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  1068  1069  1070  1071  1072  1073  1074  1075  1076  1077  1078  1079  1080  1081  1082  1083  Next

Comments 53751 to 53800:

  1. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Eric: as per the moderator's comment, I have posted a reply over in the models thread.
  2. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Eric: as per the moderator's comment over there, I have posted a reply over in the models thread.
  3. Models are unreliable
    Moving the discussion of models from posts by Eric here and here. I had asked here "What kind of model could be used to support a claim of "significant contributing factor", but would not also have an estimate of sensitivity built into it?" [For context, since we're jumping threads, we're talking about humans being a significant factor in recent warming, but Eric is questioning predictions of the future, in particular the idea that the sensitivity of doubling CO2 is most likely in the 3C range.] Eric has made the comment "Using a model without sensitivity built in: the rise in CO2 is 6% per decade so the rise in forcing from CO2 per decade is 5.35 * ln (1.06) which without any feedback (lambda is 0.28 K/W/m2) means 0.087C per decade rise due to CO2." (Look at the first link above to see the complete comment.) Can't you realize you've just assumed your conclusion? You've made the erroneous assumption that the model you present (rate of temperature increase dependent on rate of CO2 increase) does not have a built-in sensitivity. Any model that creates a T(t)=f(CO2(t)) relationship (t being time) also has a "built-in" relationship between temperature and CO2 levels at different equilibrium values that will, by necessity, imply a particular "sensitivity". As far as I can see, your answer is a tautology. You've "demonstrated" a transient model that doesn't provide a sensitivity value by simply saying that your transient model doesn't provide a sensitivity value. This falls into the "the isn't even wrong" class. I'm not sure, but perhaps your second comment (second link above) is admitting this error, where you say "I should point out here that using the same simple (no model) equations I get 2.4C per doubling of CO2. I'm sure someone else will point this out, but fast feedback in my post above disproves my claim of low sensitivity that I made on the other thread." The issue in this sentence is the failure to realize that your "no model equation" is indeed a model. I really, fundamentally, think that you do not understand what a "climate model" is, how they are used to examine transient or equilibrium climate conditions, or how a "sensitivity" is determined. To reiterate what other have said: you seem to have a psychological block that "models are bad", and even though you follow much of the science (and agree with it), at the end you stick up the "model boogie man" and declare it all invalid.
  4. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    Wyoming at #40. I would beg to differ... ...but I simply can't. I've thrown my own thoughts into the mix previously, with respect to the numbers not adding up. And they don't - not now, and they won't in the future in the context of a tolerable landing. Indeed the point you make about future discounting is an under-acknowleged one, as is the concommittant belief in the fairytale of magical future technology that will somehow render such discounting justifiable, even after we've trashed to within an ångström of the limit of its viability the biosphere as we know and need it. The simple fact is that the state of the economies around the globe reflect the fact that we're headbutting the limits about which Malthus wrote. The ever-increasing frictions over resources such as water, and remaining fish stocks (even in Australia, now), and little fossil-fuel-foundationed islands wedged between different nations... they are Malthus' ghost knocking on the door. The political tensions, the increasing migrations, the inexorable loss of biodiversity... they are the laws of thermodynamics standing right behind Reverend Thomas' shade. We've already passed our oboli to Charon, and he's poling over the Styx now to complete his task. Perhaps if we'd been more inclined to the (apocryphal?) Spartan employment of oboloi we'd be in a rather healthier state of affairs. This really is a matter of choices that we've now made, and that we've not made. As I said above the answer's not in a magical, imminent technology, and it's not in a future period more ammenable to lumbering political and economic negotiations. The answer was yesterday, and it could have been realised with the technologies available and the decisions to live by a different model of economy. We simply did not make the right decisions. We can no longer avoid the collision with reality. All that we can do is to minimise the damage, and so far we've shown little inclination to even elect to do that. There are words for that type of behaviour, and they're not very pleasant words.
  5. The Climate Show #28: transglobal overground (with added ice)
    Welcome back guys, it has been too long.
  6. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Eric, I would also point out that simultaneous to adding CO2 to the atmosphere, we are seeing the sun enter a quiet phase, and we are adding dimming aerosols to the atmosphere (a short lived exercise in "global cooling" that will end when fossil fuel consumption ends, while the CO2 will remain). These two factors represent negative forcings which are holding the rate of warming down to a mere 0.2C per decade. This suggests that when the sun wakes up and the dimming aerosols (pollution) are no longer being added to the atmosphere, actual warming will be even greater than the 2.4C per doubling that you are currently calculating. For more on this look at Huber and Knutti.
