Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: jr2 on June 15, 2014, 08:49:38 pm
-
http://www.utexas.edu/news/2014/06/10/antarctic-glacier-melting/
Thoughts?
This would explain low temperatures whilst the ice is still melting, yes?
-
Locally, perhaps, but certainly not globally. :)
Bit of interesting physics for you: Temperature is (generally) constant during phase changes. If you put a thermometer in a glass containing a mixture of ice and water and leave this out at room temperature, you'll find the thermometer will read 32F/0C through the entire process, up until the moment the last bit of ice melts, at which point the water temperature will finally begin rise to room temperature. A similar thing holds true for boiling water -- the temperature of the liquid water remains at 212F/100C.
The reason for this is because the phase changes themselves involve transformations of energy -- either forming or breaking bonds between the molecules of whatever substance is involved. In context of ice in a warming world, this actually does act as a dampener on increasing temperature -- I'm not sure by how much offhand, but you can calculate it based on observed mass-loss rates.
-
This news caused a big stink at a far-less-intelligent forum I visit, with the usual suspects trumpeting ZOMG GLOBAL WARMING IS FAKE AFTER ALL!!1
-
This news caused a big stink at a far-less-intelligent forum I visit, with the usual suspects trumpeting ZOMG GLOBAL WARMING IS FAKE AFTER ALL!!1
I have yet to see anything to conlusively, unequivocally prove that humans are exclusively or overwhelmingly the cause of any warming phenomenon. Likewise, I don't subscribe to the mainstream uniformitarianism model concernig geophysical phenomenon.
We're still on the low side of the learning curve on how it all fits together, & climate charletons are whipping up fear & false data, & making a killing off of fools who buy into it. "Climate change ZOMGWTFBBQ!!!". Pro tip: natural phenomena (eg. climate) tend to be dynamic.
-
I live in a giant bucket.
-
This news caused a big stink at a far-less-intelligent forum I visit, with the usual suspects trumpeting ZOMG GLOBAL WARMING IS FAKE AFTER ALL!!1
I have yet to see anything to conlusively, unequivocally prove that humans are exclusively or overwhelmingly the cause of any warming phenomenon. Likewise, I don't subscribe to the mainstream uniformitarianism model concernig geophysical phenomenon.
We're still on the low side of the learning curve on how it all fits together, & climate charletons are whipping up fear & false data, & making a killing off of fools who buy into it. "Climate change ZOMGWTFBBQ!!!". Pro tip: natural phenomena (eg. climate) tend to be dynamic.
Maybe that's because it's been said from the start that humans are NOT exclusively or overwhelmingly the cause of it. It's claimed that human activity accelerates it. I'm not a climatologist, so I cannot say with any certainty whether that is true or not, but common sense suggests to me that pumping millions of tonnes of chemicals into the atmosphere each year cannot be a good thing, if not for climate reasons then at least for health ones.
What worries me more is the concept that, even if we aren't accelerating it, that it is somehow an excuse to not do anything about it.
-
We're still on the low side of the learning curve on how it all fits together, & climate charletons are whipping up fear & false data, & making a killing off of fools who buy into it.
I always found this to be an interesting line of thought. The opponents of the anthropogenic climate change theories are mainly oil companies, which earn far, far more then all the universities and organizations which have proposed and continue to support the theory. this particular image springs to mind (http://whowhatwhy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/395940_842169154111_1010664_37712606_1688554057_n1.jpg).
-
Oh, I thought this thread was a place to mix silly posts with serious posts. Okay, serious post:
Pro tip: natural phenomena (eg. climate) tend to be dynamic.
Pro tip: That's a pretty broadly made statement; if one wants to understand climate changes they must understand mechanisms and timescales.
Over long timescales (billions of years), the Earth's climate has been remarkably stable, even despite the increasing luminosity of the Sun (so-called Faint Young Sun Paradox). The mechanism behind this is the rock-weathering cycle, which works via a relationship between temperature and rate of removal of atmospheric CO2 by chemical weathering of rocks.
Over shorter timescales, the rock-weathering cycle is too slow to appreciably regulate climate and there have been a number of extreme climate states as a result. Greatest examples are snow-ball earth events, for which there have been no fewer than three, during which ice extends all the way or very nearly all the way to the Equator. Everage planetary temperature during such an event is something like 40C colder than today [IIRC; citation needed]. Hard to imagine any life surviving such a thing, but it did (note animals didn't arise until after the most recent snowball ~700MYa).
