Climate Policy

[Zenda]

So you keep saying, and yet do little proving.

Well, it depends on how much you understood from it, ofcourse.

You can relax now, though, because Pete has revealed The Truth About Solar Generation Of Electricity, and he has made it clear that he will never choose my side, regardless the amount of nonsense you use for arguments. Not many people will have the guts to question your 'debunking' now, I suspect.

Odd, this is not quite the situation I envisioned, when some people told me this forum was self-regulating, and had zero tolerance for false facts <_<

[Concillian]

If they were really that good a deal, I don't think they would have to be wrapped in that much tinsel.

--Pete

The reason people don't want to adopt solar is the same reason that people prefer using land for biodeisel istead of solar farms.

The upstart capital is the primary expense, and people don't like to (or aren't capable of) spending all their money upfront.

To install solar on your roof or solar in a field is almost entirely up-front cost. The maintenance of such a system is minimal. If there are batteries involved, there is some maintenance there, but otherwise, they just sit there working for 20+ years.

Compare that to biodiesel and you have relatively low start up with land, a few tractors and some seeds. But then you need a constant supply of water, harvesting every year, processing, etc... the cost is separated out into manageable chunks, this is the way business prefers to operate.

If you consider house solar systems, then there is significant intertia because most people don't want to feel locked into their house for 20 years. The economics mean it makes sense now where I live, but a nearly $20k upfront cost (even with incentives) is tough to swallow.

[--Pete]

Hi,

If you consider house solar systems, then there is significant intertia because most people don't want to feel locked into their house for 20 years.

This I don't understand. Just like central air, or on demand hot water, if solar power is a plus, then it increases the value of the home. So, it doesn't lock the original owners in, it simply increases the value (or price). So do granite counters and wood floors and people install them all the time.

As to the rest of your argument, maybe so, maybe no. However, without the incentives and rebates, solar looks pretty poor for my area.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Odd, this is not quite the situation I envisioned, when some people told me this forum was self-regulating, and had zero tolerance for false facts <_<

It's a village, and we make allowances for the village idiot -- even if he *is* a troll.

--Pete

[Zenda]

A rather interesting view on the recent G8 decisions: G8 emissions pledge is 'scientifically illiterate' :whistling:

[kandrathe]

You can relax now, though, because Pete has revealed The Truth About Solar Generation Of Electricity, and he has made it clear that he will never choose my side, regardless the amount of nonsense you use for arguments. Not many people will have the guts to question your 'debunking' now, I suspect.

It's not just Pete. Here is a wiki article on photovoltaics. Check the section on disadvantages. Volume of land required, expensive, long pay back period, components wear out, need a storage system(or grid connect) for when power is absent. I actually believe the current concentrator technology will reduce the price of solar below that of grid power, but only in areas where there are many days of good sunshine.

Odd, this is not quite the situation I envisioned, when some people told me this forum was self-regulating, and had zero tolerance for false facts

Which false facts were those? Let's go slow;

1. Energy from the Sun reaches the Earth at a rate of 1,368 W/m2 (watts per square meter). This energy per unit area is called flux. How many MW/km2 (megawatts per square kilometer) is this? The correct answer is 1,368 MW/km2<>
   
2. We will work in W/m2. About 22% of the flux (1,368 W/m2) is absorbed or reflected by the Earth's atmosphere before it reaches the ground (even ignoring clouds). How much power per square meter is left? The correct answer is 1,067 W/m2 <>
   
3. Using the incident flux of 1,067 W/m2 (from Question 2) and the given angles for theta, find the flux available at these a location 26° from the equator (South Texas), 41° from the equator (northern U.S.), 65° from below the Sun (northern U.S. in winter). Answer: South Texas: 959 W/m2, northern U.S.: 805 W/m2, northern U.S. (winter): 451 W/m2<>
   
4. A collector sitting on the Earth's surface as the Earth rotates once in 24 hours (relative to the Sun). The total distance traveled by the collector is the circumference of the circular path, but the cross section of sunlight actually intercepted corresponds to the diameter of the circular path. Therefore, by dividing the above answers by pi (3.14159265...), the results will (approximately) be the average power available over a 24-hour period. One more consideration: the above approximation does not take into account the shorter days during winter (it also would not cover longer days during summer). The result for the northern U.S. in the winter, after dividing by pi, must be multiplied by 0.8 to account for the shorter winter daylight period. Answer: South Texas: 305 W/m2, northern U.S.: 256 W/m2, northern U.S. (winter): 115 W/m2 (remember this is at 100% flux efficiency, so really only about 20% of this power can be captured.)<>
   
