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. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Symphony of Science - Our Biggest Challenge
    Agreed, I love this video.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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!
  11. 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).
  12. 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/
  13. 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.
  14. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Eric: as per the moderator's comment, I have posted a reply over in the models thread.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. The Climate Show #28: transglobal overground (with added ice)
    Welcome back guys, it has been too long.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Bob Loblaw, my answer is to your first question is here
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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...
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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..."
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
  31. 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...
  32. 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?
  33. 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.?
  34. 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.
  35. 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
  36. 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.
  37. 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.
  38. 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.
  39. 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…)
  40. 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.
  41. 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.
  42. 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.
  43. 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.
  44. 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.
  45. 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.
  46. 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.
  47. 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.
  48. 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.
  49. 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?
  50. 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.

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