The mechanism for snowball events is a runaway ice-albedo feedback effect, which requires a particular configuration of continental landmasses. The escape mechanism is the ensuing failure of the rock-weathering cycle, allowing build-up of volcanic CO2. And extreme hot-house environment with global temperatures so high as to make the arctic seem tropical naturally follows a snowball for the same reason: After the ice has melted, CO2 concentrations are still extremely high and it takes time for the rock-weathering cycle to sequester it and re-establish an equilibrium.
On timescales of tens to hundreds of thousands of years, we have the standard glacial cycles. These are caused by semi-periodic changes in Earth's orbit. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379106002381).
Over the last ~10,000 years, climate has been fairly stable in an inter-glacial period, during which planetary temperature gradually decreases.
Over the last ~100 years, climate has been warming due to increased GHG concentrations, particularly CO2, caused largely by human activities. If allowed to continue, this is expected to warm the planet by ~2 to ~7 Celsius over a timescale of centuries. Life on Earth is not known to have experienced a climate change of this character before, and frankly it scares the crap out of a lot of us. (Not everyone, as I've little doubt further posts here will reveal.)
Again, an understanding of timescales and mechanisms are important.
-
We're still on the low side of the learning curve on how it all fits together, & climate charletons are whipping up fear & false data, & making a killing off of fools who buy into it.
I always found this to be an interesting line of thought. The opponents of the anthropogenic climate change theories are mainly oil companies, which earn far, far more then all the universities and organizations which have proposed and continue to support the theory. this particular image springs to mind (http://whowhatwhy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/395940_842169154111_1010664_37712606_1688554057_n1.jpg).
It is an interesting notion, possibly true, but I think an unnecessary discussion point if the purpose is to determine who is right in describing what's going on. All that is required is an understanding of radiative physics, atmospheric chemistry, current influences on Earth's radiation balance (forcings), and which of these forcings are natural or modified by human activity. The principles relevant to effect of atmosphere's parameters on planetary temperature are multidisciplinary, familiar to those working in fields from geology to astrophysics.
In other words, it's a matter of learning the science, not learning the funding sources. Reality is not swayed by he who pays the bills.
-
In other words, it's a matter of learning the science, not learning the funding sources. Reality is not swayed by he who pays the bills.
QFT
-
All that is required is an understanding of radiative physics, atmospheric chemistry, current influences on Earth's radiation balance (forcings), and which of these forcings are natural or modified by human activity. The principles relevant to effect of atmosphere's parameters on planetary temperature are multidisciplinary, familiar to those working in fields from geology to astrophysics.
This is an excellent point that rarely gets made in the debate about climate change. People get caught up on models and projections and precise impacts - x million tonnes will produce y degrees and z metres of sea level rise - but rarely ask the question of climate drniers: exactly what part of the fundamental science do they believe is wrong? The basic physics of the greenhouse effect? The measurably rising CO2 in the atmosphere? The calculated volumes humans emit? All of these are basic, well established facts - there's no denying them. While I can understand debate about the precise extent to which specific things might be affected, to deny that humans are having any effect at all means denying one of those three basic, fundamental facts. So which is it?
-
Unfortunately humans are very good at denying basic scientific facts if it doesn't suit their world view.
To be honest, I've started to lump in climate change deniers with Young Earth Creationists and people who believe in homoeopathy. You can scream at them until you are blue in the face but most of them have already made up their mind that they are correct and "The forces of Satan" or "The Man" or "Ivory Tower Intellectuals" or some other bull**** group is behind everything.
Fortunately some of them are willing to listen since they've simply been getting information from really bad sources.
-
I find it hard to believe that 97% of scientists believe that we are causing climate change. Affecting it? Perhaps. But how much? And is it a bad thing?
Anyways, copied an article about that. Links are in the original article but I can't be arsed to copy them over on my phone.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'
What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?
By JOSEPH BAST And ROY SPENCER
May 26, 2014 7:13 p.m. ET
Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."
Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."
Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.
One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.
Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.
Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.
The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.
The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.
In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.
In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.
Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.
Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch —most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.
Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.
Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing."
Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.
Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite.
-
I suppose the way I see it is, if I'm sitting behind a bunch of sandbags hoping that the floodwater isn't going to destroy my home, or cut off by increasingly worse winters, or my village has just been buried by a freak mudslide bought on by unseasonal rainstorms, the least of my concerns is whether this is man-made trend or not, I'm more concerned about action than blame, but then, blame is a lot cheaper than action from a Governmental point of view.
-
Point. And, regardless of what is to blame, if indeed the effects of CO2 are harmful, wouldn't it be easier to actively remove CO2 than try and control it by reducing emissions? Instead of reducing the output, say, instead try scrubbing the output or maybe scrubbing the air. Of course, that's if it is indeed necessary to do so.
-
That's the thing for me, I don't doubt that Climate Change is happening, and may have been happening all the time, but as humanity spreads and builds, the effects of that change have become an increasing issue. A few centuries ago, if the river you lived near developed a flood plain where your village was, you just up and moved the village, there's plenty of Archeological evidence of societies being displaced by environmental change throughout history.
Nowadays though, that's not so easy, we build with a far more permanent residence in mind, and so rather than avoid the problem, we are forced to actually deal with it. The trouble is we've got caught up in the minutiae of it all, the question of whether we are accelerating it is, whilst worthy of concern, not really the primary focus of the problem, the bigger question is how do we make the way we live compatible with the environment we live in.
As I've said before, I have no idea whether we are accelerating it or not, the arguments and counter-arguments are beyond me now, but we'd do better emulating countries like the Netherlands or Japan, who deal first with the impact of the change (because they live in areas that are environment knife-edges).
As far as CO2 is concerned, it can't really hurt to clean up after ourselves, it might have an impact, it might not, but this is one of those situations where you think to yourself that there has to be a price to pay for pumping all this stuff out at one point or another, whether that price is an impact on climate, air purity, health or anything else.
Besides, I love the idea of massive dirigibles floating through the atmosphere sucking up CO2 to clean the air, when I see one of those, I'll know I'm in the future ;)
-
Point. And, regardless of what is to blame, if indeed the effects of CO2 are harmful, wouldn't it be easier to actively remove CO2 than try and control it by reducing emissions?
And who exactly is going to pay for that? All the really cheap, easy solutions are already being used.
I find it hard to believe that 97% of scientists believe that we are causing climate change.
[SNIP]
And here we see a classic argument. Pick a tiny, unimportant facet of the discussion. One that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual science involved and try to make the argument about that as if it somehow changes things. I'm reminded of someone standing on train tracks giving an explanation of why shouting "Watch out for the locomotive!" is wrong instead of moving out of the way of the train.
-
See here, if that point is irrelevant, why make it in the first place? I'm just going with the assumption that the 97% claim was made to give other arguments relevancy. "you can't argue with 97% of scientists! Obviously I'm right and you're full of it!"
Ah, but I'm not arguing with 97%of scientists! :P
-
Point. And, regardless of what is to blame, if indeed the effects of CO2 are harmful, wouldn't it be easier to actively remove CO2 than try and control it by reducing emissions?
Provided that we
1) Find an aerosol which can scrub CO2 from the athmosphere
2) Does not affect the climate in any way beyond that goal
3) Does not linger after we have scrubbed enough CO2 from the athmosphere
4) Find a method which can deploy this aerosol
5) Find people who will deploy this method
6) deal with the political fallout of handing devices which are capable of greatly affecting the world on a global level to somoene who wants to use it as area denial weapons.
Once we have dealt with those issues...
... It's probably already too late and we will have to devise a better more effective method. Even though we've effectively been terraforming for the past 200 years without us realizing it, terraforming is a science which is still in it's very, very early stages. At this point, we simply do not know if such a technology would even be possible, let alone effective.
And even if it is possible, trying to reduce emissions would make the process far easier, instead of triggering this "climate race" between the CO2-emittors and the counteractors.
-
Ultimately, does it really matter all that much whether climate change is due to humanity's actions? Fact of the matter is that climate change is real, and we do need to figure out ways to deal with the consequences.
Also, jr2, citing articles by the President of the Heartland Institute, which is so deeply invested in making climate change a discussion about ideology rather than facts, does not exactly make your claims more credible.
-
Ultimately, does it really matter all that much whether climate change is due to humanity's actions? Fact of the matter is that climate change is real, and we do need to figure out ways to deal with the consequences.
It does. If climate change is caused by human actions, reducing those actions would make the problems that arise easier to deal with in the long run.
-
Just to% point out that the 97% argument shouldn't be important at all, but I'm afraid it is. Obama has used it repeatedly, Kerry used it too, all the media uses it (the BBC used it as the justification to cull every skeptic from its discussions live), even liberal comedians use it (do I need to post that funny Oliver Last Week Tonight sketch where he put 15 scientists debating just one skeptic because 97%?).
The idea is to put the question to rest and start the conversation about what to do about it. If we have people constantly telling us there's no problem to begin with, what conversations are even possible to make regarding what to do about it? I understand the frustration perfectly and so we had lots of "arguments" like these before, which were about the "consensus", how "every" scientist agrees, therefore its true, etc. This is why the IPCC was built in the first place, to build this consensus! But as been pointed out, this consensus is one without an object. 97% of scientists agree that the planet is warming and that humans influenced this warming. This is it. This is the big consensus, and yet, we see the whole activismsphere banging on how the 97% agree that the "problem" is "real", only bad bad conservatives disagree, and oil companies and so on and so on (I find it funny that skeptics are diagnosed as paranoid about big government or intellectuals and so on, and then we get all the clichés about the big oil companies destroying the science debate and so on. Are you just able to see the other's paranoia?).
Meanwhile anyone who is a lot more nuanced about the subject (say Lomborg or Pielke) are constantly being thrown under the bus with slimy lies, innuendos, misinterpretations, libel, mob attacks, and so on. So no wonder all we get is either the skydragons (those who even deny there's such a thing as the greenhouse effect) or the armaggedon the-end-is-nigh preachers of doom. And even when the discussion is taken place with much more nuanced and mild-mannered people, the discussion is always triggered by the "who's in what tribe" brain cell.
-
Meanwhile anyone who is a lot more nuanced about the subject (say Lomborg or Pielke) are constantly being thrown under the bus with slimy lies, innuendos, misinterpretations, libel, mob attacks, and so on.
I never hear about these people or this phenonom :nervous:
-
My recollection of the discussion history is that certain climate change skeptics began asserting that the 'jury was out'; i.e. those who actively study climate science were not in good agreement about whether it was real or whether it was due primarily to human activity, yet the fact of the matter is that there is very good agreement, as seen by viewing literature. Yes, there are some who disagree and to varying extent, but not anything like what skeptics have been trying to say. When this is pointed out to them, certain skeptics reply "Reality isn't determined by consensus!" And they're right.
Taken like this, it seems like really ****ty discussion technique. But one must also note that it's not like there's one participant for either side of the discussion, and grouping them together as if they're all saying the same line causes a lot of this sort of trouble. Who is responding to whom and why sort of thing.
-
This news caused a big stink at a far-less-intelligent forum I visit, with the usual suspects trumpeting ZOMG GLOBAL WARMING IS FAKE AFTER ALL!!1
I have yet to see anything to conlusively, unequivocally prove that humans are exclusively or overwhelmingly the cause of any warming phenomenon. Likewise, I don't subscribe to the mainstream uniformitarianism model concernig geophysical phenomenon.
We're still on the low side of the learning curve on how it all fits together, & climate charletons are whipping up fear & false data, & making a killing off of fools who buy into it. "Climate change ZOMGWTFBBQ!!!". Pro tip: natural phenomena (eg. climate) tend to be dynamic.
Maybe that's because it's been said from the start that humans are NOT exclusively or overwhelmingly the cause of it. It's claimed that human activity accelerates it. I'm not a climatologist, so I cannot say with any certainty whether that is true or not, but common sense suggests to me that pumping millions of tonnes of chemicals into the atmosphere each year cannot be a good thing, if not for climate reasons then at least for health ones.
What worries me more is the concept that, even if we aren't accelerating it, that it is somehow an excuse to not do anything about it.
I am not in disagreement with the premise that human activity is potentially influencing global climate. However, I do question the supposed urgency that self-styled "climate prophets" have portrayed, in part due to the hypocrisy of their personal lifestyles, as well as the aforementioned politicalization of the debate.
I also find it curious that it's no longer about "warming", but rather "climate change". So now the climate should just not change. Nice. The earth experinced an ice age period without any industrial influence, but humanity is the devil. I'm not sure how Al Gore & co. could ever wrap their brains around natural climate-altering events like Chicxulub, Toba, Yellowstone, or even just a Pinatubo event in this context. Come to think of it, they don't...
I'm still not gonna buy a Prius, & Al is still gonna travel around in his private jet & shill carbon credits.
-
also find it curious that it's no longer about 'warming", but rather "climate change". So now the climate should just not change.
Nah, the term was chosen because some people pointed out that the earth did not, in fact, warm for everybody. Earth's average temperature does rise, but in some areas of the world, this has a cooling effect due to disruption of current gulf and jetstreams.
The earth experinced an ice age period without any industrial influence, but humanity is the devil.
http://xkcd.com/1379/.
I'm not sure how Al Gore & co. could ever wrap their brains around natural climate-altering events like Chicxulub, Toba, Yellowstone, or even just a Pinatubo event in this context. Come to think of it, they don't...
I'm still not gonna buy a Prius, & Al is still gonna travel around in his private jet & shill carbon credits.
Al Gore's statements and human forcing are two completely different things and bear no relation to eachother whatsoever. Al Gore's possible hipocrisy (I do not know the man and therefore can not judge him) has no bearing on whether or not climate change is actually a thing or not.
-
Human energy consumption is continuously rising. People need to get a grip when it comes to energy policy, simply because there is no such thing as "clean" energy as the PR would have us believe (electricity included).
As an example, thorium-based molten salt reactors are a viable alternative to coal-fired power production, but since nuclear power is the bogeyman, we stay stuck with the status quo. Everybody talks a good game about alternatives, but most of the popular alternatives are insufficient to meet demand, & those that are get deemed as unacceptable for not being "perfect". There is no perfect solution.
Finally, hypocrisy speaks volumes. If the messenger won't heed his own message...
-
I also find it curious that it's no longer about "warming", but rather "climate change".
Very common statement; very common misunderstanding of what the terminology means and how/why they are used.
"Global warming" refers to the increase in the global average surface temperature of a planet in response to an increase in the partial pressure of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere. This is very simple physics and has been understood for over a century.
"Climate change" refers to the changes in climate variables as a consequence of global warming. This includes such things as regional temperature, precipitation, wind patterns, max/min temperature, boundary layer height, cloud properties, relative humidity, etc. These changes are extremely challenging to determine, and are proceeding about as rapidly as our ability to study and comprehend them. Thus this is where the majority of scientific focus lies, and so when examining literature, you find the term 'climate change' a lot more often than 'global warming'.
Added:
So now the climate should just not change. [etc]
I literally do not know of a single climate scientist who thinks Earth's climate has never changed before, or has no understanding of the drivers of those changes. I would recommend reviewing my post on mechanisms and timescales. (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=87828.msg1756306#msg1756306). If you would like to learn about the science more directly, consider changing your sources from "Al Gore and co." to those who are actually active publishers in journals of climate science.
-
I also find it curious that it's no longer about "warming", but rather "climate change".
While the scientific answer you've already received is correct, another reason for the change was too many idiots saying "It's cold, so much for global warning" as if
1) It was funny
2) It was original
3) The local temperature was in any way representative of global temps.
-
I also find it curious that it's no longer about "warming", but byrather "climate change".
Very common statement; very common misunderstanding of what the terminology means and how/why they are used.
"Global warming" refers to the increase in the global average surface temperature of a planet in response to an increase in the partial pressure of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere. This is very simple physics and has been understood for over a century.
"Climate change" refers to the changes in climate variables as a consequence of global warming. This includes such things as regional temperature, precipitation, wind patterns, max/min temperature, boundary layer height, cloud properties, relative humidity, etc. These changes are extremely challenging to determine, and are proceeding about as rapidly as our ability to study and comprehend them. Thus this is where the majority of scientific focus lies, and so when examining literature, you find the term 'climate change' a lot more often than 'global warming'.
Added:
So now the climate should just not change. [etc]
I literally do not know of a single climate scientist who thinks Earth's climate has never changed before, or has no understanding of the drivers of those changes. I would recommend reviewing my post on mechanisms and timescales. (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=87828.msg1756306#msg1756306). If you would like to learn about the science more directly, consider changing your sources from "Al Gore and co." to those who are actually active publishers in journals of climate science.
I didn't say scientists believe in static climate model.
But semantics aside, what's your solution? Stop burning fossil fuels? Not gonna happen anytime soon. As I already pointed out, the so-called "green" alternatives won't meet demand, & the "evil" alternatives are unacceptable.
-
Are you abandoning the topic of "semantics" because you realize your earlier portrayal of what climate scientists know about climate were formed out of ignorance?
Added:
You have pointed out more than once in this thread that climate is dynamic and that there have been previous climate changes, as if those who study climate science do not realize this or do not understand their causes, or that this means we do not understand what is going on today, or that it is not of major concern. This view is wrong and I believe you would benefit from refining the sources for your information -- learn about climate science from the scientists themselves.
As to your latest question, I do not think I am sufficiently well educated in the subjects of adaptation, mitigation, and energy policy to be qualified in producing 'my own solution' to the problem. I defer to the judgement of those (http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/energyclimatemap/) who (http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/publications/weo-2013/) are (http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/).
-
How about mass solar power plants in the Artic and Antartic (taking advantage of the six months of sunshine each half year) and throughout the Equator belt ensuring powr throughout the year, wind farms in places that have strong winds, tidal power plants, hydorelectric plants and (god forbid lol) well regulated, highly efficient nuclear power plants. Meanwhile profits are pumped into new renewable energy resources and research into cold fusion etc.
Just a thought?
-
I wonder if we will see international cooperation on issues such as climate during my lifetime. Or any matter now that I think about it.
-
(god forbid lol) well regulated, highly efficient nuclear power plants.
If you have this, you don't need the others. Also, plating poles over with solar panels would damage the unique ecosystem there (an anywhere, for that matter), wind turbines play havoc with bird migration and hydroelectric plants require defacing the landscape with huge dams. Tidal power is only good on the shore, geothermal is even worse, because there's a lot less suitable spots for it. And none of them have the output of a nuke plant.
As for fusion, we're not pumping money into any sort of "cold fusion" scam. We're pumping it into ordinary, "hot" fusion, which is a perfectly good idea. Aside from incredibly powerful powerplants, it'd also be great for spacecraft propulsion. New renewables will probably run into similar problems as the old ones.
-
I think the situation with nuclear is similar to the irrational fear of flying - - statistically, aircraft travel is much dagger. Of the accidents, however, they are catastrophic and much more likely to be fatal if you are involved in one. The overall safety of both nuclear power and aircraft travel is higher, but people freak out because, when things do manage to go wrong, they go very wrong. So, regardless of the actual safety, let's go with the less safe option because it's scary (media rather does not help this at all).
-
How about mass solar power plants in the Artic and Antartic (taking advantage of the six months of sunshine each half year) and throughout the Equator belt ensuring powr throughout the year
While you do get approximately six months of daylight in the polar regions, the sun angle is pretty low, and you still have to deal with cloud cover. Then there are the storms, which will increase maintenance/repair costs, which at the most remote parts of the globe, are going to be high to begin with.
A better bet would be to build in arid regions where the climate favors more cloud-free days, such as the Sahara. Statistically I'd expect you'd get a much higher total annual solar flux than at the poles, and you could construct and run it more cheaply.
-
How many square feet of solar would it take to run a single home housing a family of four? Don't forget the AC, washer, drier, etc... And you say it's overcrowded NOW! Solar makes a nice supplement, IMHO. That is all though. Now try running a factory that heats material that is being extruded to 500 degrees. :yes:
-
Are you abandoning the topic of "semantics" because you realize your earlier portrayal of what climate scientists know about climate were formed out of ignorance?
Nope.
-
How about mass solar power plants in the Artic and Antartic (taking advantage of the six months of sunshine each half year) and throughout the Equator belt ensuring powr throughout the year
While you do get approximately six months of daylight in the polar regions, the sun angle is pretty low, and you still have to deal with cloud cover. Then there are the storms, which will increase maintenance/repair costs, which at the most remote parts of the globe, are going to be high to begin with.
A better bet would be to build in arid regions where the climate favors more cloud-free days, such as the Sahara. Statistically I'd expect you'd get a much higher total annual solar flux than at the poles, and you could construct and run it more cheaply.
Let's not forget the NIMBY phenomenon. The late Ted Kennedy was all about wind farms as alternative power, except he didn't want them in his own backyard.
-
I think the situation with nuclear is similar to the irrational fear of flying - - statistically, aircraft travel is much dagger. Of the accidents, however, they are catastrophic and much more likely to be fatal if you are involved in one. The overall safety of both nuclear power and aircraft travel is higher, but people freak out because, when things do manage to go wrong, they go very wrong. So, regardless of the actual safety, let's go with the less safe option because it's scary (media rather does not help this at all).
The thing is, though, with modern reactor designs, "very wrong" can't really happen outside of the most extreme circumstances. Even Fukushima, the absolute worst case in recent times, running a relatively-outdated reactor, managed to survive a massive earthquake with the safety systems functioning properly...it was only the almost-unprecedented tsunami, coupled with the asinine placement of the diesel backup generators, that did it in. The sheer amount of FUD surrounding nuclear power is just absurd.
-
Solar power alone is indeed not a feasible solution in and of itself, especially after considering next decade or so of energy market outlooks versus what is required to have designated climate targets remain viable. My post in reply to Wobble is pointing out that, given options of building solar power farms, you're better off not trying to build them in polar regions.
The path to sustainable, climate-wise energy is multi-faceted, with improved methods of energy consumption being as important as alternative methods of energy production. And the more time that passes with 'business as usual', the more dramatic and challenging the solutions will need to be if established climate targets are to remain viable, eventually reaching a point where we would require negative emissions -- i.e. some combination of reduced emissions and carbon capture techniques.
Added:
Personally I would be happy to see nuclear power take a more leading role. It has a smaller carbon footprint and higher safety by the watt-hour produced. But it is also only a temporary solution (though much less so than fossil fuel) and has its own unique share of problems, such as waste management.
Again, there's no single best solution to climate and energy issues. It is a problem just about as complicated as the climate itself.
-
Heck, even phasing out coal in favor of gas would help a great deal (althoug, obviously, you then only delay the problem instead of solving it).
-
I think the situation with nuclear is similar to the irrational fear of flying - - statistically, aircraft travel is much dagger. Of the accidents, however, they are catastrophic and much more likely to be fatal if you are involved in one. The overall safety of both nuclear power and aircraft travel is higher, but people freak out because, when things do manage to go wrong, they go very wrong. So, regardless of the actual safety, let's go with the less safe option because it's scary (media rather does not help this at all).
The thing is, though, with modern reactor designs, "very wrong" can't really happen outside of the most extreme circumstances. Even Fukushima, the absolute worst case in recent times, running a relatively-outdated reactor, managed to survive a massive earthquake with the safety systems functioning properly...it was only the almost-unprecedented tsunami, coupled with the asinine placement of the diesel backup generators, that did it in. The sheer amount of FUD surrounding nuclear power is just absurd.
Reactors based on thorium rather than uranium would be safer & cost less to build. Thorium reaction is "self-regulating" & doesn't have to rely on a control medium to prevent a critical mass event. Rather, it requires controlled removal of its fission byproducts to maintain a steady state reaction/output.
-
But it is also only a temporary solution (though much less so than fossil fuel) and has its own unique share of problems, such as waste management.
I think that by the time nuclear becomes a real problem, we'd long have fusion plants, which literally have none of the problems of other plants save one: they're bloody expensive to develop, build and maintain. Safe (it's hard enough to keep fusion running, any deviation shuts the whole thing down) no emissions save helium (a very good thing, since we're running out of that), relatively cheap and common fuel (if you have water, you have deuterium. Lithium is cheap as well) and incredible output to boot. The only problem is, it's highly experimental and even after we actually build a fusion plant providing power to the grid, they're gonna have quite a price tag attached. There are some issues with neutron activation of reactor components, but the results aren't gonna be radioactive for long (or at least, not as long as nuclear waste).
-
I think that by the time nuclear becomes a real problem, we'd long have fusion plants,
Not so sure about that. By the time fusion reactors get cheap and common enough, there's gotta be a rather enormous amount of radioactive wastes to dispose of and old powerplants to dismantle. As far as I know, neither of these problems are efficiently solved right now, and aren't likely to be for quite a while.
-
I think that by the time nuclear becomes a real problem, we'd long have fusion plants,
Not so sure about that. By the time fusion reactors get cheap and common enough, there's gotta be a rather enormous amount of radioactive wastes to dispose of and old powerplants to dismantle. As far as I know, neither of these problems are efficiently solved right now, and aren't likely to be for quite a while.
There was supposedly a waste processing plant being built at the Hanford, WA facility that would employ vitrification process to bind the waste material to glass-forming compounds to effectively convert it to a solid medium. Still radioactive & requires millennia to decay, but far better for it to be in a solid, rather than liquid state.
-
1) Find an aerosol which can scrub CO2 from the athmosphere
This is the basic problem with your solution. Why do you think CO2 is so common? That's because it, very, very chemically stable. The bonds are among the strongest out there. Breaking up CO2 exothermically (because for an endothermic reaction, you need to deliver energy, which is hard to do in your scenario) requires finding a chemical that forms a stronger bond with either carbon or oxygen. And I'll tell you, there aren't many of those. Such a chemical would be incredibly reactive, which translates to also being incredibly nasty in both handling and storage. And it would definitely be far from something you'd want to spread in the upper atmosphere. We're talking stuff like elemental fluorine or other such hellish oxidizer (likely fluorine-based, too, since it's about the only thing stronger than oxygen). Unless you literally want to set the atmosphere on fire, I'd stay away from this idea. And no, if you think we could substitute carbon, we can't. Carbon is the lightest element in it's group, and also very reactive. I don't think there's any way of removing it from CO2 save thermally breaking down the compound (I don't know how hot you need to get to get CO2 to decompose, but something tells me it's around the point the whole thing turns into plasma anyway).
Chemical CO2 scrubbers exist, but they're either just trapping CO2, emergency devices using some incredibly nasty chemicals, or consuming a lot of energy in order to "force" a normally impossible reaction to take place (Sabatier reaction and photosynthesis are good examples of the latter).
-
Added:
Personally I would be happy to see nuclear power take a more leading role. It has a smaller carbon footprint and higher safety by the watt-hour produced. But it is also only a temporary solution (though much less so than fossil fuel) and has its own unique share of problems, such as waste management.
Using breeder reactors it is not temporary. Then it makes sense to extract uranium from seawater and thorium from very low grade ores. According to some sources there is enough such fissionables to last beyond the lifetime of the Sun, which would make nuclear more sustainable than renewables. Breeders also go a long way towards solving the waste issue because they produce much less of it (and their waste is radioactive for much shorter time) per energy produced and also burn existing waste stockpiles.
-
As a french citizen, I used to think nuclear power was a clean energy source (75% of our electric energy consumption), because it emits no carbon dioxide. At least that's what the media say. And carbon emission records are actually pretty low compared to other same size economies.
Then, Fukushima catastrophe happened (in which AREVA was involved), and things started to change.
You may want to read what working conditions actually are in this industry, and I guess it's the same in the US or Japan :
http://pastebin.com/gBC3X5VQ (translated with Bing, this is taken from the biggest mainstream newspaper, not exactly known for being anti-nuclear energy)
How is uranium mined, and what it means to local people in Africa :
http://www.facing-finance.org/database/cases/areva-controversial-uranium-mining-operations/ (this is from a NGO, but their sources are non partisan)
Also, it is a huge bet on our future political stability : in the event of a war or massive public unrest, power plants are critical sites.
Maybe (yeah, maybe...) this is suited for some western countries, but I don't see it as a global solution.
Same applies for environmental hazard safety.
My point is that conventional (uranium fission) nuclear energy can never be a solution, because no society (no matter how advanced), no company (public or private owned), can handle it the way it should.
Catastrophes are only a few (Three Miles Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima), but smaller incidents also matter (individual radiation poisoning, minor radioactive exhaust...).
+
Thorium powered molten salt reactors are a great idea, but it wouldn't fix small scale incidents rates. With a lot more smaller reactors, it could actually make things worse.
And no country would want to use it because you can't use them to build bombs.
-
As a french citizen, I used to think nuclear power was a clean energy source (75% of our electric energy consumption), because it emits no carbon dioxide. At least that's what the media say. And carbon emission records are actually pretty low compared to other same size economies.
Then, Fukushima catastrophe happened (in which AREVA was involved), and things started to change.
You may want to read what working conditions actually are in this industry, and I guess it's the same in the US or Japan :
http://pastebin.com/gBC3X5VQ (translated with Bing, this is taken from the biggest mainstream newspaper, not exactly known for being anti-nuclear energy)
How is uranium mined, and what it means to local people in Africa :
http://www.facing-finance.org/database/cases/areva-controversial-uranium-mining-operations/ (this is from a NGO, but their sources are non partisan)
Also, it is a huge bet on our future political stability : in the event of a war or massive public unrest, power plants are critical sites.
Maybe (yeah, maybe...) this is suited for some western countries, but I don't see it as a global solution.
Same applies for environmental hazard safety.
My point is that conventional (uranium fission) nuclear energy can never be a solution, because no society (no matter how advanced), no company (public or private owned), can handle it the way it should.
Catastrophes are only a few (Three Miles Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima), but smaller incidents also matter (individual radiation poisoning, minor radioactive exhaust...).
+
Thorium powered molten salt reactors are a great idea, but it wouldn't fix small scale incidents rates. With a lot more smaller reactors, it could actually make things worse.
And no country would want to use it because you can't use them to build bombs.
I dont think small irradiation incidents matter. They will always happen but they are statistically quite insignificant. I dare to say that a lot more people would die falling off of solar panels and wind turbines than those small incidents combined.
Three Mile Island was no nuclear catastrophe, it was only a minor radiation release.
Fukushima is also hardly a catastrophe, credible estimates on the number of victims are somewhere between zero and few hundred. It was not even an economic catastrophe because while it will cost many $ tens of billions to clean up, Fukushima created something like $ half a trillion worth of electricity during its lifetime. It is a testament to the efficiency of nuclear that even a plant in uncontrolled meltdown borderline makes economical sense, lol.
Uranium mining can be dirty business, but dont forget that uranium is very energy dense so we dont need that much while it takes a lot of mining to fuel the coal and renewable industry, too. I doubt those mining operations are any more environmentally conscious in third world nations..
-
Uranium mining can be dirty business, but dont forget that uranium is very energy dense so we dont need that much while it takes a lot of mining to fuel the coal and renewable industry, too. I doubt those mining operations are any more environmentally conscious in third world nations..
This is actually one of the most valid arguments against nuclear power I've seen brought up. It's not talked about it much, but Uranium mining is indeed a dirty business. But then, so's coal and oil mining, especially in 3rd world. You see all those pretty buildings in Abu Dhabi and Dubai? Well, more people died to get the Sheiks money for this than were ever killed by nuclear accidents. Nobody even counts the incidents in 3rd world coal mines. And even in the "first world", it's sometimes very bad. Coal mining in Poland is an example. Methane readings are often fudged, miners are overworked and safety inspectors are bribed. The result is, once in a while, a methane explosion that makes the news and is a national tragedy. It blows over and then it's back to normal, at least until another explosion...
This is another argument towards developing fusion, IMO. Getting hydrogen does not require working poorly paid miners to death, and lithium is needed is such quantities that it's consumption shouldn't rise by much.
-
I remember somewhere seeing a case study on the mortality rates associated with the various types of energy production, and nuclear was by far at the bottom of the list. I mean, even solar power is more dangerous, believe it or not.
-
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
It is indeed.