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  1072  1073  1074  1075  1076  1077  1078  1079  1080  1081  1082  1083  1084  1085  1086  1087  Next

Comments 53951 to 54000:

  1. Solar cycles cause global warming
    Falkenherz, your central argument seems to be that because there are other factors in play it is incorrect to attribute all of the 0.8 C observed warming to GHGs. The problem with this is that research indicates that the net effect of all those other factors has been cooling... such that without them the impact of GHGs alone would have been greater than 0.8 C. Milankovitch cycles involve a lot of factors, but the primary glacial/interglacial trigger corresponds to an orbital tilt. Basically, when the tilt of the planet causes the northern hemisphere to be angled closer to the sun the net absorption of sunlight increases (because there is more land in the northern hemisphere than in the southern) even though the total amount of sunlight reaching the surface hasn't changed (the SH gets just as much less as the NH does more). The 'no warming since 1998' bit is an outdated statistical fallacy even when properly constrained to the surface atmospheric temperature. It was derived by taking the anomalously high temperature in 1998 as a starting point and then pretending that because the trend of increasing temperatures after that point had not gone on long enough to reach 95% statistical significance yet (i.e. passed a mathematical test to indicate that the observed trend was likely 'real' rather than caused by random 'noise' in the data) that there 'was no warming'. That was nonsense to begin with... but it is now outdated nonsense. The increasing temperature trend since 1998 now does pass a 95% statistical significance test. Try 'no statistically significant warming of the surface atmosphere since 2005'... the next really hot year in the record which is still too recent to pass 95% statistical significance. It'll still be deceptive nonsense, but not outright false like the 1998 claim you were repeating.
  2. Solar cycles cause global warming
    27, Falkenherz, Some points of reference for you to research: 1) Milankovitch cycles overall only fractionally change the amount of energy received by the Earth. What changes, rather, is the distribution of that energy over the globe in space and time (i.e. how much at what latitudes during what season). Look here. 2) The atmosphere has warmed since 1998. And both 1998 and the end of 2011 are cherry picks, because 1998 was the strongest El Niño in memory, while 2011 was a La Niña. It's like comparing your income on the day you work two jobs to the day you sleep in. It says nothing about how much you are likely to make in a year. Look here. And here. And here. 3) "I still need to understand which factors make the models..." Yes. Look here. And here. And here. 4) "...but all models advertise that they match up with historical data." Yes. Look here. [And I wouldn't put too much weight behind what Pielke Sr. (or Jr.) posts on the subject.]
  3. Solar cycles cause global warming
    Falkneherz, you seem to expect a linear response from changes in GHG forcing. I suggest doing a little more research on transient climate response and equilibrium climate response. What the article I linked to was pointing out, as gws notes, is that solar was the dominant forcing in the early 20th century, and GHG forcing was dominant in the last half of the century. GHG forcing became detectable during the 1940s, but it didn't overwhelm solar variation until the early 1960s. That also doesn't mean that the solar signal has no effect on the trend. That's why studies like Foster & Rahmstorf (2011) are so important. F&R removes the signals of solar, aerosols, and ENSO from the last 30 years of the major surface/lower trop temperature analysis ensemble. If no AGW exists, F&R should have found a slightly bumpy flat line or an insignificant trend. Instead, they found a trend of about .17C per decade over the period.
  4. Solar cycles cause global warming
    Falkenherz, I cannot answer in detail all your questions as that would be equivalent to reciting much of the AR4 and associated literature. But I shall make an attempt at some of your inquiries. - TSI is the measured "output" from the sun; it changes on geological time scales based on the nuclear reaction cycle in our star, which is and has been very stable; as you can see from the y-axis in your own link, its relative change (sun spots cycle, impacting radiation arriving at Earth on "short" time scales) is small - no, the atmosphere has further warmed since 1998, check, e.g., here - the IPCC has not attributed all observed warming ("0.8 deg C") to increased GHG alone - you are making the mistake of wanting to assign a single measure to a single cause; observed warming is a combination (sum) though between different forcings, and while the GHG forcing is currently the largest one, it is counteracted by an also anthropogenically caused increase in atmospheric aerosols; some people use the term "masked" to characterize the apparent lack of more warming caused by aerosols vs GHG only - these facts enter the IPCC graphs you see above to create the "match" between model and observations, and the lack of such when ignoring GHG forcing - aerosol levels are not expected to continue increasing much further (that will be reevaluated in light of rapid FF development lacking particle filters in Asia), while GHG levels are
  5. Symphony of Science - Our Biggest Challenge
    Actually, this video brings up an interesting point: There is a distinction between effective in-group and out-group communication. This video is an excellent example of in-group communication - it communicates powerfully to people who already accept its message it contains. It forms a mechanism for social bonding, motivation and worldview reinforcement within our group. I'm guessing however that it wouldn't make much impression with out-group members - those who reject the message. By contrast, outgroup communication is communication directed at people with a different worldview or social network. It can be for collaboration, proselytization, or even conflict. To communicate to out-group members you generally have to identify their worldview (Lewandowsky uses the term 'mental model' here), and communicate using the signs, symbols and narratives of that worldview, although other strategies are possible. The fact that we find this video compelling says nothing about whether it is effective for outgroup communication. The effectiveness of a messaging technique for outgroup communication is something which has to be raised with every effort at communication - and can't be judged by in-group members, except sometime by those who are gifted at thinking outside their own worldview. There will normally be multiple outgroups, and strata within those groups - for example some climate skeptics regard themselves as science-sympathetic, whereas others are simple hostile to science. Interesting question: What are the target worldviews of SkS, ETOM, Potholer54, Tamino, Climate Crocks and other resources? How effectively do they communicate to those worldviews.
  6. Solar cycles cause global warming
    gws, let's not start with polemics, I am seriously interested in AGW, what I just do is trying to link things together. These here are some factors I don't understand. I think I understand now the way GHG work, but TSI still is a topic I have to learn about. So sorry when I confuse TSI with Milankovitch cycles, I just assumed TSI is what arrives from the sun as measurable on earth, whether it comes from sunspots or from a shifted orbit or axis. I also understand that oceans still have warmed since 1998, and the total is still a warming. But at the same time it is also a fact that the atmosphere has not warmed any further since 1998, right? But that was not my point in my above post. I just wanted to say that it makes sense that a dropping TSI could lead to a non-warming up atmosphere because it is the fastest feedback, compared to the ocean. My point in my last comment was, that I always understood and read about 0,8 Degree/last100years attributed to AGW. But, based on what I read here and in the IPCC report, that is not really true. Can you confirm that at least that? The essay linked by DSL says in its conlusions: "At the same time greenhouse gases total radiative forcing has shown a strong Granger causal link with temperature since the 1940s up to the present day." So, they also do not start at 1890, but at 1940 (again a different date, instead of 1960). But, bottomline, that only that is my point, we should rather look at and communicate the historical amount of GW that can really be attributed to aGHG. This seems to be less than 0,8 Degrees so far, even though I know we are not in equilibrum yet. I still need to understand which factors make the models match the facts that ~0,2 Degree in the past 50 years leads to a possible new equilibrum at +3-6 Degrees for a CO2-doubling. Models might not extrapolate historical data, that would indeed be too simple, but all models advertise that they match up with historical data. So first let's clarify the observable historical data.
  7. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    Steve, this post Is sea level rise accelerating? shows an acceleration in sea level rise corresponding to recent CO2-induced warming on top of the ongoing rise since the end of the LIA in the 1800's or so. The explanation of the global warming that ended the LIA is here
  8. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    @Estiben This is being done in some form since years. You can read a bit at this link (no endorsement intended)
  9. Symphony of Science - Our Biggest Challenge
    Four truly great science communicators, and great composition too. Chriskoz - I think you are on to something interesting there.
  10. Dikran Marsupial at 20:24 PM on 17 September 2012
    It's not bad
    AHuntington1 Sorry this is getting tiresome. I asked for evidence that the mechanism you mention actually has a significant benefit in vivo and you still have provided precisely nill. Epidemiology of those living at altitude is not evidence that the differences between population are due to differences in CO2, so it is a non-sequitur. I am willing to accept your point about increased metabolic activity, but you are still expecting me to take your word for it that (i) the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 has even a measurable effect on metabolism and (ii) that increase matabolism is purely beneficial. If there were a measurable effect from the sort of changes in CO2 that are likely to ocurr due to anthropogenic emissions then it should be a cause for some skepticism for you that you don't seem to be able to point to a study that directly proposes this mechanism or demonstrates evidence to suggest it is significant.
  11. Solar cycles cause global warming
    Falkenherz, even if we assumed your discovered "serios and intentional miscommunication from IPCC" were true, your following statements are non sequiturs (logical fallacy): - past temperature increases are not extrapolated forward by the climate models; the models are based on atmospheric physics not statistics - because some relationships existed in the past (increasing CO2 being a feedback) does not mean that it has to be like that now (CO2 being a forcing agent) - correlation is not equal to causation As the responses to your comments above and the IPCC report you studied explain, the increase in TSI can possibly explain early 20th century warming, but not late 20th (and current) century warming. Current warming has not yet reflected the observed CO2 increase, aka we are in equilibrium yet. Your hint towards "it has not warmed since 1998" is a myth dealt with on another thread. If you find a way to get your hand on TSI data covering the glaciations, and a way to show that it was rather TSI not Milankovitch cycles driving them, make sure you publish that. (sorry for the satire, but your comments have drifted into trolling)
  12. Solar cycles cause global warming
    KR, DSL, thanks again. So, taking into account of what we think we know about TSI, we are basically not talking about a GHG-attributed warming of 0,8 Degree increase in 100 Years, but about a 0,2 Degree increase in 50 Years. I looked up the 4th IPCC report summary to confirm this, here: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-2-2.html (the average from the table should be around said 0,2 Degree) 0,2 Degree is something very different to 0,8 Degree. Nevertheless IPCC includes the latter in its summary here (first bulletpoint): http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-direct-observations.html This is for me a serios and intentional miscommunication from IPCC. So, setting things straight, the current models take those 0,2 Degree and extrapolate from it a future GHG-induced rise of 3 Degrees for 100 Years. I must admit that makes me now much more sceptical than I was before. How can this possibly fit to the icecore-data, where CO2 lags behind (=still rises up) and temperature nevertheless is falling in accordance with the TSI, maybe even with a lag to declining TSI which would correspond to what we observe today? Where can I find more information on TSI data related to the icecore-data?
  13. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    an interesting visualisation of PIOMAS arctic sea ice volume data
  14. It hasn't warmed since 1998
    Hi, I know that there have been ice ages in the past, and even during the middle ages (mini ice age). I would like to see how the temperature of the earth has increased since the last ice age and whether we are seeing an increase that has been happening for a long time rather than just during the industrial era. I haven't heard anyone explain the global warming that began at the end of the mini ice age in the middle ages. Just to put this in perspective, the sea levels during the last ice age were hundreds of meters below the current level and I see nothing that links those levels with the current levels and the changes is sea levels and temperatures over the long term.
  15. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    Say, don't we have more than enough evidence to bring lawsuits against those who appear to be deliberately obstructing mitigation? It worked against the tobacco companies, eventually. Even if that tactic may be too late to help much, the suits and trials would bring more credibility to climate change, in the public eye. At least in the US.
  16. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    scaddenp @47 The "Gentlemen" to which I was referring in the "run by the Chinese" remarks were the posters preceding me in the thread, not the original poster. Perhaps I could be more clear and you could be less obtuse, pick one or both. As to international treaties proving things, I would suggest that within a few years, the Washington and London Naval Treaties record for well-meaning futility in avoiding catastrophe will be equaled by Kyoto. There is one set of international bodies that does have real swing weight, however ... one that you touch upon yourself ... the (-snip-) World Trade Organization and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). I considered the idea of carbon import taxes to persuade China into greater compliance myself, for about a minute and a half ... at which point I realized that in any possible scheme of carbon tariffs, they would be issued on the basis of per-capita carbon emissions rather than net emissions. I suspect that the Chinese would be all for such an arrangement, since we would be facing tariffs four times as high as theirs, effectively strangling US exports of practically everything. Not that it isn't a good idea, mind you ... I think just such a proposal, phased in over a reasonable number of years, might get our country off the dime ... but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for us to propose it. Please recall that the Constitution expressly forbids levying any tax on exports, so we really couldn't get around it ... nor would a scheme that acted on the Chinese (and Indians, presumably) and not us fly with GATT and the WTO. Best Wishes, Mole
    Moderator Response: [DB] Inflammatory term snipped.
  17. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #37
    Re: other tools. Have you investigated using rbutr. It only works on Google Chrome at the moment, but it's coming to Firfox and IE. I've already added some SkS posts as rebuttals.
  18. It's not bad
    AHuntington1,
    If you think that mitochondrial efficiency is not beneficial, I don't have much to say.
    I have no idea if it's beneficial or not because you haven't presented any actual evidence one way or the other. If my cells are getting all the oxygen they need, making it easier to get more probably isn't going to make a difference. If you're trying to convince others of something, saying "I don't have much to say" is an odd tactic to use when you haven't yet provided any evidence to convince them.
    Do you really think that less ATP is better than more?
    I don't know, but I suspect there is probably a point where more ATP provides no additional benefit, in the same way that providing more water to an organism beyond a certain point provides no additional benefit. What I don't know is whether we are ATP-starved and there is additional benefit to be had, and what that benefit might be.
    Look at the higher metabolic rates of people living at high altitudes and the epidemiological data regarding these people.
    Gladly. Where is it?
    One positive example is the generally lower mortality rates among them. This is good evidence to support the hypothesis that a higher metabolic rate is beneficial.
    I look forward to seeing that evidence. I was under the impression that higher metabolic rates led to more oxidative stress and shorter lifespans, and that this was why animals that were slightly starving all the time lived notably longer than animals that were well fed (without being overweight).
    He attacked a big straw-man, and then painted a picture of me literally mocking a starving and dehydrated human being crawling through the desert. If Sphaerica wasn't displaying an irrelevant appeal to petty emotionalism, I have never seen one- and that behavior is not appropriate in any discussion, let alone a scientific one.
    Note that Spaerica was making the very valid point that all else is not equal, and that given the other effects of higher CO2 levels include drought and heat, it's a bit pointless telling an organism suffering from those other known effects that they should be glad of the possibly slight beneficial effect they are also experiencing. It wasn't an appeal to emotionalism, it was putting your claims into context so the net effect of higher CO2 levels is more apparent.
  19. It's not bad
    AHuntington1, I have no intention of re-reading your posts, because they weren't worth reading the first time. Your high opinion of yourself does nothing to raise my opinion of you. Fact 1 is not opinion, it is something you need to disprove if you want to advance your pet theory. Your complete dismissal of facts 2 through 4 demonstrate that you are living in a fantasy world of denial, which explains how you can present the amazing Gish Gallop that has taken you to this point and still expect to be taken seriously.
    ..then we basically agree, and you will stop posting strawmen, yes?
    Thanks for that closing comment, because it perfectly illustrates my point that your posts are full of debate tricks. You are playing games with words and any reader that cares to step back and look at what you've written can easily recognize this. Thanks for making it so obvious. Given this, please spell out the strawman argument that you claim I have created. Fact: The influences of climate change on crops, temperature and water availability, and hence the dangers to the human food supply, far, far, far outweigh any tangential and as yet ill-defined (by you) supposed benefits of improved respiration. Hence, your entire argument falls flat. You've spent hundreds and hundreds of words arguing about what amounts to an inconsequential detail.
  20. It's not bad
    AHuntington1 wrote: "Fact 3 is true, but also irrelevant as I did say all else being equal (I have been repeating this to no avail)" Yes... because it is observed reality that all else is not equal. Ergo, your entire line of argument is a meaningless diversion into fiction. Yes, if gravity did not exist then people could 'fly' about with ease... but why exactly do you want to talk about things which are not true? So yes, truth and reality are "irrelevant" to your position. Which is rather the problem.
  21. It's not bad
    Stephen Baines, I might have slightly misunderstood your question. Co2's ability to dilate the blood vessels allows for more blood (with less O2) to flow, equalizing the loss of O2 per hemoglobin. Contrast this with more O2 (in relation to Co2), which causes blood vessels to constrict and hemoglobin to horde O2.
  22. It's not bad
    Dikran Marsupial, i did miss that point; I also never mentioned that humans who live in cities/ use air conditioning would be the primary organism to benefit from elevated Co2. If Co2 levels are significantly elevated in cities and/or houses with ACs the organisms who would primarily benefit from increased atmospheric Co2 would be those furthest from modern development. Rising atmospheric Co2 does increase internal exposure to Co2 (as soon as a person becomes acclimated, and stops hyperventilating); the internal Co2 level is affected by atmospheric conditions and rate of breath. This is seen when people are acclimating to higher altitudes- increasing internal Co2 can cause temporary respiratory acidosis, or hyperventilation can cause respiratory alkalosis. Once people become acclimated they breathe normally, increase internal Co2 to O2 ratios and become more efficient sugar metabolizers (lactate paradox). If you think that mitochondrial efficiency is not beneficial, I don't have much to say. Do you really think that less ATP is better than more? Look at the higher metabolic rates of people living at high altitudes and the epidemiological data regarding these people. One positive example is the generally lower mortality rates among them. This is good evidence to support the hypothesis that a higher metabolic rate is beneficial. Stephen Baines, you said "explain to us why that does offset the effect of increased O2 loss from haemoglobin to tissues" Because the tissues will always be more oxygen starved, and acidic than the lungs and the blood that just pick up O2. Therefore the freshly oxygenated hemoglobin in a higher Co2 environment will always be able to pass oxygen to the tissues (which by definition, must always have less O2 and more Co2 or acidity than the freshly oxygenated blood and lungs). John Hartz, I wasn't playing "gotcha". He attacked a big straw-man, and then painted a picture of me literally mocking a starving and dehydrated human being crawling through the desert. If Sphaerica wasn't displaying an irrelevant appeal to petty emotionalism, I have never seen one- and that behavior is not appropriate in any discussion, let alone a scientific one. Sphaerica, I do not "Gish Gallop" alot. The facts that I present are completely relevant to the points I am making. If you can't understand how, I recommend re-reading my posts, and learning about metabolism (and logic). Fact 1 is clearly your opinion (as ultimate ends, and values are not scientifically testable). Fact 2 is true, but irrelevant. Fertilizer and water also "help weeds too", would you recommend eliminating their use in agriculture? Fact 3 is true, but also irrelevant as I did say all else being equal (I have been repeating this to no avail). Ditto for fact 4. Basically I am getting tired of repeating myself and defeating straw-men. Everyone else seems capable of rational discussion; why are you constantly changing the subject? you said "if climate change doesn't raise temperatures, increase droughts, and drastically change agriculture on the planet, the increase in CO2 will be great!" ..then we basically agree, and you will stop posting strawmen, yes?
  23. It's the sun
    Rob, I don't quite understand the post that you wrote, but if I can't figure it out, I will ask about it there. As for Bob's explanation, the equilibrium times of the different layers makes much more sense than talking about a lag. Thanks for the explanations.
  24. Symphony of Science - Our Biggest Challenge
    dagold @5, I think 'the problems that attack us' slogan was used for a good reason. The nature of homo sapiens mind is to fight (or self-defend) against visible agressor. When there is an identifiable agressor, there is mobilisation and action. that's why people were able to overcome WWII and later the communism (in Easter Europe). The enemy was visible and well identified. On the other hand CO2 is so invisible that most people are confused because they don't know who they are fighting with. Even those who are supposed to be intelligent enough to well understand the problem (e.g. REP party including their presidential candidate) are confused, and the knee-jerk denial (no visible enemy) myotatic response overides the rational thinking by the cortex. That's why the existence of enemy must be constantly reminded by such slogans so that people like Romney will finally start "feeling it".
  25. Himalayan Glaciers Retreating at Accelerated Rate in Some Regions but Not Others
    SOF is correct it is not correct to refer to the Karokoram as the western Himalaya. The headline also gives the idea that there is a balance between those retreating faster and not. This is also not true, note the quite detailed look at inventory data from across the region published in BAMS 2011 but at SkS too. The retreat is widespread and getting more rapid as far west as the Himachal Pradesh, 1000 km west of Mount Everest.
  26. It's not bad
    AHuntington1, Yes, but "all else being equal" doesn't at all apply in this case, so what's the point of the entire line of thought, except to beat a dead horse or to mislead the unwary? As far as what is appropriate to a scientific debate... you say this as if you are being perfectly rational and even in your approach, which clearly you are not. Your posts are full of debate tricks (not the least of which is an excess and as yet unearned degree of hubris). Your position is categorically untenable. You Gish Gallop a lot, "speaking" with an authoritative "I know, listen to me, children" tone, but you prove absolutely nothing. In the end, you expect people to accept your position simply because you declare it to be true. Fact: Increased CO2 levels, while beneficial in some cases, are not that beneficial. Fact: Different plants respond better than others to increased CO2... are you sure that it will be productive crops and not the weeds that really enjoy the elevated CO2 levels? Fact: Water availability is far more important. Droughts, expanding deserts and other ramifications of climate change will be far, far more important than whatever meager benefits are derived from "improved mitochondrial respiration" in some plants. Fact: Temperature is far more important. Increased temperatures, which change the range of temperatures that impact a plant in various seasons, will be far, far more important than any benefits derived from increased CO2. You have failed to prove your point, and your point amounts to sleight of hand... if climate change doesn't raise temperatures, increase droughts, and drastically change agriculture on the planet, the increase in CO2 will be great!
  27. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    Mole, I find a statement like "your first step is to establish a totalitarian world government (presumably run by the Chinese" a rather counter-productive way to begin a debate and frankly one that smacks of ideological projection. The article nowhere talks of totalitarian, let alone world government. The numerous global treaties out there show you can have global cooperation without any global government. The US government is really the best one to act. Carbon pricing/cap is firstly an internal manner and you deal with countries that refuse to put up fair carbon pricing by hitting them with carbon tariff at the border. Because the US is such a large market, that would more or less push the Chinese into following suite. You dont even need Chinese cooperation. The cheaper product will be the one without the carbon tax which should rapidly drive manufacturing away from coal-fired generation.
  28. It's not bad
    @AHuntington1 #270: Whenever I see a commentor such as yourself use the term, "scientific debate" alarm bells go off. Are you here to learn more about the science or to play a "Gotcha" game with whomever deigns to question something that you have posted?
  29. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    Mole, One of the big problems with climate is that if you wait for Pearl Harbor (that big, "wake up" attack that forces your hand) it's already far too late.
  30. Same Ordinary Fool at 05:31 AM on 17 September 2012
    Himalayan Glaciers Retreating at Accelerated Rate in Some Regions but Not Others
    Previous mentions of these more stable glaciers usually place them, rather than in the "western Himalayas", more specifically in the "Karakoram Range". "...a part of the greater Himalaya while north of the actual Himalaya Range." "The Karakoram is home to the highest concentration of peaks over 8000m in height to be found anywhere on earth..." "A significant part, 28-50% of the Karakoram Range is glaciated, compared to the Himalaya (8-12%) and European Alps (2.2%)." Per a 2011 study, the glacier retreat is less than in the Himalayas because "many Karakoram glaciers are covered in a layer of rubble which has insulated the ice from the warmth of the sun. Where there is no such insulation the rate of retreat is high." (Wikipedia) However, climate is the more frequent explanation.
  31. Symphony of Science - Our Biggest Challenge
    I like it, anything that will get the message out. One quibble: the quote 'the problems that attack us' was repeated 3 times. I know the main point is too build awareness but...this problem is not attacking us. WE created this problem and to couch it in these terms somehow disturbs me. We are going to need a lot humility to face this situation...this is of our own doing and facing up to this is part of the process.
  32. Himalayan Glaciers Retreating at Accelerated Rate in Some Regions but Not Others
    India has had a sub-standard monsoon season this year. Pakistan last year and 2 years ago lost almost all of their agriculture to floods. I wonder if the ice in the Himalayas could act as a rudder/buffer to stabilize the local climates. The loss of ice and snow cover could effect more than simply river flow.
  33. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    Mole, Interesting points. Part of our problem as a people dealing with AGW is our lack of imagination. It goes along with the Einstein quote which goes something like; "You can't solve a problem with the same kind of thinking that got you into the problem." The WWII analogy leads one that direction and is why I stated that when folks talk about a Manhattan style project that the scale of that effort would be woefully inadequate to deal with our current threat. As you noted, incremental steps and a relatively slow response to the growing threat still managed to (barely) deal with it. There is no logical reason to think there is even a minute chance that incremental steps will solve AGW. Little steps taken in concert with a giant and global response would be useful. In the absence of that global response the little steps just fool people into thinking they are working the problem. It is that same kind of thinking issue cropping up. Civilization-as-we-know it is a dead man walking. Where ever we end up what we have now is going into the dust bin of history. The reason to act now and decisively is to try and improve the odds that we will have the opportunity to create (save if you like) some alternate version of civilization for those who will be living 200 years from now. If we play BAU and BAU-Green games there is a good chance that what the few people left will have will not qualify by any reasonable measure. I'm an old guy too. One of the main reasons I made it to old age is that I avoided like the plague anyone I thought was an optimist. In the field I worked in the saying was "Optimists die young.", and if you wanted to live to see your grandchildren you turned yourself into a determined pessimist. Optimists are fun people and they tend to be laid back, but they do not tend to focus on details well because they have a mind set that leans towards the idea that everything will work out. Things in the real world do not just work out. Pessimists work the details like dogs because they know that if you don't things will break, the unplanned for will happen, People will die. You point to the ideological stumbling block like many do. I am a Republican and life long conservative and must say that, given the risks we face, stewing over the management structure of how this problem gets dealt with makes no sense what-so-ever. Do I like my freedoms? You bet and I fought for them my whole life. Are they worth more than a livable world for our children, grandchildren and our future. Not a chance. The only thing that matters when survival is on the line is doing what it takes to survive. We here in the present have to be willing to give everything we have for those who will follow us. Fate decided to place us here at a time of need and it is our duty to carry that burden. We must. It is us or no one. Wyo
  34. The Climate Show 18: The Big Chill & The Big Fracking Issue
    I've come in on this very late looking for fracking data... but I couldn't help notice Camburn, the ND Farmer who also claims to know Will Happer at Yale, doesn't understand that plants get their organic matter by photosynthesis using CO2 from the air not the soil. Digesting ag waste returns all the minerals to the soil, and there's more than enough organic matter to keep the soil loamy rather than sandy.
  35. Symphony of Science - Our Biggest Challenge
    Excellent! Entertaining and inspirational at the same time. We can address this, with or without the help of the delayers. Their musings and assertions are as irrelevant as they are inconsequential. In the meantime, in the real world we move forward.
  36. It's not bad
    AHuntington You yourself acknowledged @256 that, according to the Bohr effect, increasing CO2 would decrease O2 uptake in the lungs. Until you can explain to us why that does offset the effect of increased O2 loss from haemoglobin to tissues, I can't see why I should accept your claim. We cannot evaluate your evidence because we cannot read those papers. Can you read them? It would not be skeptical of us to simply take your word.
  37. Dikran Marsupial at 00:42 AM on 17 September 2012
    It's not bad
    AHuntington I have now pointed out the same flaw in your argument several times (namely that background CO2 levels don't have much of an effect on CO2 levels where we actually live), and each time you have studiously ignored it. You have not shown that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels have a beneficial effect on animals in vivo. Increasing internal CO2 having a beneficial effect on mitochondrial respiration does not establish that rising atmospheric CO2 has a beneficial effect on animals because (a) you have not shown that rising atmospheric CO2 leads to significantly higher internal CO2 (b) you have not shown that increasing mitochondrial metabolism is necessarily beneficial. However, I suspect you will duck this point yet again.
  38. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    I'd encourage all Australian academics and non-university scientists to contact Chris Evans and ask him to take an explicit stance defending peer-reviewed and institutionally overseen work such as Lewendowsky's. Stephan's work is demonstrably compliant with the federal government's HERDC specifications that define what constitutes an acceptable standard of research. These are the standards that set the bar for the highest level of research at Ausatralian universities. The paper qualifies as an A1 publication, and it is published in a journal that is recognised by UlrichsWeb and Thomson Reuters Master Journal List as being scholarly and peer-reviewed. That Joanne Codling sees fit to interfer with appropriately-conducted tertiary level research, simply for her own political ends, is reprehensible. And it should be pointed out that Lewendowsky's work took not a cent from cancer research. If it prevented anything at all, it was possibly the slim chance that a climate change denialist might have tried to scam a publication trying to link climatologists to the conspiracy and fraud that Codling and her ilk perceive under every bed.
  39. It's not bad
    Sphaerica, no I am not. I said all else being equal -ceteris paribus- increases in atmospheric Co2, within a certain threshold, has been shown to have beneficial effects on plants (which has been thoroughly hashed out) and animals (through Co2's role as an antioxidant, vasodilator, and protector of the body's O2 supply). Evoking the image of a man suffering from sever dehydration and starvation in the desert is completely irrelevant and blatantly panders to the most basic of human emotions. This behavior is totally inappropriate in a scientific debate.
  40. It's not bad
    AHuntington1, You are conflating detailed analysis of CO2 in organisms with the more general inference that these detailed aspects combined with increases in atmospheric CO2 must result in beneficial outcomes. This inference is (a) unwarranted and (b) not in any way supported by actual scientific studies in the literature. Your position is akin to saying that (a) "theoretical physics suggests that tachyons may move faster than light" therefore (b) "faster than light travel is possible and will be achieved in our lifetime." Your assertions do not warrant their conclusion, especially when such a conclusion was (to begin with) as specific as a benefit in "mitochondrial respiration in fauna." Even if this were the case, the claim would be laughable. As the dying man crawls through the desert, parched by drought, weakened by hunger and baking in the heat, you can cheerily say to him "yes, but aren't your cells respiring so much more comfortably in this atmosphere?"
  41. Models are unreliable
    Bob, "...wishful thinking." Hmmmmmm.
  42. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    FWIW, Martin Herzberg is VERY busy spreading disinformation at the site above. Perhaps it would be good for the really brainy folks here to refute some of his nonsense.
  43. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Bill@145: Count on it to get *way*, way uglier, too. I think it's because (and know this is based upon my sensing a disturbance in The Force) there is ever so *sliiightly* a slide away from the denialistas' outlandish statements, towards a teensy, tiny bit of sanity beginning to show up in the MSM, viz. reporting much more about the science side of this. See my post at comment 146.
  44. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    I hope this is the appropriate thread in which to post this... Article on Lewandowsky on Truthout http://truth-out.org/news/item/11501-what-motivates-rejection-of-climate-science
  45. It's not bad
    KR, you said "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." This is totally false. Is improved distribution of O2 to the tissues bad? Does it not improve mitochondrial respiration? Do antioxidants reduce respiratory efficiency? You are simply ignoring my arguments.
  46. It's not bad
    Dikran Marsupial, we are talking about internal exposure to Co2. you said "The amounts of CO2 produced from glucose metabolism are going to be very small compared with the amounts in the atmosphere" and I pointed out that sugar metabolism produces enough Co2 to allow us to exhale roughly 35,000 ppm with each breath(~100 times more Co2 than the air we breathe). Glucose metabolism creates a huge amount of Co2 compared to atmospheric levels- thus we need to exhale. I am not saying that humans breathing contributes any significant amount of Co2 to the atmosphere, but it does significantly effect internal exposure to Co2. Stephen Baines, you are the one who made the assertion that I misunderstood the Bohr effect. The burden of proof is on you at this point, but I will re-post the wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_effect and quote a passage from the link, "hemoglobin's oxygen binding affinity is inversely related both to acidity and to the concentration of carbon dioxide.[1] That is to say, a decrease in blood pH or an increase in blood CO2 concentration will result in hemoglobin proteins releasing their loads of oxygen and a decrease in carbon dioxide or increase in pH will result in hemoglobin picking up more oxygen. Since carbon dioxide reacts with water to form carbonic acid, an increase in CO2 results in a decrease in blood pH." You are the one who has it wrong. Bernard J, see my response to Philippe Chantreau in post #256 on this page. The passage that you quoted was a mis-type on my part, and I have specified the issue. People at high altitudes consistently have higher basal metabolic rates. http://jap.physiology.org/content/16/3/431 Respiratory acidosis is a potential symptom of traveling to high to fast (a sign that Co2 to O2 ratios increase at high altitudes) KR, my only request is that the positive aspects that increased Co2 levels have on animals should be considered in the cost-benefit analysis. My statement is not one of net effects, but of specific effects which should be included in the analysis. Increased Co2 levels, within a certain threshold, do increase crop yields- ceteris paribus - and that potential benefit is taken into account in the above analysis. Likewise the benefits of increased Co2 on fauna and bacteria (within a certain threshold)should be taken into consideration as well.
    Moderator Response: [Sph] Correction as per request.
  47. Symphony of Science - Our Biggest Challenge
    Well, climate change really fits this symphony very well.
  48. It's the sun
    Eric (skeptic) - the manner in which the oceans are heated by the increased Greenhouse Effect is little-known in the blogosphere. You seem to be repeating a common misconception. See this SkS post: How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean. Greenhouse gases essentially trap more heat in the ocean - that's why they are warming now, despite a decline in solar output over the last 4 decades. Interestingly a recent paper: On the Observed Trends and Changes in Global Sea Surface Temperature and Air-Sea Heat Fluxes (1984-2006)- Yeager & Large (2012) shows that the oceans warmed over that interval due to a reduction in energy flux out of the ocean - exactly what we would expect from the greenhouse gas forcing of the cool-skin layer of the ocean. Somewhat bizarrely they attributed this to natural variability, but is not borne out by their analysis.
  49. It's the sun
    The skin of the ocean separates the ocean proper from the atmosphere, and has its own energy balance. It emits IR upward, receives IR from the atmosphere, receives solar from above (some of which penetrates deeper), reflects solar (some of which is scattered back upwards from deeper), loses energy to the atmosphere through evaporation (or gains it through condensation), as well as exchanging thermal energy with both the overlying atmosphere and the underlying ocean. All of these energy transfers are happening all the time, and the resulting ocean surface temperature will be the result of the particular balance at that time. Any increased downward IR will affect all fluxes, just as any change in solar will affect all fluxes. It's not an "either/or" situation. Energy is energy. You need to consider all the fluxes, all the time. You mislead yourself by only thinking in terms of a couple in isolation. The time scale of energy transfer from the water 10s of metres below the surface, to the surface, is likely measured in hours (or at most, days if conditions are calm and water is not mixing much). The figure in Hansen's paper that I referred to show how quickly the atmosphere reacts to the change in CO2 (thus primarily affecting IR-radiation), with the ocean temperatures and surface fluxes following over a much longer time scale. The difference in where IR is absorbed (at the ocean surface) vs. the penetration of solar radiation into the ocean becomes irrelevant over those time scales.
  50. Models are unreliable
    Eric: "Some of the uncertainty in those changes are known to be at the lower end of sensitivity." Alas, asserting this beyond the knowledge of the scientists is a "dog that won't hunt". If these things are "known to be at the lower end of the sensitivity", then they aren't "some of the uncertainty". You are engaged entirely in wishful thinking.

Prev  1072  1073  1074  1075  1076  1077  1078  1079  1080  1081  1082  1083  1084  1085  1086  1087  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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