Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 Next
Comments 33951 to 34000:
-
paul11176 at 03:21 AM on 4 October 2014Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
You fellas here probably dont appreciate the WUWT link so heres a direct link.
http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures
Moderator Response:[Rob P] - Linking to the popular anti-science site WUWT in support of a claim inevitably undermines the point you're trying to make.
93% of global warming goes into the ocean, 3% into warming the land, and 3% into melting ice. 99% of global warming has carried on without missing a beat. The animation below is based on a figure from the latest IPCC report.
What about the remaining 1% that is heating the atmosphere? It has certainly slowed down a lot compared to the previous two decades, but is still warming.
Thus the pause is nothing but an oft-repeated fantasy.
-
paul11176 at 03:18 AM on 4 October 2014Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
@DSL,
Since Im not a scientist heres a couple of links about the polar ice caps melting.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/16/nature-proves-al-gore-wrong-again/http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/ice-free-arctic-forecasts/
DSL, some models have been proven faulty. Some models are tweaked by omitting some of the numbers. For example, I could show you a warming or cooling trend by cherry picking the years the planet warms or cools and Im not even a scientist.
no global warming for 18 years 1 month
The Great Pause is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for a little over half the satellite temperature record. Yet the Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/02/its-official-no-global-warming-for-18-years-1-month/
Blogs like this one would establish credibility to openly disavow politicians like Al Gore. Politics using scare tactics to openly advance agendas that have everything to do with money and nothing to do with saving the planet have effectively ruined any and all good faith in the sciences. Many people like me simply do not believe the climate change agenda.
It really irritates me to see blogs like this wanting to win the hearts and minds of Christians by telling them their religion is make believe.
When your minds are already made up about Christians how can you present yourself in good faith?
As for believing the "greenhouse effect" theory I cant really say I do or don't. What I know for sure is that the polar bears are doing just fine, the polar ice caps are doing just fine and last years winter was one of the coldest on record.
I think you guys need to rethink your approach to climate change. Theres been to many glitches along the way and blogs, such as Skeptical Science, never seem to root out the riff raff, such as Al Gore, among the rank and file. It is jaw dropping that he showed his face at the climate change march.
So, spare me the Psalm references and stick to science.
-
ubrew12 at 03:10 AM on 4 October 2014Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
paul@14: "Its been several years and predictions that the polar ice caps would be melted by now has not come true" So is that where you set the bar? If Arctic summer sea ice disappears you'll be convinced? Why are you not satisfied with the dramatic reductions in that ice of the last 30 years? I get it: you're suspicious. Permit me the same skepticism: I rather think that when (not if) the Arctic summer sea ice disappears, you'll have another hurdle all set up before you can possibly drop your objection.
paul@12 said "I am a Christian". So is the founder of this web site. A quote: "The second reason is my faith. I'm a Christian and find myself strongly challenged by passages in the Bible like Amos 5 and Matthew 25. I believe in a God who has a heart for the poor and expects Christians to feel the same way... the poorest, most vulnerable countries will be... those hardest hit... Drought will devastate low-latitude countries. Rising sea levels will create havoc on low lying countries..."
-
Paul D at 02:58 AM on 4 October 2014Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
paul@14
"The issue has been hijacked by politics to further government power and control"
Surely that is a political or an ideological view?
If you don't want government to be involved in CO2 emissions reduction, then you need to present alternatives that would produce the equivalent outcome of substantial CO2 emissions reduction.I personally think that the science is correct and all political parties (in whatever country) have to fit CO2 reduction into their ideology and policy making. I am not interested in religion or political ideology when it comes to CO2 reduction and environmental matters.
The rest of your comment is either 'trolling' or misinformed.
Assuming it is misinformed then you need to read material on this web site, which ironically is what your original comment is about. So why aren't you reading? -
DSL at 02:28 AM on 4 October 2014Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
Paul: "Its been several years and predictions that the polar ice caps would be melted by now has not come true"
Do you have a source for such an outrageous claim? Model projections for Arctic sea ice loss have the current level of ice not occurring for another fifty years. That's right: models have severely underestimated ice loss. Land ice in Antarctica is in rapid decline. Antarctic sea ice is complicated: stable temps and warming Southern Ocean, but ice growth.
Paul: "facts like the global temps have not been warming are coming home to roost."
Pardon me? Where has global temp not been warming? The surface is certainly warming. The oceans are certainly warming. What temp measurement are you looking at? Or are you simply repeating what others have told you?
Paul: "Malighning peoples faith will get you nowhere fast."
True enough.
Paul: "Settled science as it turns out may not be so settled after all."
Do you accept the theory of the greenhouse effect?
Paul: "Present to me the hard evidence and not some quack theory so researchers can obtain tax payer grants at will."
Tell me what you want evidence for--precisely.
Focusing directly on peoples faith is not the same as presenting facts.
-
MA Rodger at 00:20 AM on 4 October 2014Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
Matthew L @190.
This NOAA-ESRL site might be the sort of thing you're looking for.
-
paul11176 at 23:40 PM on 3 October 2014Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
@DSL
The issue has been hijacked by politics to further government power and control. Its been several years and predictions that the polar ice caps would be melted by now has not come true and facts like the global temps have not been warming are coming home to roost. Malighning peoples faith will get you nowhere fast. Settled science as it turns out may not be so settled after all.
Present to me the hard evidence and not some quack theory so researchers can obtain tax payer grants at will.
Focusing directly on peoples faith is not the same as presenting facts.
-
DSL at 23:21 PM on 3 October 2014Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
Paul, rapid climate change is only indirectly a "clean air and water" issue. I know at least 30 "Christians" among my extended friends and family who don't accept the diagnosis of a crisis. Not a one can explain what they claim isn't happening. Instead, they say things like "We're too insignificant" and "God wouldn't let this happen."
Out of curiosity, what are your reasons for remaining unconvinced?
-
paul11176 at 22:30 PM on 3 October 2014Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
I am a Christian, unconvinced of the global warming crisis. Blogs such as this one would fare better presenting real science and refuting politicians involvement rather than quoting Bible versus.
