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  1372  1373  1374  1375  1376  1377  1378  1379  1380  1381  1382  1383  1384  1385  1386  1387  Next

Comments 68951 to 69000:

  1. Changing the Direction of the Climate
    [DB] - Just saw your moderation input, I'll have to look at those... not happy data, I have to say.
    Response:

    [DB] Conclusions of Archer 2009 (linked earlier):

    Nowhere in these model results or in the published literature is there any reason to conclude that the effects of CO2 release will be substantially confined to just a few centuries.

    In contrast, generally accepted modern understanding of the global carbon cycle indicates that climate effects ofCO2 releases to the atmosphere will persist for tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years into the future.

    Relevant Graphics:

    Click to enlarge

    Click to enlarge

  2. Changing the Direction of the Climate
    tmac57 - "Just how much do we know about how long Co2 remains in the atmosphere? I have seen sources that say 100 years,and others that say 1000 years. Is there that much uncertainty?" Archer 2005 represents some fairly recent research on this topic. He models ocean sequestration, oceanic temperature feedback, rock weathering, etc. "...we expect that 17–33% of the fossil fuel carbon will still reside in the atmosphere 1 kyr from now, decreasing to 10–15% at 10 kyr, and 7% at 100 kyr. The mean lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 is about 30–35 kyr" The numbers following include modeled ocean thermal feedback (+), CaCO3 weathering (-), and silicate weathering (-) influences: First case - a 300gT slug (instant release) of carbon (what we've released so far), peak is > 350ppm (we're well above that now...): 1kY: 16.8% (~315ppm) 10kY: 9.8% 100kY: 6.7% Mean lifetime kY: 34.7 Worst case - 5000gT of carbon, burning all buried fossil fuels including all coal, peak for that slug is ~1700ppm: 1kY: 32.9% (~525ppm) 10kY: 15.1% 100kY: 6.7% Mean lifetime kY: 36.1 There are some fast adjustments, mostly soil sequestration and oceanic acidification - those have a half-life of ~40 years. But once those reach equilibrium we're down to longer term geologic sequestration - and that's very slow. "Humankind has already released about 300 Gton C from fossil fuels and deforestation, and the IPCC business-as-usual scenario (IS92a) projects about 1600 Gton of carbon released from a combination of fossil fuels and terrestrial fluxes, with emissions beyond 2100 unspecified." We're going to have to deal with the effects of our actions for quite some time to come.
  3. It's the sun
    We believe in 'Gravity' though we don't know what it is. We know and can measure what it Does. A S Gaddes published the original Ratios Principle and 'Dry Cycle'forecasts numbers in 1990. There were no 'peers' to review such work at the time. The fantasy of El Nino ruled the waves. Alex Gaddes died in 1997, leaving his forecasts at 2001. Don Gaddes extrapolated the 'Dry Cycle' Forecasts from 2001 to 2055 and republished the original work including the added forecasts,in 2011. A.S. Gaddes never speculated what the 'catalyst' or 'Weather Factor'was, emanating from the Sunspot Latitude of the Sun and affecting the Earths climate as exactly predictable 'Dry Cycles'.(Recent work seems to indicate there is something to the production of ultra-violet and ozone affecting the Jet Stream.) The work does not predict Global Average Temperatures,(though A S Gaddes also worked on the concept of a 'Convection Still' in this regard.) It predicts 'Dry Cycle' onset and influence (moving around the planet longitudinally with the westward drift of the Earth's Magnetic field.)As an example, 2011 'Wet'/Normal, 2012 One Year 'Dry Cycle'(Reaching New Zealand mid-December 2011 and Australia, early January 2012) 2013-14 Two year 'Wet'/Normal period, 2015-19 a severe Five Year 'Dry Cycle'(Drought.) The previous Five year Drought was 1997-2001. These 'Dry Cycles' are immutable, and are only alleviated by explosive volcanic albedo, (in Australia's case,usually volcanic activity in the Indonesian Archipelago.) The 'Dry Cycle' forecasts are exact in their arrival and duration, and can be easily proven to be so via weather records dating back into Tree-ring and Deep Ice Core analysis. I do not indulge in 'Mathturbation' or 'Climastrology' and neither did A S Gaddes. ( -snip- )
    Response:

    [DB] "...in 1990. There were no 'peers' to review such work at the time."