5. Using the value of 20% for panel efficiency, find the average power that can be harnessed for each location from above. How do your answers compare to the 1,368 W/m2 you started with? What additional factor have we ignored? Answer: South Texas: 61 W/m2, northern U.S.: 51.2 W/m2, northern U.S. (winter): 23 W/m2. The percentage of usable power is from 4.45% to 1.68%. The factor we ignored is weather.<>
   
6. The usual formula for figuring peak watts needed is to take Watt Hour per Day divided by 4. Let's not focus on the decadent Americans for this question. We'll look at the typical UK home, and assume the Americans will learn to live as frugally as the Brits. Digging around the net, I found 3300 kWh/year was a common number for the UK, or about 9041 Wh / day divided by four gives 2260 Watts. So, now using 23 W/m2 (assuming the flux value is about the same in the UK) for flux to find how much collecting area is needed for a typical UK household. Btw, average US household power needs are about 3000 W. Note also that most home are duel power, with 38% electricity and 62% fossil fuels for heat & hot water (either NG or fuel oil). We are effectively assuming we can store the energy with perfect efficiency in a battery, which is not feasible, and over long periods of time, which is not currently practical. Do you think power demands are high when available sunlight is at its most, or its least?) Answer: 2260 W / ( 23 W/m2) = 98.26 m2<>
   
7. How much solar power collecting area would be required to replace all fossil fuel electrical power supplied in the United Kingdom (the UK has 74,000,000,000 W of electricity generation capacity, of which 5% is already renewable, so use 66,600,000,000 W)? Answer: 66,600,000,000 W / 23 W/m2 = 28956521734 m2 or 11,180.1755 sq. miles (UK has 94,526 sq mi. or about 11.83% of their land area.)<>
   [st]Here are the facts; Solar is currently a very dilute source of power, which is expensive to collect, and still requires a power grid for shoring up during low generation periods. Greater efficiencies in concentrated collectors will help to make it more feasible for places like California, Australia, Egypt and Arizona. It's just not going to work very well in the places where many people live that really need more power.

[kandrathe]

circumstantial evidence is reason to be skeptical.

However, when that circumstantial evidence is backed up by a strong scientific explanation which doesn't have to be "bent" in any way to explain that the circumstantial evidence makes sense, the circumstantial evidence moves to extremely compelling.

When the alternative explanation is maybe something in nature changed, so now the scientific theory, which fits pretty much perfectly, is not valid and what we really have is some cosmically improbable coincidence of events to make it look scientifically valid, well then the scientific explanation becomes virtually iron clad. Look at the supporting evidence. For a government to discard all that and bank on all of that being some massive coincidence is irresponsible to the people they are governing.

There is a time to be skeptical, but when the option is strong circumstantial evidence vs. some low probability random chance, my skepticism lies with the low probability random chance. I think you'll find a very small group of informed supporters are on that side of the fence with a larger group of under-informed supporters.

How well does the seemingly linear temperature rise match the long wave solar minimums and maximums? Granted, there are scientists who have presented that the Sun has no effect on warming, and those that believe it does. I happen to side with the ones who believe the sun does in fact warm the Earth, and variations of solar activity have demonstrated a measurable impact on weather, and climate. A question to ask yourself. Where does the heat come from if not from the sun? Might it be possible that solar maximums also have an impact on cloud formation? If so, could that play a role in contributing to raising temperature via greenhouse effect? I think it might. But, these are very complex phenomena. When you read these scientists papers though, I feel there is great fear in challenging the "political consensus on climate change". I'm not used to science being described as "iron clad". Back in the day, scientists thought Newton had pretty much figured out that gravity thing. What government should do is figure out how to serve the people, rather than endorsing scientific viewpoints. So, what does that mean? I think it means we hedge our bets. We acknowledge that there is a strong possibility that human activity may irreparably damage the climate (and in fact it might be too late). We should therefore devise a direct action plan to convert our fossil fuel burning mechanisms toward renewable sources as quickly as is economically feasible. I think the government should start with the largest or oldest generating plants first, and work with their owners to fully rebuild them as renewable generation with the first conversions occurring in five years and the rest as quickly as is economically feasible after that.