To the best of my knowledge Christians like clean air and water just like everybody else.
-
Matthew L at 19:37 PM on 3 October 2014Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
I would be grateful if somebody could give a link to a source of data on long term absolute and relative humidity levels for the atmosphere as a whole. I am struggling to find such a source (if there actually is one). Has anybody done any empirical work on the relationship between past temperature changes and changes in humidity? Thanks.
-
ed leaver at 15:20 PM on 3 October 2014How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
Ken, I did specifically say "in absense of carbon tax." The reality is external costs remain external, and coal continues to be developed. One way or another that must change. Earlier in the thread I showed a state-of-the-art wind+CAES storage project that had capital cost twice that of coal. I didn't do a complete LCOE comparison, but do keep in mind the southern Wyoming wind source is also home to the world's cheapest coal. However, wind and storage are mandated by California's RES, so in this case it doesn't matter. But fossil fuels aside, why should nuclear ever be forced into intermittency? Not that it can't be, or isn't. Because it is, and to our mutual detriment. Rather, why should it?
-
Ken in Oz at 14:32 PM on 3 October 2014How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
Ed Leaver, a straight reading of mainstream climate science tells us that no nation can afford development built upon the use of coal; the permanent and irreversible climate consequences and costs make it something worse than mere uneconomical. Even more so when a nation taking that course is in fact many nations. It's a failure of policy of the developed nations that they are still encouraging and financing development elsewhere based on coal.
"Not more expensive than coal" as the limiting constraint on a transition to low emissions is a dangerous and irresponsible and wholly artificial one that arises from failure to appropriately cost the climate consequences and price carbon dioxide emissions accordingly.
Periodically and intermittently wind and solar have only recently become cheaper than coal - the full implications of that are yet to be appreciated. Projections based on assumptions of their excessively high costs - and for energy storage with them - look likely to be rewritten again and again. Along the way fossil fuels - and nuclear - will be forced into intermittency. This should have been foreseen but the assumption was that neither wind nor solar could ever make a significant contribution to energy supply at a competitive price - and that has now been shown to be false.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 13:53 PM on 3 October 2014Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
About Legates, I'd add that he was involved in having the Soon-Baliunas fiasco paper published. He later "published" a more tedious version in Energy and Environment, with the Idsos (speaks volumes).
-
ed leaver at 13:29 PM on 3 October 2014How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
Michael,
I assume you meant "loan guarantee". You don't build nothing without loans. My point was that Federal guarantees are not free, SCE&G thought them too expensive, and took on higher-interest debt rather than pay for them. A loan guarantee is not a subsidy on a good loan. Not in the same sense as a RES, grid priority, or Production Tax Credit. Would you like to forgo any of these? How do they affect "free-market financing?"
Yes, it is indeed a regulated market that allows Southern and SCE&G to gouge their present customers for a benefit (long term low and stable electric prices) that will acrue mainly upon future customers long after the current gougees are dead. At least present customers are represented by their respective PUCs and have some say in the matter. Elsewhere, it also are regulated market that dictate RES and NM and PTCs that require utilities to gouge present customers for needlessly expensive energy whose cost will only rise with the future price of gas. I mean, it's impossible to trust anything...
Nevermind. I do thank you for taking time to read the Thomson Paper. I am well aware of their "of course we can run our econ models with whatever constraints you wish" reminder. My point is they didn't, though I too wish they had included more details than appeared in that particular article, and in particular had directly compared costs both with and without nuclear. But its what I could find at the time. However, under their assumptions nuclear <b>is</b> highly competitive, at least toward the higher-emissions end of the timeline, and at least compared with the total system cost of acheiving the same carbon reductions without nuclear. And given construction latencies, one does need plan in advance to get there.
Most important, though, is that the Thomson study and the U.K. demonstration both illustrate integrated systems solutions that directly address the over-riding question: "How do we most economically obtain the necessary carbon reductions at minimum cost?" — and don't attempt to hide behind ideological preconceptions to answer something else.
And that is where my definition of "economic" appears to differ (somewhat) from your own. Like many others, you apparently look at the short-term marginal cost of wind in today's low-penetration market with plentiful gas, see that cost is wonderfully low, and think that means anything meaningful in a future high penetration, low emissions world were gas must become much, much more expensive. I included the U.K. and Thomson figures in a modest attempt to convince you otherwise.
Perhaps "convince" is too strong a word. Give pause for thought, anyway.
And actually, today's low marginal cost of wind is meaningful. It means investors can invest in wind today, make a profit, and look at figures like those I cited and see their investment isn't going to blow away. Future demand for wind continues to grow, and that does mean something. What it doesn't mean is that wind+solar+biofuels alone are going to solve the world's carbon problem. They won't. In absense of carbon tax coal will always be cheaper, and the enemy is coal.
I am also aware that cost of raw wind has dropped rather nicely the past few years. These models all take into account projected future costs of all technologies, but of course such projections cannot be perfect. Like climate, we won't know the exact details until they become weather, by which time it will be too late.
-
scaddenp at 12:45 PM on 3 October 2014Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
CC - that cornwall Alliance stuff is seriously scary. We share the planet with people who think like this? I would like to think most Christians would run screaming in the other direction from a travesty like this. Let's hope some real theologians go after them as well.
-
citizenschallenge at 12:04 PM on 3 October 2014Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
Dana does SkS's CC Reposting policy remain in place?
I just posted this,
Dana at SkepticalScience.com reports on the Cornwall Alliance
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/10/dana-skepticalscience-cornwall-alliance.html
is it OK?
-
citizenschallenge at 11:47 AM on 3 October 2014Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
For what it's worth, I happen to have recently finished a point by point review of the Cornwall Alliances "The Biblical Perspective of Environmental Stewardship: Subduing and Ruling the Earth to the Glory of God and the Benefit of Our Neighbors" - that some might find interesting.
Beisner: Subduing and Ruling the Earth to the Glory of God - say what?