    So you maintain that peer-review did not exist prior to 1991?  Or that Gaddes the Elder had no peer?

    "The fantasy of El Nino ruled the waves."

    If making a funny, using a smiley or Poe's Law kicks in.

    "Alex Gaddes died in 1997, leaving his forecasts at 2001."

    He published in 1990, yet his data you cite runs after his death...via Ouija board?

    "I do not indulge in 'Mathturbation' or 'Climastrology'"

    In all seriousness, extraordinary claims require an extraordinary burden of proof.  If you maintain what you do in the absence of physical mechanisms in the face of centuries of published research (which you seek to overturn with a non-peer-reviewed source) which says otherwise, then you do. 

    QED.

    Inflammatory snipped.

  4. Changing the Direction of the Climate
    Spaerica,oneiota,and Chemware-Thanks for the Information.The Nature article said more about this than anything else that I have read on the subject...pretty unnerving,I must say. I find it rather extraordinary that this one aspect hasn't gotten more attention in stories of AGW.If the general public is not aware of the very long timelines that we could be stuck with the excess Co2,and all the concomitant problems that it causes,they might be too sanguine about it,thinking that our technology can easily overcome it in short order. This line from the Nature article really struck me: "If civilization was able to develop ways of scrubbing CO2 out of the atmosphere," Tyrrell says, "it's possible you could reverse this CO2 hangover." Wouldn't it be ironic if we had to end up using as much energy to 'scrub' out the Co2 from our atmosphere,as it took burning fossil fuels,to put it there?
    Response:

    [DB] For more info:

  5. Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    There are people who are excessively skeptical rather than deniers. A close friend of mine is one. She would not let politics blind her to unpleasant facts but her intuitions have been formed in safety critical IT and she has some mistaken impressions about what has actually been done in climate science. She has not looked into it in detail nor looked at the breadth of the evidence. She has had a lot of other things on her plate. But she has ran into too much denialist misinformation and has not had the time to find out the actual facts. I think she is typical of a lot of technically literate people who get fooled by sciency sounding stuff that gives satisfactory answers if you look at it quickly but which you have to put a lot of effort into if you want to know why the plausible sounding answer is wrong. A lot of people with a scientific background are vulnerable to a Gish gallop in fields other than their own, especially if their intuitions and experience aggravate the problem.
  6. Changing the Direction of the Climate
    @12, tmac57: It's a distribution of times, rather than just a number: Carbon is forever, Nature, 2008
  7. Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    sorry Karl, not Kyle.
  8. Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    Hmmm, Kyle, I think it would be more appropriate to say that Deniers calling themselves Skeptics is damaging the image of skepticism in the same way that Terrorists calling themselves Muslims is damaging the image of Islam-the fault lies not with the broader group, but with the people who're using the label under false pretenses.
  9. Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    Karl_from_Wylie @20, you miss the point. We did not start calling deniers "skeptics". They did. At first we did not have a problem with that and followed their chosen use until it became very obvious that they were in fact not true skeptics, but deniers. As to "radicalizing the moderate opposition", the deniers are certainly trying to leverage the term to do just that, just as they previously tried to leverage the term "skeptic" to suggest that their opponents where not skeptical, but rather dogmatic or gullible or both. I note, however, that it is they who are playing word games, while it is we who want to discuss the science.
  10. Changing the Direction of the Climate
    Sphaerica, I'm not sure that this is relevent however AFAIK(and that is not very much) the long term answer (weathering of silicate rocks) is geological in process and time scale and according to this paper the ocean sequestration of CO2 is less effective than weathering of terrestial silicate rocks.
  11. Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    Sphaerica @16, I was going to draw your attention to skeptical societies, but merely note that tmac57 @19 has beaten me to it.
  12. Karl_from_Wylie at 12:03 PM on 1 December 2011
    Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    Wouldn't you say that lumping skeptics in as deniers, is analogous to lumping Muslims in with terrorists? Doesn't it do your effort of persuasion a disservice? As it tends to radicalize some of the moderate opposition?
    Response:

    [DB] You were warned here to cease with the Concern Trolling.  Every comment made since then has either been more of the same or a complaint about moderation.  Future, similar, comments will simply be deleted and a rescinding of posting privileges will be considered.

    Thank you in advance for your cooperation and compliance in this matter.

  13. Stephen Baines at 11:50 AM on 1 December 2011
    Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
    gary I'm not sure you have read that Philapona paper with due diligence. Yes it states that changes in DW LW were three times larger than predicted by a GCM, but that paper also ends with the sentence "The resulting uniform increase of longwave downward radiation manifests radiative forcing that is induced by increased greenhouse gas concentrations and water vapor feedback, and proves the ‘‘theory’’ of greenhouse warming with direct observations." Rather than dismissing one statement out of hand, it would be better to understand how the two statements could coexist in the same paper. Turns out the difference you note was because the GCM predictions were average northern hemisphere values forced with a 10% change in CO2 when only a 3.3% change actually occurred. The humidity and cloud levels in central europe were higher than predicted based on a 3.3% increase although in line with a 10% increase) in CO2 because of changing regional atmospheric circulation (due to NAO) across central europe, along with their attendant effects on local cloud cover and humidity. The measured changes LW radiation were actually in line with measured changes in humidity, cloud cover and GH gasses. It's just the changes in the first two parameters were both a function of GH driven climate change and regional weather patterns. Look, I'm a biologist. I have no expertise in this field - like which GCMs are better etc. Still, I can understand a fair bit of the nuance behind what they are doing. Did you even ask Philapona if his paper entitled "Radiative forcing - measured at Earth’s surface - corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect" discredits the greenhouse effect? DB is also right. Model verification in GCMs is not model fitting. They are very cognizant of that problem as you would realize if you ever read deeply in that literature. There is also nothing "magic" about models.
  14. Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    Sphaerica- I have to take issue with your statement "True skeptics don't call themselves skeptics." There is a large and growing international Skeptic movement that embraces that name.The vast majority of them are fighting the denial movement with great vigor.We are on your side,and take great exception when deniers use the term 'skeptic' whether it is about doubting climate change,or conspiracy theories or any kind of trashing of mainstream science.There has been much debate in the real skeptical movement about whether or not the term carries too much baggage,but the history of the modern movement dates back to the early 1970's,long before the deniers,so we got there first,and we intend to stand our ground.
  15. Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    Sphaerica-its kind of like people who call themselves "intellectuals". I've always noted that true intellectuals never refer to themselves as such, whereas pseudo-intellectuals often call themselves intellectuals ;-).
  16. Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    I have to say, though. The people I admire the most are people like Barry Bickmore. People who are genuinely conservative and have had to come to the correct conclusions about climate science. I don't mind disagreeing about the solutions but let's get real about what the problem is so that we can get to the solutions.
  17. Changing the Direction of the Climate
    tmac57, I'm very curious about that topic (how long CO2 remains in the atmosphere) and need to do some research, because I'm not really sure where it is going to go, and how it is going to get there. Current atmospheric CO2 can't go into the ocean, because that is already becoming saturated, is already taking up as much of current and past emissions as it can, and will hold less and less CO2 as it warms. Eventually, the oceans may transition to a source rather than a sink for CO2. Current atmospheric CO2 can for a while go into plant matter but only for as long and as far as vegetation can grow and expand. If things get bad enough and deserts start to expand, droughts increase in frequency and strength, the Amazon transitions to savanna... that's another source of carbon rather than a sink. The only real way that I've seen to draw down current atmospheric CO2 from current levels comes from the biological pump and ocean circulation covered in this post on ocean acidifcation. But to do that, the ocean has to shed its CO2 in that fashion just to begin absorbing atmospheric CO2, to shed that to draw temperatures down to be able to hold more CO2 itself. It looks to me like 100 years is a very, very, very optimistic figure. It looks to me like a number on the order of thousands of years is far more likely. Does anyone have any references that point to a better answer?
  18. Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    14, Karl, True skeptics don't call themselves skeptics. They don't label themselves at all. They just look at information, learn and make decisions. The only people I've ever met who call themselves skeptics are, in fact, deniers. I see no reason to make a distinction in the language, because the only people who will be offended by a lack of distinction are the deniers who get their undies all in a bunch at being called deniers. So now the problem is that we're calling them skeptics? Sheesh.
  19. Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    Karl... Read the full paragraph. John was making a clear distinction between genuine scientific skepticism and people who profess to be skeptics but are not. That is the whole premise of the website. "Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism." To clarify, you could say, "Getting truly skeptical about global warming fake skepticism."
