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  1088  1089  1090  1091  1092  1093  1094  1095  1096  1097  1098  1099  1100  1101  1102  1103  Next

Comments 54751 to 54800:

  1. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    "Scientists aren't supposed to have opinions. " Who told you that? Scientists aren't something other than people. They have to have opinions.
  2. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    "Papers coming out like 'the climate dice' are not science but opinion (activism)." Ridiculous. "Dice" is simply a metaphor to illustrate probabilities. Probabilities are definitely a realm of science.
  3. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    scaddenp @28 No I haven't calculated how much CO2 I'm mitigating. But to me the issue isn't CO2. The issue is reducing man's footprint on the planet as a whole. I eat less hoofed meat as they cause much worse erosion than toed meat. I grow my own vegies to reduce the amount of chemically/GM grown vegies. I bought solar panels to move to sustainable energy. To me the problem isn't global warming, climate disruption, CO2, or whatever this week's catch phrase is. To me the issue is that human's have too large a negative footprint on the planet.
  4. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    Sphaerica @50: scaddenp @ 36, has, I suspect, correctly come to the point. Joel Upchurch appears to have confused climate forcings with feedbacks (inadvertently, I am sure) and appears to be accusing the IPCC of being in error on this point, apparently on the basis of your statements in #26. Hope that makes things clear (as mud).
  5. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    All discussion of limiting warming to 2 degrees is useless unless we end all GHG emissions. As long as the world’s total emissions keep going up we will pass that magic number. Unless the world is prepared to end all emissions in the next few years we will see the world’s average warming go beyond that. I base this on the fact that CO2 will linger in the atmosphere for hundreds if not thousands of years before natural processes begin to reduce them. The USGS has been conducting research on the Pliocene warm period since the 1980’s; it is called the PRISM project (Pliocene Research Interpretation and Synoptic Mapping). They have shown that with CO2 levels very much like we have today the world warmed about 2 to 3 degrees Celsius. This was without the addition of cooling aerosols that modern civilization also pumps into the atmosphere. So that magic number of 2 degrees, to my thinking, is past. The world will continue to belch CO2 for many decades to come because only China can control China and only India can control India. They will eventually reduce when they are good and ready and reduction will not get the job done. Reduction will only slow the growth of CO2 emissions, it will not end them. That, of course, also goes for the US and Canada and any other country the folks here would like to add to the list of relentless GHG emitters. The IPCC is notoriously conservative in their estimate of warming, ice melt and sea level rise. I have been influenced by the work done by the USGS, Dr James Hansen, Dr Michael Mann, Dr Gavin Schmidt, Dr Lee R Kump, and Professor Jonathan Foley. There are others who share their views but they are the ones who have convinced me. I’m sure a few here will disagree with me but I recommend that you investigate their work. My layman’s opinion does not really matter. Go to the meetings where these gentlemen present their work and have at them. Challenge them to defend their work. My opinion of the magic 2 degree “limit” is that it is bunk! If we stop at 1.8 degrees will we all be safe? If we arrive at 2.2 degrees are we all doomed? The world has experienced less than 1 degree so far and look at the chaotic disruptions to climate we have experienced. Will agriculture be able to keep up with ever rising demand and cope with further disruptions? Corp yields have been virtually flat for years. New seeds, if you are willing to accept the new engineered seeds, have been designed to cope with drought and ethanol production. The seed engineers have not been able to boost yield. I applaud all who have made personal choices to reduce their carbon footprint. I too have taken up the struggle but reduction will not bring us back to a pre-industrial climate. We are all in for a very challenging future. My children and grandchildren are in for a very challenging future. But focusing on 2 degrees is pointless. We need to focus on moving away from fossil fuel use, on carbon neutral solutions and on mitigation strategies so civilization can survive into the next century.
  6. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    Dale - now have you calculated what your CO2 percentage saving actually amounts to? Also, in the appropriate place (ie not in this thread), how about you post the science which makes you think IPCC is wrong about water vapour? You have also only commented on individual responsibility. Perhaps you might think what actions should government be doing (perhaps commenting here if appropriate.