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/09/beisner-subduing-earth-glory-god.html
"The Cornwall Alliance tells us they speak for the God Almighty of time, creation and life - then they use their God as justification for rejecting hundreds of years worth of Earth observations and increasing climate knowledge. Curiously their God does happen to totally embrace the neo-Republican/libertarian "free" market ideal.
This Cornwall Alliance document reminded me of the beautiful babes and tough cowboys used to sell cigarette, only Beisner is using God to sell his attack and denial of solid scientific knowledge. Tragically such superficial media campaigns seem to be quite successful at wooing an all too apathetic public.
Even though rational communication with such people seems next to impossible it's important to take the time to point out their base misconceptions, misrepresentations and out'n out lies, even if only to let other's know that the truth is out there.
. . . "
-
michael sweet at 11:00 AM on 3 October 2014How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
Ed,
Why should VC Summers get a loan when they are allowed to charge their customers billions of dollars in interest and construction costs years before any electricity is produced? Your claim of free market financing is simply false, they make the customers pay in advance. If they did not bill in advance they would never make a profit. It is a set up for the profit of the utility and everyone knows it. They are at least 18 months behind schedule (they currently do not have a public schedule so I cannot determine the actual delivery date). The Fitch rating Credit Desk has lowered the parent company credit rating to "negative" because of the delays.
Your UK link is broken. Without looking at it I can say that the USA has considerably more renewable resources than the UK. In addition, the UK is too small to balance wind and solar systems across the country so they will require a different system than the US.
In their conclusion Thomson state:
" However, there are many possible pathways in GCAM and other integrated assessment models that would also achieve a radiative forcing level of 4.5 Wm−2. For example, simulations with GCAM can reach 4.5 Wm−2 even if some technology options, such as CCS or nuclear power, are removed from consideration" (my emphasis)
In a brief read of the paper they do not discuss their energy production model. I note that electricity generation with CCS has not been demonstrated anywhere on a commercial scale and is a speculative technology. Wind and solar have plummeted in price since the paper was written while installation has skyrocketed. I doubt their model captured this change in price.
I have never seen a nuclear proponent suggest how Syria, Iraq and the rest of the Middle East and Africa can safely be powered using nuclear.
Other nuclear supporters on this thread blame the Japanese Government for the deaths caused by the Fukashima Nuclear disaster. That gives nuclear a very bad reputation. Multiple recent engineering fiascos with nuclear upgrades do not inspire confidence in the industry. Excuses from proponents are a dime a dozen.
Nuclear proponents blame environmentalists for their problems. The problem is that nuclear is not economic. Nuclear hopes that the five reactors currently being built will demonstrate they can compete with renewables. In 5 years we will see if they are successful.
I personally hope that they are successful since we need all the options we can get. The nuclear industry track record is terrible and they are currently way behind schedule on their builds. Wind and solar have gone down in price by close to 50%.
Nuclear proponents on this thread exaggerate the problems with wind (see Kieth at 16 on Dutch wind turbines). Keith leaves out the currently announced cost over-runs at nuclear plants being built and fails to mention they are all way behind schedule. Claims of free market financing fall over on superficial inspection. It is impossible to trust anything nuclear proponents say.
As Keith points out, Warren Buffett is investing in wind. Yesterday my local power company announced their first commercial solar power build (only a 2 megawatt pilot plant). Walmart is planning to put solar on their roofs. What more do I need to say?
-
wili at 10:27 AM on 3 October 2014Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
OK, somebody has to be the snarky jerk, so I'll be it this time:
"Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds"
Minds?? Are you sure there are any in there?
OK, I'll drop the snark now. But really, these are people that mostly believe the earth is about 6000 years old. Where can you really start in trying to engage in discussion of a fundamentally scientific issue in the face of such utter rejection of basic scientific facts?
I am asking in earnest as someone trying to teach a class that includes a GW theme, but I have students in the class who are completely ready to reject all science because, to quote, "It says in the Bible that GW can't happen." I have directed them to Hayhoe, but I admit to be a bit at a loss even where to start with such utter rejection of essentially all science that doesn't conform to their very narrow (supposedly literal) interpretation of scripture. Any ideas would be most welcome.
-
scaddenp at 08:32 AM on 3 October 2014Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
I'm often amused by US evangelicals claiming climate change impacts are God's punishment for things like gay marriage laws etc. A rather more obvious sin with biblical retribution would that of greed. Doesnt seem to get a mention despite US energy consumption per capita being among the highest in the western world, around twice that of UK. Maybe Cornwall alliance folk should spend more time reading prophets and gospel than genesis?
-
Russ R. at 07:05 AM on 3 October 2014Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
"As the product of infinitely wise design, omnipotent creation, and faithful sustaining (Genesis 1:1–31; 8:21–22), Earth is robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting."
Citing the Book of Genesis for anything relating to science is pretty much an automatic disqualifier.Great source of children's stories though.
-
ed leaver at 06:41 AM on 3 October 2014How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
Michael Sweet:
Federal nuclear loan guarantees are not free, and are funded by fees paid by the grantees. After much negotiation Southern accepted a gaurantee for Vogtle, but they do pay for it. At VC Summers in South Carolina, SCE&G passed on the opportunity, and went completely with private finance. It was cheaper. The Federal energy loan guarantee program is available to "clean"coal and renewables as well. The program is not above criticism, but a gaurantee costs the government only if the grantee defaults on the terms. As you may recall, in 2011 solar panel fabricator Solyndra defaulted on $535 million.
Such are the risks of venture capital. Renewables get additional subsidies: wind, geothermal, and closed-loop biomass get a 2.3 cent/kWh Production Tax Credit, after-tax so effectively 3.3 cents. Rooftop solar gets net metering. Renewable Energy Standards gaurantee a captive market and insure the consumer picks up the tab for increased costs due to renewable generation. It was feared 80% of new wind projects would be cancelled if the PTC were not extended at the end of 2012.
More information at US Nuclear Power Policy. Times change. Nuclear does not enjoy the support it once did, and renewables are comparatively better off. It might be done better: if the goal is to increase wind and solar deployment, then net metering, PTC, and RES are fine. If the goal is long-term carbon reduction, they should be re-thought in favor of support mechanisms that might better effect that goal.