  20. Karl_from_Wylie at 11:02 AM on 1 December 2011
    Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    Rob Honeycut..... This website views Skeptics and Deniers as the same. Please re-read... "...Skeptics vigorously criticise ANY evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace ANY argument, op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming."
  21. Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    If I can buy into the conversation between Karl and Rob, one of the thing that distinguishes a genuine skeptic from a denier is that a skeptic refuses to let political convenience substitute for skepticism. If you read the comments of any popular denier blog, or of Skeptical Science, you will see genuinely bizzare theories proposes by so-called "skeptics" from time to time. Like the suggestion that the Earth's volcanoes produce in a day as much CO2 as humans produce in a year (in fact the Earth's volcanoes, including those underwater produce only 1/100th of the CO2 that humans produce in a year, so the ratio is almost exactly the reverse of that claimed); or variations in the Earth's surface temperature are entirely the consequence of variations in geothermal heat flows (I kid you not). The response from "so-called" skeptics to these theories has been, almost universally, to say that the theories are interesting, or that they would like to see more work done on the theory. With very few exceptions it is not to criticize the obvious errors in the claims. IMO there are two reasons for this behaviour. The first is a matter of overall political strategy. If your purpose is to stop anti-AGW policies rather than scientific truth, than absurd theories can help that cause, so you don't knock them on the head. The second is glass house syndrome. The so-called skeptics know that their positions cannot withstand thorough going critiques. Therefore they do not critique absurd theories lest the favour be returned. In contrast, on SkS I have not hesitated to criticize my fellow defenders of climate science when I have believed them to be wrong, and they have not hesitated to return the favour (and it is a favour, for which I am grateful). The reason is that for us, truth is more important than political advantage. That is one mark of a true skeptic which is transparently lacking in popular denier sites.
  22. Changing the Direction of the Climate
    I dont think you can talk about an optimuum level of CO2. The trick is not to change it too fast. Repeating the mantra - its the rate of change that matters.
  23. Stephen Baines at 10:49 AM on 1 December 2011
    Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    KfW The front page is pointing out that the term "skeptic" has been appropriated in the climate change debate by those who deny the evidence for climate change, yet claim to be skeptics simply because they disagree with the staus quo. It also references "true scientific skepticism" the the ideal appraoch to the problem. True skepticism evaluates alternative explanations by evaluating the evidence for and against so as to determine which explanation fits that evidence most closely. It dispenses with preconceived notions if the evidence does not support them. It also accepts the status quo when the evidence supports it. When you deny evidence in favor of a preconceived notion, you are engaging in what can fairly (if not very constructively) be called denial. That denial can in fact be rabid the preconceived beliefs are very dear indeed. You will find if you dig into the scientific literature that there are many issues of contention and uncertainty in climate change science, and levels of nuance in our understanding that is not present the debate in the lay public. But there are also many propositions that really are no longer open to debate because the evidence for them is so strong. These can be called established facts because the weight of evidence for them is so strong. A proper skeptic would not simply doubt these facts a priori. That is intellectually lazy. They would instead try to understand why the evidence has proven so convincing to so many. A denier presumes a priori that such consensus is by definition proof of a consipracy rather than skeptical inquiy.
  24. Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    Karl... I had to back and look at the full context of the sentence to get the gist of what was being said. The full statement is talking about climate denial. Deniers " vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming." Disagreeing with basic facts in not skepticism. Wanting to clearly understand the uncertainties is.
  25. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    Philippe @39: 'an epidemic of enormity' is a really nice turn of phrase, and dead accurate. Maybe one needs vehicles that size just to accomodate the drivers. I always thought the narrow streets you find in most European cities were designed on purpose to keep gross vehicles out. Imagine trying to drive something like a typical American SUV in a (French, Italian, Spanish, English) village - or trying to park it. A little less tongue in cheek - a lot of US drivers buy what amount to tanks for simple self-protection. There are an awful lot of idiots here who run a stop sign or a red light because of chatting it up on a cellphone, or whatever. Small cars lose in confrontation with one of those. Adelady #40: The mini is still a nice car - and I bet you could get a sheet of plywood on the roof if you wanted to move it. Why can't they make these small cars (I have a Fit) so you can get an 8 ft long piece of lumber inside?
  26. The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
    We plugged the book today on ClimateBites, and took a shot at extracting the "Top 10 Take Away Points" from the handbook, and adding our own bit of spin, for people who'd like a sample before downloading. I'll be curious to hear others' opinions on whether we nailed the key points. The post at http://www.climatebites.org/2011/11/30/climate-change-rebuttalmust-read-the-debunking-handbook-from-skeptical-science/
  27. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    re: DB in #7. I see that Michigan also has rules which effectively prohibit studded tires. http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,4643,7-123-1586_27094-73839--,00.html California at least is a lot more liberal on that. For those afflulent enough to afford 4 wheel drive who live in snow country, it is hard to resist the feeling that you have to have it. For those who can't afford it, take comfort that you are helping your own bottom line as well as the planet every time you get your fingers icy cold and your clothes wet by putting on the chains or taking them off.
  28. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    Jfyre11 @58, thankyou. For my part is certainly is helpful. I know the authors here at SkS always try to get the facts straight, and appreciate any correction when we fail.
  29. Karl_from_Wylie at 09:53 AM on 1 December 2011
    Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    Rob Honeycutt @8 According to www.skepticalscience.com, a skeptic is someone who.. "vigorously criticise ANY evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace ANY argument, op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming." Can someone merely disagree or not yet convinced, without being painted as a wingnut? ??
  30. Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
    I have the utmost respect for The Science of Doom website and posted comments on his first rebuttal of my AT article which prompted his 2nd post which, while I read it, didn't feel the need to post any further comments. In that 2nd Science of Doom post (which is referenced in comment #98 above) he basically made the statement that models are the foundation of the theory. It doesn't matter that actual measurements don't validate that theory and it's only when we plug those measurements into models that we reach the conclusions that models predict. Surprise! I don't agree with that circular logic and stated that in my comments to his first post and felt no compulsion to replicate those same arguments. And I have yet to hear an answer to the question why climate models predict temperture increases three times what is observed from CO2 increases. This was stated in the Philopona 2004 paper entitled "Radiative forcing - measure at Earth's surface - corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect." If a model is off by a factor of 3, then it can't be used to validate theory. Are there other errors in the climate Models? In the papers that were referenced in the AT article the actual OLR measurements didn't decrease in the range that CO2 absorbs but only after compensating for humidity and temperatures and plugging them into models did the OLR magically decrease. CO2 continues to increase at a rate faster than temperatures are increasing so I agree with Ramanathan that if the theory is true, it won't matter what the surface temps are, OLR should decrease if CO2 is trapping the OLR. I don't see how you can have faith in models that are off by a factor of 3.
    Moderator Response: You are incorrect. The measurements are not plugged into the models. The models are not wrong by three times. In the Search field type "models are unreliable" (without the quote marks).
  31. Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    7, Karl, How many deniers does it take to change a lightbulb? None. It's not dark. If it is dark, it's not because the light bulb went out. And if it did go out, its all due to natural cycles. And anyway, the darkening trend is not statistically significant (Phil Jones said so!) and we are now in a period of ongoing brightening (Pielke said so!).
  32. Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    Karl... I'm not sure of what Doug's definition is but I'd suggest that a genuine skeptic is someone who is looking at the science to try to understand it better. Every good scientist is a skeptic. It's required. It's why you see so much tough language between climate scientists in the hacked emails. A denier would be someone who avoids clear, basic facts in favor of a pre-determined position. Rising CO2 is a fact. Rising global temp is a fact. The radiative properties of CO2 are a fact. That burning fossil fuels is leading to the rise in global temp is "virtually certain" (in the parlance of the IPCC). Rejecting these puts one in the position of being in denial of basic facts.
  33. Changing the Direction of the Climate
    Just how much do we know about how long Co2 remains in the atmosphere? I have seen sources that say 100 years,and others that say 1000 years.Is there that much uncertainty?Either way,I think that this is an element of risk that most people do not fully appreciate.They probably have the idea that if all of the worst case scenarios start to occur,then it's just a matter of turning on a dime,and going green...problem solved! Right?
  34. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    Tom Curtis @57 OK, I can certainly see from these statements (from the UVic group) where Dana is coming from. The first two statements were more aspirational than anything. The third statement is dated but true. I'd forgotten that early-on the UVic group helped with some aspects of the CCCma sea-ice model. To say though that the UVic model is "extensively used in developing and testing the CCCma model" is not reality. I hope this is helpful.
  35. Karl_from_Wylie at 09:27 AM on 1 December 2011
    Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    Doug H@2 What is the difference between merely a skeptic versus a rabid denier? ??
  36. Changing the Direction of the Climate
    Pirate, As we had been discussing offline (the conversation, once again, seems to have gone into a deep coma), there is no place for the CO2 to go once it has been extracted from the ground. It is already saturating the atmosphere and oceans. It took hundreds of millions of years for nature to sequester it underground through fossilization. There is no mechanism that I know of that will put a dent in the atmospheric CO2 levels. Perhaps an ocean expert here on the site knows of some such mechanism. I performed a "back of the envelope" calculation recently, under the presumption that we could somehow plant giant sequoia redwoods on any arable/agricultural land we could find (which isn't possible, of course, since those trees require their own very specific environment to grow, and one that is itself greatly threatened by global warming) and that these redwood forests would absorb the 337 Gt of carbon we have released through the burning of fossil fuels, by converting it into bio-matter. Under this premise, we would need to plant, today, redwood forests on at least 75% of all arable/agricultural land, and to allow them to grow for 100 years, before they successfully drew enough carbon (337 Gt) from the system to lower atmospheric CO2 levels back to the pre-industrial age. Of course, this does not allow for the fact that replacing existing forests with redwood forests is less of a net change. It also implies that all of humanity must move off of such land to live in high mountains, deserts and such. Worse than that, with only 25% of the agricultural land available after starting the "great carbon absorption" forests, we'll only be able to feed 25% of the 7 billion people currently alive. Of course all of this is just a fantasy, but one that serves to dramatically demonstrate exactly how much CO2 we have added to the atmosphere, and how absurd it is to think that we can somehow remove it. The genie is out of the bottle. It's just a question of how big we let the genie get before shackling him.
  37. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    perseus "It might be possible to deliver 20% at present though green energy without breaking the bank, but a 80-90% reduction for an increased economy and population is a totally different matter." skept " Small changes will cause small debates and opposition. For bigger change, you must anticipate much more resistance IMO." All depends how it's done. In this state, we have 20% of our power already generated by wind, and more is planned. And they had to reduce the feed-in tariff offered on domestic solar because of the over-enthusiastic take-up. It's still pretty good, but it was fan.tas.tic. We have 3 possibilities when introducing changes of this sort. Opposition which increases, no-one notices or cares much, positive snowball effect. If you structure the changes carefully, you'll get more of the last two and the least possible of the opposition.
  38. Changing the Direction of the Climate
    Pirate, Lets first start by sequestering the 337 billion tons of carbon (and rising) released by the burning of fossil fuels then we can start worrying about the impact on climate?
  39. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    paul D. Carry a lawnmower? My little mini that I treasured in the early 70s could take massive things - lawnmowers, compressors, food for 40 people for a weekend. Made the proud owners of large cars weep. How? Just remove the front passenger seat. Much easier access than in the largest boot. It's all about design. And spanners. (But not modern safety standards, unfortunately.)
  40. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    Jfyre11 @56, Dana's claim quoted by you represents IMO a summary of the information in this paper quoted as reference 14 in Schmittner et al 2011. That paper that:
    "In fact, our model has been used, and is still being used, as a tool to examine the sensitivity of a particular process or subcomponent model across a wide range of parameters, in order to streamline the process of improving certain components of the CCCma coupled AOGCM. The complexity of the CCCma AOGCM is such that relatively few ‘production runs’ can be conducted, leaving systematic parameter sensitivity analyses to be conducted with the University of Victoria (UVic) ESCM."
    and
    "In fact, our model has been used, and is still being used, as a tool with which to examine the sensitivity of a particular process or subcomponent model across a wide range of parameters, in order to streamline the process of improving certain components of the CCCma coupled AOGCM."
    and
    "The sophisticated sea-ice model was built and tested within the context of the ESCM and has since been included in the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (CCCma) coupled Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Model (AOGCM)."
    These claims, IMO, support Dana's claims about the relationship between the CCCma and the UVic model. Are those claims false, or merely dated?
  41. Changing the Direction of the Climate
    Pirate, No-one is suggesting that it is possible to return to pre-industrial levels. As discussed above, we will be lucky if we can hold levels under 450. How can you imagine we could reduce to 180? If we can ever get the amount of CO2 to level out (likely to be above 450) then we can start to consider what would be a good level to end at. Now we need to decide to begin to reduce the amount of pollution we put in the atmosphere. Reducing the amount in the atmosphere is very difficult because when you reduce the atmospehric amount, more CO2 comes out of the ocean in response. Have you really not considered this before?
    Response:

    [dana1981] pre-industrial is 280, not 180ppm.  But you're correct that there's virtually nil chance of us getting anywhere close to that, unless we invent some technology to remove massive quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere, or something.

    The question is not warming or cooling, it's how much more warming.

  42. Changing the Direction of the Climate
    Pirate, there is no chance of CO2 dropping too low. RealClimate has the story..
  43. apiratelooksat50 at 07:33 AM on 1 December 2011
    Changing the Direction of the Climate
    If CO2 levels are successfully reduced to pre-industrial levels, what responses in global temperature should be expected and how soon? If we are successful in reversing a rising temperature trendline, at what point do we want it to level out? Furthermore, at what point do we begin to worry about it getting too low?
  44. Changing the Direction of the Climate
    I have to agree, while 450 ppm is technically feasible, we clearly don't have the political will to make it happen. But the IEA is just discussing how we could do it, if we had the will. Realistically I don't see how we'll avoid blowing past 2°C, which is a scary thought.
  45. Philippe Chantreau at 06:48 AM on 1 December 2011
    Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    What you say about the UK applies even more in the US Paul. The epidemic of obesity afflicting the country has turned into an epidemic of enormity, and beyond people and pets, it now also affects automobiles.
  46. It's the sun
    I agree - looks like more cycle-fitting. If this has any real scientific merit - publish it in peer-reviewed literature not a book.
  47. Changing the Direction of the Climate
    The IEA is pipe dreaming if they think Emissions will peak and began to decline in 2017. I see emissions peaking in 2035 or 2040- when C02 will have passed 450ppm. At this point a 3 degree rise C is certainty- we can only hope we do not go beyond that.
  48. The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
    lakshmanok @ 35 - Yes, we've had a few words about this, but haven't come to a solution yet. Thanks for pointing out the contradiction, it might spur action.
  49. IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
    dakiller6 - to convert from carbon figures to carbon dioxide, multiply by 3.67.
  50. The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
    Nice handbook, but if that thermometer on your home page (the one listing the most common climate myths) doesn't reinforce climate myths, I don't know what does! Please follow your own advice :) http://not-that-sane.blogspot.com/2011/11/how-to-debunk-myth.html

Prev  1372  1373  1374  1375  1376  1377  1378  1379  1380  1381  1382  1383  1384  1385  1386  1387  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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