  7. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    Agriculture: 1) Electric tractors already exist, and one great thing about farm machinery is that it tends to have a limited radius of use. 2) Still, things like 300HP combines are tough, and they may well have to rely on biofuels. if at some point, nobody can grow corn because of lack of fuel, some of that corn will go into biofuel. Of curse, one would first want to electrify as much as possible, and before going to biofuel conversion, look at burning biomass to produce electricity. 3) In US MidWest, wind turbines are quite compatible with farms, since they consume only a few % of the acreage, given spacing requirements for big turbines.
  8. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    Bostjan @25 - it's plausible that agriculture could be run on biofuels, perhaps in combination with other technologies. It's impossible to say what sorts of technological developments we'll have in the next 30 years. If you prefer, you can make the ski slopes even steeper and leave some amount of the emissions budget for subsequent years.
  9. Bostjan Kovacec at 05:27 AM on 31 August 2012
    Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    Dana @24 Even if we exclude emissions from land use, cattle,etc. will still need something to run tractors and stuff on, loads of energy for nitrogen fixation, pesticides, and so on. At the moment we plow an area the size of S America. What on Earth are we going to run the machinery on after 2060's? Solar? Biofuels? I firmly believe that any scenario saying that by year xy we'll achieve zero emissions from fossil fuels is just wishful thinking and hardly serious science. I can believe that the author of figure 1 was well intentioned. Reductions presented in it are tremendous. But we always have to compare data/ideas to reality. In this case reality is saying that emissions simply have to collapse (vertically) today to a certain level which we'll give us enough emissions budget to keep farming. Otherwise we'll blow way pass the target emissions or we'll go hungry even before drought gets us. But agriculture is just one sector. I can imagine many other sectors will never possibly phase out fossil fuels completely. So, to answer the question about the future climate - here where I live it's going to be dry and sunny with temps up to 50 C most of the summer. Used to be quite cold and really wet. Somebody prove me wrong! I'd really appreciate.
  10. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    re: 48 Smith Yes, certainly there may be prairie extension. Sadly, some of that might be assisted by bark beetles chewing through Alberta and working their way across the Boreal forest. I simply mentioned the Shield because I've more than once encountered people simply looking at a map and thinking there is a lot of land up North where agriculture can move without thinking in the slightest about the nature of the soils, rainfall, etc. Usually, people saying this have ~zero experience with farming. I wouldn't pretend to have seen detailed studies of Northwood movement of agriculture, although since we ski every year at Big White, I'm familiar with the Northward spread of viticulture in the Okanagan region. Anyway, if anyone has serious studies of Canadian soils and their suitability for framing assuming a warmer climate, they would be interesting to see.
  11. Arctic sea ice breaks lowest extent on record
    Jake try this link for animation 2003 to April 2012 Johnb "Hybrid"(AMSR-E/SSMIS) Animation of Arctic sea ice concentration, Jan 2003 to April 2012;
  12. Arctic sea ice breaks lowest extent on record
    it is very possible that you are right CBDunkerson with 4 square kilometer of ice in september. Taking into account that we roughly loose 1 km3 / year we have 4 years to go, which should remind us about Maslowskis prediction from 2006, that if the current trend continues, we will have near zero sea ice cover from 2016 +/- 3 years. That was a pretty god shot. http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b016769050b57970b-pi from: http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/08/piomas-august-2012.html
  13. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    Bernard J @ 49: Can you please clarify your point regarding the geometry of moving north? Does this presuppose an equivalent loss of farm land on the southern end? Do you have any links to scientific papers, which have evaluated the relative greenhouse gas release from soil vs. that absorbed by expansion of the boreal forest?
  14. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    Bostjan @23 - thanks. Figure 1 just represents CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion. Though we would have to figure out agriculture sans fossil fuels to achieve zero emissions.
  15. Bostjan Kovacec at 02:59 AM on 31 August 2012
    Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    Hi, Dana! Great work! How about modifying Figure 1. to account for food we have to eat from time to time. Zero emissons are out of question unless we're going to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere. Lets stay skeptical about that one.
  16. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    44, Joel, My points have nothing to do with the final degree of warming, but rather with your focus, which was on the rate of warming. The two are very distinct. The main takeaways for you (now that I understand your confusion): 1) Rate of warming is not necessarily going to remain linear 2) Rate of warming has nothing to do with final the destination, only how fast we're getting there. [But your explanation still doesn't explain your comment that "They are the ones that insist that Greenhouse gases are the primary source of climate warming." I'm afraid your train of thought there is leaving me utterly confused.]
  17. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    Smith, the geometry of moving north means that there is less area for farming than previously, even if soil conditions and other factors were benign. As to a moving tree line, the release of methane and of soil CO2 from warmed and oxidising organic matter would oustrip any nacent tree carbon sink. Oh, and there's the small matter of disrupted ecosystems, which is actually not that small...
  18. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    Byron @21 - thanks. I'm not really familiar with the research connecting Arctic changes with changing weather patterns throughout the NH, just vaguely aware that such research exists. I do have a post on Arctic sea ice decline coming up next week, but it won't deal with that particular aspect. It does address sea ice declining faster than expected though. Where Arctic warming and ice decline really concern me is the various methane deposits (i.e. under permafrost and methane clathrates). Those feedbacks could make the warming discussed above occur faster than we expect.
  19. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    Thanks Dana, great post. My question: this post contains no mention of Arctic sea ice and the rapid changes in the Arctic more generally. Do you think that the much faster than expected decline throws any question marks on any of the other claims about likely effects of certain temperature rises? What is your impression of the research suggesting links between declining sea ice cover --> increased amplitude in the waviness of the jet stream --> decreased jet stream wave progression --> increased frequency of "blocking patterns" --> increased likelihood of certain kinds of extreme weather in the NH?
  20. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    At risk of taking the discussion in another direction, nuclear power, combined with electric vehicles could make a significant difference. But it is probably too late for the nuclear bit, given the lead time for construction. I was surprised to red recently that 25% of South Australia's energy comes from wind!
  21. Arctic sea ice breaks lowest extent on record
    Update - Extent has now dropped below 4 million km^2 and area is just a little above 2.5 million km^2. It will be interesting to see what the August PIOMAS volume update shows. I'm guessing it will have volume below 4000 km^3. Popes: "It is the land ice that makes the difference!" Melting land ice can have a major impact on sea level rise. However, that is not the only 'difference' of note. Loss of sea ice results in water absorbing more sunlight... which causes warmer water... which causes (amongst other things) sea level rise. Likewise the loss of the arctic ice cover will change the temperature gradient at the pole... which will alter weather patterns for the northern hemisphere. Read. Learn. Then speak.
  22. Will the Wet Get Wetter and the Dry Drier?
    re:9 and Feynman I was thinking in terms of the difference in danger estimates between the engineers and NASA management. Management loves to see things move forward. http://www.fotuva.org/feynman/challenger-appendix.html "It appears that there are enormous differences of opinion as to the probability of a failure with loss of vehicle and of human life. The estimates range from roughly 1 in 100 to 1 in 100,000. The higher figures come from the working engineers, and the very low figures from management. What are the causes and consequences of this lack of agreement? Since 1 part in 100,000 would imply that one could put a Shuttle up each day for 300 years expecting to lose only one, we could properly ask "What is the cause of management's fantastic faith in the machinery?" I was using NASA management as a stand-in for all present, GDP-first government types who are dragging their feet on the issue of mitigation. Maybe I was a little too elliptical, but I'd thought that Feynman's analysis of risk had become part of modern thinking about complex systems. I think modern government types believe that droughts and floods will behave as they've always behaved: as remote dangers at a great remove in space and time. Australia, Russia, and Pakistan two years ago convinced me otherwise.
  23. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    John Mashey @14: While the Canadian Shield areas may not be suitable for agriculture in a warmer world, northern expansion of agriculture in the praries (not on the shield) may be possible. I don't think we can rule out some northern expansion of agriculture just because the shield areas are not good growing areas. Also, Is any thought given to the northern expantion of the tree line in Canada and what this means for additional carbon sink.
  24. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    Joel Upchurch - As a followup to my previous post, your estimate of 628 ppm by 2100 using the most recent CO2 growth exponential fit can only be an underestimate. Given that CO2 is growing faster than exponentially the concentration will be well above the your prediction by 2100 if we continue on this path. In other words, Joel, your math is wrong; an exponential fit is incorrect. [ I see that Dana had previously pointed to the Tamino post discussing faster-than-exponential CO2 growth; perhaps seeing the graph may make the point more clearly. ]
  25. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    Joel Upchurch at #28, 10:59 AM on 30 August, 2012:
    dana @24 I am afraid the chart you are using is misleading. I downloaded the CO2 data for the same interval as my temperature chart and plotted a linear trendline and the fit is actually pretty good. There is nothing in the actual C02 data that supports an increase to 792PPM of CO2 by 2000 [sic], that would be necessary for a 3 degree increase by your own data. The actual CO2 data, seems quite consistent with 1-2 degrees of warming by 2100 for 3 degrees per doubling
    I presume that Joel Upchurch means "...an increase to 792PPM of CO2 by 2100...", but that aside, I do think that his "math[ematics are] wrong". A few years ago I had an enchange over at Deltoid (with Tim Curtin, if I recall correctly) about the trajectory of CO2 through to the end of the 21st century. I won't go just now into the nuts and bolts of how I constructed the curve I posted back then: because I am curious to see if Joel Upchurch believes that this is a reasonable projection. And if not, why not? To give a few clues, I used the entire Mauna Loa dataset available at the time, and I used the data itself to determine the best projection, rather than directly assuming a linear, exponential, or other fit. I did this by using a process similar to that illustrated by Dana on this very thread, and by using the most parsimonious approach in that analysis to subsequently arrive at the 21st century extrapolation. The result: assuming future human emissions of CO2 at the same rate of emission to date, there would be a hair over 800 ppm CO2 by 2100. And this with an R2 coefficient greater than derived from either a linear or an exponential fit... This completely contradicts Joel Upshore's claim that "[t]here is nothing in the actual C02 data that supports an increase to 792PPM of CO2 by 2000 [sic]...". Indeed, the "actual data" suggest almost exactly this amount of increase, and with the accompanying temperature increase of 4.5 C above pre-Industrial Revolution baseline if I calculate it correctly for a 3 C sensitivity. If Joel Upchurch has any quibble with my graph, and simply cannot replicate something similar himself, I will describe the several steps I used to obtain it, but first I want to see just how he uses "math" to conduct his own explorations of the data.
  26. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    Joel Upchurch - "Even to support a linear increase in temperature we need to postulate a exponential increase in CO2." Tamino has looked at this question - if you take the NOAA CO2 data, plot the log-transform of the data, and take a linear fit, you find that log-CO2 is increasing faster than linearly, and therefore CO2 is increasing faster than exponentially. [Source] Greater than exponential growth means greater than linear forcing by CO2, hence accelerating forcing and temperature change over time.
  27. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    To echo all who do what they can (think Edmund Burke) let me chime in: I too, and for a loooong time (i.e., been driving high-mileage weenie cars ever since I began driving, in 1977, not common for the States), plus I was raised by parents who lived through the Depression: As a consequence, it's deeply ingrained in my psyche to 'use it up, wear it out, make it do." I grow some of my vegies, I shop locally, I do my level best to buy only domestically-produced goods, yatta, yatta, yatta. One stumbling block in the USA wrt automotive choices is, because of CA Air Resources Board's (CARB) utter disdain for diesels (they've never gotten over VW Rabbits and crappy American passenger diesels of the 70s and 80s), we aren't allowed the really good hi-mileage small turbodiesels Europe and most all other Commonwelath countries get. Because of my situation, I *do* have to commute, to the tune of ~35K miles/annum (hard to do machine work at home!). so, my point is, structurally, we in the states are limited in our choices of hi-mileage vehicles. If I could, I would replace my 'gas hog' of a Hyundai (33 mpg) for a European turbodiesel (some easily exceeding 50 mpUS-g) in a New freakin-Yawk minute! Bottom line? As an individual, and *assuming* 80% were to follow our lead (our = those like all above who do serious green living) would make a difference, and that alone would force a structural change in our energy policy, which is *abysmal.* Dale, that's the point I'd like to make, same as some others: You can *do* all the right stuff, but if you talk like an ostrich (and you have), you (mis)lead others into doing less. Talk, in this case, is NOT cheap, due to many politico-socioeconomic issues. Good onya for ~doing~ the right stuff, now, *talk* the right stuff. Question, be skeptical, and that's all well and dandy: when you spew like an ostrich, those not as close to the fencetop as you will focus on your words, and not your actions. It's ~way~ easier for most to just stick their heads in some (overheated, polluted) sand, than to admit they're part of the problem.
  28. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    Dale, all very commendable. Here are some of mine: * no kids * no pets * no flying since 1980 * acclimatised to ambient temperatures except for November-March * no air-con * heating when required from wood * grow my own veg * using permaculture ideas in land management * mileage 50% what it was ten years ago and falling annually * work at home However, if I were to do all that then post articles on e.g. WUWT ridiculing climate science and pooh-poohing renewable energy, it'd be like a lifelong Labour voter spending all of their time campaigning for the Tories!
  29. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    BTW, for myself... I work at home. No commute. I put less than 2,000 miles a year on the car myself, although as a family with 3 drivers we probably total about 10,000 a year. The car only gets 30 mpg, because it's 12 years old and while we can afford it, I won't buy another (because manufacturing the new car would generate tons more carbon than I'll burn by driving this one with the low mileage it gets). We try very, very hard not to "just run out for a loaf of bread." We make the most of the gas we burn. Lots of green energy bulbs, proper insulation, thermostat kept very low (programmable), etc. We use natural gas for heat and cooking, which is cleaner than most options (fuel oil, or coal-generated electricity). I also have the worst lawn on the block because I won't fertilize it 27 times a year like my neighbors. I'd love to get solar panels, too, but I have to win the battle with my wife over how it will look (women are so concerned with appearances). I used to have a great garden and grow a substantial amount of our own vegetables, but the trees around the house got too tall and put an end to that with shade... and I wont' cut those trees down just to have a vegetable garden.
  30. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    Thanks to all for the replies to my comments. I think you all read much more into my comment than was actually in it. I never claimed that the maps show low ice extent in the early 20.th century similar to today. # 77 Tom Curtis You write: "I cannot, for the life of me, see why you would object to it being made clear that denier misrepresentations of sea ice extent are not supported by the evidence." I do not understand what you mean. Where do I object to that? # 79 Daniel Bailey "A last question: why were monthly ice charts sufficient back "in the day" to enable (relatively) safe surface navigation in Arctic waters? With today's highly mobile, fractionated and dispersed pack, daily updates are sometimes insufficient." Why do ask me this? I have written nothing that contradict this - and did not even write anything that contradicted your original post. All I did was point out that the white area on those maps are not neceserally ice. I did that because I know the maps from before, and because in the image you posted the legend cannot be read - at least not on my screen. I pointed it out so it was clear for readers not familiar with these maps that white areas might not all be ice. Daniel Bailey # 78 "So go ahead, peruse the various months of the various years. Find another ice minimum month which shows ice extent throughout the Arctic anywhere near comparable to that of today. Yes, that's right, I'm inviting you to pick the fake-skeptic's favorite Arctic fruit: iced cherries." Why should I do that? I never claimed that there were similar minimum extents to be seen on these maps. Quite the opposite, as I point out in my comment # 70. Comparing the direct observations on the map from August 1938 to August 2012 we see that 1938 has more ice in northeastern greenland and in the areas north of Russia.
  31. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    Dale, My sincere compliments on taking serious action. Simple behavior changes are the most basic core to solving the problem. I only wish that you realized that for every bit of action you take personally, your words and attitude stall such action in hundreds or thousands of others. The chorus of Dale's in the world is pretty much keeping the problem from being tangibly solved. We don't need a few individuals to do such things, we need it to be the rule, not the exception. While your (energy efficiency) actions as an individual are laudable, you are much like Anthony Watts. Twenty years from now, when denial is no longer anything but a truly laughable option, he'll be bragging about how he's always driven a green car and been energy efficient, so don't blame him. Sadly, there's no way that's going to be an adequate defense for the part he's played in damaging all of our futures, by helping to keep everyone else from taking simple, adequate action.
  32. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    Oh, forgot to mention the single most effective thing to cut our nighttime grid power usage (daytime covered by solar of course): - remote control shutoff power boards. One click and nearly every electronic device is shut off at the board (no standby modes)
  33. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    To all who question if I'm following suit. Oh no, a "denier ostrich" who actually believes in sustainable energy, the greenhouse effect and man's impact on environment who simply believes the IPCC to be wrong on vapor feedback, can actually do things: - solar panels - grow own vegies - less "hooved" meat more "toed" meat (eg: chicken) - moved work so travel time each way cut from 1 hour to 15 mins - unfortunately need "big dirty" cars as we have three kids (hard to fit three child car seats in a small car) - energy efficient halogen globes instead of old style ones - water savers on taps - rain water tank - grey water capture and use around house (coupled with better detergents) - we take kids camping at least one a month to appreciate what's outside the "big smoke" Yes, denier ostriches do stuff.
  34. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    Sphaerica @42 I assumed that all feedbacks were included in Dana's number of 3K per doubling. It you think there are additional feedbacks, then you explain what number you are comfortable with.
  35. Arctic sea ice breaks lowest extent on record
    #6 Daniel Bailey There is more to read about bifurcation, for example this one: Livina, Lenton: A recent Bifurcation in Arctic Sea-Ice Cover http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.5445v1.pdf Of course there are a bunch of publications which do not agree with such a picture of unstable behavior between two or more stable systems. The question is, who is right, what will happen in the next few years. Will we really get summer or year around ice free conditions? If one takes the obvious facts into account. 1: Have a look at Piomas sea ice volume. There is a year to year loss of several hundred km3 of ice during all of the year. That means there is more melting in summer months than it is refreezing during the winter. Year after year we are starting with less volume. 2: switching from high to low albedo during melt allows for accumulation of more and more energy in the water. 3: former stratified layers of water in the arctic are mixing when ice cover is absent. Wind and waves have free access for this process, so salinity will increase lower temps needed for refreeze) and the arctic ocean will gain energy in deeper layers too. These point lead to a delay in refreezing in central and peripheral parts of the arctic, signs we may have seen already this year when the ocean round Nowaja Semlja got ice cover very late last season, and we possibly see this now, when melting is much stronger now than expected so late in summer. If the trend in volume is going on, we certainly reach a point soon, that will set conditions for more accumulation of energy in summer than necessary to melt all ice. When this threshold is reached, we do not only have nearly ice free conditions in summer, but refreezing may be delayed due to wind and mixing of water layers, that we hardly will see ice at all. This final progression to ice free conditions year around will possibly occur very fast, during only a few years.
  36. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    dana1981 @41. Sorry typo. I meant horizontal bars. Your comments seem to all deal with C02 qualitatively. You haven't actually dealt with the data quantitatively. In your own article you speculate about greenhouse gas levels of 900ppm by 2100. "For example, if we reach an atmospheric CO2 level of 900 ppm by 2100 (which is entirely plausible if we follow Ridley's advice and don't worry about global warming or take action to mitigate it)" e That works out to an increase of 504PPM for the next 88 years. A simple doubling would be an increase 396ppm. I tried to follow skywatchers advice and fit an exponential curve on the CO2 data. When I tried to fit all the C02 data back to 1958, I actually got a very low value. The highest value I got was only using the CO2 data since 2000. That came out to f(x) = 0.0087800157 exp(0.0053225105x). This works out to 628PPM for 2100. That is a lot less than 900PPM or even 792PPM. If you think my math is wrong please correct me.
  37. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    The big issue, of course, is that addressing the biggest sources of GHG emissions is frequently the most cost effective approach. You get twice the reduction in fuel consumption (and corresponding emissions) by replacing a 15mpg vehicle with a 30mpg vehicle, than by replacing a 30mpg vehicle by a 60mpg vehicle. (Counterintuitive, but true.) Applying this to the social domain, the biggest emissions gains are probably to be made by convincing people who are taking no action to take some action, rather than by convincing those who are already taking action to take more.
  38. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    For what it's worth: I do an 8 mile round trip commute by bicycle every day. I also drive a small diesel car which does 50/75mpg (40/60 US). I fly to scientific conferences when the train is impractical, but complain about it. My house uses less-efficient halogen lighting rather than CFLs because CFLs are a migrane trigger for my wife. I am a hypocrite. The laws of physics remain unmoved.