Please try to realise just what it will take to attain zero-carbon emissions from the electric sector. Prof. MacKay and UK Department of Energy and Climate Change recently hosted a public thought-experiment, wherein the participants were asked to optimize the kingdom's energy mix with goal of reducing total carbon emissions 80% by 2050. This is not an easy task, and DECC has developed an interactive online tool the public may use to gain appreciation for the difficulty. Participants in this particular exercise did rather well: 77% reduction. Not the hoped-for 80%, but what they could agree upon. Their final timeline looked something like this:
The online tool is here. Feel free to do better, but note the latency in nuclear build-out; advance planning is required. Of course the US is not the UK, and whatever we eventually come up with will be different. But not totally.
Admittedly, making predictions is hard. Particularly about the future. But such is our task. In 2011 Allison Thomson and her colleagues looked at the problem globally, which also has some merit. They sought cost-minimized global energy mixtures to match IPCC's four Representatitve Concentration Pathways. RPC 4.5 stabilizes end-of-century emissions at 4.5 W/m^2 radiative forcing and estimated 2.4 C temperature rise — scary, but better than RPC's 6.0 or 8.5. The authors' RPC 4.5 results:
Note that “other” includes non-dispatchable wind and solar; their fractional contribution is somewhat less than their nominal capacity factor. Also, again note the latency in nuclear build. These are cost-optimized mixtures. Certainly nuclear can be excluded, as is popular here in the United States. But our electricity will then cost more relative to economies that do advantage themselves of fission, and low electric cost is one of our main competitive factors.For that reason if we can't get this, or any, combination of reliable low-carbon energy sources lower in cost than that afforded by coal, coal is what developing economies will continue to burn. Just to better themselves. No one can afford to do otherwise.
-
WheelsOC at 05:17 AM on 3 October 2014Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
The link to the full Guardian post is missing.
Here's the link in the meantime for those that would like to follow through. -
Paul D at 04:58 AM on 3 October 2014Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
Also isn't verse 22 of chapter 8 contradicted in other later books of the bible?
As well as having been contradicted throughout history. -
Paul D at 04:53 AM on 3 October 2014Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
When reading Genesis I don't see the terms:
"wise design"
"robust"
"resilient"
"self-regulating"
or "self-correcting" etc.Such words are just the ideology of the people reading the texts being projected on to them.
They want to see in those texts anything that will confirm their ideology. -
michael sweet at 03:10 AM on 3 October 2014How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
jmdesp,
If nuclear advocates have nothing better to offer than to blame the people they killed for their own deaths nuclear will never be safe enough to build. Appropriate risk analysis was done and evacuation was required. I have read many posts like yours over the past five years and have gone from being a supporter of nuclear to an opponent. I do not want to accept the risks you insist we must all take. Monday morning quarterbacks who now claim the evacuation was not necessary ensure that nuclear safety will not be sufficient to protect the public.
I was actually thinking of the Crystal River 4 plant where they spent $1.5 billiion on a new plant and then decided that it was enough for the ratepayers to pay for. They never applied for a permit to build. Thank you for reminding all of us about the other plant that was shut down early. A supporter of nuclear in this thread claimed 60 year design life when current plants are shutting down after much less than that.
You failed to mention that the San Onofree Nuclear in California was also shut down after a failed attempt to upgrade the steam generator. The engineering design on the new generator failed: that gives me a lot of confidence in the new nuclear designs. There is another plant in Florida that has significant premature wear.
Earlier in this thread a nuclear supporter claimed that private funding was obtained for the 5 US plants that the Federal Government has guaranted the loans on. Some free market. In Georgia they are also allowed to bill the customers for the interest on the loans before the plant is finished. Where are the wind generators we pay interest on before they are built? Oh wait, they are built so fast the interest is not needed to be paid in advance.
I will not address safety since nuclear is not economic anyway, but there are many square kilometers that are uninhabited because of nuclear "incorrect maintenence". Wind does not lay waste to the landscape.
-
John Hartz at 02:55 AM on 3 October 2014Arctic sea ice has recovered
[Moderator's Comment] All: Three repsonses to jetfuel's nonsensical comment #59 is quite enough. Dog-piling is a prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.
-
DSL at 02:25 AM on 3 October 2014Arctic sea ice has recovered
jetfuel, you're cracking me up. You toss out 2012 but don't toss out 2007 for similar reasons. Why? Because if you did, you'd have no "recovery" claim. Instead, the long-term decline would be even more obvious, and 2013 would look like a normal year in that long-term trend. Your logic is identical to the "no warming since 1998" logic, and it's just as goofy.
I wonder: did you run the same analysis after 2007 and conclude that science had massively underestimated future sea ice loss and that the Arctic would be ice free at summer minimum within three years?
-
ge556 at 02:24 AM on 3 October 2014Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds
Thanks for the good article. Unfortunately, the end is cut off.
-
Arctic sea ice has recovered
jetfuel - Let's see, insufficient data to establish trend significance (2-8 years, check)? Cherry-picking established.
Tamino had an interesting post in 2012, Sea Ice Forecasts, noting that Arctic ice extent statistics demonstrated a change in 2007 - with an amplified annual cycle, more year-to-year variation than before. This change persists today with yearly swings in extent averaging larger than previously observed. A reasonable understanding of this change is that the much reduced ice volume and thickness has made Arctic ice extents more susceptible to wind/weather effects than earlier, thicker ice.
Meanwhile, ice volume continues to decrease.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:29 AM on 3 October 2014Arctic sea ice has recovered
jetfuel... Them's bettin' words! I'd put $100 on seeing a new Arctic sea ice minimum within the next 3-5 years.
Do you really not understand the difference between the two sides here, jetfuel? You're taking a small group of data points – isolated from any science – and are trying to extrapolate what you would prefer to see happen.
The other side is looking at science. We're looking at what's been happening over the past 150 years. We're looking at the changing radiative forcing of the planet. We're looking at interconnected climate systems with ocean/atmosphere/land/ice, and hundreds of other factors.
