Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  690  691  692  693  694  695  696  697  698  699  700  701  702  703  704  705  Next

Comments 34851 to 34900:

  1. Bart Verheggen Interview: Scientists’ Views About Attribution Of Global Warming

    Any sensible person who really believes that 55% (never mind the actual 97%) of experts are telling us that we must cut carbon emissions to avoid the risk of catastrophe would surely want to play safe. 'Prepare for the worst while you hope for the best' and that sort of old fashioned wisdom. The problem seems to be that people are not behaving sensibly over this arguably most urgent of all issues. Too big to comprehend, perhaps.

  2. How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?

    Some reflections: 1) Finland is highly technical developed and stable democratic society with a long history of running nuclear plants. If they can not build one nuclear plant on time and within budget, who will do it? Both investors and governments are likely to divert their money to other areas. 2) Are there any life cycle assesment of real (carbon) costs of nuclear energy, which includes mining, building (a lot of concrete) and long term waste disposal? A new study seems to be very favorable for renewables 3) The discussion here focus very much on production side of energy. As much as there is a need to vary energy production, what are technologies for smart changes in demand? If the wind is low during a day, how much can a combination of smart utilities and smart grid adsorb the need to lower demand? I think more out of the box thinking is needed.

     

  3. Tackling global warming will improve health, save lives, and save money

    Ingvar, your post shows absolute ignorance of the actual consequences of global warming and the associated climate changes. More likely though you are deliberately misleading, and yes I agree that should be a criminal offence. In summary, the issue is not a slight change in temperature in one area but the effects of an increase in global temperature on the climate, sea levels, ocean warming and acidification. Your understanding, if true, indicates zero knowledge of the science, the real world and lacks common sense.

  4. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

    Skinny_Pete...

    And here is your experiment performed (for all intents and purposes).

  5. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

    Skinny_Pete...

    1) You should read all 3 levels of the article you're commenting on first.

    2) You should understand the difference between a greenhouse and the greenhouse effect.

    3) You should read the comments policy for SkS before you make another comment.

    Now, to answer your question. Yes. Greenhouse 1 will get hotter than greenhouse 2.

  6. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

    Let's take a look at a small scale model. As everybody knows if you cover a greenhouse frame with clear plastic it quickly gets much hotter inside than outside the greenhouse on a sunny day. Yet if you cover the frame in shade cloth which is perforated, the temperature in the greenhouse goes down in full sunlight. The cloth helps retain some warmth during the night, thus helping to stabilize the extremes. This is a typical greenhouse effect model and is in fact the reason why greenhouses and shadehouses are so popular in backyards. It is also the reason why shade cloth is so popular in large car parks.

    Now, consider the following experiment. I have two greenhouses completely covered with clear plastic and both are in full sunlight, out in the open, and side by side, on the same day. I extract all of the air out of the first greenhouse and then pump it full of CO2. I do nothing to the air inside the second greenhouse. Question: Will greenhouse 1 get any hotter than greenhouse 2?

  7. Tackling global warming will improve health, save lives, and save money

    Ingvar, where has anyone said that living in a world that's on average 2C warmer is the primary threat from global warming.  You're building a strawman.  How's about you actually read some of the research from the scientists out in the field--out in the "the world out there."  Here's a good place to start.  Perhaps when you can actually articulate what it is you wish to attack, you'll be taken more seriously.

  8. Bart Verheggen Interview: Scientists’ Views About Attribution Of Global Warming

    Somewhat related: Psychologists Are Learning How to Convince Conservatives to Take Climate Change Seriously

    I had heard that pointing out the scientific consensus was one of the more successful approaches, but this article suggests other kinds of reframing.

  9. Tackling global warming will improve health, save lives, and save money

    Of course warmth will possibly be a cause to health problems.  But climate change theory is not that terrible.  For example living in a temperate climate I moved into a tropical environment where the average temperature was 11C higher.  That situation lasted for 4 years in the late 1970s.  The alarmist view displayed here for a puny 2C increase by year 2100 as mentioned by IPCC indicates to me that researchers have little or no experience of the world out there.

    Emotional drivers work well on the uninitiated population.  But to deliberately mislead should be a criminal offence.  We do not owe anything to environmental scientists, because nature, common sense and honesty should be the main purpose in our lives.  Maybe I should add a better ethical standard.