  7. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
    Q: How many? A: None! It's arrogant to think that mankind can possibly affect the level of illumination in a room.
  8. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    DB, I will take any model discussion there. I should point out here that using the same simple (no model) equations I get 2.4C per doubling of CO2. I'm sure someone else will point this out, but fast feedback in my post above disproves my claim of low sensitivity that I made on the other thread.
  9. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Bob Loblaw, my answer is to your first question is here
  10. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Bob Loblaw, over here I said I answered "yes" to the question: ""Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"" which I claimed put me in agreement with 97% of climate scientists. My thought in a nutshell was that CO2 is represents the largest forcing change over the 20th century, so "significant contributing factor" makes sense. You asked "What kind of model could be used to support a claim of "significant contributing factor", but would not also have an estimate of sensitivity built into it?" Using a model without sensitivity built in: the rise in CO2 is 6% per decade so the rise in forcing from CO2 per decade is 5.35 * ln (1.06) which without any feedback (lambda is 0.28 K/W/m2) means 0.087C per decade rise due to CO2. The observed rise per decade is 0.2C Now the question boils down to: is 43% of the rise in temperature per decade due to CO2 assuming no feedback a "significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures"? My answer is yes, that is a significant contribution.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Please take the model "hammer" discussion to the "Models are unreliable" nail.
  11. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    Wyoming@40, forgive me in advance (even though you might be my neighbor!): Your words are close to spot-on, and important enough for a wide audience to hear, to get the jump on what I also agree is going to be inevitable, HUGE-scale pain, in order that folks in the 23rd century can have a functioning World. I took the liberty, with apropos attribution, and posted them on my Facebook page. Please feel free to chime in over there: look for "Harry Wiggleson" and I'll friend you.
  12. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    I don't think any of us are any the wiser! Almost heroic hair-splitting and obfuscation, as far as I can see...
  13. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    Dana, In a sense your confusion about the my perception of Carbon Pricing sort of proves my point. Yes it has been in place for 7 years in some locations and it has not made any meaningful difference in the rate of CO2 emissions. In fact nothing has had a meaningful effect on CO2 emissions to date as we are still seeing record emissions almost every year. The road to hell (and high water), so to speak, is paved with good intentions. While a number of the posts above are doing a good job of articulating some of what I was trying to say, let me try again as I am not quite getting my point across. To digress a little, let me say that I am just a lowly electrical engineer by education and this often makes it difficult to communicate with the folks who are doing the climate research (mostly PhD physicists) and those performing an educational/advocacy niche (mostly physicists as well). As an example of what often occurs between folks educated like myself and those like my brother (a physicist from MIT, PhD from Berkeley) is that we talk past each other because one of us approach's problems from the theoretical mathematical perspective and the other from the real world practical what can actually be done perspective. Theory and math tell you what is possible in a perfect situation. The real world or practical approach tells you what can actually be done given the restraints and inefficiencies inherent in implementation. Many folks like myself (especially geezers my age) are very knowledgeable about system implementation issues even on a global scale. At the global implementation level is where you are going to run into insurmountable problems with the slow acting policy wonkish and technical mitigation type solutions. Theoretically possible practically impossible. Let's list just a few of the constraints which will effect trying to implement market style solutions and reductions in CO2 emissions. World population is growing at about 75 million a year. Decreases in total fertility have started to slow in many countries. Economic stress is growing dramatically and there is a strong likely hood of further recessions globally. Further reductions in fertility are dependent on global growth Global growth is the enemy of a sustainable world. Global growth is dependent on increasing availability of 'cheap' energy. Fossil energy production has dramatically decreasing EROEI. Constrained energy supplies are raising the cost of food. AGW is raising the cost of food. Rising population is causing loss of rainforest, wetlands, sea life, etc. A massive build out of alternative energy infrastructure requires massive amounts of fossil fuel. Infrastructure rollovers normally require 30-40 years. Peak Oil (production limitations). Peak strategic minerals of many kinds (production limitations). Politics Religion Ethnic divisiveness. Rich vs Poor. War, disease Human decision making being driven by a massive discount of the future. Climate change data indicates that things are getting worse much faster than anticipated. When people say we need a Manhattan Project type of approach to solving AGW they are 'understating' the scope of the problem. We need to implement a Total War level of commitment on a global scale. Right now. Little efforts like Carbon Pricing will leave us at +6C in the end. On a global scale we need to recognize the immanence of the threat and start the process of completely changing the way we all live. We must dramatically reduce global population, cut rich lifestyles to the bone (especially in places like the US, Australia, Eur), halt completely international tourism, dramatically reduce US style CAFO beef and hog operations, dramatically reduce global vehicle fleets, stop Apple from wasting resources by making I-phone X every six months, etc, etc. There are dozens of items just as essential. This is a global system level problem of nightmarish complexity and scale. It is hard to even conceive of solving it. And it cannot be done at all if we do not start soon. Implementation of the changes required will likely be unpleasant, distasteful, painful, ugly, undemocratic, authroitarior, etc. For many they will mean a dramatic reduction in lifestyle, often shorter life spans, more physical labor, less use of technology and so on. Life is going to be a lot more difficult for the next couple of hundred years than it has been for the last 50. And that is an optimistic statement. People should be scared. We need to scare them into change. If we don't scare them they will just continue BAU (or BAU-Green) until the climate system disintegrates around them. Then they will panic, but it will be too late.