When you look at all these things combined you get exactly one answer relative to Arctic sea ice: It's going away and, at this point, there is nothing we can do about it. Even the oil companies know this and, in a very sad irony, are spending lots of money planning how to drill the Arctic ocean.
You can play around with Excell and make plots for what you want to believe, but it's wrong. There is functionally zero chance that Arctic sea ice is going to see a recovery to anything like we saw 20-30 years ago.
I would almost be willing to bet that we'll see initial ice free conditions (defined as <1M/km2) within the next ~5 years.
-
jetfuel at 00:53 AM on 3 October 2014Arctic sea ice has recovered
per nsidc: "The multi-year ice in the Arctic Basin increased from 2.25 to 3.17 million square kilometers during the year.
Multi-year sea ice made up a total of 30% of the Arctic icepack the previous compared to 43% this winter." (2014)
Also from another nsidc article: "It was the sixth-lowest extent recorded since satellites began measuring sea ice in 1979. The number is above the 2012 record extent but is still below the long-term average. "
3.17M out of the 5.02M min for 2014 is 63% of remaining ice being multiyear ice. 3.17M of the 2014 max of 14.9m is 21.3% multiyear ice. The 7% number is stale news as of today. Out of the last ten years, only one year, 2006, had more min sea ice worth mentioning than 2014. Any trend line drawn for the last 2-8 years shows upward trend in Arctic minimums, if it accounts for 2012 as being an anomolous year due to rare wind storms that caused unusually high melting by pusing huge sections of sea ice south. Throw out that datapoint or bump it up to 4.4M and the trendline is unquestionably upward since summer of 2007. It appears as though we are headed more towards another 5.0M+ min next year, making it a 9 year upward trend in Arctic SI mins. At what point can we call this a turnaround? At what point do we stop being so confident that the Arctic will be seasonally ice free by 2030? Not when 8, going on 9 years are pointing the other way? My guess is that 9 years won't be enough to quiet the 2030ers.
Moderator Response:[JH] Future posts of this nature will be summarily deleted.
[PS] Jetfuel, you have had cherry-picking explained to you. You were invited to respond if you didnt understand. Your continued use of cherrypicking as an argument would imply either wilful ignorance or trolling. Moderator tolerance is at the end.
-
jmdesp at 23:26 PM on 2 October 2014How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
@sweet : Blame the victims for their death ? No, blaming the goverment for non-sense evacuation decision including the non-sense deliberate decision of ignoring the SPEEDI warning system data. Pregnant women and childs had very good reason for evacuation. Nobody else was encuring a radiation risk that really justified immediate evacuation, especially the elderly citizens that the governement sometimes pushed to suicide.
Early report indicate that the Hazelwell coal mine in Victoria, Australia has have had more direct impact on the population that Fukushima, with 11 direct and short term deaths suspected. Statistics on small particle pollution say the exposition suffered was highly dangerous, but nobody was evacuated. The trouble is here in the double standard.
The nuclear plant in St. Lucie and Turkey Point work very well, and save massive amount of carbon emission in Florida every year. The owners of Crystal River 3 made a stupid decision to try to save money, that ended up massively expensive for them. Tens of nuclear reactors have had their steam generators replaced without problem when the proper company with the corrrect knowledge was used. Meanwhile I know we can find many wind turbines where improper maintenance has resulted in catstrophic costly failure or fatal fires. The lesson here is not that you should abandon the technology but that incorrect maintenance fails really badly. -
CBDunkerson at 22:40 PM on 2 October 2014How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
sotolith7, your conclusions seem based on 'facts' and 'logic' which aren't.
Germany - Carbon emissions have risen, though only slightly, in Germany because they are trying to quickly replace nuclear power. Claiming this as a "real life example" of the inability of renewables to decrease CO2 emissions is patently false. Actual instances of using rapid renewable development to decrease carbon emissions (e.g. Hawaii, Spain) consistently show them succeeding at that goal. Once nuclear power in Germany is shut down any continued significant development of renewable power there will perforce lead to reductions in CO2 emissions.
Fukushima - Yes, most of the immediate deaths were caused by the evacuation (though more due to poor living conditions than 'panic') rather than radiation exposure. However, claiming this as evidence that there was no danger requires dismissal of any trace of logical thought. That is, had they not evacuated then there would have been more radiation deaths. Likewise, your claim of "zero" radiation related deaths in the future is unsupportable. Statistically significant increases in the incidence of thyroid cancer have already been detected in the surrounding areas.
The reckless management of the nuclear industry, leaving old plant designs running long after they should have been shut down, prevented it from ever becoming a major power source... and now any chance of that has passed because nuclear is simply too expensive. Why build nuclear when wind and solar power already cost considerably less... and costs are projected to continue declining rapidly for years? World nuclear power production peaked at 17.6% of total in 2006. Last year it was down to 10.8%. That decline has mostly been due to nuclear production being flat while global demand grew, but now total nuclear production is declining. Most of the active nuclear reactors in the world should have been shut down years ago, and very few new ones are being built. The industry is heading towards a rapid collapse.
-
michael sweet at 20:04 PM on 2 October 2014How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
Sotolith7,
It is morally bankrupt for nuclear supporters to blame the victims for their deaths in the Fukashima and Chernobyl disasters. If you want me to support nuclear, and I used to, you must accept responsibility for your past problems. If you insist that it is other peoples fault that you killed them I will never believe that you are keeping safety first in mind. Disclamer: I have extensive radioactivity training. I worked with radioactivity for 4 years and have held a Curie of unshielded radiation in my hand.
Holding renewables responsible for the failure of nuclear power in Germany will not win you many converts. Nuclear failed on its own and renewables are taking up the slack left by that failure. You cannot expect renewables to take over immediately for a business that took decades to build.
I liive in Florida and the governmet here could not care less for environmental issues. Nuclear has failed here, at great cost to ratepayers, on its own legs. Blaming environmentalists will not help you to solve the problems with nuclear.
