutions so there is a clear ideological leaning.

Out of curiosity I googled The Breakthrough Institute:

"Tucked away in the heart of liberal Berkeley is one of the most controversial organizations in the environmental movement: the Breakthrough Institute, known for advocating for nuclear energy and a pugilistic approach to disagreement."

"The think tank’s critics, who include prominent advocates and researchers, decry the group as advancing right-wing ideas and say its policy proposals would delay action on climate change. But if the Breakthrough Institute’s leaders are to be believed, they are reformers with a 21st century strategy for solving the planet’s problems......"

SF Chronical article

"While sometimes functioning as shadow universities, think tanks have been exposed as quasi lobbying organizations, with little funding transparency. Recent research has also pointed out that think tanks suffer from a lack of intellectual rigor. A case in point is the Breakthrough Institute run by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, which describes itself as a "progressive think tank."

"The Breakthrough Institute has a clear history as a contrarian outlet for information on climate change and regularly criticizes environmental groups. One writer describes them as a “program for hippie-punching your way to fame and fortune.” So it was not shocking to see their column last Wednesday in the New York Times criticizing a new documentary on climate change that was put together by award-winning journalists. In their article, Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger state that the documentary will raise public skepticism about climate change because it uses scare tactics......"

ethics.harvard.edu/blog/breakthrough-institutes-inconvenient-history-al-gore

"Anyhow when I wrote "All hands on board! Each point of view should be heard. Teaming up will be the only answer." I meant that thorium/uranium are tools in the box and it may not be possible to do without them."

Possibly. I have no objection to the use of nuclear power in principle. I'm somewhat energy agnostic as long as its clean, zero carbon energy (or close to it). Nuclear power is essentially clean zero carbon energy.

That said, nuclear power is not looking like a big part of the climate solution. Its too slow to build, its very expensive to build, its more expensive generation than wind and solar power (refer to an energy analysis like Lazard), and there are problems with waste disposal.

Uranium is a finite resource and one of the less common minerals in the earths crust, and it cant be recycled like materials used in wind power turbines. Nuclear power is not liked by the general public in western countries due to the perceived danger (this may be overblown but perceptions are perceptions.)

Its therefore unlikely generating companies or governmnets in western democracies would choose nuclear power right now. And its totally understandable. Its up to the nuclear industry to solve these problems. Nobody else can solve them.

Personally I think we should push ahead with things like wind and solar power and perhaps nuclear power might eventually become part of the mix. Many countries have traditionally had a mixture of electricity generation. I suspect looking for the one perfect generating source is a delusion.

Moderator Response:

[RH] Shortened link

John Hartz at 05:01 AM on 17 September 2023

We're coming out of the Little Ice Age

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments