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  1093  1094  1095  1096  1097  1098  1099  1100  1101  1102  1103  1104  1105  1106  1107  1108  Next

Comments 55001 to 55050:

  1. CO2 lags temperature
    David Sanger @377, the three authors of the paper are all well known climate change deniers, ie, part of the 1% of climate change scientists who do not agree with the consensus. It is possible that "skeptical" sites are over stating the claims made in the paper, but unlikely they are outright misrepresenting them. Without having read the paper, however, all I can say is that such claims have been made repeatedly before - and always the evidence and reasoning in support of the claims has been dubious at best. In the case of one particular claim, ie, that anthropogenic CO2 has not significantly contributed to increased CO2 levels, the evidence against the claim is so firm that we should greet any paper purporting to prove otherwise with the same astonishment we would greet a paper purporting to re-establish the Ptolemaic (terra-centric)model of the solar system.
  2. CO2 lags temperature
    David, all that graphic shows is that detrended air temperature, which is mostly ENSO and occasional volcanic influences, is related to detrended CO2 with the annual cycle removed too. So there is a relationship betweent he variability of both graphs, no surprise there. It says absolutely nothing about what is causing the overall rise in either one, though clearly the skeptics would want you to believe that ocean temperature rise is causing CO2 rise. They ignore many things: 1: what is causing ocean temperature to rise? 2: why is ocean pH decreasing, if CO2 is being released from the oceans (which should cause pH to rise)? 3: Where is all our CO2 going? We release ~30GT per year, yet annual CO2 rise is only half that. [the truth is that it is going into the oceans, acidifying them.] 4: As linked above, the chemical signature of the CO2 is that from FF-derived carbon, shown by several independent lines of evidence. So lots of suspension of disbelief required before you can accept the Humlum paper. In fact, I suspect I'll find the suspension of disbelief when watching The Hobbit later this year a whole lot easier!
    Moderator Response: TC: Humlum et al, 2012 discusses a number of topics, only one of which is on topic on this thread. Could detailed discussion of the anthropogenic origin of CO2 be moved to the previously suggested thread; and discussion of the ocean as the source of global warming be moved to "Why ocean heat can’t drive climate change, only chase it"

    Thank you.
  3. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    Dale @35, the article on obesity and global warming, or at least the so called "skeptic" commentary on it, is exactly why I cannot take global warming skepticism seriously as an intellectual position. The article reports on a study by two medical doctors published in the Lancet which concludes that, all else being equal, obese people have a larger carbon footprint than non-obese people. You want to purport that this sort of claim is, "the type of BS that is making people scoff". It is very far from evident, however, that the claim that obese people have a larger carbon footprint is BS of any sort. Indeed, the proposition is inherently plausible, although I doubt that loosing weight would be the most cost effective way for most westerners to reduce their carbon footprint. (On the other hand, it is a low cost method of doing so with substantial secondary benefits.) Of course, claiming that it is absurd to believe that obesity increases carbon footprints is a hard sell. So you misrepresent the article as claiming that obesity causes global warming. That of course, would be absurd, but it is not anything like what the author of the news article or the original study claim. Indeed, the word "cause" does not even appear in the article. The closest the article comes to saying anything like that is when it says:
    "Obese and overweight people require more fuel to transport them and the food they eat, and a literally swelling global population will make this source of greenhouse emissions worse, say UK researchers."
    That is, obese people generate more CO2 emissions than equivalent non-obese people, and this source of additional emissions will increase with increases in obesity. At this point, if you have any intellectual integrity, you will apologize for providing such a misleading example; and you will be asking some hard questions of the AGW deniers that steered you wrong on this article. You will also be applying much more skepticism to those deniers. I doubt any of the above will happen, of course. Why would I expect anything like it from somebody who thinks Anthony (AHI*) Watts is as informative as SkS. (*Antarctic Heat Island)
  4. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    Sphaerica @8, Your latest ostrich defence reminds me past arguments by the "skeptics" that "warmists" are trying to "return us to the caves" and that "warmists" also deny the "skeptics" a voice is this "debate". Now we have an example of delialists trying to both deny climate scientist their voice (by suggesting they renounce their internet access) and return us to the caves (by dumping the non carbon-neutral technology rather than changing its underlying power infrastructure). Can you imagine a better comedy of self-contradicting nonsense? I don't know if I have to LOL or simply cry over the fact how low a human stupidity can descend...
  5. CO2 lags temperature
    This seems very similar to earlier effort with same message and also published at GPC. It is discussed at Realclimate here.
  6. CO2 lags temperature
    Thanks. I'm quite newly involved in climate issues and when I see a reference like this posted in a skeptic site always want to read the original paper (and any discussion here) to see if it really says what they say it does. Often a quote is pulled out of context where the authors meant something quite different indeed. When a paper is hidden behind a pay wall it is difficult and frustrating since there is no way to evaluate it. If this is really suspect then how can a paper like this be accepted in a journal? Here's a graph from the study (similar to ones I've seen on skeptic sites: It seems to be tracking changes in sea and air temperature and "global CO2". Is there some other process that would present the same seeming correlation and timing but which the authors are missing? As a non-expert it is difficult to counter message like on Watts today without understanding what is going on. Thanks
  7. CO2 lags temperature
    David Sanger @373, I have not read the paper which, as you say, is behind a paywall, but: 1) They appear to be ignoring Shakun et al, 2012 on the issue of CO2 lag; 2) They are absurdly wrong on the relation between CO2 increase and anthropogenic emissions (I also recommend Climate Change Cludoe: Anthropogenic CO2 on this issue); and 3) Arguments that ocean warming has called recent temperature rise generally start by assuming all ocean warming is natural, and then establishing a correlation between ocean temperature rises and global temperatures rises. As the ocean constitutes 705 of the Earth's surface, unsurprisingly they find a large correlation; but the argument is entirely circular. They assume what they set out to prove when they assume the ocean temperature increase is not caused by global warming. All three authors have a past history of exactly that sort of argument, so I do not expect anything different this time around.
  8. Arctic Sea Ice Extent: We're gonna need a bigger graph
    Looks like the graph function is transforming to a sawtooth!
  9. CO2 lags temperature
    David Sanger - I have not yet had a chance to read through the paper, but some of the abstract is quite odd. "Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980." - Based on ice core evidence, it takes 500-800 years for CO2 to respond to ocean temperature changes, and the 100 ppm change seen between glacial and interglacial periods is associated with 5-6C of temperature change. Since 1980 (32 years) we've seen 0.5C of warming and more than 50 ppm increase. Those numbers just don't support their conclusions. Even more damning, ocean CO2 is increasing as the oceans acidify. They cannot be the source of CO2 increase. Given those basic issues wherein the facts contradict this papers conclusions, I suspect the paper as a whole is not a contribution to science.
  10. CO2 lags temperature
    David - you really do have to wonder how such nonsense gets published. Ocean acidification i.e. the increase of global atmospheric carbon dioxide dissolved in sea water renders the thrust of this paper null & void. For a relatively thorough treatment of this subject I'd recommend this SkS post: Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2 Where does Humlum think all human carbon dioxide emissions are disappearing to anyway?
  11. CO2 lags temperature
    Could someone comment on the paper released today in Global and Planetary Change : "The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature" Humlum, Stordahl and Solheim. Abstract is at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658 but the full text is behind a pay wall. "Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2." HIghlights "...►Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. ► CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions." Has this paper gone through peer review and what do SKS regulars think of it. What's the issue or explanation?
    Moderator Response: [DB] Please do not hit the refresh after submitting a comment. This forces the browser to post a duplicate message(s).
  12. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    Back in the early sixties when we began seriously talking of going to the moon, none of us believed we'd get there by going outside-- alone-- and urgently flapping our arms and vigorously jumping. No matter how sincere or generous was our individual desire to make a footprint separated 385,000km distant by nothing but two deep gravitational wells, we knew we couldn't do it by acting as individuals, without the distinguishing human characteristic of informed organization on a massive scale. By all means, look out for opportunities to lessen your footprint. But recognize that items such as halogen bulbs, polyethylene water tanks, metal fasteners and a myriad of other articles-- even, unfortunately, solar panels-- needed to implement a solo effort are presently themselves part and parcel of the system of unaccounted external costs that are leading us to disaster. When it comes to addressing the dire curves Dana shows at the beginning of this article, we hang together or we hang separately, to paraphrase. The same hugely informed, massively powerful organizational skill that lets us do amazing things such as to entirely free spacecraft from our solar system is what's going to save us from the pickle we've created by using those same powers of organization more thoughtlessly, if anything can.
  13. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    Eli strongly suggests that Agnostic use the google. There is plenty of VOCs in Mexico City due to, among other things very incomplete combustion from crappy cars and buses. They are starting to control the problem but it is wrong to say that ozone is not a problem, along with aerosols and NOx. They got it all, in spaced. Mario Molina has spent a great deal of time trying to quantify and help relieve the problem there. Use the google.
  14. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    Joel Upchurch, this entire conversation reminds me of learned discussions of how angels select parners for pinhead dancing. You are taking a short record and trying to project growth 100 years into the future without any consideration of the relevant physical factors. It may be an interesting class room exercise, but has no bearing on the real world. Treated abstractly, there three major variables determining CO2 emissions. The three are population, per capita GDP, and carbon emissions per unit of GDP (carbon intensity). Taking just growth in GDP, if it continues at the historical average of about 3% per annum, then by 2100, emissions will have increased by a factor of 12 over current levels. That by itself is more than enough to increase atmospheric concentration of CO2 to 900 ppmv or more. On top of that is an expected growth of world population by 40% in the next 40 years. That does not simply add 40% to the expected emissions growth from GDP growth because most of the population growth will be in low GDP nations. Never-the-less, it shows that 900 ppmv by 2100 is an underestimate of likely CO2 concentration unless we significantly reduce emissions intensity. Just to maintain constant CO2 emissions, and hence a linear increase in CO2 concentration, that means we require a reduction in emissions intensity of 3% per annum for the rest of this century, with emissions intensity of only 8% of current values by 2100. Even that fails to allow for population growth, so the actual reduction required to maintain constant emissions is greater than 3% per annum. That assumes that constant emissions is actually OK. There is considerable reason to think that we must transition to effectively zero emissions by 2050, something that will require around 10% reduction in carbon intensity per annum, or 3% of 2010 carbon intensity per annum. Neither of these scenarios will happen without substantial government policies driving the issue. Even the 3% compounding per annum required just to maintain constant emissions is likely beyond the capacity of private industry unless explicit regulatory frameworks to encourage the reduction are in place.
  15. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    628ppm by 2100 would translate into around 2.2K of warming cf current day given best estimates of climate sensitivity though you would not expect all of that to realized by 2100.
  16. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    Joel, #54, you arrived on this thread (#21) by putting a naive linear fit through 30 years of temperature data. You followed that up (#23) by making a variety of naive proclamations about the relationship between CO2 and temperature (essentially assuming that CO2 was the only forcing, that there were no feedbacks, and that the response to CO2's forcing would be instantaneous). All those assumptions are wrong, and affect your conclusions. In #28 you demonstrate particularly poor statistical treatment of data by putting a linear trend through the CO2 concetration dataset that is clearly accelerating over time, ignoring assessment of the residuals (for example such as Tamino's). All the while you seem to be claiming a rigid, linear fit and extrapolation with no assessment of processes such as feedbacks or the time delay due to equilibration of the energy balance (which is why we talk of transient and equilibrium climate sensitivity, look it up). Yet somehow you expect us to think you're onto something here? The IPCC's scenarios (you do realise that emissions cannot be simply extrapolated, don't you?), are here. You'll note that the A1FI, A2 and A1B scenarios all cross 700ppm, A1FI and A2 cross 800ppm by 2100. The IPCC's emissions scenarios have considerably greater justification than any of the naive curve fits you've managed so far. Tamino didn't say the CO2 data "wasn't exponential", he showed it was "greater than exponential", and he showed this with considerably more rigor than you have managed to date.
  17. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    Dale, I agree with those points. But getting meaningful reductions in GHG by the energy conservation actions of concerned individuals alone seems very unlikely. I have the feeling from your posts that you do not support action on climate change. Is truly motivated by a belief in low climate sensitivity (and I dont see a post yet where you provide the evidence to support this), or because you dont like the proposed solutions?
  18. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    KR @ 47 An exponential can be fit to almost any data. If you don't think it is exponential, then explain what curve you think fits the actual data better and the scientific justification for the curve is
  19. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    Bernard J. @46. I'm sorry, but without the supporting data all you have done is draw a pretty picture that you are asking us to take on faith. I have a math degree, so I don't think I will swoon if post the supporting data.
  20. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    KR @ 45 I looked at the graph and it actually looks like a good fit for real world data. Here is my latest graph: CO2 1958-2012 Exponential Fit R-Squared is .98 and visually the curve fits within the seasonal variation in CO2, but that isn't the important part. the article you cited has an interesting graph. Tamino CO2 You will notice that C02 follows a nice smooth curve since 1998, except for the last few years which is probably the recession. I have a graph for 2000-2012 CO2 from 2000-2012 That gives 628PPM by 2100. I can exclude the recession data by graphing just 1998 to 2006 if you like. C02 Spreadsheet Or you can download my spreadsheet and graph you own curve. Saying the data isn't exponential isn't very useful. The curve fitting routines can get an excellent fit for almost any data, unless you think there will be a singularity. What curve do you expect future C02 growth to follow?
  21. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    (Snip) Jeffrey @31: 'If we do A, then B will probably happen' is an opinion. That is not science. You can't experimentally test for that. However if you say something like 'When condition A exists, test show B is probable', that's experimental science. Personal opinion does not belong in science. Scientists may have personal opinions, but they have no place in science literature. Sphaerica: I did used to read a lot of papers in fact. Now, due to lack of time it's a lot harder. There's also an element of lack of interest too. That turning point I can pinpoint specifically. When "science" said that obesity causes global warming, that's when you lost me. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/05/16/2247103.htm That's the type of BS that is making people scoff. The sad reality is that when the dust settles, no matter who "wins" science will be the biggest loser.
    Moderator Response:

    TC: Moderation complaint snipped. Dale, compliance with the comments policy is not optional. If you took the effort to comply, moderators would be saved considerable effort, and you could have as complete a conversation as you desire, provided you remain on topic.

    [DB] As a subsequent comment to this by Dale was too egregious to survive moderation I am placing this warning here:

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts, knowingly false statements and continually complains about moderation. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.

    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

  22. Bostjan Kovacec at 08:36 AM on 31 August 2012
    Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    M Tucker @26 Coludn't agree with you more that only drastic and quick cuts in emissions can keep us at 2oC. 1.8 or 2.2 oC doesn't look like much of a difference- but based on what we've experienced in last 30 years it translates into additional 1 oC on top of 3,6 oC here at my place. Combined with reduced rainfall - yes, it's a big deal! Might just be the limit over which we can't addapt any more. New varietis of crops won't save us. Climate is progressing faster than any breeding of new varietis can. "Drought resistant" concept means the plant will die a bit later, but without water it simply won't grow. Not to mention heat stress. JohnMashey @27 Solar tractors might be fun at a golf course or small and flat plots, but feeding 9 billion people is a different story. Wind turbines on fields is a good idea. But then you can farm only in windy places. It requires heavy investment and I'm qite sure someone will be able to pay more for the electricity than falling yealds can bring in. Growing food is not that profitable, but if it was, most people couldn't afford eating much. Burning biomass can be short term solution, but after a few years soil looses fertility if it does't get organic material back. There's also nitrogen problem with it. Nothing grows without it, so we'd need to use much more fertilisers, meaning more energy imput. I'm quite skeptical about using biofuels to run agriculture. It simply doesn't make sense because we'd need to use more land than we're using for farming now, plus the fertiliser problem and emissons from land use. Transportation is easy to solve because it runs on roads. Agriculture needs living soils, water and right weather.
  23. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    Dale, You can't tell the BS from the truth because you haven't studied the science enough. I strongly suggest that, if you have the time, you stop posting comments, stop getting angry at everything, and take it on yourself to truly and completely learn and understand everything there is to know about it. Only then will you be qualified to call "BS" on any particular claim. And no, you don't know nearly enough yet. Don't read articles and blogs and summaries. Read actual papers, and text books. Go down to the very source, and be skeptical even when reading that. But skeptical without arrogance. Beware of Dunning-Kruger.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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).
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. 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.
  33. 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.
  34. 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;
  35. 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
  36. 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?
  37. 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.
  38. 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.
  39. 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.]
  40. 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...
  41. 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.
  42. 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?
  43. 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!
  44. 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.
  45. 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.
  46. 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.
  47. 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. ]
  48. 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.
  49. 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.
  50. 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.

Prev  1093  1094  1095  1096  1097  1098  1099  1100  1101  1102  1103  1104  1105  1106  1107  1108  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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