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  1094  1095  1096  1097  1098  1099  1100  1101  1102  1103  1104  1105  1106  1107  1108  1109  Next

Comments 55051 to 55100:

  1. 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!
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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)
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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."
  16. 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?
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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
  20. 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?
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.

  24. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    Dale, what you are suggesting (individual effort) will, in the absence of effective society-wide efforts, lead to collective action problems and, most likely, eventual failure. Revolutionary changes to entrenched socioeconomic systems aren't going to happen without substantial institutional and other reforms.
  25. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    Speaking of leading by example... So...where's Dale's Starfish?
  26. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    Dale @2, I do lead by example. Can I now expect you to follow suit?
  27. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    Dale, frankly that is what I and many others do. However, looking at many of my fellows, I doubt very much that they will follow me. I have trouble getting my children to take navy showers. MacKay's "Sustainable Energy without all the hot air" (available online) gives you a pretty good indication of the limits of what an individual can do. A better solution is an alternative energy structure and that is not done by individuals. Suppose you simply banned the creation of new coal power plants. No immediate impact but you have to have a plan for how to replace old stations. All other kinds of electricity generation are available. The best technology will come to fore without any other government intervention simply from market demand. Of course, a government decree like that is unacceptable in many parts of the world (not in NZ however), so instead expensive and inefficient schemes like carbon tax or trading schemes are required to have the same effect.
  28. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    Climate ostriches like you ignore the fact that this very forum is leading by example by its existence. Despite the continual trolling by deniers. Might I suggest putting your actions where your mouth is and start being part of the solution instead of being part of the ostrich herd?
  29. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    Joel @28 - I'm not really sure how to respond to your comment. How do you propose the chart I provided is "misleading" in any way? You seem to suggest it's misleading because a linear fit "looks pretty good" (ah yes, the ever reliable Eyecrometer). That's nice - did you try an exponential fit? If not, you're not being a skeptic - you're trying to justify your pre-determined conclusion instead of trying to find the right conclusion. Until you can accept the reality of accelerating CO2, it seems like a complete waste of time to continue this discussion. Sorry I'm being a little cranky, but I really don't appreciate being called misleading for presenting a very simple and clear graph to prove my point.
  30. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    If the call is "that we keep doing everything we can do to reduce our emissions as much as possible in order to avoid as many catastrophic consequences as possible, for the sake of future generations and all species on Earth", then may I suggest that the best way to start is to lead by example. Instead of constantly decrying the World for not acting, take the challenge and eliminate your GHG emissions totally. Take the bull by the horns, lead by example, show the world how it's done. To be taken seriously, you need to lead.
  31. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    "half" should, in fairness, read "just over half"...
  32. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    #28, why would you want to use half the Mauna Loa data to fit your trendline? Why not use all of it? The source of the graph is this post by Tamino. There's also a plot of the rate of increase. How does the rate of increase look over the longer timeframe - the rate is increasing, which means that CO2 output is in fact accelerating. This increase is present in your graph, but it's small because of the shorter timescale. Now we know why you only wanted to use data from about 1980... Also worth watching is this animation of CO2 increase (youTube video by Robert Way, data from NOAA). Pause the video at 1:27, see if you still contend that there has been no acceleration (assuming you can dislike Tamino's statistical analysis). Run the video on to the end, and then ask yourself what the apparently small wiggles appearing from the bottom left correspond to in terms of Earth climate changes. Still think the change is small? Plotting small, out-of-context snippets of data is a good way to fool yourself.
  33. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    Joel@29; you're correct, and all available science supports that CO2 *is* the primary driver in this scenario. This is a seminal paper, and if you'd like more (e.g., being a true skeptic and not a denialist) I, and others here, can easily supply you many, *many* other peer-reviewed and very robust papers saying the same. CO2 Is The Principal Control Knob
    Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed text and link. The lecture version is here.
  34. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    We should implement strict rationing, because it's going to happen anyway. Better we should impose it, according to the Post Carbon Institute: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4uKgU7krWzE
  35. Arctic sea ice breaks lowest extent on record
    Anyone seen any animations showing perennial sea-ice? Something like the video here except showing the recent events
  36. Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
    In an utterly selfish way, when I first began looking into this issue (ca. 1990) and some predictions somewhat mirrored this one, I pooh-poohed it. Couldn't possibly be viable. We're too small to make these changes to our giant world. Aha. By 2000, I no longer rejected the science, but (and here's the selfish bit) I was pretty well convinced I'd be long dead before this all came to pass. Given I am a 1957 model, it begins to look more and more likely I *could* see some of these deleterious effects. strictly for my own self, i am glad I chose to not have kids but that in *no way* obviates my fears for those I will leave behind. I guess that is what drives me to ~distraction~, listening to the deniers' throw roadblocks (and let's be *very* clear: they ahve been insanely successful in their blocking maneuvers) up to making progress on this. We have wasted 20+ years, years that could've gone so far towards drawing down our collective carbon footprint. I'm truly alarmed, and saddened. Dana, once more let me be one to thank your for your tireless efforts to counter this; in my 'geologist's hat,' I'm doing all I can to try to trim tab this ship, towards a rational, sane future. Your posts (and all others here) go a long way to helping me do just that.
  37. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    Sphaerica @26. That is something you really need to take take up with the IPCC. They are the ones that insist that Greenhouse gases are the primary source of climate warming.
    Moderator Response: (Rob P) - before you venture into sloganeering territory. Can you provide any peer-reviewed scientific literature that explain the suite of observations as well as the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? A simple yes or no will suffice.
  38. Will the Wet Get Wetter and the Dry Drier?
    Byron @8 I did much the same as you, stopping the video at various points to better focus on some of the details. I also compared it to Figure 2 of Dai's August 5, 2012 Nature Climate Change letter. There are multiple differences between the two calculations, notably Dai has the drought in the US much worse than the GFDL simulation. The Sahel region is the complete opposite for Dai, he shows increased precipitation. Dai also has the southern part of Africa and the northern part of South America much worse off.
  39. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    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, that would be necessary for a 3 degree increase by your own data. CO2 Chart The actual CO2 data, seems quite consistent with 1-2 degrees of warming by 2100 for 3 degrees per doubling.
  40. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    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. Tolkien drew upon a specific source as inspiration for his Helcaraxë...anyone know what that was? Bueller?
  41. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    SRJ, the other participants have addressed most of this so I will narrow my response to this: You say that the white areas denote no information. While technically true you ignore the context of the charts. As a former (nautical) cartographer (yes, professionally), all mapping products fulfill a singular purpose for which they were specifically designed. The ice charts in question were designed as aids to surface navigation and were compiled from the best available sources at the time. Each month, the originating cartographers produced another version, one for each month of the melt season, year after year. Take the time to look at each month of 1938. Look at other years. Compare the peak melt month (therefore the peak of navigation season), August, of each year to other years (whatthehell, compare any month you want to any same month of another year, but be consistent). What do you see? Variation. The specific months have the ice in red in specific locations with specific condition of the ice specified. But is that the limit of the data contained on each month? No. Compare the white areas. What do you see? The white, "undefined" areas vary, by month and by year. Why do you suppose that is? Those areas were delimited by information, not by guesswork or the conditions of ones entrails. Was it sufficient information to then qualify to be charted in red per the custom? No. But there was information on ice/open sea extent, sufficient to change the portrayals of each month. Whether that information was derived from ships logs, eyewitness testimony or aeroplanes flying overhead is immaterial; they were not derived through clairvoyance. 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. Note also that any warming comparable to today's warming would also be causing ice shelf breakups throughout the Canadian Archipelago and Northern Greenland, like that occurring today. If you want a list of papers to hunt through for that evidence, just ask. I'll leave you with this hint, from Polyak et al 2010: "The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century, consistent with the rapidly warming climate, and became very pronounced over the last three decades. This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities."
  42. Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
    SRJ @70, while I appreciate the need for caveats, Daniel Bailey compared the two maps to directly rebut a claim made by John Christy. The deficiencies of the 1938 map are not so great that the comparison does not rebut Christy. It is a common experience here, and at other sites dedicated to the science of global warming for "skeptics" to make comments suggesting caveats are in order, and treating the need for any caveat, no matter how slight, as a complete rebuttal of the evidence they dislike. I am not in any way suggesting that that was your purpose. Never-the-less, given that you felt it necessary to suggest the caveat, I felt it necessary to point out that the caveat did not in any way rebut DB's point. 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.
  43. Will the Wet Get Wetter and the Dry Drier?
    Rob @5, Indeed I was referring to a possibility (unconfirmed) of permanent El Nino in Pliocene-like conditions. My typo, sorry. Jeffrey @7, Why are you bringing the Challenger disaster to the context of droughts and floods increases? Can you quote what exactly Richard Feynmann had said? I vaguely remember that incident as it was 25+ yago.
  44. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    While others have pointed to some of the non-linearity in feedback system, it is worth also noting a couple of things. 1/ At moment, natural systems mop up more than half our emissions but there is doubt that the sinks can continue to do this 2/ Rising temperatures eventually cause natural increases in CH4 and CO2 from sea, tundra, swamps but this is a slow feedback. Fortunately, we can model these rather than just extrapolate temperature trends. The results arent pretty but that is no reason to ignore them.
  45. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    23, Joel, And what if the system isn't so simple? What if the Arctic ice melt happens abruptly (as if that could ever happen), and the subsequent changes to the Arctic profile (absorbing radiation instead of reflecting it) ramps temperatures up in a sudden bump? And then that bump releases methane cathrates and melts permafrost in large quantities, causing another bump? What if the actual system moves in fits and spurts, bumping temperatures abruptly on timescales that a few decades cannot detect? In short, what if the science that suggests 2.4-4 C warming, based on a variety of disparate methods, is correct, and your simple projection based on a short period of observation is completely wrong? What if aerosols, a quiet sun, and a string a La Nina's are coincidentally and randomly holding warming to just 0.14 degrees per decade, but every down has an up, and there will be decades where the sun is hot, El Nino dominates, and China and other countries get their sulfide emissions under control? What if, as we already know, dimming aerosols provide a negative compensation for the radiative effects of CO2, and once those stop counteracting the GHG effect, a greater, fuller effect of CO2 is felt, well beyond 0.14˚/decade? What if the nice, simple, linear warming we've seen in just the first few decades since aerosols were reduced in the seventies is really just a blip in the process, and that when you add in real feedbacks, like the Arctic, things get more messy? And what if, as this year's extreme weather shows, the actual negative effects of even a small change in climate are far more deleterious than you or others expect, and that even "just" a 1.2 to 1.4 (or 2 or 2.5 or 3) degree increase has very, very frightening consequences? I think the problem with lukewarmers is that they are the worst of the deniers. They want to have it both ways, to accept the science but to be "reasonable" and dismiss any part of it which requires actual action. As John F. Kennedy said, “The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality.”
  46. Arctic sea ice breaks lowest extent on record
    For what it's worth, this is the area east of Scoresbysund, Greenland, lat 70, on Aug 23.
    Moderator Response: [Sph] Image tag and actual URL repaired.
  47. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    As a reminder, there is nothing magic about 2100AD. Some people seem to want to act like "if we can only keep temperature rise to X by 2100, all is well." When the Earth gets to 2100, I'd guess there will still be much warming in the pipeline from the usual lags.
  48. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    Joel, CO2 emissions and concentrations are already accelerating, and have been for decades. You note the rate of increase is now 2 ppm/yr, in the 1980s it was 1.5 ppm/yr, in the 1960s it was 1 ppm/yr. Unless we do something about it, emissions are expected to continue accelerating (see my link @22). The only way 'lukewarmers' are right is if we take major steps to reduce our emissions.
  49. Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
    dana @21 - Even to support a linear increase in temperature we need to postulate a exponential increase in CO2. If CO2 continues to increase at 2ppm per year, then we the temperature would increase at a rate much less than 0.14 degrees per decade I get for a linear increase. To get a 3 degree increase, then we have to assume that CO2 would actually double between now and 2100. That works out to 4.4 PPM average for the rest of the century, which means that the rate of increase would have to quadruple by the end of the century. The current rate of increase (2000-2012) is about 45% by the end of the century.
  50. Will the Wet Get Wetter and the Dry Drier?
    It's tricky to get a decent handle on overall effect by eyeballing a global graphic showing annual changes in 5 year trends, but I was played it multiple times looking at a number of regions. Others can try the same and see if they had similar perceptions. Europe & North Africa: worst of everywhere. Mega-droughts. This was the most alarming feature of the whole presentation. Europe still produces very significant amounts of global food production and North Africa is experiencing some of the fastest population growth anywhere on the planet. China: mixed, but experienced bands of both wetter and drier than 20thC average. That will hurt when they have already had some pretty brutal floods and droughts that are going to be exceeded. India: Not quite as bad as Europe, but some major browning in regions of very high population density where access to water and groundwater depletion are already *huge* issues. US: Although the SW saw some dark brown, this was not as extreme as I had expected, since I thought the drying of SW US was one of the major climate concerns. Perhaps I've simply gained that impression by looking at too many US-centric analyses. Mexico is pretty dire. Sub-Saharan & southern Africa: Ouch. Pretty severe drying here. Though my memory is that sub-Saharan African rainfall is one of the bits of climate models where there is least agreement. What did others see?

Prev  1094  1095  1096  1097  1098  1099  1100  1101  1102  1103  1104  1105  1106  1107  1108  1109  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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