    Moderator Response:

    [PS] you have been warned previously about sloganeering and this is dangerously close. All you are really indicating is that you have not bothered to read the science and are happy to accept other's distortions instead.  If you want to play that game, find quote in paper or IPCC report and then present data or papers that you think contradict it. Take some time to understand what is being claimed before you dismiss it. Further nonsense like this will be summarily deleted.

  10. How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?

    Glenn @63

    Thanks. That helps a lot.

    Still, it looks like both the hot and cold storage reservoirs need a narrow region of thermal gradient bwtween the two isothermal zones. This seems to imply that 1) the system must be discharged as some point short of complete temperature conversion of a reservoir (limiting its storage time) and 3) prevention of widening of the gradient region might be a problem through numerous partial cycles.

    I realize this is getting off topic for this thread, but I don't know a proper thread and it seems important to me to have some idea of the reality of solutions to storage that are presented on the web.  

  11. How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?

    Gustafsson - I suspect that's because the topic, nuclear power, provided an opening for the general topic of nuclear power in a reduced carbon economy. As far as I know there aren't any specific threads for that. 

    Personal opinion: nuclear will certainly have its place. But given the failure of nuclear power to seize a large worldwide share over the last half century, and the general lack of solutions (economic and political) to nuclear ash and plant end-of-life, I have some doubts as to whether nuclear can present a really large scale alternative. We'll see...

  12. How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?

    I find it surprising that apart from KR @25 nobody seems to stress the fact that the data is from such a short timescale and doesn't really answer the question of wether wind can cover for reduced nuclear. (Although the people stating that wind stepped in when nuclear failed is apparently wrong it's a very small question in the scope of it all, isn't it?)

    The market reaction to a short term energy shortage is not the same as the long term reaction to a long term energy shortage. If we shut down nuclear plants the short term market response might be the same, given insufficient time to adapt in advance but the long term response is given by which new form of energy is considered the most economically viable at the time. 

    For a better (more relevant) analysis i recommend looking at using a tool like MARKAL (http://www.iea-etsap.org/web/Markal.asp), developed by the IEA, or simmilar and looking at the long term changes. An analysis like that would be truly worthy of SKS ;)

  13. How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?

    tcflood

    The Isentropic system is based on the Brayton Cycle.

    Note particularly the sections on Closed and Reverse Brayton cycle. So the basic process is fairly standard. Also read the FAQ at Isentropic — this covers the question of the applicability f the Carnot Efficiency.

    During the discharge cycle the Carnot Efficiency applies to the conversion of heat to work. However during the charging cycle it is acting as a heat pump, a Carnot Refrigerator

    Carnot Efficiency for the discharge phase is (Thot - Tcold)/Thot

    So some of the heat flowing is extracted as work, the rest flows through to the cold store. Efficiency is less than 1.

    Whereas during the charging phase the Carnot Coefficient of Performance applies Thot/(Thot - Tcold)

    Work in plus some heat from the cold store is transferred to the hot store. CoP is greater than 1.

    It is because this is a cycle. If the system were perfectly reversible then they would get 100% of the energy they put in back out again. But because of irreversibilities they get less than this. Their performance claims are about the quality of the equipment and thus how close to true reversibility they can get. Carnot does not apply to that calculation

    This diagram might illustrate this:

    If all the processes are perfect, reversible processes then Win = Wout.

    It is only the irreversibility of the processes that leads to any losses.

    So yes, it does pass the smell test.

  14. 2014 SkS Weekly Digest #40

    From the policy frontlines, I think recent selective misquoting of wikipedia by current Australian env minister Greg Hunt, proving him as totaly unfit for his job, did attract the attention os SkS readers.

    Now, it turns out Greg not only proved to be ill-informed science denier, but also deliberate obfuscator, because according to smh, BOM warned Greg Hunt about climate change before he cited Wikipedia. So Greg did not just forget to seek the scientific truth on the matter, he deliberately ignored the given truth, replacing it with his agenda. As a scientist, I can only follow Kerry Emmanuel's lead and say I am ashamed to be an Australian but I do precisely qualify that my shame is because we have such env minister.

  15. 2014 SkS Weekly Digest #40

    Agree, Bojan, one of the best cartoons I've seen for a while. Deserves special mention.

  16. How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?

    Talking about "pumped heat energy storage" @53 and 54. 