Carbon credits is not a direct action plan, and will only result in carbon offset fraud. Meaning, people will pay more for energy because huge producers will need to buy credits, and due to the dearth of green projects, billions will be spent on projects that fail to sequester the carbon they claim. So, let's just do it the direct route, and skip the trading of fictitious nonsense.

I believe some people are jumping to conclusions about things that are difficult to model, and even more difficult to prove. I am an advocate for moving away from fossil fuels, but just not an advocate for running around all crazy because there is 100ppm more CO2 in the air over the past few hundred years. So, I say, "Let's get together and form a win-win plan for everyone."

[--Pete]

Hi,

Check the section on disadvantages. Volume of land required, expensive, long pay back period, components wear out, need a storage system(or grid connect) for when power is absent.

Something that has been absent from both sides: the need for some kind of inverter. Our power system is based on AC (50 or 60 Hz, depending on where you live). There is almost nothing we can use DC for directly. Light, yes, but only incandescent. Florescent ballasts need AC. The step up transformers for arc, mercury vapor, etc. need AC. Heating? OK for resistance heating. Would need to replace the AC motors in any type of forced air or heat pump system. And the 24V for the control system would need to come from somewhere. Even your door bell would need some kind of voltage divider. Computers? Cell phone chargers? Anything using a power brick? Same thing. AC is easy to step up/down to the required voltage. AC is trivial to rectify (one diode if you don't need it too clean).

So, we either need a lot of little inverters or one big one (probably a DC motor / AC generator). Another point of expense, failure, and need for maintenance.

--Pete

[Jester]

How well does the seemingly linear temperature rise match the long wave solar minimums and maximums? Granted, there are scientists who have presented that the Sun has no effect on warming, and those that believe it does. I happen to side with the ones who believe the sun does in fact warm the Earth, and variations of solar activity have demonstrated a measurable impact on weather, and climate.

Can you name me a single climate scientist whose position is that solar variation has zero effect on climate? I think you're arguing with a strawman here. The question is "what's driving current warming", and if your answer is "predominantly, solar variation", then you're facing a rather long and uphill battle against current opinion, including ones you just linked to:

The role of the sun in the Earth’s climatic variations “is not inconsiderable,” but Vázquez pointed out that over the last 40 years solar activity has not increased, and has in fact remained constant or even diminished, which is why it is difficult to attribute a significant global warming effect to it, “the cause of which needs to be looked for in human activities.”

Sounds like sense to me, and it fits the data.

A question to ask yourself. Where does the heat come from if not from the sun? Might it be possible that solar maximums also have an impact on cloud formation? If so, could that play a role in contributing to raising temperature via greenhouse effect? I think it might.

So do climate scientists. But they haven't found evidence that it has anywhere near the effect of CO2 as a forcing, as opposed to a feedback. Using the sun to explain it fails in the same way as your article pointed out earlier: why is the earth warming dramatically in the last 30 years, when solar activity has been decreasing? Why would cloud cover increase dramatically under those circumstances, especially if water vapor content is determined largely by temperature?

I'm not used to science being described as "iron clad".

Really? In most fields, the core concepts are so well-established that it goes without saying that they are presumed correct. A theory which overturned our basic ideas about some fundamental piece of settled science, like general relativity, would be revolutionary. "Iron clad" does not mean utterly impervious in all senses, but it certainly does mean it's very, very secure.

Back in the day, scientists thought Newton had pretty much figured out that gravity thing

They were correct. Newton's basic approximations of gravity are more or less perfect for any terrestrial application, and pretty darn good even for most astronomical observations. When the theory was replaced, it wasn't because someone got uncomfortable with Newtonian politics. It was replaced because Einstein's theories explained the data better. Where's the equivalent theory that's supposed to overturn existing climate science? AFAIK, there isn't one.

What government should do is figure out how to serve the people, rather than endorsing scientific viewpoints. So, what does that mean? I think it means we hedge our bets. We acknowledge that there is a strong possibility that human activity may irreparably damage the climate (and in fact it might be too late). We should therefore devise a direct action plan to convert our fossil fuel burning mechanisms toward renewable sources as quickly as is economically feasible. I think the government should start with the largest or oldest generating plants first, and work with their owners to fully rebuild them as renewable generation with the first conversions occurring in five years and the rest as quickly as is economically feasible after that.

Hey, that sounds great. I'm in.

Carbon credits is not a direct action plan, and will only result in carbon offset fraud. Meaning, people will pay more for energy because huge producers will need to buy credits, and due to the dearth of green projects, billions will be spent on projects that fail to sequester the carbon they claim. So, let's just do it the direct route, and skip the trading of fictitious nonsense.

It isn't fictitious nonsense. It may be difficult to verify the precise savings of CO2 emissions from carbon offset projects, but it's not like the entire scheme does nothing. Regulation can help monitor the effectiveness of various projects. I would agree with the need to move towards a better system of carbon monitoring, but I think offsets are going to be a helpful part of any plan going forward. Just because the system is second-best, doesn't mean it isn't useful.

I believe some people are jumping to conclusions about things that are difficult to model, and even more difficult to prove. I am an advocate for moving away from fossil fuels, but just not an advocate for running around all crazy because there is 100ppm more CO2 in the air over the past few hundred years. So, I say, "Let's get together and form a win-win plan for everyone."

TANSTAAFL. If you want to seriously alter behaviour, you have to pay for it. There isn't a painless route to mitigating climate change. Obviously, we should pick the less painful methods, but this isn't going to happen easily.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Good post, except for this point:

Where's the equivalent theory that's supposed to overturn existing climate science? AFAIK, there isn't one.

I'll tell you where it is. It's where relativity was before 1905. Standard joke when writing proposals: list all unexpected breakthroughs and how they'll impact the schedule.

--Pete

[Jester]

I'll tell you where it is. It's where relativity was before 1905. Standard joke when writing proposals: list all unexpected breakthroughs and how they'll impact the schedule.

The future isn't predictable in that way, true. But we would have been foolish physicists indeed to discard Newton before Einstein, on the assumption that surely there must be some better future theory. It's only when the new theory exists, and proves to be better than the previous one, that we can shift our understanding to it. Trying to pre-empt the system, rejecting current explanations without any particularily promising replacement theory, seems to be a poor way to understand science, especially for the layman.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

The future isn't predictable in that way, true. But we would have been foolish physicists indeed to discard Newton before Einstein, on the assumption that surely there must be some better future theory. It's only when the new theory exists, and proves to be better than the previous one, that we can shift our understanding to it. Trying to pre-empt the system, rejecting current explanations without any particularily promising replacement theory, seems to be a poor way to understand science, especially for the layman.

Oh, yeah. But I was just pointing out the unfairness of your request.;)

BTW -- all scientific theories are wrong: the map is not the terrain.

--Pete

[Concillian]

How well does the seemingly linear temperature rise match the long wave solar minimums and maximums?

[snipped a bunch of argument that was not worthwhile because the respondant hasn't followed what I've been saying]

The only time I mentioned temperature has been to say that the CO2 data is so strongly supportive that the industrial revolution caused the CO2 increase that it is very unlikely that temperature came "first" in your "which came first" question.

I have purposefully decoupled temperature for now, because temperature, as you noted, has much less supporting evidence for any claim and there is no solid model. Rather than focus on what we don't know, I've been trying to focus on what we do know, namely that there is strong indication that humans were responsible of most or all of the recent CO2 increase, not your initial claim that humans are responsible for a mere few percent of the CO2 PPM increase. I believe I have given rather adequate data to support that claim.

My method to argumentation is to take baby steps. I thought this was a baby step, because the data on CO2 is quite compelling. But if people are too involved to be able to step back and look at things in small chunks, then we've all wasted quite a bit of time.

It sounds like overall you are in agreement with how I feel overall. Namely that we know we've been responsible for the CO2 gain, so lets work on reducing that. In the meantime, more research will be ongoing and may bring about stronger trends on what's causing the temperature increase, but until then, we can try to do what we can, while we can.

[kandrathe]

It sounds like overall you are in agreement with how I feel overall. Namely that we know we've been responsible for the CO2 gain, so lets work on reducing that. In the meantime, more research will be ongoing and may bring about stronger trends on what's causing the temperature increase, but until then, we can try to do what we can, while we can.

Humans are responsible for currently about 7Mtons of CO2 release per year, and nature is gracious enough to sequester half of it. I can't just decouple CO2, or clouds, or temperature, since the topic is global warming. The interactions are many and complex involving the sun (ionization, radiation, UV) which effect the ozone layer, the troposphere, and cloud formation as well as contributing the primary source for our warmth. Human contributions of particulates, GHG's also perturb the natural balances. We really don't know how human impact affects the balance, and to what level nature will accommodate or break.

So, I agree it is wrong to mess around with mother nature and perform a science experiment with our future. My suggestion is that we deal with it directly (e.g. "We choose to go to the moon."), rather than manipulate prices and disturb financial markets to "incent" people to do the right thing.

I see at least three primary goals; 1) convert electricity generating plants to renewal energy, 2) convert vehicles to use renewable energy, 3) convert homes to renewable energy for heat and hot water. This should be the primary goal of the US Department of Energy, and rather than give a trillion dollars to "shovel ready projects", it would have gone along way toward moving the US off of fossil fuels and invested in infrastructure for our future.

[Jester]

So, I agree it is wrong to mess around with mother nature and perform a science experiment with our future. My suggestion is that we deal with it directly (e.g. "We choose to go to the moon."), rather than manipulate prices and disturb financial markets to "incent" people to do the right thing.

It seems rather bizarre that I'm advocating the economists' solution, to set up an incentive structure that reflects externalities, and then let the market do its work, whereas you're advocating the statist solution of having a gigantic government program to make direct decisions about energy production for the whole economy.

Maybe it's Freaky Friday?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

It seems rather bizarre that I'm advocating the economists' solution, to set up an incentive structure that reflects externalities, and then let the market do its work, whereas you're advocating the statist solution of having a gigantic government program to make direct decisions about energy production for the whole economy.

Maybe it's Freaky Friday?

:lol:

I would advocate a State approach that attempts to preserve the investment of the owner. For example, a power company really doesn't care what fuel it burns or how the power is generated. They care about the input costs, and maintenance costs, and the capital needed to convert from one source to another. Home owners (like me) would freely migrate (from Electric, NG or Fuel Oil) to geothermal, if we could borrow the capital needed with a low interest rate and if the expertise to help perform the conversion were freely available. For vehicles, I would start with heavy investments in research and development of applications oriented research using already proven technologies (e.g. steam, or Stirling engines).

If the proposition is true that we are fatally damaging the climate, then messing around with incentive based solutions that may be subverted for profiteers seems time consuming, and invests energy and capital in too wasteful a manner. The least painful way will be to bite the bullet, and convert off of fossil fuels in the most expeditious manner possible. I see three good reasons to do it; 1) limited supplies (peak oil) with increasing price and market uncertainty, 2) pollution, 3) climate change.

[kandrathe]

This I don't understand. Just like central air, or on demand hot water, if solar power is a plus, then it increases the value of the home. So, it doesn't lock the original owners in, it simply increases the value (or price). So do granite counters and wood floors and people install them all the time.

As to the rest of your argument, maybe so, maybe no. However, without the incentives and rebates, solar looks pretty poor for my area.

It is quite an undertaking to convert from one system type to another. Rather than credits, I think it would be helpful to provide low interest loans (maybe a special class of 2nd mortgage) attached to the home. For northern climates, I think ground installed geothermal heat pumps make the most sense for domestic heating, with electricity generation being done by the best renewable method for that area (nuclear, wind, geothermal steam, solar, tidal, etc.).

Have you heard about WhisperGen?

[Zenda]

Here is a wiki article on photovoltaics. Check the section on disadvantages.

There is a list of advantages too, in case you missed that. But let's look at some of those "disadvantages" more closely.

"A major drawback is the sheer volume of land required to house a solar power generation plant.... At the same time, photovoltaics take up no land at all when installed on existing rooftops or on land not otherwise used, such as decommissioned coal pits or in deserts."

Apparantly, it depends on where you build things. Good thing we have a choice in that.

"Depending on the cost of the installation and local electric rates the payback can be 14–20 years."

That's even better as the 20 years we calculated before. Nice.

"Solar electricity is not available at night and is less available in cloudy weather conditions from conventional silicon based technologies. Therefore, a storage or complementary power system is required. However, the use of germanium in amorphous silicon-germanium thin film solar cells provides residual power generating capacity at night due to background infrared radiation. Fortunately, most power consumption is during the day, so solar does not need to be stored at all as long as it offsets peak and 'shoulder' consumption."

So, it's there when we need it most, but could generate some power even at night. Sounds efficient.

"Limited power density: Average daily insolation (output of a flat plate collector at latitude tilt) in the contiguous US is 3-7 kilowatt·h/m²"

That's interesting. This means we would only need 3 to 1.3 m2 of collector to cover the consumption of 9041 Wh/day that you used in your calculations.

Since we are looking at Wiki now, did you see this page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy

"The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined."

Note this is the energy that reaches the surface, after half of the total is already absorbed by atmosphere and clouds.

Let's go slow

Is that the site where you also get your arguments regarding human caused global warming? :lol:

But I don't have to worry where you get your support from. As someone on another forum remarked: "Nature doesn't care about consensus". Apart from that, there is also the bad mathematics. Take this for example:

9041 Wh / day divided by four gives 2260 Watts

9041 Wh/day = 9041*60*60 Joule/day = 9041*60*60/24*60*60 Watt. If we divide that by 4, we get 9041/(24*4) = 94.2 Watt. Looking at your (wrong) number of 23 W/m2 for northern U.S. (winter), it would seem we need less then 4 m2 even there:)

[--Pete]

Hi,

Rather than credits, I think it would be helpful to provide low interest loans (maybe a special class of 2nd mortgage) attached to the home.

That's a good idea, but who would make the loan? The government? Not their job (I think we agree on that). Banks? They owe their investors the maximum ROR they can get -- so why should they make low interest loans? The utility companies? That might be the right way to go. The more co-generation they can get going, the less they have to invest in expanding their capacity. Many utilities already have incentives, though I don't know of any that give loans for co-generation. However, a number of them did (maybe still do) grant loans for things like insulation, etc.

For northern climates, I think ground installed geothermal heat pumps make the most sense for domestic heating, . . .

They make the most sense anywhere except maybe in temperate climates near bodies of water where the external exchange could be hydro based. Since a pump sized for the maximum load would be overkill (and use too much energy on the average), the addition of a dual fuel supplemental heating system also makes much sense. The payback on such a system is, often, about equal to the life span of the system. It also makes more sense to put it in as original equipment rather than as a retrofit. Part of the problem, of course, is that it adds a lot to the initial cost, making a poor choice for low income housing. And that is a shame, because it is precisely the people who need low income housing who need the reduced costs of a well designed heating system. Unfortunately, the economics of the situation are pretty much pay me now or pay me latter (or sometimes both).

. . . with electricity generation being done by the best renewable method for that area (nuclear, wind, geothermal steam, solar, tidal, etc.).

Actually, even non-renewable sources can be suitable for the interim. Again, a balance is needed. Neither the fanaticism of the Greens nor the greed of the petro-industry should be our guiding principle.

BTW, why do people include nuclear with renewable? Clean, yes. Eco-friendly, yes. Uses a fuel with no better uses? Yes. But renewable? Not unless you have a super-nova handy.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

If you pump 20 times the CO2 concentration in air, it will stay there untill it gets absorbed by the sea and 'eaten' by plants. This has two results, more plants (iof we don't destroy them again) and a more acidic sea.

Well, unless there is another feedback system within the ocean which increases with carbonic acid (e.g. carbonic anhydrases in plants and algae), which I suspect would quickly convert into calcium carbonate, or some other solid carbonate compound useful for marine organisms. Measurable ocean Ph is rising, which means either the biological control (such as intense photosynthesis in the euphotic zone) lags the increase by some amount, or one sufficient large does not exist. Hopefully the mechanism for balancing ocean Ph will eventually balance the equation, since the planet has adapted to high CO2 levels before.

One of the problems in understanding the global carbon cycle is that you need doctoral degrees in astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, oceanography, meteorology and maybe a few other sciences. And, I find in the debate on climate change, everyone is partial to their own field of study, whilst ignoring or discounting the other fields of study.