  14. Solar cycles cause global warming
    And for yet another paper on the decoupling of solar and surface temp, see Pasini et al. (2012). That paper finds the departure date at around 1960.
  15. Solar cycles cause global warming
    Falkenherz - Actually, the differing recent behavior of TSI and temperature are a very strong argument for anthropogenic global warming. In the past solar variations (and volcanic aerosols, with an overlay of ENSO) has been one of the biggest drivers of varying climate. That's no longer the case. Since mid-century the rising influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases has been statistically separable from natural drivers. And hence solar cycles do not cause recent global warming. To quote a popular TV show, "...that myth is busted!" Source: "Comparison between global mean surface temperature anomalies (°C) from observations (black) and AOGCM simulations forced with (a) both anthropogenic and natural forcings and (b) natural forcings only..."
  16. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
    If you run from the label “alarmist” you undermine all your arguments for immediate action. You might reply by saying, “I am alarmed and you should be too!” Or “A great many respected climate scientists are alarmed as well.” Or “If you are not alarmed you just have not been paying attention.” Or “Churchill was called an alarmist too” Or “I am alarmed about the disaster we bequeath to our children and grandchildren.” You all have been doing such a fine job with the toon balloons that I’m sure you can do better than I have with rejoinders.
  17. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    Doug@38, you beat me to the rhetorical punch: my 2 cents? It really needs a good name, and not with 'war' involved in it. No "War on Carbon," no "Let's Whip Carbon Now!", but something decent...positive...affirming. Small detail, I know, but marketing is everything. No ideas--yet--but will think on it. I'm thinking along the lines of those who, for years, have wanted a "Department of Peace." (editorial) You do indeed reap what you sow.
  18. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Thanks Eric for that clarification, however, I don't think I am any the wiser. I might just leave it to greater intellects than mine to figure it out...
  19. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Eric @ 139... Going against my instinct to follow DNFTT, I just have to ask: What kind of model could be used to support a claim of "significant contributing factor", but would not also have an estimate of sensitivity built into it? The first part implies that the model can help with estimating what the contribution has been to date. If the model can quantify that warming, then how on earth will it not also have some indication of what the "sensitivity" is?
  20. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    Seconding noble_serf, Gingerbaker's general thoughts on priorities. The situation is remindful of the supposed "wars" fought in Afghanistan and Iraq; we think we can continue tapping and swiping our various diversions in near total preoccupation, while somehow achieving success in another matter that is killing people and deserves and needs our concerted attention. Trouble is, how to achieve a "war effort" that does not involve the usual mobilization of mob mentality, ugly crushing of dissent etc.?
  21. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    Comment #35 is exactly where I was going with my early comment. Hundreds of thousands were employed and entire sectors of the economy were temporarily nationalized during WWII. Bottom up conservation of all resources was encouraged as the fabric of the nation. Capping off the carbon economy is going to take that level of effort and that's just the start.