    Take a close look at the video in the link @54. It seems to me there is something seriously wrong with the thermodynamics in these two (charge and discharge) cycles. In charging, the upper cylinders engage in adiabatic compression heating of the fluid, while the lower cylinders undergo an expansion/cooling power stroke. When the device is discharged, the upper cylinders undergo an expansion/cooling power stroke, while the lower cilinders must consume power to compress and heat the cold fluid. I don't think this adds up. 

    In addition, while a working fluid temperature change between 773 K and 113K (claimed in the video) would give a Carnot efficiency of 85%, the real temperature differences are between "ambient" (say 300 K) and 773 k for the hot fluid and 300 k and 113 K for the cold fluid, one being a compression and the other an expansion simultaneously.  I don't think this can possibly work, let alone give an efficiency of 90%.

    Does any of this pass the smell test?

  17. How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?

    Glenn,

    Budischak also found solar was cost effective for only about 5% of supply.  It strikes me that studies like this become rapidly dated and need to be redone.  Budischak was only offering a perspective, one that did not include storage.  Arguing that storage makes renewables too expensive is not necessarily true. 

    For our discussion I think we need to keep our minds open to a variety of options.  Price on a lot of strategies is rapidly changing and it is difficult to predict the winners now.  

    If nuclear can lower their costs with pre-approved designs it might become cost effective.  

    Until renewables are about 40% of supply on a regular basis it makes little difference, storage is not needed and backup is already built.  The change from 40% to 100 percent is where these issues become important.  Currently Holland uses the EU grid for renewable backup just as France uses the grid to off load excess nuclear at night.

  18. Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record

    Ashton @12, you represented me as making a claim that implied MGST would increase monotonically. That was not the case, and transparently not the case from what I wrote. You are not pretending that you made no such claim - which quite frankly makes me even more dubious of your honesty.

  19. Tackling global warming will improve health, save lives, and save money

    FYI the article "breaks" in preview mode at the end of the blockquote and it's messing up all the following articles on the front page.

  20. How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?

    Michael

    Budischak are using lithium batteries as the form of energy storage in their study and data from 2008. In contrast the links above to Isentropic are giving storage costs for that technology 1/4 the costs used by Budischak.

    This is a fast moving area and it would be interesting if they repeated their study for differing storage costs. I wonder how sensitive the over-build ratio is to storage costs?

  21. Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds

    Non-Scientist@50

    I disagree with you. The per capita approach is a good measurement. Taking your example, then a household of 14 people who produce a total CO2 figure that is double of a smaller household (of one) is indeed better and more efficient.

    The fact is those 14 people are most likely using fewer resources and use less energy each. If they copied the other household, then they would be producing 7 times as much CO2 (0.5 x 14) as the 14 person household.

    CO2 emissions is all about people. It's about how individuals can live whilst minimising their  impact.

  22. How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?

    At 400ppm CO2 we will experience increasing temperatures for the next 40 years until we reach equilibrium gloal warming of 1.8C above pre-industrial levels.  At this new equilibrium in 2055 the Arctic sea ice will have completely melted and the northern hemisphere will be largely snow and ice free by June 1 each year.  This albedo shift will produce a regional warming in the summer of over 8C above current averages.

    The IPCC AR5 report does not include this schedule in their analysis with most models projecting sea ice to remain perennial through 2065 and then reaching minimum in mid September.  Therefore their models severely underestimate the albedo forcing.

    The combined regional warming and albedo-driven warming will produce a massive decomposition of tundra.  This carbon cycle feedback is not included in the IPCC models.

    Over the next 100 years the CO2 equivalent emissions of arctic permafrost will far exceed the current U.S. cumulative annual CO2 emissions from coal-fired powerplants (about 1 Gt per year).  It is likely that total cumulative emissions from permafrost will be 200-500 Gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions.

    What then to do if CURRENT atmospheric CO2 levels will bring about 4C of warming by 2100? 

    we can only survive this coming cataclysm if we start RIGHT now with an "all hands on deck" mentality of total resource mobilization.  This means the utilization of ALL potential non-fossil fuel energy sources (as well as transportation) AND the restructure of food production.

    Even then, we will be very hard pressed to remove 300 billion tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere over the next 100 years.

  23. How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?

    Budischak et al provide data to suggest storage is not economic.  They say it is cheapest to overbuild renewables.  In their models building three times nameplate provides essentially 100% power.  Current hydrostorage plants were built to load balance nuclear power.