  39. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    The question of whether I am a hypocrite has no bearing on whether I am right or not. The laws of physics are supremely indifferent to our hypocsrisy. They are what they are.
  40. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    RE#8 Wow, that is most certainly a disheartening comment. I do find it difficult in my own situation in a shared apartment to control my housemates energy behavior. With them often leaving the TV on, or stereo on once music stops, food in the fridge going off, and of course always with the lights on. I have succeeded in convincing them to step up from 10% green power to 25% green power. I think with this recent arctic 2012 low, we will see more 'lukewarmers' appearing.
  41. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    Sphaerica, it's the Al Gore defense. "If Al Gore isn't living in a cave then he doesn't believe in AGW therefore I don't have to believe in AGW or change my behavior in any way." It's a great way to justify continuing the status quo guilt free.
  42. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    You know, I just got this line from someone else on another site. Is it the latest ostrich defense? "If you really believed what you say, you wouldn't needlessly generate CO2 by using the Internet to argue with me. If you really believe in GHGs and AGW, and aren't a hypocrite, you wouldn't even be here right now, and we could all stop listening to you."
  43. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    Joel, What did you misunderstand in my words that led you to believe that I was "arguing that Greenhouse gases are not a primary forcing"? There is no such statement or implication in anything I said. I spoke purely about feedbacks which are non-linear, as well as negative forcings which are (temporarily) masking current GHG forcings. What confused you?
  44. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    Joel - so my graph is misleading because you don't like bar charts? Riiiiiiight. No algorithm? There's one vertical bar per year. If you mean the horizontal bars, they're one per decade. I really don't know how it could be any simpler or clearer. Not sure why you're asking for the data that you've already plotted yourself, but it's here. Still waiting for you to show some skepticism and do that exponential fit.
  45. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    I think debating what curve best fits the co2 emissions so far is missing the main point. The emission scenarios considered by the IPCC are found here. Note in figure 3, that none of the scenarios have a combined emissions that rises exponentially to 2100. It is wrong to claim that the predictions for temperature rise by 2100 is based on exponential emission increase. Feedbacks do that. Furthermore, as far as I know, none of the AR4 models even considered carbon cycle feedbacks as they were considered too slow to have an impact over such a short time frame. The effect of zero carbon and constant carbon emissions have been considered by published papers. These were discussed at Realclimate here.
  46. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    dana1981 @34 . The first problem is the use of a bar chart. Anyone who is familiar with the work of Edward Tufte, will assume that anyone using a bar chart is trying to sell you something, since it is the 2nd worst chart after the pie chart. The 2nd problem is that there is no discernible algorithm for where the vertical bars are drawn. If you have access to the orginal source material, maybe you can post a link? I said 'looks pretty good' because the r-squared is .98, which I included on the graph. I spent a fair amount of my career writing programs to create graphs to support actual engineering decisions and tend to be pretty picky about graphs. I usually download the raw data and draw my own graphs. Wood for trees
  47. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    #37 - comment of the day! Yes, it produces a lower fit, because over the longer period, the concentration of CO2 is more clearly accelerating!. That would be exactly the point. As Dana suggests, what happens if you try an exponential fit?
  48. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    Skywatcher @32 I used 1979, because that is the same date I used for my post @21 for temperature. Using longer intervals actually results in a lower linear fit.
  49. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    Joel - do you understand the difference between a forcing and a feedback? The change is CO2 by use of fossil fuel is the forcing (cause), atmospheric aerosols are negative forcing (but short-lived). Temperature-induced changes to GHG, albedo etc are feedbacks that amplify the forcings, work non-linearly and over very different timescales.
  50. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    Moderator @29 . I think that is actually Sphaerica responsibility. He is the one is arguing that Greenhouse gases are not a primary forcing. I just kicked the ball to the IPCC.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Umm, no. The IPCC is merely a collection/collating body that summarizes the primary literature. It is that selfsame literature that very clearly delineates GHG's as a feedback and forcing. Even skeptics and fake-skeptics such as Spencer, Singer, Lindzen, Evans, Monckton, Jo Nova and Christy acknowledge that.

    (Rob P) - a simple no would have sufficed.

Prev  1088  1089  1090  1091  1092  1093  1094  1095  1096  1097  1098  1099  1100  1101  1102  1103  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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