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.

More nonsense from the Morse article :-

"we are cooling" (unquote). [He fails to mention that the evidence says the opposite.]

... and his mention of support from a Dr Happer [a thoroughly discredited climate science denier]

... "A study in 2015*, for instance, predicted that the Earth is about to undergo a major climate shift that could mean decades of cooler temperatures" (unquote)

* the paper is: McCarthy et al. 2105 — and here Morse makes another supreme "tarradiddle", for the McCarthy paper in no way supports Morse's claim.

Morse appears to be one of those anti-science propagandists who sprinkles his article with referenced scientific papers — scientific papers which he implies support his statements. And he does so in the knowledge that few if any of his readers will bother to follow the links to check the truth of the matter. And so Morse gets away with his "tarradiddles" . . . which go on to circle through the deniosphere.

In short, Rkrolph, basic science does not support Morse's whole schema of climate denialism.

Morse is using the propagandist technique of suggesting that since there could be a hint of doubt about the health one of the Elephant's toenails . . then it follows that the whole Elephant is fatally diseased.

michael sweet at 09:12 AM on 8 January 2018

One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement

Norrism:

Clack et al's criticism of Jacobson 2015 has not been widely supported. The jury is still out on who is correct.

A brief review of the "cited by" papers of Jacobson 2015 yield at least six that independently claim that renewable energy can power the entire world (see below). Since AGW solutions is not one of the primary goals of SkS, Jacobson is one of the few reviewed at SkS.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3028519

http://scientiamarina.revistas.csic.es/index.php/scientiamarina/article/view/1674

Link to Christian Breyer's conference paper on Solar Photovoltaics (via Researchgate)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148117305244

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7750284/

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0173820

Moderator Response:

[BW] Fixed the very long link to Research Gate as it was breaking the page layout. Please remember to properly embed links via the "Insert tab". Thanks!

nigelj at 07:48 AM on 8 January 2018

On its hundredth birthday in 1959, Edward Teller warned the oil industry about global warming

Driving By @12

I'm inclined to agree at heart, with the same sour take, it wont last. Plus the climate issue is much more challenging, with more powerful vested interests and the science is more complex.

But I prefer to force myself to try to take a positive sort of attitude, if that makes some sort of sense. Otherwise it's a bit depressing.

nigelj at 07:38 AM on 8 January 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #1

rkrolph @1

"They claim that the study shows oceans have warmed much less than previously thought, which puts all the alarmist climate models in doubt."

Just my very quick take as an interested observer. The research paper claims oceans warmed 2.57 deg C coming out of the last ice age. The author is quoted as allegedly saying oceans have warmed only 0.1 deg C over the last 50 years.

This all doesn't sound like much. But remember its an average for the full depth of the oceans, and the oceans heat much more slowly at depth. The surface would have warmed considerably more. The instrumental record over the last 50 years is about 0.5 deg C.

www.nature.com/articles/nature25152

One Planet Only Forever at 06:16 AM on 8 January 2018

One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement

Pluto@36,

A Fad is something that becomes popular among a portion of the total human population for a limited period of time (my own version of the definition)

A sustainable activity would be human activity that could continue to be done by humans almost indefinitely on this 'planet which is essentially a perpetual motion machine for life - made almost perpetual by the reasonably steady delivery of new energy from the Sun'.

Trying to benefit from rapidly burning up non-renewable buried hydrocarbons is "Not Sustainable". It is a Fad. And future success is obtained by paying attention to Trends toward developing sustainable activity, not staying locked in unjustified beliefs regarding Fads.

Fads can be damaging as well as unsustainable. That is clearly true regarding the Fad of burning fossil fuels.

Many people unfortunately have to change their minds about what would be a sustainable way to live and earn a living but are very reluctant to change their minds. Changing their minds will be more successful for them in the long term than trying to remain stubbornly locked into unjustified beliefs. But their developed perceptions of prosperity and opportunity are difficult to correct.

I really appreciate that understanding because I live in Alberta, Canada. A large portion of the population still sadly believes that things will be Great Again if they could just sell more of 'their Oil Sands' (an incorrect claim because 'they' did nothing to create it-and many of them only recently moved into the Province), to be burned elsewhere on the planet. Unfortunately they had chosen to try to earn a living doing something undeniably unsustainable and understandably harmful, a Bad Fad.

rkrolph at 04:21 AM on 8 January 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #1

There was an article a couple days from someone named Brandon Morse. Sorry I don't have a link. The title was "New Study Shows Alarmist Climate Data Based Off Faulty Science...Sorry Bill Nye"

It discussed a study by Geoscientist Jeff Severinghaus at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, that claimed a new way to measure ocean heat content measuring gases trapped in ice cores. They claim that the study shows oceans have warmed much less than previously thought, which puts all the alarmist climate models in doubt. It also quotes a scientist named William Happer, who criticizes the alarmist climate models accuracy. The article seems full of denier type talk, as it makes continuous jabs at Al Gore and Bill Nye as being non-scientists, but doesn't bother to provide any real climate scientists take on the study.

But I am just wondering if anyone has any information on the validity of the study itself.

Moderator Response:

[TD] Side note: Happer is addressed in the Climate Misinformers section, among other places.

NorrisM at 03:09 AM on 8 January 2018

One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement

michael sweet @ 34 and Pluto @ 35

As I have referenced before on this website, in my view, any reference to the Jacobson 2015 paper on a 100% renewable energy solution for the US must now have an asterisk opposite any reference to it since the Clack et al 2017 paper (published in PNAS) has now seriously questioned some of the assumptions used by Jacobson in arrving at this 100% renewable energy solution.

Pluto, if you want further information on this, just google "Jacobson/Clack litigation". Jacobson, in a widely criticized action which could have serious repercussions on academic discourse, has sued Clack, a NASA scientist, for some $10 MM.

The biggest assumption by Jacobson is that although predicted hydrocapacity in the US for 2050 is somewhere around 87.5 GW Jacobson assumes 1,300 GW will be available as base load backup power (some 15 times higher than actual) based upon unrealistic assumptions regarding upgrading turbines by massive amounts, the costs of which are not properly included in the analysis nor are questions about how realistic this assumption is dealt with in the paper.

Bottom line is that the Jacobson 2015 paper should not be cited any longer without qualifications and disclosure of the serious questions which have been raised about this paper.

jef12506 at 03:08 AM on 8 January 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #1

The dynamics are not correct at all. The relationship of Co2 to degrees C is not 1 to 1. Once the greenhouse is in place it will continue to warm even without additional Co2 until Co2 begins to drop. That and the fact that the effects of the Co2 currently in the atmosphere has yet to kick in as there is a lag. Also keep in mind that we have released as much Co2 since Al Gores presentation than all Co2 released prior to that. The warming that we are experiencing now, between 1.2 and 1.6 depending on the metric, is from Co2 released prior to 1980's. If we stop all Co2 right now the planet will continue to warm for another 50 years or more just considering Co2 and no other feedback mechs.

Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate the work that SS does but please be real.

We need to act now with the biggest global wide project ever known to man if we seriously want to have a livable planet left.

Moderator Response:

[JH] Please calrify what "dynamics" you are referring to in the first sentence of your post. Also explain where SkS is being unreal about manmade climate change.

One Planet Only Forever at 01:57 AM on 8 January 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #1

bozzza,

I partially agree.

The trend of global awareness and understanding is increased acceptance of the stated objectives of the Paris Agreement to keep warming below 2.0 C, with the desire to limit the accumulated human im-pacts to 1.5 C warming (That is why the Paris Agreement was agreed to and is supported by responsible global leaders).

The related understanding is that climate science is the basis for understanding the limits of human activity related to those increases of global average surface temperature, because once those increases have actually been observed 'it is too late'.

That has lead to increased efforts to better understand the relationship between increased CO2 and ultimate rebalanced global average surface temperature. It is understood that things are currently not completely adjusted to increases of CO2 that have already occurred.

It has also lead to 'pursuers of Private Interest in benefiting more from the undeniably unsustainable and definitely damaging burning of fossil fuels' to fight to win any way they can get away with. They are the ones who creating the incorrect generalized impression that 'No one is trying to limit warming to 2C!".

A related growing awareness and understanding is that there are many other armful results of the pursuits of benefit from the burning of fossil fuels, not just increased CO2. So there are many Good Reasons to rapidly terminate the undeservingly popular and profitable activity.

Good Responsible Aware People already understand the need for that change. Others can learn to be Good/Helpful. And some people will not Personally limit their Pursuits of Private Interest, and they will fight against any 'imposed limit on their freedom to believe what they want and do as they please'. That is all to be expected, with the last group clearly becoming understood to need help, to be kept from impacting others (to be kept out of competitions for popularity and profitability - or be removed from positions of already occurred but clearly undeserved Winning) until they learn to change their minds.

Jeff H at 23:01 PM on 7 January 2018

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52

Yes, nijelj comprehensively debunked Rhoowl’s ‘arguments’.

What frustrates me is that my comment earlier did the same and yet Rhoowl posts later making profoundly unscientific comments correlating plant biomass with fitness (i.e. Plants are noticeably bigger and stronger). Such a flippant remark would not pass muster in a peer-reviewed journal. What is meant by ‘stronger’ is anyone’s guess. The fact that terrestrial vegetation is already reaching and exceeding saturation points is clear by now. Moreover, as I said before, there are species-specific responses that differ, generating phenological asynchronies that must be factored into community and system-wide effects, along with changes in stoichiometry that will affect not only plant metabolism with trophic interactions.

Deniers see the world in a decidedly linear way: cause-and-effect relationships in complex adaptive systems, however, are profoundly non-linear. This may explain why there are so few population ecologists and environmental scientists among denier ranks.

michael sweet at 21:54 PM on 7 January 2018

One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement

Pluto,

I am sorry that your limited finances result in your being unable to read the relevant literature (or blog posts like SkS). You seem focused on money. For the record, I am not paid anything to educate you. As I pointed out, I also currently cannot afford Lithium batteries (they will likely be cheaper than lead acid in two or three years).

Since you complain about cost so much, I am amazed that you are unwilling to switch over to the cheapest form of energy, wind and solar, and favor nuclear, the most expensive energy. The price of renewable energy is going down and drives down consumer prices where ever it is installed. Fossil is holding out because utilities can stiff customers more for it than renewable energy.

A very large fraction of fossil energy infrastructure is old and requires replacement. If we build new fossil fuel plants the money will be wasted at the same time the environment is destroyed. Economically it makes more sense to stop building fossil plants and build out only renewable energy. The nuclear plants in South Carolina and Georgia are an example of wasted money consumers have to pay for.

In any case, what you can afford for energy has nothing to do with keeping up to date on the energy debate. Read more and keep an open mind. Coming to SkS and lecturing us on energy policy using outdated information does not help advance the conversation.

MA Rodger at 20:35 PM on 7 January 2018

CO2 limits won't cool the planet

With the back-&-forth in-thread above between myself & Aaron Davis presently stalled/snipped/ended, it would perhaps be proper to set out a more grown-up comparison of the Arctic/Antarctic temperature cycles. This relates to the 'second' of the three existential issues facing Arron Davis's grand analysis. Polar climate is not well enough defined by the "slant path sun angle" for his analysis to work. (The other two existential issues are described @17(1) & (2)) A comparison @22 showed that "slant path sun angle" (latitude) for 52N is not the defining feature of the difference between Feb/Mar and Aug/Sept average temperatures. Of course London & Irkutsk at 52N are far from the poles, so quick look at polar temperatures and what drives them is what is being attempted here.

The peak-to-peak temperature range at the actual poles is very similar North and South although the relative length of summers (longer in the North) and winters (longer in the South) would evidently prevent an Aaron-Davis-type analysis.

And of course, just as at 52N, in the polar regions under analysis N/S 60º-70º "slant path sun angle" does not fully define the energy fluxes. This graph from Aaron Donohoe plots the various flux anomalies for N & S polar regions for each month (the exact latitudes of the zone represented are not given).

Aaron Donohoe Img5
In this graph, the yellow trace CTEN (atmospheric Column Tendency) shows energy absorbed by the atmosphere and evidently has a bigger wobble North than South with North twice the size of South. (But note it will be the integrals of these yellow curves that Aaron Davis is attempting to measure.)

CTEN is the net imbalance after all the other energy fluxes are accounted for. The largest of these other fluxes, ASR (absorbed solar radiation or "slant path sun angle") looks similar North&South peak-to-peak but measuring it Feb/Mar-to-Aug/Sept, the Northern ASR has a bigger range by about 7%. Similarly, SHF (Surface Heat Flux) is 20% bigger, and the other two, Out-going Longwave Radation and MHT Meridional Heat Transfer (warm winds minus cold winds), are both about 100% bigger. These differences result in CTEN being somewhat out-of-phase with ASR and CTEN Feb/Mar-to-Aug/Sept 100% bigger in the North.

The larger Northern temperature range suggested by CTEN (& shorter southern summers) is born out by surface temperature data. A bigger Northern temperature range is evident within the monthly anomaly base data provided in BEST station data. Thus a very quick and dirty analysis (stations roughly coastal at ☻74.74 S, 24.41 W , ☻69.92 S, 79.48 E, ☻66.70 S, 141.57 E, ☻73.13 S, 94.15 W , ☻71.53 N, 157.18 W, ☻73.13 N, 72.00 E, ☻71.53 N, 30.42 W, ☻71.53 N, 157.18 E) yields a Northern peak-to-peak temperature range 40% larger than the Southern and a Feb/Mar-to-Aug/Sept temperature difference 150% larger.

Thus, while ASR is the biggest input into polar seasonality, it is far from being the overwhelming influence. This second graphic from Aaron Donohoe (from the same source) presents the zonal Jan & Jul anomalies for the northern hemisphere. It shows the difference between Jan-Jul atmospheric zonal flux anomalies (MHT in pink) peaking in the 60N-70N zone (0 .87 to 0.94 on the graph) with the MHT winter/summer warming half that of the 250Wm^-2 ASR summer/winter warming. Yet in all this, Aaron Davis assumes his grand analysis somehow will find the temperature signature of a CO2-induced -0.2W^m-2 cooling, an impossible task.
Aaron Donohoe Img4

Pluto at 17:47 PM on 7 January 2018

One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement

One Planet Only Forever @31

Where did you get that quote

"Fad-like Desire of a sub-set of humanity for the freedom to get away with unsustainable actions that create negative impacts on others including future generations"

and what's meant by "unsustainable actions"?

Pluto at 16:03 PM on 7 January 2018

One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement

michael sweet @34

I am amazed that you are so confident in your opinions when you have not read the relevant literature.

There is a good reason why I may not be quite up-to-date on many scientific/technological developments. In my case, there is no "need to know". I have no job in this field (nor any other field, actually) and I simply can't afford such batteries, not even the home version that recently came out. What happened was that we bought what generating equipment we could based on the technology available at the time (about 10 years ago). Some of it is based on propane use. Also, we have a wood pellet stove and solar heating to supplement our propane furnace. This is the best we can do under the circumstances, and we can't afford to be further taxed and regulated for doing so. If this isn't good enough, you are welcome to cover our expenses for the upgrades you deem necessary.

bozzza at 13:43 PM on 7 January 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #1

No one is trying to limit warming to 2C!

michael sweet at 12:05 PM on 7 January 2018

One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement

Lithium ion batteries are better and cheaper than lead acid. Unfortunately, I had to purchase lead acid for my boat because Tesla does not make small (1 kW) batteries yet. For your house look at the reference I cited in my last post to you.

Jacobson 2015 describes using hydrogen as primary storage for electricity. Using fuel cells to regenerate the electricity would be very efficient. Jacobson models the US power supply (all power, not just electricity) and finds that renewable energy can easily supply all power as reliably as fossil fuels. Jacobson finds that renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels.

Other researchers recommend using electrofuels (methane or liquids) generated using renewable electricity and CO2 from the air. These have the advantage that all the storage facilities and technology are already built. Since you have a PhD I am sure you can follow up using references that have cited Jacobson 2015. Scientists that research energy are confident that renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) can supply the entire economy for the entire world. They generally do not like nuclear (with a few exceptions) or fossil fuels.

I am sorry that you are so far behind in this discussion. Perhaps reading Jacobson 2015 and a selection of the papers that cite it will bring you more up to date. I am amazed that you are so confident in your opinions when you have not read the relevant literature.

Pluto at 10:56 AM on 7 January 2018

One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement

That's great if you now have a battery that can get you through a power failure. Evidently, there have been some developments in this technolgy of which I was not aware. However, there is still a big gap between a battery getting a city through a power failure and a battery that can act as the primary power source for a city. If it takes several days for the battery to recharge from a power failure that lasted only a few hours, then it is sadly inadequate as an energy storage device for a purely sustainable power system. Since every "clean energy" source nowadays can produce power only in certain weather conditions (ie. wind or sunshine) I would hate to bet on those batteries being recharged adequately.

Eclectic at 08:02 AM on 7 January 2018

Past 150,000 Years of Sea Level History Suggests High Rates of Future Sea Level Rise

TLander @43 , on the other thread [Climate Myth Number 68 , in the comments section, Page 2 , Comment #80 ], I have given two strong reasons why your thinking is wrong.

Various other reasons exist as well — but (to misquote Einstein) : Two would be enough.

If by some strange means you have gained the belief that the recent large rise in atmospheric CO2 is not responsible for planetary warming & the consequential fast rising volume of the sea — then the honor of making Comment #81 awaits you on that other thread ["Is the science settled" Myth No. 68 ]. There you can provide whatever disputation you are capable of — for clearly in your own mind, the science is not settled and the scientists are all wrong.

John Hartz at 06:49 AM on 7 January 2018

One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement

Recommended supplemental reading about energy storage — especially for Pluto.

Elon Musk’s giant lithium ion battery in South Australia has responded in record time to the first power failure since it was installed as a back up power source.

It comes just weeks after Musk won a $US13 million bet that he would supply South Australia with the Tesla battery within 100 days or it was free.

State Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis says the investment in the battery has already proved its worth, exceeding expectations in its first test.

Tesla's giant battery has already responded to a power failure in South Australia by Sarah Kimmorley, World Economic Forum (WEF), Dec 21, 2017

One Planet Only Forever at 06:37 AM on 7 January 2018

One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement

Ploto@24,

Anyone or any group whose life actions have absloutely no negative impact on anyone else can be 'left out of it'. They are essentially choosing to be irrelevant, which is fine.

The undeniable trend of developing awareness and understanding is that the 'Fad-like Desire of a sub-set of humanity for the freedom to get away with unsustainable actions that create negative impacts on others including future generations' is not going to be tolerated by Humanity.

DrivingBy at 06:13 AM on 7 January 2018

On its hundredth birthday in 1959, Edward Teller warned the oil industry about global warming

@nigelj

"Also consider humanity responded well to the ozone issue"

Sometimes civilization does get it right, rather shockingly. The huge and successful US/Europe smog reduction was another. My sour take: it won't last, Europe is commiting civilizational suicide and amidst the decline there will be no agreement to handle such issues. I do hope I'm wrong.

One Planet Only Forever at 02:28 AM on 7 January 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #1

An recent additional item:

'All happening very quickly': Tesla battery sends a jolt through energy markets by Peter Hannam, The Sydney Morning Herald, January 6, 2018

Moderator Response:

[JH] Muchas gracias!

TLander at 00:46 AM on 7 January 2018

Past 150,000 Years of Sea Level History Suggests High Rates of Future Sea Level Rise

Subsidence and Coastal Erosion are not historically constant where a large percentage of the worlds population is located. I agree that a majority of the coasts aren't developed, but the issue is where we are developed. Do we care about coasts where people don't live? The coasts where people don't exist will be fine, because no one lives there and it will just be the norms that have been going on forever. I don't see your argument. I will agree that in the coastal regions where humans haven't developed that there is more or less a historical constant of subsidence and coastal erosion, but from my understanding the issue with sea level rise is that the coastal cities(where people live) will be inundated and destroyed from massive storms/encroaching waters costing money and human life. In these areas, coastal erosion and subsidence are a huge deal and need to be completely accounted for. Yes, the sea level will rise all around the world. Most of the coast will be effected, but it will only matter in terms of human life and cost in the areas where people live.

All of the icecaps could melt and sea level could rise to its max, but it we would still have issues with coastal erosion and subsidence where people are concentrated.

You can even factor in storm surges/flooding destruction being more prevalent due to the destruction of beach dunes and by damming rivers upstream, which is the source of sediment that creates protective barriers on the coasts to fend off storm surges. These protective barriers are destroyed in areas where human development is high.

I read "Climate Myth Number 68 : Is The Science Settled," and is it supposed to validate anything? Am I supposed to learn something from it? I agree that humans are increasing the CO2 in the atmostphere. I agree with it 100%. I don't agree with it being the cause of droughts, wildfires, "extreme weather", or even hugely responsible for sea level rise.

Moderator Response:

[JH] The concluding sentence of your post:

I don't agree with it being the cause of droughts, wildfires, "extreme weather", or even hugely responsible for sea level rise.

Your personal opinion carries ver little weight on this website. You are now obligated to document with references to appropriate scientific materials how your opinions have merit.

SirCharles at 23:44 PM on 6 January 2018

New research, December 25-31, 2017

Also => Ice Loss and the Polar Vortex: How a Warming Arctic Fuels Cold Snaps

The loss of sea ice may be weakening the polar vortex, allowing cold blasts to dip south from the Arctic, across North America, Europe and Russia, a new study says.

michael sweet at 23:17 PM on 6 January 2018

One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement

Pluto,

Your argument that energy canot be stored to run the entire economy because you are unable to find an energy storage device for your home (you apparently cannot locate Tesla on your computer) does not make sense. By the same logic we cannot launch a satalite into space because gunpowder does not have enough energy and cannot have commercial airplanes because rubber bands cannot power them. Technologies to run the economy are different from those needed for individual houses.

You need to read much more and learn about the technologies that are proposed for the future. Arguing that you are not aware of these solutions is not convincing.

John McKeon at 21:14 PM on 6 January 2018

Climate Chats - New Year, New Life, New Climate

nigelj ... ominous ...