    Budischak et al do not use grid ties to other power systems or programs to reduce load on days when renewables are forecast to be low.  Both those strategies are currently used.  Budischak spill the excess power.  I expect that a use for excess power can be found.

  24. How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?

    ed leaver - Part of the intermittency solution, as I mentioned before, is more renewable sources. When the generators are spread over multiple weather patterns, intermittency due to weather decreases, and the average production of the grid as a whole moves closer to capacity values (Archer et al 2007). That isn't a 100% solution, of course, there will be some need for supplemental power at times, but the problem isn't as large as generally assumed. 

    An interesting and fairly recent study, NREL Western Wind and Solar
    Integration Study Phase 2    , looks at 35% wind/solar penetration in the Western US. They found that cycling of the fossil fuel plants increased costs (maintenance) by $35-$157M, representing an added cost to wind/solar of ~$0.14–0.67 per MWh, but with fuel cost reductions of $28–$29/MWh. This mix also reduced ~30-35% of CO2 emissions, of course. 

    Storage will certainly have an important role to play, but even without storage and use of gas or other generators as fill-ins, large-scale renewable power appears to be a financially feasible option. 

  25. Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds

    [Moderator's Comment]

    Please refrain from responding to future comments posted by paul until a Moderator has had time to review them. If his future posts constitute trolling and/or sloganeering, they will be summarily deleted. 

  26. How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?

    For the first time on an industrial scale, hydrogen produced using wind power is being injected into the natural gas grid in Germany. It’s a development that could enhance the value of wind power by making it useful no matter when it is produced.

    http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Wind-Power-Makes-Hydrogen-for-German-Gas-Grid

    Problem solved... gas you can make via wind power and it is being done on a national scale in Germany.

  27. Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds

    A quibble:

    I believe the use of CO2 per capita and the implied good guy/bad guys comparison between more developed/less developed nations introduces a political, not scientific argument, and that such arguments detract, not add to the persuasiveness of the case made here.

    It is a bit like comparing my household energy consumption to yours and finding that my family unit carbon footprint is "smaller", where the case is that I have 14 at one address, while your household has none and uses half the energy of mine.  Yet I'm four times more efficient by your measure. Now imagine that you are required you to cut your energy use by 75% and perhaps to mail me a check for the savings.

    It would be better to stay with the science, but if one can't resist the temptation to make such arguments, then use C02 output per sq km of habitable land.

  28. Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds

    @paul #14:

    predictions that the polar ice caps would be melted by now has not come true

    No one predicted this. This claim comes from a blatant and intentional misrepresentation of something Al Gore said in 2007. Neither he nor anyone else said that the polar ice caps (by which you actually mean the Arctic ice cap) would have melted by now.

    It's impossible to argue coherently using false "facts" like this.

  29. Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds

    Paul

    "How can we have a discussion when your starting point is that your view is correct and other views are incorrect?"

    I think you are misunderstanding what a 'discussion' is when we are talking about the physical world/universe.

    It isn't 'view' vs 'view'. It is 'evidence' vs 'evidence'.

    You say you have a different view. Fine. But what evidence is that view based on? Why not put up an example of this evidence Paul? Otherwise it is just 'views' at 40 paces which is worthless.

    Why not lead with something? A piece of evidence in support of a view.

  30. Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds

    paul wrote: "How can we have a discussion when your starting point is that your view is correct and other views are incorrect?"

    Not everything is opinion. Some things are factually true or false. For example, you cited the common claim about 'global warming having stopped' being pushed by WUWT and other 'skeptics'. A moderator responded with a graph showing the teeny tiny portion of the warming that claim was based on and the continued massive warming of the rest of the climate system. Ergo, we conclude from the data that global warming has not stopped.

    How can we have a discussion? Easy. You either acknowledge that the claim you copied from WUWT was wrong (and maybe consider what that should tell you about that site / 'side' of the 'debate') >or< you come up with some logical defense of the position you have taken (good luck with that one).

    That's how discussion works. You took a position. Evidence was provided showing that your position is wrong. In a discussion you would now either accept the evidence or counter it... but you aren't doing that. Instead, you now appear to be seeking excuses to ignore the evidence and/or people presenting it. 'You have already made up your minds. There is no point talking to you.' Yes... we looked at the evidence and made conclusions. That's how logical decision making works. Why are you so desperately trying to avoid doing the same?

    "Sks comes across as close minded."

    Really? 'cuz you're welcome to provide evidentiary support for your position. You just aren't doing that. Maybe because you don't know of any? Yet, rather than acknowledge that, you are keeping the position and dismissing the evidence to the contrary and the people who provided it. Who exactly is being closed minded here?

  31. Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds

    Paul, close-mindedness is the refusal to examine your own beliefs in the face of new evidence.   You have been presented with new evidence and a variety of questions.  You have, so far, refused to respond.

  32. Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds

    So my question to any who care to respond is:

    How can we have a discussion when your starting point is that your view is correct and other views are incorrect?

    Sks comes across as close minded.

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] The introduction to the SkS Comments Policy reads as follows:

    The purpose of the discussion threads is to allow notification and correction of errors in the article, and to permit clarification of related points. Though we believe the only genuine debate on the science of global warming is that which occurs in the scientific literature, we welcome genuine discussion as both an aid to understanding and a means of correcting our inadvertent errors.  To facilitate genuine discussion, we have a zero tolerance approach to trolling and sloganeering. 

    As stated above, "we have a zero tolerance approach to trolling and sloganeering." 

    If your future posts are in the same vein as the above and your prior post, they will be summarily deleted. 

  33. Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds

    Sks is open about its purpose.

    "This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? "

    That is my starting point.  Sks appears convinced that global warming/climate change is upon the world and the mission is to refute views that differ. 

      Had a debate with a couple of fellas who were not climate scientists who believed the global warming alarmists.  Joe says to me that John opined I was a hopeless case and that they ought to move on elsewhere.  Joe then says to me "Paul, I told John your smarter than that." 

      The message was clear.  If I agree I'm smart,  if I disagree I'm NOT smart.

    I got the message loud and clear.

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] You are now skating on the thin ice of sloganeering which is prohibited by the SkS Comeets Policy. Please read the Comments Policy and adhere to it. 

  34. KeefeandAmanda at 19:33 PM on 6 October 2014
    Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds

    I was an evangelical (I prefer "theologically conservative" instead of "evangelical") Christian for a quarter century of my life. Rather than address Paul's posts against the science, please let me share what has worked for me when dealing with these rejections of science by my former fellow evangelicals - all the defenders of real science here already know what I will share, but I've found this following summary applied as follows to be quite effective:

    First, for those who believe in God, all truth is God's truth. To deny any truth - including hard to swallow scientific truth - is to deny the One who is the Truth (Christ called himself the Truth). The most hard to deny form of truth is fact - especially hard data. Always push this. Bury those who reject the science in an ever-increasing mountain of undeniable fact that they can't handle, and demonstrate that the facts they give do not imply what they believe they imply - they are false implications. What follows deals with these false implications:

    If they claim that a slowdown in atmospheric warming implies that global warming has stopped, then there are several ways to show this implication false. Simply being on a "flatter" part of a staircase-shaped increasing function does not mean that the function has stopped being an increasing function. Show them a simple function like h(x) = sin(x) + x. Long-term atmospheric warming has been roughly following such a cyclic pattern, every roughly 60 years according to Tung and Chen:
    http://www.nature.com/news/atlantic-ocean-key-to-global-warming-pause-1.15755
    This means no slowdown in the underlying uptrend trend even for atmospheric warming. Also, point out that in the last calendar year, according to the NOAA, last November, April, May, June, and August were the hottest months in recorded history (since the late 1800s) for their respective months (April this year tied April 2010):
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/8
    We may see 2014 become the hottest year in recorded history, even though it is not an El Nino year.

    In addition to the above, do as a commenter did here, point to the oceans and the graph this commenter gave as well as others. Emphasize the "global" in global warming, to show that global warming does not mean merely atmospheric warming. And point out that including the oceans leads to the fact that global warming may actually be accelerating. More evidence for this acceleration is from this paper that came out yesterday:
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26317-the-world-is-warming-faster-than-we-thought.html
    This shows that the Southern Ocean may have been warming as much as twice as fast as previously thought.

    When they try to use the increase in Antarctic sea ice as "evidence" that either global warming is not happening or has stopped, I first point out that the total mass of ice (land and sea) is decreasing at an accelerating rate in the Antarctic, and then I *always* hit them with the fact that their hero Judith Curry published a paper in 2010 which essentially tells us that the global warming that occurred and the global warming that will continue has caused and will continue to cause an increase in Antarctic sea ice for the next several decades until that trend finally reverses, still with ever-continuing global warming. Note: She has not retracted her authorship of that paper. See here for quotes from her and her coauthor:
    "Resolving the paradox of the Antarctic sea ice"
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100816154958.htm
    Also, a 2014 paper explored here
    http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/02/11/antarctic-sea-ice-volume/
    tells us that the amount of decrease in Arctic sea ice volume is roughly an entire order of magnitude of 10 greater than the amount of increase in Antarctic sea ice volume, and that the increase in this latter is roughly half of the increase in the fresh water supply there. I add the corollary fact that they need to know that saltwater freezes at 28 degrees F and freshwater freezes at 32 degrees F.

    There's more, but this should do for now.

     

  35. Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record

    My apologies Tom Curtis as I really don't deliberately try to misrepresent your comments to "create a bizarre strawman" and to be honest I don't know what this bizarre strawman is.  Nor do I deliberatyely misinterpret what you write.  I take your comments at face value and respond accordingly.  Apologies again but I don't understand your comment "In particular, had his interpretation been correct, then every year after 2013 would have been warmer than 2002."  

    I'm not sure why you 

  36. 2014 SkS Weekly Digest #40

    Nice cartoon. Now we only have to wait for Russ R. to tell us that snowflakes are not really that big. :)

  37. How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?

    Thanks Paul, Phillippe. I hadn't heard of isoenthalpic storage before; something new each day. Looks considerably more complex than adiabatic CAES, but the relatively low 12-bar pressure does hold certain attraction when siting the units. See how it scales, see how it goes. Good luck, and thanks for the links!.  

  38. Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record

    I just wish to note that Ashton (@11) misrepresents my comments to create a bizarre strawman.  The comment on which he based the strawman summarized studies, descriptions of several of which were immediately provided.  That context immediately demonstrated his "interpretation" of my words was false.  In particular, had his interpretation been correct, then every year after 2013 would have been warmer than 2002.  Yet I quoted the description of a study saying "getting a year of maximum temperatures hotter than 2002 is 23 times greater than it was in the late 19th century"  As in fact no years in the late nineteenth century, or indeed prior to 2002, had maximum temperature as high as 2002 (which was then an Australian record year), the probability of such a year in the late 19th century was of the order of 1% or less indicating a current probability >75% of maximum temperatures less than 2002.

    I regard Ashton's "misinterpretation" to have been deliberate, and another attempt to shift the topic after he had been comprehensively refuted (as he did with regard to BOM adjustments immediately after the initial responses to his having raised it.

  39. PhilippeChantreau at 09:01 AM on 6 October 2014
    How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?

    We discussed some good energy storage solutions lately, including that of Isentropic PHES technology:

    http://www.isentropic.co.uk/our-phes-technology

    There are solutions and there will be more if pressures exist to create them.

    Moderator Response:

    [PS] fixed link

  40. How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?

    ed leaver

    Energy storage isn't so far away and it is probably the biggest expanding market now in energy.

    My personal favourite is PHES (pumped heat energy storage) which is cheap, scaleable, practical and uses todays technology. It will be a few years before it is commerical, but it is designed to work at grid level and as such is fit for purpose.

    The latest analysis shows it is likely to be as much as 90% efficient and cheaper than pumped hydro electric (30% of the cost). The first grid system is due to be tested on a substation in the UK in the Midlands, 2018.

    http://www.eti.co.uk/project/distribution-scale-energy-storage/

  41. Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record

    Ashton, I was referring to your comment "it may be that those questioning the integrity of the BoM might, just might, not be miisguided conspiracists judging from this paragraph from Lloyd's piece"   from here. It would now seem that indeed they are misguided conspiracists wouldnt you agree?

    As for Watts, really! I am disappointed that a retired academic can take seriously "findings" at WUWT. CO2 falling as snow in Antarctica? Sks exists to explain what the science actually says in the face of misinformation sites like that. There is no problem at all with peer-reviewed papers that critical of climate theory. Sadly for us, (since who wants AGW to be true) there is a distinct lack of papers that have robust results.

    As to having your questions answered, the obvious first step is actually read the IPCC WG1 report which unsurprizingly answers your question. You dont have to agree with its assessment but you can at least use it as an index to the published science on the topic rather relying on blog "scientists" like Tisdale and "Goddard". 

  42. How did the UK grid respond to losing a few nuclear reactors?

    Paul, I don't think that's what Keithpickering has done at all. He made clear that gas is the current solution to intermittency. And it is: gas is what we currently use. It's all very well to say "The solution is energy storage and probably nuclear energy." And that is true. But only the latter actually exists and has been demonstrated in practice at the required scales. Unless and until energy storage, of what ever combination of technologies, can scale to national grid storage levels, intermittent renewables will continue to be balanced by gas. That's the reality we currently face.

    Nothing wrong, and quite a bit right, with demand shifting — as long as one accurately assesses its limitations and doesn't oversell its potential. 

    Energy storage is a huge problem. Solutions on the required scale do not exist and as far as I know, are yet to be identified. I mentioned the proposed large-scale Utah CAES system which, if used wisely actually could be grid scale on a state level, but again the question is geological availability — can it scale?

    What will be the availability of grid-scale electrochemical, fuel cell, and syn gas storage, their capacity and economics? There is a lot of research, but the inherent thermodynamics is not favorable compared with the size of the problem. (Won't stop me from driving an EV or plug-in hybrid, though.)    

    We also use hydro, but large hydro is pretty much tapped out, and I'm not sure many realize just how small large hydro really is. Hoover Dam was the world's largest concrete structure when completed in 1936. Lake Mead remains this country's largest man-made reservoir. Hoover Dam's 500 MW average output is slightly less than Vermont Yankee's 540 MW lifetime average; Hoover's 1.6 GW peak output is not quite San Onofre's 1.7 GW lifetime average. Small hydro, run-of-river hydro, really is small. Doesn't mean it can't make a contribution, but we musn't expect miracles.  

    Such is the scale of energy storage compared with the energy density of thermal generation. Wind oversupply is already a problem in some markets, notably Texas and Europe. It needn't be, but it is. Wind oversupply is in fact a big problem for nuclear for the reasons you identify. It is not technical, and there's no inherent reason (other than cost but that varies) not to overbuild wind. No. The wind oversupply problem exists purely as an artifact of the peculiar ways we have choosen to subsidize wind. Its all in our mind.

    In principle that can change, but as Ken has alluded, the problem is political: we gotta wanna. We gotta wanna sit down and agree upon our priorities. And if minimization of total carbon emissions at reasonable cost, starting with all the technologies we have today and extending to whatever future combinations we can come up with, isn't right at the top of the list, we're toast.    

    Somehow, I doubt we're in really large disagreement. Thanks for sharing.  

  43. 2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #40B

    RE: "A Change in the Climate"

    Yes. Hope. Perhaps the students in the middle of Hong Long at the moment appear to be taking drastic measures to stand for what they believe. Or maybe there aren't enough people that take climate change as seriously as the students in Hong Kong take their issue(s). No matter. The process of dealing with climate change is panning out as expected. The "really big" decisions of life and death seem to have us killing each other.

    Let's hope the fighting over climate change doesn't contribute to the killing. Should it be a matter of faith?

  44. Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record

    Kevin,

    In a more intuative way can we say that the Theory of Global warming is supported by the occurance of a record hottest year every 5-10 years.  The hypothesis of cooling is contradicted by the fact that 2006-2009 and 2011-2012 were warmer that all years before 1998.  Everyone here was alive  well before 1998 so every year is warmer than when we were all born.  When you consider the fact that weather has a lot of random variation (a fact that every five year old knows from personal experience), we do not expect every year to be record hot.

    According to Tom's link at 9 we now expect a year comparable to the record hot year every six years (!!!).  With continuing heating those years will be likely to exceed the record hot year.  Tom's graph also shows the USA having three record or near record years in the past ten years, consistent with the Australian projections.  Global records have occured in 1998, 2005, 2010 and are looking strong for this year.  Since we are emitting more and more CO2 those will be hotter and hotter.  Pray that politicians recognize the issue sooner rather than later.

  45. Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record

    scaddenp   Nowhere in my original post did I refer to scientists but to the way Australian politicians and the Australian media spin climate change.  However, I do accept that my phrase "virtually everything" was inaccurate and that being so, I appreciate why you commented as you did.  

    No, I certainly don't think scientists are politically motivated although it would be a brave person who said none of them are.  As a retired  university academic who conducted research for many years, I am paid by the federal government and also by government granting bodies such as the ARC.  No scientist that I know would falsify results for any reason at all,  let alone "just to please their paymaster".  But every, well virtually every, utterance from a scientist about the climate  is spun by the media and even by  blogs.  This site publishes findings that support anthropogenic climate change/global warming but is critical of scientists that do not.  An  example is your question "So Ashton, given this from BoM on Rutherglen, what do you thoughts on Marohasy and LLoyd now?"

    As I'm not sure to which particular  comments from Dr Marohasy and Mr Lloyd  you refer, I'm not really able to answer your question constructively.  And on the sceptic or if you prefer, denier, side,   Watts Up With That publishes findings that do not support anthropogenic climate change/global warming   and is critical of scientists that do.   A prime eample of this being the way Dr Michael Mann is referred to on that site.  

    And because I'd really like to know the answer, why, given that human CO2 emissions are relentlessly increasing, were global temperatures in 2006 to 2009 and 2011 and 2012 cooler than those temperatures in both 2005 and 2010.  Is the answer that this is due to natural phenomena and if so what were these phenomena?

    Moderator Response:

    [TD] See "CO2 Is Not the Only Driver of Climate."

  46. Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record

    "virtually everything about climate change/global warming in Australia is now politically motivated so why should the BoM be exempt from it?"

    Politicians are politically motivated but scientists? This is pure projection. Are you seriously claiming that BoM scientists are tampering with the record for some dark political purpose? This is conspiracy ideation.

    I do contract science for my government where the paymasters fervently hope that the money spent will lead to new prosperity. Do you seriously think that this means me and my colleagues would falsify results to please our paymaster? Such a scheme would be pointless because reality wins. Ditto for climate science.

    It is absolutely absurd that there is political shennigans over reality and cause of climate change. The political divide should be over different approaches to dealing with that reality. Instead we have people denying that reality instead because the only solutions on offer dont fit their ideology. They should be thinking of something that does fit instead of this stupid attack on scientists. 

    So Ashton, given this from BoM on Rutherglen, what do you thoughts on   Marohasy and LLoyd now?

  47. Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record

    Your post was indeed posted, and mine was written in reply to it. While I was writing my reply your was deleted by a moderator.

  48. Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record

    A short time ago I put up a post, or at least I thought I did but admittedly didn't check thoroughly.  It may have been removed by the moderator for any one of a number of reasons but I'm not sure it was.  In any event what I posted referred to Tom Curtis's statement "It is pointing out that specific studies showed that Australia was very hot in 2013 because of global warming."  I suggested that according to that argument global temperatures in 2006 -2009 were cooler than 2005 and in 2011 and 2012 were cooler than 2010 because of global cooling.  To me that seems a perfectly reasonable conclusion based on the argument advanced by Tom Curtis. Of course I realise this isn't the case but it is a logical follow on from Tom Curtis's statement.   I don't think this post is offensive or off topic but then I'm not the moderator so if it is deemed to be so then my apologies to all especially Tom Curtis.  

  49. Scientists find human fingerprints all over Australia's hottest year on record

    This is not a simple concept, because it involves thinking in terms of distributions of probabilities, rather than in terms of logical propositions. This is an alien way of thinking for all of us.

    Roughly speaking the conceptual problem is that it involves 'thinking in parallel' - holding and weighing many hypotheses against the data at the same time. This involves what are historically called 'inverse probabilities' which are particularly confusing.

    So the concepts are hard. But I'll take a shot at explaining the application here:

    1. One year of extreme global temperatures is not proof of global warming.
    2. One year of extreme local temperatures is not proof of global warming.
    3. However, both of these do provide information of a form.
    4. Evaluating information of this form of information is rather difficult. It is an area of active research.
    5. There are two questions which can be meaningfully asked: "How much more extreme was this event due to global warming", and "How much more probable was this event due to global warming".
    6. Readfearn reviews 5 recent articles on this kind of analysis concerning the 2013 temperatures in Australia.
  50. 2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #40B

    'Merkel adviser' link doesn't work at the topmost summary, but works further down in the article.  Possibly the tail trips it up (#ixzz3F8FexKt6)

    Moderator Response:

    [BW] - link corrected. Thanks for the heads-up!

Prev  690  691  692  693  694  695  696  697  698  699  700  701  702  703  704  705  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2025 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us