-
Phil at 19:54 PM on 2 October 2014How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
ubrew12 @4
I've often wondered why wave/tidal power was not more developed in the UK. I gather (sorry no reference) that tidal/wave presents a challenge due to the complexity of the wave motion. However there is some glimmering hope
-
sotolith7 at 16:31 PM on 2 October 2014How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
The arguments on how good renewables are mitigating CO2 are indeed technically not straightforward. It may be useful to take a real-life example, and look at the major industrial country that's gone furthest down the renewable road: Germany. Its CO2 emissions have continued to rise during 2012 and 2013 and it's not meeting it's Kyoto goals:
http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/klimaziele110.html
while burning of coal (often lignite) has risen to levels not seen for 20 years:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24914#.VCzuY-U_rmEThose who refer to Fukushima ought to be candid about how many people have died or will die because of radiation: zero. Virtually all of the casualties were caused by the panicky reaction. Even Chernobyl is vastly exaggerated: the number of directly attributable deaths is less than 100 (virtually all firefighters or technical emergency workers).
Of course there's a lot of political careers based on fostering hysteria - see the success of the greens in Germany.
For the facts :
http://www.radiationandreason.com/index.php?biography -
Rob Honeycutt at 11:27 AM on 2 October 2014How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
Ingvar... In other words, you can't just make up your own version of science. You have to dig in a learn the science.
-
ed leaver at 11:05 AM on 2 October 2014How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
Hi Ingvar! You seem to have come to the right site! Welcome, and please feel free to avail yourselves of Skeptical Science's resources, e.g. Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works!
-
Ingvar at 10:36 AM on 2 October 2014How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
I noticed that gas is higher on the generating table. Natural gas produces twice the amount of water vapour than carbon dioxide. Water vapour is the main contributor to weather and is the 'dangerous' greenhouse gas. Because scientists cannot establish the water vapour conontent in the air at any time, any temperature, the most important gas for the human existence on the planet is ignored. But not only that scientists, deniers, politicians and other fools don't seem to know the difference between weather and climate.
Climate is the average of past weather as recorded faithfully by the humble thermometer. In that airmix water vapour content could be anything up to 4% - or 40,000 ppm. To even suggest that carbon dioxide has a major impact on weather or climate (a desk figure) is fooling himself.
Moderator Response:[PS] Please acquaint yourself with the comments policy on this site. Note particularly the rules concerning sloganeering and commenting on topic. You can use the search function on the top left to find appropriate threads. You might want to look at "Water is the most powerful greenhouse" for starters. You might also like to look up the formal definition of climate as per WMO. When scientists talk about "climate", this is the definition that is understood. If you wish to debate the science, then do so with backing from data and/or references, preferrably peer-reviewed. Unsupported repetition of long-debunked myths will simply be deleted.
-
ed leaver at 09:00 AM on 2 October 2014How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
Thanks cosmicomic. I think I already posted a cost comparison of wind+caes vs new foak nuclear at VC Summer and Vogtle. These plants include cooling towers, as do many others including coal.
-
cosmicomics at 08:35 AM on 2 October 2014How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
Ed Leaver –
No one is claiming that wind energy alone is the solution. Wind and solar are complementary technologies. Wind is strongest during winter and when the sun isn't at its highest. The sun is strongest during summer and the hours around noon. Solar is strongest during peak consumption hours, and that's why it's seen as a threat to utilities. It cuts into their greatest period of profitability. There are other kinds of renewable energy that can supplement wind and solar, and that can provide power when those sources are insufficient: geothermal, hydro, biomass and biogas. There are storage systems such as pumped hydro and compressed air. The collaboration between Denmark and Norway benefits both countries, and a grid based on a diversity of renewables is doable, and a number of energy plans based solely on renewables have been developed by extremely competent experts.
We agree that, because of climate change, we have to get away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible. My view is that nuclear energy will not enable us to do that. It takes approximately 9.4 years to construct a new plant after it has been designed and the plans have been accepted by the relevant authorities. Construction is beset with delays and cost overruns (Vogtle, Olkiluoto 3) and the power would not be available when it's needed. Moreover, there's the very relevant question of whether nuclear is a suitable technology for a world undergoing warming and subject to more intense heat waves, droughts, and floods:
“Unlike power plants fired by coal and natural gas, nuclear fission produces no carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas.
But there is a less well-known side of nuclear power: It requires great amounts of cool water to keep reactors operating at safe temperatures. That is worrying if the rivers and reservoirs which many power plants rely on for water are hot or depleted because of steadily rising air temperatures.
If temperatures soar above average this summer - let alone steadily increase in years to come, as many scientists predict - many nuclear plants could face a dilemma: Either cut output or break environmental rules...
'We're going to have to solve the climate-change problem if we're going to have nuclear power, not the other way around,' said David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer who is with the Union of Concerned Scientists.
'As the climate warms up, nuclear power plants are less able to deliver,' he said...
During the extreme heat of 2003 in France, 17 nuclear reactors operated at reduced capacity or were turned off. Électricité de France was forced to buy power from neighboring countries on the open market, where demand drove the price of a megawatt hour as high as €1,000, or $1,350. Average prices in France during summer months ordinarily are about €95 per megawatt hour.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/health/20iht-nuke.1.5788480.html?pagewanted=all
For more, see:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028138.200-the-climate-change-threat-to-nuclear- power.html?full=true
https://www.citizen.org/documents/HotNukesFactsheet.pdf
The problems can be mitigated, but at a cost that makes nuclear less economic than it already is. Please see:www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/20130716msc-worldnuclearreport2013-lr-v4.pdf
pp.7-8
and
https://will.illinois.edu/nfs/RenaissanceinReverse7.18.2013.pdf
(A 2014 version of the nuclear report is available, but I haven't read it yet.)
Moderator Response:[RH] You're probably going to end up with the same problem as before if you just hot link the entire URL. The problem is that sometimes a URL gets read as one very long word, and thus breaks the page formatting. Better to type a short phrase or the word "LINK" and then hot link that phrase or word.
-
ed leaver at 08:03 AM on 2 October 2014How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
cosmicomics, when preparing a comment the text opens in "Basic" tab. When you want to inclue a URL, click "Insert", then click the little lchain-link icon that says "Insert/edit link" when you mouse over it. An "Insert" widget will pop up. Paste your link's URL into the "Link URL" field, and its title into the "Link text" field. Works great!
-
cosmicomics at 07:32 AM on 2 October 2014How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
Dear Moderator,
I don't understand how my comment 29 reappeared as comment 31. Please delete whichever you prefer. I don't know what a hot link is and I'm not familiar with your commenting options – Insert, Source – but I'll try to figure them out.
Moderator Response:[RH] Above the text box where you type your comment, there are some tabs. Look through those tabs and find the icon that looks like a chain. Select a segment of text to link, then click the chain icon. Enter the website address into the box that pops up.
Hope that helps.
-
ed leaver at 06:45 AM on 2 October 2014How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
Thanks cosmicomics, that was quite a breath of fresh air! I don't think many of us nuclear advocates deny the benefits of wind, particularly over the critical next few decades. But we do need recognize that 80% overall reduction of society's carbon emissions will require essentially 100% elimination from stationary sources, electric generation in particular, reliably and at reasonable cost. We must plan in advance for that eventuality, and wind and solar cannot possibly do it on their own.
Denmark is no different. The Danes might generate an amount of electricity from wind same as the amount of electricity they consume, and that will be well and good. But Denmark is not isolated, an island unto itself, but rather is at the crossroads of major interconnects between Norway, Sweden, and Germany. Denmark's wind is buffered by Norse hydro, Swedish hydro and nuclear, and German coal.
Speaking of which, today Germany burns more lignite than at any time since 1990, and Denmark still relies upon it. Doesn't mean Danish wind is bad, or German for that matter. Only that someone has lost focus on the ultimate goal.
-
sidd at 06:07 AM on 2 October 2014New and Improved Ice Loss Estimates for Polar Ice Sheets
If I may add some recent references:Bouman(2014) doi:10.1002/2014GL060637Velicogna(2014) doi:10.1002/2014GL061052
1)"Overall, in Greenland, SMB has contributed 68% of the GRACE-derived mass loss (-180±33 Gt/yr versus a total loss of -265±59 Gt/yr) and 79% of the observed acceleration (23.3±4.7 Gt/yr2 versus a total acceleration of 29.7±1.3 Gt/yr2 ) during 2003-2012."
Agrees with Enderlin(2014) doi:10.1002/2013GL059010 in that SMB dominates linear term, but they have shown it dominates quadrature (acceleration) term as well. Interesting that they see little regional acceleration in NEGIS, contrary to Khan(2014) doi:10.1038/nclimate2161
2)Amundsen sea sector they get -116+/-6GT/yr for the period 2003-2013 agrees with Bouman(2014) within error for the time period in Bouman(2014). Acceleration is significant at 12.7+/- 1.6 GT/yr. Bouman(2014), interestingly, sees significant loss from Getz as well as in PIG/THW, but Velicogna(2014) does not resolve so finely.
3)"The signal from the Canadian GIC, which was removed from the Greenland signal, corresponds to a mass loss of 74±7 Gt/yr with an acceleration in loss of 10±2 Gt/yr2 ."
Both are very nice papers.sidd
-
ed leaver at 05:42 AM on 2 October 2014How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
"We need to add the costs that TMI, Chernobyl, and now Fukushima have incurred and more to nearly every single nuclear facility in the world if we want anything close to an honest accounting of the probably costs of these things".
That is an oversimplification. For one, we first need accurately assess what the true costs of each of these were, why they accrued, what we and reactor designers have learned from them, and the actual likelihood of their reoccurrance. Western insurors, for example, do not include Chernobyl in their risk analysis precisely because the industry _is_ regulated and that particular Soviet RMBK-1000 reactor design could never have been approved at any time by any Western regulatory agency.
TMI killed or injured no one. It was indeed a public-relations disaster and the reactor itself will take decades more to clean up. Time there is on our side. TMI also gave a large impetus to both improve existing reactors of that era, upgrade their safety and control systems — no, Japan didn't really get the message — and prepare the passively safe Gen III+ designs — AP1000, APR1400, ESBWR and VVER-1200 for example — currently being deployed in Europe, China, the U.S, Russia, Korea, and tomorrow the world. Regulatory changes were also made, as miscommunication from NRC made a significant contribution.
Again, it must be stressed that for all its cost and dislocation, Fukushima radiation killed or injured no one directly, and is unlikely to do so. Indirectly, from fear and dislocation stress, is another matter, and there's much debate whether Japan's massive and extended evacuation was really necessary. Some did prove to be, and Prime Minister Kan was under a bit of stress himself at the time he made those decisions so I'm not criticizing. But looking forward we owe it to ourselves to educate ourselves about the true hazards of radiation on the levels dispersed at Fukushima, and how to minimize the panic should a similar situation ever again arise.
Which might be _possible_ but is by no means given. Engineers do learn from these things, do act accordingly,. and do get support from regulators and politicians. Given the carbon crises, we owe it to ourselves and our children to learn likewise.
Yes accidents do happen, in all human endeavor. Electricity itself is dangerous, but its continued use must be weighed against the dangers of discontinuing its use, On a deaths per TWh basis commerical nuclear generation has proved itself statistically safer than any other power source: 35 times safer than hydro and four times wind. That's including what will probably prove a highly inflated 4,000 from Chernobyl and does not include deaths from the hydro and fossils used to regularize wind. Further discussion and references at Risk in Perspective: Power-related Safety by Energy Source (brief), Gen III+ LIght-Water Reactor Designs (also brief), and Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors. Not to get controversial, but some misuderstandings concerning radiation are discussed by Cuttler and Pollycove in Nuclear Energy and Health. The U.S. National Academy of Science is taking these (and other) concerns seriously enough to convene of a new Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VIII comittee to look into them. Just don't expect conclusions overnight.
In the U.S. nuclear plant decommissioning costs are set aside over the lifetime of plant operation. Decommissioning adds about 0.5 cent/kWh to electricity price, fuel cost about 0.1 cent. Final disposition of lightly-used nuclear fuel is not a geological or technical issue. In the U.S. it is a purely political can of worms we have chosen to kick down the road. NRC has recently determined we are safe to do so, probably indefinitely. Unlike carbon dioxide, the probem opportunity will have resolved itself well before then, unless we decide to avail ourselves sooner.
-
cosmicomics at 05:15 AM on 2 October 2014How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?
keithpickering maintains that the cost of wind energy hasn't fallen and that “the learning curve for wind has hit bottom and bounced.” What he's neglected to do is supply some context that can explain the cost increase. At the same time he pays little attention to the undeniable fact that prices have fallen steeply in recent years, and that there's no reason to believe that this won't continue:
“After hitting a low of roughly $750/kW from 2000 to 2002, average wind turbine prices increased by approximately $800/kW (more than 100%) through 2008, rising to an average of more than $1,500/kW. The increase in turbine prices over this period was caused by several factors, including a decline in the value of the U.S. dollar relative to the Euro; increased materials, energy, and labor input prices; a general increase in turbine manufacturer profitability due in part to strong demand growth and turbine and component supply shortages; increased costs for turbine warranty provisions; and an up-scaling of turbine size, including hub height and rotor diameter (Bolinger and Wiser 2011).
Since 2008, wind turbine prices have declined substantially, reflecting a reversal of some of the previously mentioned underlying trends that had earlier pushed prices higher as well as increased competition among manufacturers and significant cost-cutting measures on the part of turbine and component suppliers. As shown in Figure 38, our limited sample of recently announced U.S. turbine transactions shows pricing in the $900–$1,300/kW range. Bloomberg NEF (2014b) reports global average pricing for the most-recent contracts of approximately $1,000/kW for older turbine models and $1,300/kW for newer turbine models that feature larger rotors. Data on average global pricing from Vestas largely confirm these pricing points.
Overall, these figures suggest price declines of 20%–40% since late 2008. Moreover, these declines have been coupled with improved turbine technology (e.g., the recent growth in average hub heights and rotor diameters shown in Chapter 4) and more-favorable terms for turbine purchasers (e.g., reduced turbine delivery lead times and less need for large frame-agreement orders, longer initial O&M contract durations, improved warranty terms, and more-stringent performance guarantees). These price reductions and improved terms have exerted downward pressure on total project costs and wind power prices, whereas increased rotor diameters and hub heights are improving capacity factors and further reducing wind power prices.
LINK pp.59-60“Skyrocketing demand, downward trending prices
Since the beginning of 2008, wind power capacity has more than tripled in the U.S. This has happened despite a jump in wind turbine costs from 2001 to 2009. But that rise in turbine prices is, in some senses, misleading. The cost to install the same sized turbine, in an area with the same level of wind resource has gone down. However, as more of the prime real estate for building wind farms – windy terrain near power lines and big cities – is populated by wind turbines, developers have moved to areas that are farther away from population centers and power lines, or have lower wind quality. To compensate for lower wind speeds, many turbines are manufactured with bigger blades – to catch more wind. These bigger blades are more expensive, and this increase in costs was accentuated by the steep climb in commodity prices (e.g. steel and oil) from 2004-2008. But as commodity prices have receded, the average cost of new wind power has also started to recede, and deployment of wind turbines has skyrocketed. In 2012, the U.S. deployed almost twice as much wind as it did in 2011. In fact, wind accounted for 43% of new electrical generation capacity in the U.S. – more than any other source.”
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/09/f2/200130917-revolution-now.pdf p.3“We expect the competiveness (sic) of wind power to increase further due to cost reductions and increases in efficiency. Our analysis is that, by 2020, wind power will be competitive with gas-fired power at a natural gas price of roughly ~$1/MMBtu less than today. For the U.S., for example, this means that wind power will be competitive with gas-fired power for a natural gas price of under $6/MMBtu.”
LINK p.53Finally, in real life some American states have found that wind is the the preferable alternative:
“Today, Minnesota gets more of its power from wind than all but four other states, and the amount of coal burned at power plants has dropped by more than a third from its 2003 peak.”
“ 'We’re adding 750 megawatts of wind in the next couple of years, and we’re getting that for a price that’s below the competing alternatives,' said Frank Prager, the vice president for environmental policy at Xcel Energy.
Bill Grant, the deputy commissioner of Minnesota’s Commerce Department, said he believed that the federal tax credit for wind-energy projects was increasingly irrelevant. 'My hunch is, given prices right now, we’d be building wind with or without the subsidy,' he said.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/18/us/politics/without-much-straining-minnesota-reins-in-
its-utilities-carbon-emissions.html?ref=todayspaperModerator Response:[RH] Hot linked URL that was breaking page format. Please try to use the link tool in the tools menu above the text box.
-
sidd at 05:12 AM on 2 October 2014It hasn't warmed since 1998
"I'd guess the main problem with the theory is how such a diversion would work in practice"I can think of one. Rain. The objection would be that we don't, as far as I am aware, see more rain yet on the ice. Yet.
sidd
-
Cooper13 at 05:06 AM on 2 October 2014New and Improved Ice Loss Estimates for Polar Ice Sheets
Are land-ice losses in Antarctica possibly linked with the Antarctic sea-ice gains that have been reported this year (and exploited by blogs to confound the massive ice retreats in the Arctic)?
Specifically, is all of the freshwater runoff and possible ocean-layering of saltwater/freshwater in the Antarctic leading to lower salinity in the upper few meters of the surrounding oceans, enabling easier freezing of the fresher water, and thus the 'record sea ice coverage' in Antarctica?
I recall that recent ocean currents are one explanation, but curious if the land-ice losses and dilution of the ocean salinity around Antarctica is another possible cause/explanation. If so (and it makes sense from a basic chemistry perspective), this would be another signature of significant/continuing land-ice loss and the increased sea-ice coverage around the Antarctic regions is not related to a 'cooling climate', it's the result of easier freezing of the waters by a warming climate....then the sea-ice increase is partly the lost land-ice before it fully intermixes in with the rest of the ocean....
Prev 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 Next