The ominous of course being that which he satirised, not the man himself. :-)

Pluto at 19:53 PM on 6 January 2018

One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement

Eclectic @28

If you know about electrical energy sources better than batteries, please let me know what they are and where to find them. I'm hoping to build a power backup system that will protect all of our computers without having to buy a separate UPS for each one. Also, I would much prefer the conventional 60 Hz sinusoidal voltage over the square wave that UPSs generally deliver. As I said in my previous posting, however, the best my electrician could come up with was a bank of one or two dozen 12 V lead-acid batteries. Between that and the expense of expanding our solar array and/or adding a wind turbine, I decided to simply stay with the grid-tie arrangement.

Eclectic at 18:47 PM on 6 January 2018

One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement

Pluto , I have no wish "to rain on your charade" [excuse awful pun]

. . . but you are so angry, that you forget that there are many other forms of energy storage than batteries.

btw, "Caesar" is a metaphor for your civic duty.

And as for the Good Samaritan — he chose to do the right thing. Something which you have difficulty with, it seems.

The Paris Climate Change Agreement, though weak and feeble (and voluntary!) is at least some sort of start in doing what's right. And the Good Samaritan would approve of it, don't you think, Pluto?

Pluto at 18:04 PM on 6 January 2018

One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement

Eclectic @25

There is one other point I forgot to make in my previous posting @26. I'm not sure who you mean by "Caesar" but the UN is no "Caesar" to me nor to President Donald Trump. As I keep saying, leave me and US out of this climate charade.

Moderator Response:

[JH] Excessive repetition snipped. Your repeated violations of the SkS Comments Policy means that you are on the cusp of relinquishing your privilege of posting comments on this venue.

nigelj at 17:58 PM on 6 January 2018

Climate Chats - New Year, New Life, New Climate

While I was typing this, they started a discussion of life of George Orwell on the radio, which is rather an ominous coincidence.

War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength!

Pluto at 17:43 PM on 6 January 2018

One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement

The Good Samaritan helped the victim out of his own free will. He was not taxed or coerced by his government in any way. Big difference!

I'm not sure how the topic of energy storage came up, but if you are thinking in terms of storing clean energy from solar or wind sources, you better think differently. No battery (or array of batteries) even comes close to being able to deliver the kind of power needed for the heavy machinery in factories, farms, or even workshops.

Back in 2009, I asked our electrician about expanding our (residential) solar array, possibly adding wind power, so that we could be "off-grid" and not have any power bills. He told me that we would first have to change our stove and clothes dryer from electric to gas (propane) because either one would totally drain the battery bank within a few minutes. If we are running into these kinds of problems just to make "clean sustainable energy" work for a house, just imagine what we would be up against in trying to make it work for an entire city!

Additionally, batteries are heavy, expensive, and involve toxic waste (mostly sulfuric acid) which is making environmentists unhappy even now. Just wait until they are produced and disposed of on a much larger scale. Also, a battery that is 65 percent efficient is considered to be a darned good battery.

Then there is the issue of DC to AC conversion. Electrical energy stored in batteries is in the form of DC (ie. fixed positive or negative voltage) whereas plugin appliances generally run on AC (ie. sinusoidally varying voltage). The devices needed for the conversion further cut down on efficiency and may place limitations on the amount of power the battery bank can supply. Also, long distance transmission of DC power is totally unfeasible — a lesson that Thomas Edison learned way back when.

The bottom line here is that when generating clean sustainable energy, use it or lose it! There is no storing it.

nigelj at 17:30 PM on 6 January 2018

Climate Chats - New Year, New Life, New Climate

Nice video Adam. I get where you are coming from.

Humanity is growing too fast in several ways, like it's on steroids. It's going to end in trouble, especially for future generations, as the planet imposes harsh corrections on us.

But I think sending emails is worth it, and I have had a few of my own published. No problem was ever solved by staying silent.

Eclectic at 17:06 PM on 6 January 2018

The science isn't settled

Replying to TLander from another thread :-

TLander, you are deceiving yourself if you propose that there is some as-yet-unknown or undiscovered dominant cause of the rapid modern global warming. You wish to imply that that we should halt activities designed to mitigate CO2 emissions . . . until such time that your not-even-yet-hypothesized mechanism of rapid global warming gets discovered (and also shows itself to be so strong and beyond human influence, that it is futile for humans to attempt softening [through CO2 reduction] the warming effect caused by your notional new discovery).

TLander, there are at least two counter-arguments against your proposal.

You are already aware of (A) : That for many decades, many tens of thousands of scientists have very closely studied climate-related science (and the underlying physics). This is not the era of science in the mid-1800's . The chance of them entirely missing a major previously-unknown factor . . . is exceedingly small. Indeed, so vanishingly small, that surely no sane man would gamble the health of his planet on that chance.

