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  1073  1074  1075  1076  1077  1078  1079  1080  1081  1082  1083  1084  1085  1086  1087  1088  Next

Comments 54001 to 54050:

  1. 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".
  2. 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.
  3. 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!
  4. 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.
  5. 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?
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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?"
  18. Models are unreliable
    Bob, "...wishful thinking." Hmmmmmm.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. Symphony of Science - Our Biggest Challenge
    Well, climate change really fits this symphony very well.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    The ever-reasonable Ms. Nova now has people bombarding Minister for Tertiary Education Senator Chris Evans' office, and has a list of all of Lewandowsky's other recent funding that she seems to think is excessive - note: there's not even a reference to AGW on it - after the crack 'nice work if you can get it' and this classic piece of talkback-radio lumpen-populist nastiness: 'somewhere a cancer researcher was denied funding in order for Lewandowsky to do his work.' This isn't just a bit kooky; this is genuinely ugly.
  29. It's the sun
    Bob, my understanding is that the skin of the ocean is generally a bit cooler due to evaporation (depending on various factors like wind). The IR from increasing CO2 will only heat that cool layer and result in more evaporation and increased latent heat flux, all short term. In contrast solar radiation will penetrate deeper and have a longer term effect. Hansen's paper seems to assume a single mixed layer with no distinction between the two types of forcing.
  30. Models are unreliable
    Bob, first I agree with your posting note, some of my best arguments have remained hidden inside unclosed HTML tags. To answer your "It appears to me" paragraph, I accept WV feedback in the short term by which I mean the last few decades in total since WV can fluctuate naturally in shorter intervals. Running the models for the longer run into the future results in circulation pattern changes and associated localized weather changes. Some of the uncertainty in those changes are known to be at the lower end of sensitivity. For example the models underestimate the intensity of precipitation, they underestimate the penetration of cold air masses,, they underestimate storm intensity compared to finer resolution models. These all result in underestimation of negative feedback in particular underestimated latent heat flux.
  31. Symphony of Science - Our Biggest Challenge
    Agreed, I love this video.
  32. It's the sun
    Eric: I think here you are mixing up short-term and long-term responses. If there is a change in solar or IR radiation that causes an imbalance, there will be an immediate response, but it will take years to approach an equilibrium temperature. The atmosphere only takes a few months to reach equilibrium if left to is own. The heat capacity of oceans slows things down (decades for the mixed-layer depth, centuries for the deep ocean). Although the full effect takes a while, you should start to see some changes early on. To a first approximation (due to the relatively rapid response of the atmosphere) a bottom-driven solar heating at the surface won't be a lot different from a top-driven IR reduction - they both cause an imbalance, and the ocean and atmosphere both respond. I suggest reading Hansen et al (1981) "Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" Science 213, p957. Figure 4 provides a useful diagram showing the short-term and long-term response to a (modeled) instantaneous doubling of CO2.
  33. Models are unreliable
    Eric: The question is how well this model applies to the future. No, the question I was asking was "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?" Perhaps you are now accepting that any models used in the short-term will have a sensitivity "built in"? Perhaps what you are wanting to do is to argue about the uncertainty in those results? The question of whether that model works well is a different issue from whether or not it has a "sensitivity is built into it". Any model that quantifies the extent to which human activities (i.e., CO2 increase) have contributed to current warming must also have an associated "sensitivity built into it". It's simply a question of how you run the model and how you process the results. You are diverting the discussion into an evaluation of different feedbacks. The models, when used to look at recent warming, are basically the same models that are used to estimate 2xCO2 sensitivity. They incorporate the same feedbacks. They incorporate the same uncertainties in feedbacks. I have grabbed the Climate Models report you refer to, and it does talk about water vapour feedback uncertainty, but the question (in my mind) is: ...why do you decide that all the uncertainties are wrong, and climate sensitivity of the models (which is what is used to decide on the uncertainty) can't be trusted - and indeed you are convinced the sensitivity is too high? You seem to trust the models in the short-term, you seem to feel that something is not handled properly in the long-term, and then you use that lack of trust to argue for a greater certainty/less uncertainty (at the low end) than the scientists come up with. It appears to me that you accept the WV feedback in the short term, and are convinced that the models do it wrong in the longer-term, and then conclude that the only possible correct answer is the one at the low end of the uncertainty. The documents you mention are expressions of that uncertainty, not an argument that the correct answer is at the low end. Your decision at the end of the logic/evidence chain, that the sensitivity is is at the low end of the scientists range, looks like you're just applying magic. [posting note: I've found that if you forget to close an href tag (i.e., leave off the closing > after the link), the editor will drop everything after that point in the text box. I've made the habit of doing ^A ^C to select everything and copy it to the clipboard before I hit "Preview". When I'm feeling particularly unsure, I paste it into a text editor to be sure I've got a copy.]
    Moderator Response: [Sph] If this happens, the content of your comment will probably still be there, but just be invisible. Simply post another comment asking a moderator to repair your post, and it will probably be done fairly quickly.
  34. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    Gentlemen: I admit to having been skeptical of the theory of alternate universes before, but your comments are leading me to accept it. In a thread titled "How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide", your first step is to establish a totalitarian world government (presumably run by the Chinese, since they have a plurality of the population and more experience running command economies), or, failing that, to don sackcloth and a sandwich board declaring "Repent! The end is near!" In my universe, the first alternative is completely impossible, and I consider the second unduly pessimistic. You have made repeated comparisons to World War Two, but I think you are making the wrong ones. I think you ought to be examining the conditions in the lead-up to the war, since they are more closely analogous to our current situation. Then, as now, there were great swathes of the population who were danger-deniers ... pacifists in France and Britain, pacifist/isolationists in the States. As always, it took a Pearl Harbor moment to wake us up (not that our Commonwealth colleagues should break their arms patting themselves on the back, given that they had let the militarization of the Rheinland moment, the Anschluss moment, and the Munich moment go by without getting serious). Did we avert catastrophe? Arguably we did not, and didn't really recover from it until the early 1990's. Having large portions of the planet devoting huge resources to the destruction of other portions can hardly be called "civilization", can it? But why did we survive? I would argue that boffins like Sydney Camm, Reginald Mitchell, and Robert Watson-Watt had a lot to do with it ... as did incremental steps like the 1938 Naval estimates that funded the Essex class carriers and the North Carolina class battleships, the introduction of peacetime conscription, the federalization of the National Guard, cash-and-carry, and then Lend-Lease did ... all done with heavy opposition from the isolationists. It was a very close-run thing ... we came within a single vote in the House of disbanding 95% of the US Army in 1941. I think you are confusing two concepts ... "civilization" and "civilization-as-we-know-it". We may have re-claimed civilization after 1945, but it certainly did not resemble the civilization of 1939 much at all. In that catastrophe, tens of millions died. This catastrophe will probably increase that by at least a factor of ten, but I still think it is worth trying to keep that from being a factor of one hundred if we can possible avoid it. Best wishes, Mole
  35. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Sphaerica, I have replied on the "it's the sun" thread here Regarding aerosols, the stratospheric variety are very low http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/ and I would like to know on an appropriate thread if that is more or less important than tropospheric aerosols that you refer to.
  36. It's the sun
    Sphaerica, contrary to what is implied in fig 1 above, warming from TSI should lag TSI. There's an overlooked post about that lag here The current downturn in solar activity started in the mid 2000's and I do not expect to see the full effect in GAT until the mid 2010's or later. The earlier TSI peaks 1950's and early 80's had a lagged effect on temperature. Essentially solar is automatically stored in the ocean unlike CO2-warmed air which may or may not be stored depending on circulation patterns that lead to air/ocean temperature contrasts, the most prominent being ENSO. We saw stronger warming in the 80's and 90's from the lagged solar warming added to the CO2 warming and weaker warming since then. In short, I don't think 0.2/decade is an underestimate at all and it will probably be lower in the next decade or two.
  37. Symphony of Science - Our Biggest Challenge
    As a musician, all I gotta say is....*brilliant!* Shared to Facebook, and to my email list...thanks a heap!
  38. Models are unreliable
    Bob, as you saw in my second comment, I realized after my first comment that I had in fact assumed a model. My model assumes the rise in CO2 is causing a rise in water vapor and a larger addition to global temperature (57% vs 43%) than the CO2. The question is how well this model applies to the future. There could be long term positive feedback from other sources (e.g. methane) which I am not considering. I am just looking at short term WV feedback and whether the present feedback will continue. I had a lot longer post about WV feedback in models, but the preview erased my comments, possibly due to some bad format code in text I cut/pasted from two different papers. I referred to a report entitled "Climate Models: An Assessment of Strengths and Limitations" and they answer one of my concerns about the unevenness of WV in a sidebar on p. 24. They refer to a paper by Ramaswamy which I could not find, but found a similar paper by Held and Soden (2000): http://www.dgf.uchile.cl/~ronda/GF3004/helandsod00.pdf On p. 450 in HS00, they talk about the importance of circulation in determining the distribution of water vapor. I agree with their final remark indicating that satellite measurements of the distribution of WV should validate modeled WV distribution by 2010 or very likely by 2020 (they wrote that in 2000). There should be recent papers on that topic which I need to look for. What it boils down to is if water vapor is unevenly distributed then there will be less WV feedback and that will be determined by circulation (in reality and in the models).
  39. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    vroomie - thx, but I do not use Facebook - Luddite I guess The below quote is why we should be demanding leadership. It is from Dr. Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State. He is one of the leading climate researchers. It is from 2010!!! He uses the phrase "A clear and present danger". This phrase has only one meaning and cannot be used in a trivial fashion. It is used to justify war or extreme measures. Lonnie Thompson "Climatologists, like other scientists, tend to be a stolid group. We are not given to theatrical rantings about falling skies. Most of us are far more comfortable in our laboratories or gathering data in the field than we are giving interviews to journalists or speaking before Congressional committees. Why then are climatologists speaking out about the dangers of global warming? The answer is that virtually all of us are now convinced that global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization." 2010!! Here we are 2 years later and no leadership yet. Leadership is about a lot more than speaking out. In the meantime the climate is disintegrating around our ears. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/12/13/207169/lonnie-thompson-climatologists-global-warming-a-clear-and-present-danger-to-civilization/
  40. Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming
    John, Thanks for this post. As a conservative evangelical christian (originating from Sydney Diocese - good heavens!) stuff such as what the Cornwall Alliance produces dismays me. It seems to me that the Cornwall Alliance is attempting to use language to push the buttons of various christian groupings within the evangelical spectrum but that they don't quite make it (thats apart from the theological holes large enough to fly a jumbo through). That maybe a cultural thing as they are North American based, but I can still see how it could catch some christian groups other than in North America. I suspect amongst evangelicals this might be the people who tend to view science and scientists as a distinct ideological grouping On pre-millenial, post-millenial, lets-do-the-hokey-pokey, I like the answer given during a talk I attended by a lecturer from Regent College in BC who when asked what position he took said he was a 'pan millienist', "i.e. it'll all pan out in the end". On creation and Gen 1 to 3 if anyone is interested, christian or otherwise, and has the time the book, 'In the beginning' by theologian Henri Blocher is a brillaint but dense read. I doubt such a well argued piece of theology will appeal to those who drafted the Cornwall Declaration. Don't knock this if you aren't a christian theist, the best way to answer creationists is via theology and you will find good theology bats away stuff like the Cornwall Alliance material. Finally, along with John there are other evangelical christians who as scientists have been very vocal in talking about the dangers of AGW including Dr Katherine Hayhoe and of course Dr John Houghton who has been instrumental in talking directly to American and other evangelical leaders on this topic.
  41. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Eric: as per the moderator's comment, I have posted a reply over in the models thread.
  42. 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.
  43. 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.
  44. 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.
  45. The Climate Show #28: transglobal overground (with added ice)
    Welcome back guys, it has been too long.
  46. 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.
  47. 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.
  48. 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.
  49. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Bob Loblaw, my answer is to your first question is here
  50. 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.

Prev  1073  1074  1075  1076  1077  1078  1079  1080  1081  1082  1083  1084  1085  1086  1087  1088  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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