  22. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    I wonder if most of you recall Brian de Palma's "Untouchables" from a few years ago ... a memorable scene, which probably got Sir Sean Connery his Oscar, was when he was bleeding to death on the floor, asking the strait-laced Elliot Ness "what are you prepared to do?!" I bring this up because I have been thinking about this issue and have come to a few unsettling conclusions ... the most unsettling of all being that what we ought to be doing most of our work on is convincing ourselves, rather than our intractable political opponents, of the real consequences of AGW. While we all profess to believe that AGW is the greatest crisis facing the planet, we really don't act as if it is. Support for a carbon tax, Kyoto, or cap and trade are merely one flower in a bouquet of political positions, all of which we are unwilling to compromise on. How, then, does that make us different than our denier opponents? I have been working, on a personal level, on trying to change the minds of those who refuse to accept the severity of the problem for years, and have made some progress, but not nearly enough. I know there are plenty of other participants on this board in the same boat. Do any of you seriously suggest that a campaign that consists strictly of persuasion will work in time? I think it is time to consider that getting carbon emissions under control is really the only rose in the bouquet, and that everything else, however cherished, is baby's breath. Our opponents are made up of a number of factions, all of whom want something, for their own reasons, as badly as what we do. Isn't it time to consider sawing off the evangelicals by exchanging support for a right-to-life amendment for serious carbon caps, or exchanging support for a balanced budget amendment with the fiscal conservatives? Would either of those have horrible consequences? IMHO, they would, but nowhere nearly as horrible as the consequences of not having a functioning civilization in fifty or a hundred years time. As cumulatively the greatest offender by far, we have a duty to lead on this issue, and if we fail to do so it won't get done in time. The surest way to distinguish belief from loudly expressed opinion is that beliefs have consequences. What do you believe, and what consequences are you willing to accept? Best wishes, Mole
  23. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    So, we have a "How to Solve the Climate Problem" and what follows is a complicated blueprint incorporating only market-based strategies. All of which have failed so far to even reduce our atmospheric carbon output. All of which, based on even optimistic expectations, will fail to accomplish what the planet needs in time to prevent major disruptions of civilization and ecologies. We have already blown any chance at limiting climate change to a 2C future. We need to consider a very different approach from market-based strategies. We need to talk seriously about centralized governmental approaches, not trying to impose market-based solutions on a market which has completely different goals and which has been proven over the past two decades to be extremely recalcitrant. I posit that we could *solve* our climate change challenges in five years if we took a pragmatic approach. And, in doing so, we would not only be saving our planet, our grand children's futures, and millions of species. We would also be saving trillions and trillions of dollars compared to our present trajectories. A five year plan. Climate change is the most serious national (and international) crisis mankind has ever faced. It requires a solution on a scale that only the national government can accomplish. I argue that we do not need, nor can we afford to wait for, a market-based solution. We don't need to 'take on' the carbon energy industry. We need to make them obsolete. And the way to do this is to nationalize our carbon-free energy production. There are many ways to this, but let me throw out the simplest most audacious scenario. If we were to cover the Mojave Desert with PV panels, it would supply enough electricity to power our entire energy needs for the next thousand years. And since we, as American taxpayers, paid for those panels and an upgraded smart grid we should rightfully expect that our electricity would be free. Rip the meters right off the walls. After all, once that infrastructure is in place, that is what PV electricity is - unlimited and absolutely cost and pollution free. We could put thousands of people to work erecting the facility, which, because of enormous economy of scale, would cost pennies on the dollar compared to erecting rooftop installations. We could employ thousands more to add inductive charging to our highways, so that even the cruddy battery technology of today would allow us to have a 100% electrical fleet. We could employ thousands more to retrofit our homes for electric heat and cooking. Employ thousands more to retrofit our industries with electrical instead of carbon-based productions. We need an updated version of the national Rural Electrification program. We need to move out of the paradigm in which the fossil fuel industry would like to confine the conversation, and start talking about a governmental solution. And free electricity would provide the political trump card to accomplish a solution.
  24. It's not bad
    AHuntington1 - "...my claim is that increasing atmospheric Co2 (by any means, to a certain extent) can have positive effects on animals via increased respiratory efficiency. I never made an overall cost-benefit judgement. I just want it added to the list of potential benefits." I would point to the opening post, which states that
    Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.
    You claimed that "More atmospheric C02 is beneficial for plants (as has been described in this thread) and animals" - a statement on net effects. But you have not supported your statement with any significant evidence. In fact, your initial claim of changes in CO2 to O2 ratios improving metabolism appears to be nonsense, which you've abandoned to move on to other arguments/moved goalposts. Again - while there are positive and negative effects from global warming (including the potential effects you have argued, but not supported), the negatives far outweigh the positives.
  25. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    chuck101, my statement post 2 was much more limited which is that the 97% (or 97.5%) applies to the statement I quoted above. Even if the "significant contributing factor" claim requires models (which I believe it does not), it doesn't require models which estimate sensitivity since those would only be needed for projections into the future. Also to clarify the quote I made, "all the uncertainty in paleo evidence points to lower sensitivity". OTOH, there will be new positive feedbacks that are not part of paleo evidence (e.g. melting permafrost) that may tip sensitivity higher.
  26. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    Wyoming: My strategy is customer focused; I put customer needs first; this includes all top level needs (on a customer needs tree), including energy total costs (pricing plus efficiency plus QoL provided), economic benefits (jobs), environmental risks (AGW impacts), national/global security risks, and providing customers with more freedom and more choices. Then I look for the suppliers that would benefit, and who could make money providing products and services to the customers that better meet their needs than existing energy markets. And it turns out, there are some very powerful and influential suppliers that would benefit; but many of them don't realize just how much their companies and organizations would benefit from a transition to green energy. Then we build a powerful green energy group that can push for the transition, and mow down the competition. I am using a story, a parable, to illustrate this. But eventually in the real world, this green energy group can be built, and customers benefit with lower costs, less environmental risks, less global security risks, and more jobs. It can be done. (and later today, I will continue the story…)
  27. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    Lets talk about the natural gas market, and the impact of shale gas. Although this discussion is US-centric, the problems with shale gas development will be felt around the world, South Africa, Central and Eastern Europe, etc. Before I continue my "Parable of the All-Powerful Project Management Team", and how they might address shale gas, I have gone back about almost two years ago, and copied some material I wrote at the time about shale gas and natural gas market. Please note that the natural gas market is as screwed up as the oil and electricity markets; none of these energy markets in North America are functioning properly, and that is also true for most places in the world today. Series: Ramping the Green Energy Industry- A Path to Grow America Post 10. What About Shale Gas? Forecasting Energy Prices and Markets In America Highlights: • Shale gas development without a new set of regulatory controls will go through a classic boom/bust cycle. • Natural gas prices will fall below $4 and stay there for years, delaying green energy development and ramp. • Existing regulatory controls on shale gas inadequately protect stakeholders; controlling development of horizontally fractured shale gas fields requires a new types of regulations beyond well spacing and unitization. • Placing a price on carbon emissions, coupled with unregulated free market for natural gas, won’t work. • Placing controls on shale gas development to constrain production rate, coupled with green energy initiatives and direct government action to ramp green energy, will work. Read the draft memo (almost two years old) at Google docs, What About Shale Gas?. Unfortunately, the necessary controls and regulations weren't even discussed, let alone implemented, and once again a free market collapse occurred in an energy market. This kind of free market excess doesn't benefit anyone over the long haul.
  28. It's not bad
    AHuntington "...but they don't cancel out. " This is just an assertion. You haven't provided any evidence. The papers your cite can't be evaluated as they are only abstracts of papers in Russian. You could try to make a theoretical case using heamoglobin-O2 saturation curves, taking into account the effects of ambient CO2 on uptake of CO2 in lungs and tissue CO2. Experimental evidence would be more convincing, however. My guess is that the influence of ambient CO2 variations on O2 uptake in the lungs and release in tissues will be relatively small, and are likely to offset. It doesn't seem sensible that the effect of increasing ambient CO2 on CO2/O2 ratios in the lungs would be smaller than the effect on CO2/O2 ratios in the tissues. I could be convinced otherwise, but I would need to see evidence. You are not really providing any.
  29. Dikran Marsupial at 00:39 AM on 15 September 2012
    It's not bad
    AHuntington1 Firstly appologies for mis-spelling your name. Secondly, while exhaled air my be something like 35,000 ppm of Co2, but the volume of a breath is negligible compared to the volume of the atmosphere. The CO2 in exhaled air only has a significant effect on the air we breathe in if we are indoors (this is now the third time I have pointe dthis out), and if you are indoors, CO2 levels are not controlled by the background CO2, but by local sources (such as your exhalations), and hence rising atmospheric CO2 levels will have not have any significant effect on CO2 levels in the room, and hence no significant effect on metabolosim. You claimed that increasing CO2 levels would have beneficial effect on metabolism, but only present evidence that one element of the causal chain can be observed. This is pretty weak evidence, and in my opinion, the way you are presenting your case (i.e. overclaiming and ignoring counter-arguments) does you no favours whatsoever.
  30. Vanishing Arctic Sea Ice: Going Up the Down Escalator
    It's typical. However wrong you may be, never admit a mistake. I found this trait relatively common. For a real professional it would be the end of the career but apparently this simple concept does not apply in certain quarters. It's a mistery.
  31. It's not bad
    AHuntington1 said at #250:
    High altitudes provide a real life example of a population that breathes a higher Co2 [sic] to O2 ratio.
    I'm curious to know on what basis you make this claim. Is the ratio of the partial pressure of carbon dioxide to the partial pressure of oxygen at altitude significantly greater than at lower altitude?
    It is also interesting that people who live in high altitudes (and are exposed to a higher Co2 [sic] to O2 ratio) [sic] experience lower mortality rates, in general.
    I suspect that the phenomenon to which you refer has more to do with the fact that non-essential metabolism is more likely to be reduced at higher altitude. There is a credible suggestion that calorie/joule use (which has an effect on metabolic rate) in humans is proportional to life span, just as it is in so many other species.
  32. It's not bad
    Dikran Marsupial, with each breath we exhale something like 35,000 ppm of Co2. A much higher percentage of Co2 than current atmospheric levels. I thought I did say this, but I have not come across any peer reviewed papers that espouse the theory that increases in atmospheric Co2 provide a net benefit. The fact that this study is hard to find/NA does not reflect a lack of evidence on the benefits of Co2 (as there are many studies) as much as it reflects the mentality of most biological scientists (especially nutritionists). ps. It's funny that you spell my name Huntingdon- this was common way to spell the name before words became more standardized. Stephen Baines, but they don't cancel out. The Bohr effect is a bit counter intuitive; A higher Co2 to O2 ratio provides a lower affinity for O2 in the blood, and more ability to transfer O2 to the tissues(plus Co2 is a vasodilator, thus allowing more blood to flow in general). A lower Co2 to O2 ratio provides a higher affinity for O2 in the blood, and less O2 transfer to the tissues (plus O2 is a vasoconstrictor). KR, interesting article. Remember, my claim is that increasing atmospheric Co2 (by any means, to a certain extent) can have positive effects on animals via increased respiratory efficiency. I never made an overall cost-benefit judgement. I just want it added to the list of potential benefits.
  33. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    chriskoz "As we know Arctic is melting faster than most models predict." And so are the land based glaciers. Extreme weather is also running well ahead of the modelling. I'm not at all reassured by a "limit" of 750 billion tonnes emitted in the next 40 years. (Unless you're proposing an equivalent tonnage of CO2 extracting materials.) The most important objective in those 40 years is that we have to increase agricultural productivity. My view is that we will be very hardpressed to maintain current productivity.
  34. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    The necessary leadership, or demand for leadership, comes from guys like weatherman Paul Douglas, e.g. here. IMHO, guys like him are perfect for multiplication, and could swing large amounts of the voting population in a short time if promoted through the right channels. @Wyoming I agree that GW is what has been called the "perfect problem", and that the envisioned personal changes are not going to happen fast enough (any more). But the existing carbon prizing schemes have been shown to be effective, aka they are "doable in practice". What needs to be done now is to learn from that and drastically increase the prizing (or lowering the cap). A strong progressive increase has been suggested. I think there is generally less concern (in industry) about the prize itself than about how realible it is for planning (see zinfan94's parable): If you don't know what's going to happen, you will potentially be confronted with economic problems or even disaster. The question then becomes: How do you achieve a majority consensus on such progressive prizing? Only via rewriting the tax code I think. It worked in Germany in 2000 and is supported across parties these days. However, then and now it is much too low of a prize to pay. I am with Wyoming here, not Dana: It's gotta hurt (in your pocket book), at least a little, before one can expect to see changes that actually have an impact. You can try selling it in a positive manner, maybe you have to. But in doing so, we should not feign that it is easy to achieve change.
  35. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    Appologies for wrong link in my comment abvove. This is the correct link to Jim Hansen's paper.
  36. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    In terms of carbon pricing, everybody talks about ETS and Carbon Tax (at point of use). I want to bring Jim Hansen's model of fee at the source and 100% divident. The model is already 3y old and no-one seems to be able to implement it, even though Hansen proved its superiority over ETS in situation that becomes urgent crisis now. Do you think this impass is due to political reasons only, or there are some economic/psychological reasons?
  37. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    adelady @26, you said:
    decreasing emissions alone has no chance at all of reducing accumulated CO2 concentrations at the rate needed
    You're right and wrong, depending on the actual target and allowances. Assuming allowance of 1000GtC, the "smooth" target, with emissions peaking at 2012 or shortly thereafter (the EU crisis deepening globally would help us) the FF exit is only 3%/y until 2050 and the "residual emissions" of 5GtCO2/y are allowed thereafter, as indicated on fig.1 here. But if we burn BAU until 2020, then a sharp drop to 0 emissions before 2040 is required. The estimates may be a bit optimistic if they assume earth system response according to current iceshelf melting models. As we know Arctic is melting faster than most models predict.
  38. Vanishing Arctic Sea Ice: Going Up the Down Escalator
    The "Climate Realists" website has republished Bastardi's claims about the "rapid recovery" of Arctic sea ice this month, along with his picture. Even after I pointed out the picture was not what he claimed it is, the site moderator yelled "Squirrel!!" and changed the subject, but the picture still stands. They really don't care if it's correct or not, as long as it fools enough people. http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=10209
    Moderator Response: [Sph] Link added by request.
  39. Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming
    villabolo: I couldn't find any kind of international survey on eschatological views, which was a surprise, but does support my impression that the different kinds of millenialism are mainly a US concern. But your analysis at @23 seems very plausible to me.
  40. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Thanks Eric, I really do not wish to rehash all the previous comments, but it seems to me that you also put a caveat on that previously, namely that you accept the 97% scientific consensus except where it is based on models. Further more, you put a further constraint on climate sensitivity namely: "all the uncertainty points to lower sensitivity" which virtually invalidates most of the models which are based on middle ball park estimates. Though why uncertainty should point in any general direction, I do not know. It is accepted scientific practice that uncertainty is dealt with by saying + or - 5% (or whatever), so equal weighting in both direction. So hence you are loading the dice against the models as well for no good reason, thereby guaranteeing that you won't accept those bits of the scientific consensus. Do I have it right so far?
  41. Dikran Marsupial at 20:08 PM on 14 September 2012
    It's not bad
    AHuntingdon1 wrote "People at high altitudes breathe less O2 (and Co2), but continue to metabolize glucose, which produces water and Co2. Thus, people at high altitudes are exposed to a higher ratio of Co2 to O2 internally. But yes, the atmosphere is less dense all around." I very much doubt this is correct. The amounts of CO2 produced from glucose metabolism are going to be very small compared with the amounts in the atmosphere already. Unless of course you are indoors in which case CO2 levels are not primarily determined by background CO2 levels and so your initial hypothesis is invalid anyway.
  42. Dikran Marsupial at 20:02 PM on 14 September 2012
    It's not bad
    AHuntingdon1 I asked you for a peer-reviewed* study that supported your hypothesis that increasing atmospheric CO2 has a significant metabolic benefit. You were only able to provide papers supporting some of the component parts of the hypothesis. Ideally one would like to see the self-skepticism that would be indicated by a straight answer that clearly stated that there were no papers that supported the hypothesis itself. No regarding the obesity paper, as you said I used logic as the basis for my skepticism of that hypothesis. The same logic underpins my skepticims of your hypothesis, I doubt rising background levels of CO2 have a great effect on CO2 levels indoors or in urban environments, where CO2 levels are likely to be determined by local source and sinks. You did not address that issue. If CO2 levels did have a significant effect on metabolism (i) we would be able to see those benefits in human health and (ii) it would be easy to perform the experiments to confirm the link and there would be a paper on the subject by now. *yes, I do know that peer-review is no guarantee of correctness, however it does at least mean that the paper has passed the preliminary sanity check of peer review.
  43. Solar cycles cause global warming
    Thanks for taking up my question. IMO, this is the first real observation which I found and could finally lead to a sound sceptical argument about AGW. I think we can agree that, no matter how accurate that graph in the WP is drawn, it does match the generally observable trend from other TSI records: No matter how we might find issues with the WP-graph, the graph "historical TSI reconstruction" on http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm does also show a correllation of TSI and global (not only USA) rising temperature trend. Now, if I understand correctly, that correllation is not really being challenged as concerning the first half of the 20th century, right? According to what KR did quote, we look merely at the time since 1985, where TSI goes downwards. Others say we need to look at the time since about 1960. So, it is only from that point of time that GHG could really take over as a driver, right? But, atmospheric temp seems again to align to the weaker TSI, by keeping moreless its level since 1998. However, we then argue that it is the global oceanic temp, which continues to rise. Correct? If I go by simplified logic, it should be like that: +TSI +GHG = strong raise of global temperature -TSI +GHG = weaker raise of global temperature (if at all, if you look at the lag at the climax shown by the ice core curves...) If we observe merly atmospheric global temperature, this simplified logic seems to apply and our AGW Theorie seems to fail. Atmospheric temperatur does indeed not rise for about 10 years! But if we put emphasis on the oceanic global temperature, we instead observe a continued strong raise of global temperature, right? Which is odd, too. If it should be mainly GHG as responsible factor, could that raise really be that strong? It should be weaker than a bundled raise of TSI and GHG together, right? Or do we commit an error by taking into account oceanic temperature somehow in a wrong way? Or do we still not understand TSI, or other influences and its effects on earth correctly? This seem at least to be possibilities. Along these lines, another observation: I always understood IPCC arguing that climate is a long term issue, and that we observe a rather strong raise of 0,8 degree since 1850. But suddenly, I see here that most of the raise can be aligned with historical TSI-data (as far as we know...) and it is only 1960 or 1985 where GHG really could kick-in. This does not seem consistent, do we have AGW by GHG emissions since 1850 or since 1960/1985??? I am confused.
  44. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    I think it's worth pointing out that the key difference between an ETS and a simple carbon tax is that the latter relies entirely on price signals to control emissions while in the former the critical point is the cap — the price of the carbon is simply a by-product of how easily the cap is met. The disadvantage of an ETS is that it makes it harder for business to plan for the future because they don't know how expensive emissions will be, but let's not forget its advantages!
  45. It's not bad
    "More CO2 means less O2 is absorbed immediately into the hemoglobin, but the O2 that is picked up is easily distributed." Yes, my point exactly. For all you know, the two things cancel out, or worse. You've provided no real evidence that increasing ambient CO2 has a net positive impact on O2 use efficiency. It could just as easily be a negative impact. In any case, even if you were correct, it is besides the point. As KR notes, the point of the OP is not that increasing CO2 is always bad for everything under all circumstances. It's that, taken together, the effects of increasing CO2 on organisms and human society will be on balance very negative. That's true even when we acknowledge the positive effects of increasing, including CO2 fertilization of plants. By focusing on a few physiological processes, you're missing the forest for a few cherry trees.
  46. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    wyoming@22 "... it is obvious that the solution to our situation 'requires' a dramatic reduction in the scope and complexity of industrial civilization or we will never lower carbon emissions sufficiently in time to prevent catastrophe." We've already lost the time we needed 'to prevent catastrophe' if you're thinking in terms of getting the work done soon enough in the way that the computer industry put their heads down and eliminated the Y2K threat. Even if we'd started properly 25 years ago with building standards, vehicle efficiency and renewable energy we'd still have a lot to do. The 'scope and complexity' of our industrial and commercial activities can be redirected or refocused to achieve better objectives much more easily than they can be halted. We don't stop mining - we start mining (or reopen worked out mines) to extract olivine and similar materials that can be milled into gravels and dusts to remove CO2. If we cut our capacity to perform such activities effectively, we cut off our best chance to reverse some of the damage we've already done. We don't stop building houses and businesses. We build them better and we fix the ones we've got. 'we will never lower carbon emissions sufficiently' is absolutely right. Let's face it, decreasing emissions alone has no chance at all of reducing accumulated CO2 concentrations at the rate needed. Cutting the rate of further accumulation will not be enough. We have to do a lot more than that if the data we're now getting about extreme weather events and loss of glaciers and sea ice is anything to go by. And we have to maintain our capacity to deal with adaptation. Education and training for different industries performing different activities does not mean 'a dramatic reduction' in the size of industry. It just means different industries with different priorities. We've left it too late for a Y2K type success. The best we can hope for is a CFC type operation. When you look at how long it's taken to stabilise the SH ozone hole, let alone reduce it, we're going to have to work a lot harder.
  47. Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
    Seconding DSL's pointer to Science of Doom, the gold standard of "working it out" step-by-step. If you want to get comprehensively, deeply schooled, head to SoD.
  48. Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
    Ed, I'm not going to try to do the math, because . . . well, because I just don't want to spend the time on Venus. I will point you to Science of Doom, though: Venusian Mysteries Part 1 Venusian Mysteries Part 2 Convection, Venus, Thought Experiments and Tall Rooms Full of Gas – A Discussion SoD is quite willing to discuss the fine details to the nth degree.
  49. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    We have to start attacking the demand side. Only once we stigmatized smoking did 2nd hand smoke regulations start popping up all over the place. Most folks are patriotic souls. We need to really sneer at their fossil fuel usage, all the time, so they start to doubt their own knowledge and choices. One possible Tshirt in this campaign: Image of walker passing by gas station yelling "You're burning your kids' FOOD in your CAR?? Are you a COMMUNIST or just nuts?"
  50. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    dana & KR: They've developed biological hydrogen production over the "economically feasible" barrier of 10% efficiency, and improving constantly. It won't be too far in the future (matter of years probably) that the technology will be to the point where algae hydrogen could replace all transport fuel. For instance, at 10% efficiency, to replace transport fuel in the US, 0.003% of the US land area (25,000km2) of algae farms would be required. That's a tenth of the area dedicated to soya. Like I said, the power to replace all energy sources with hydrogen is in the palms of our hands. We just need to "do it".

Prev  1068  1069  1070  1071  1072  1073  1074  1075  1076  1077  1078  1079  1080  1081  1082  1083  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us