But you might not be aware of (B) : That CO2 (and the other greenhouse gasses) form a superb match for the physics of modern global warming — both in theory and in empirical evidence. Merely a correlation, you say? No — the theory backs the observations, and the observations back the theory. So, if you are proposing an as-yet-unimagined novel "dark cause" of Global Warming . . . then you have a big problem, a double explanation which you need to pull out of your hat.

Firstly you need to find a "dark cause" factor which very closely matches the historical & growing effect of CO2. Then you also need to discover another new factor — this time a cooling factor which matches and cancels out the known warming effect of CO2.

All a very big ask.

TLander, the implication is that you have not thought things through.

Eclectic at 15:30 PM on 6 January 2018

Past 150,000 Years of Sea Level History Suggests High Rates of Future Sea Level Rise

TLander @42 . . . your post seems to have been "snipped" for wandering too far off topic.

But I should point out that your "third factor" — namely coastal erosion — can well be described as an historical constant , rather than a large new threat to coast dwellers. Likewise with tsunamis, and coastal subsidence/uplift.

The man-caused local coastal erosion [that you mention] is a very tiny portion of the total world coastline.

Of your (unfounded) proposal that CO2/greenhouse-gasses are highly unlikely to be the cause of Global Warming (or Climate Change, or whatever word-label you care to use for the underlying reality) . . . well, you evidently have not thought the matter through — so I shall reply to you on a more appropriate thread.

[ I haven't yet decided which would be the most appropriate thread — there are several eligible threads, and at this stage I am leaning towards using "Climate Myth Number 68 : Is The Science Settled" ]

bozzza at 14:52 PM on 6 January 2018

Climate Chats - New Year, New Life, New Climate

Life is a bunch of lies: Nietzsche said this is what we had to discover in order to survive!

(I think haha!)

Eclectic at 14:44 PM on 6 January 2018

One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement

Pluto @22 et seq. :-

(A) "Render unto Caesar . . . "

(B) Was the Good Samaritan "stolen from" by the victim he helped?

Pluto, your knowledge of ethics seems as deficient as your knowledge of energy storage.

Digby Scorgie at 14:37 PM on 6 January 2018

Climate Chats - New Year, New Life, New Climate

Adam is concerned for the future of his niece, as well he might. Integrating a lifetime of observing the antics of humanity — in a completely unscientific way — I conclude that the probability of his niece enjoying a happy old age on a pleasantly habitable planet are extremely low.

Still, I still think we should go down fighting. And my way of fighting is to use the pen, or to be more up to date, the keyboard. In 2017 I fired off nine "e-mails to the editor" to four different publications and saw six of them published in all but one publication. I don't know if it helps, but one can hope.

Pluto at 14:31 PM on 6 January 2018

One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement

(-snip-)

Moderator Response:

[DB] Off-topic ideological rant snipped.

Pluto at 14:30 PM on 6 January 2018

One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement

michael sweet @19

The jobs discussed in the link you provided were a small drop in the bucket compared to what is needed. As I stated @13 (but the "moderators" snipped), the intermittent nature of solar and wind power makes their use unfeasible except possibly as a grid-tie in a system with a more reliable main source such as coal or nuclear. If that's not good enough, then blame Al Gore and his Washington comrades for wasting the capabilities of thousands of scientists and engineers who could have made advances in these critical technologies such that we don't feel in such dire straights now. At this point, all I can say is that if the AGW believers/advocates are correct, then we are toast, period.

Pluto at 14:29 PM on 6 January 2018

One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement

Eclectic @18

In regard to your Christian ethics, I believe the commandment says "Thou shalt not steal", and to my knowledge, it was never amended to give governments an exemption.

One Planet Only Forever at 09:36 AM on 6 January 2018

One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement

Pluto@13:

Regarding the 'transfer of wealth' you allude to:

The Kyoto Accord and Paris Agreement requirements for 'the people/nations that are more fortunate because they got away with more burning of fossil fuels' to charitably assist 'the less fortunate who are negatively affected by the climate changes already created and being increased by prolonging that unsustainable trouble-making activity' are simply the natural understanding of the fair corrections required for the future of humanity. And that charitable assistance includes renewable energy technology development and transfer to assist the less fortunate develop to a better way of living without transitioning through the damaging step of fossil fuel burning.

And the required fair correction to minimize the harm done to future generations is the 'charitable/helpful' rapid termination of the global burning of fossil fuels as well as the 'charitable/helpful' reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere to a level of 350 ppm.

That may be 'perceived' to be 'unjustified wealth transfer', but that would be a misunderstanding. And that misuderstanding would be common among people who have developed unjustified perceptions of prosperity and opportunity.

The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are the result of about 50 years of collaborative global leadership pursuit of increased awareness and better understanding. The Climate Action Goals are based on Climate Science. Achieving those goals requires increased public awareness and understanding of climate science. That requires leaders/Winners among humanity to responsibly raise awareness and understanding.

The climate science awareness and understanding is a key aspect of the SDGs. Climate change impacts many of the other SDGs. Achieving the Climate Action Goals makes it easier to achieve those other goals.

Private Interests that are contrary to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals have deliberately fought any way they can get away with to delay the inevitable trend of increased awareness and understanding that would make the Private Interest pursuers of benefit from the Damaging Dead-end Fad of burning fossil fuels (and many other developed and developing unfair harmful ways of Winning Private Interests) into the Losers they deserve to be.

I hope that increases your awareness and helps you understand what is going on, and why efforts to increase awareness of climate science are closely linked to the politics of what is going on.

I am preferring to understand things as Helpful or Harmful related to achieving the SDGs. That allows all manner of categorization to be set aside. Right-Left, Capitalist-Socialist-Communist-Anarchist, Spiritual (as opposed to dogmatic religious)-Agnostic-Athiest, Dictatorship-Democracy-Autonomous Collectives where people take turns being on the leadership team ... all can be helpful or harmful.

What I have observed (as apolitically as I am able - and others can also see/confirm if they look for it), is that the people Uniting and 'claiming' to be Right or Conservative are typically fighting against some or all of the SDGs being achieved (and all of the SDGs must be achieved for humanity to really have a better future). So that is a clarification I will try to make in the future rather than simply calling Unite the Right wrong/harmful.

Daniel Bailey at 09:18 AM on 6 January 2018

CO2 effect is saturated

BC embarrassed himself, and forever established himself as a denier, on this NOAA thread on Facebook.

Put your coffee down before reading.

One Planet Only Forever at 07:28 AM on 6 January 2018

One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement

Pluto@13:

Some responses to your claims:

1) "Al Gore (first as U.S. Senator and then Vice President) started his activism on global warming, stressing the importance of reducing our fossil fuel while mentioning nothing about actually solving the problems of obtaining clean sustainable energy."

Re-read Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". It is full of truths that are inconvenient including his promotion of the need to stop burning fossil fuels and change to renewable energy sources.

2) As for the lack of 'supportive leadership': That would be the Bush Administation and the Republican Controlled House and Congress since 2010. And I agree that specific group have been incredibly deliberately unhelpful.

Renewable energy 'has to be the only source of energy' in the future. The other types, like burning fossil fuels, are Dead-ends. Terminating the burning of fossil fuels and developing the replacement requires Leadership. That type of leadership is severely lacking in politics and the economy, and not because of Al Gore and AGW activists. There really is a problem. Get focused on the real problem (hint: They like to keep what they are really doing as secret or misunderstood as possible. And they abuse misleading marketing to do that, as well as to attack threats to their Private Interest. And they also abuse misleading marketing to tempt people to be greedier and less tolerant in order for them to unjustifiably Win more of their Private Interest - connect that to Unite the Right and you are on the Right Track).

3) "Also, Al Gore has not exactly been a leader by good example with his power usage being 20-30 times as high as the average American."

How does his CO2 generation compare? He has also paid to offset CO2 his actions created. But most important, how do all the others who are comparably wealthy to Al Gore compare to Al Gore?

Eclectic at 02:02 AM on 6 January 2018

Past 150,000 Years of Sea Level History Suggests High Rates of Future Sea Level Rise

TLander @40 — agreed, few would care to deny that a considerable portion of the world's population lives near the coast, where (as you rightly say) there is the issue of land subsidence / sea level rise. As ever in this world, the poor suffer disproportionately more greatly than the rich, when assailed by adverse events [events rapid or slow].

Though you are somewhat obscure when you allude to a third risk affecting the coast-dwellers. Were you referring to the increasing heat waves (and especially the high-humidity heat waves) which would increasingly make parts of the tropics unlivable as AGW worsens? That risk is already beginning to nibble at us — but of course applies inland as well as at the coastal regions.

michael sweet at 01:45 AM on 6 January 2018

One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement

Pluto at 16

Many jobs are currently being created in renewable energy. Your assertion that jobs in renewable energy are empty promises is simply ignorant and wrong. Please support your wild, incorrect claim that there are not an immense number of jobs in renewable energy or withdraw your claim.

obs installing solar panels on top of houses cannot be outsourced to India.

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments