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  1374  1375  1376  1377  1378  1379  1380  1381  1382  1383  1384  1385  1386  1387  1388  1389  Next

Comments 69051 to 69100:

  1. The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
    Typographical error: Page 6, second to last paragraph, "This gap if filled" should be "This gap is filled".
  2. The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
    I haven't had time to read it yet, but I just noticed that Lifehacker is featuring the handbook. Well done! One thing that might be worth considering is kindle (or other ebook) versions of this and The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism. I find the kindle to be a much more convenient way of reading stuff, but most ebook readers don't do a great job with PDF file. Might even be worth while to sell them for 99 cents to put some money back into the SkS coffers. Either way, I might be able to try and create a kindle version, but I would need a non-pdf copy of the guide to take a crack at it. And since it I will soon be spending 6 weeks travelling mostly out out of internet range I might not be able to get it done until I get back. Just a thought.
  3. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    A lot of the focus of energy saving concentrates on the obvious things - standby electric power, more efficent vehicles, low power fluoro lights, etc. But you can actually make a bigger difference by reviewing your not so obvious uses of energy. For example, the energy required to produce a couple of kilos of beef is substantially greater than that for the equivalent vegetables, so becoming a vegetarian is actually an excellent way to save energy (if you want to become a vegetarian). A less drastic solution would be to cut down your meat intake, or to stop eating fast food. A large part of the problem is over consumption and wastefulness. How about you ask yourself if you really need all the material good you possess, or whether you need to replace things so quickly. Have a look in the mirror. Do you eat too much? Do you waste food? It will be wonderful when all our energy comes from non-polluting sources. But the problem of too many people consuming more than they realy need will remain, unless we substantially change our approach to life.
  4. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    adelady @37, for a while I went to school in Hamilton in Victoria, just across the border from South Australia. At every sports event you would see a small gang of children busily working the stands and scrounging any glass bottles left behind in order to collect the 5c refund when the bottle was returned to South Australia. Consequently, the sports grounds where essentially liter free, and this was in 1973. I was stunned when I returned to Queensland to find not such refund payable, and consequently heavily littered sports grounds, shopping malls etc. Consequently I am a huge fan of the South Australian system. On a similar but more general line, Germany has now made the manufacturers and sellers of goods responsible for waste disposal. I understand the effects have been good, although I have not seen a cost benefit analysis. The TV program from which I got this information indicated that cost wise the system was working well, but how reliable is any TV program? Regardless, in the absence of a cost/benefit analysis clearly showing the method to be inefficient, again I am very much in favour.
  5. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    WyrdWays @34, apology accepted. I am not sure why you consider some of these options on "the wild side of techno-feasibility". Where I live, every time I go shopping I have a choice between normal, organic, or hydroponic tomatoes and NASA has been researching the possibilities of hydroponic wheat since at least 1989. Also where I live, we have a reserve filter base desalinization plant capable of providing 20% of the water needs of a major population center. Obviously that could be expanded at need at the cost of increased of water supply. To my mind switching to an electrolysis based system makes sense in a world of renewable energy. During the day solar power can split water into hydrogen and oxygen which at night is then burnt to provide power and pure water. I do not claim, however, to have costed this method, but see below. Harvesting 10% of solar power is, I believe a reach. In fact I suspect we will instead harvest much of the solar power in the form of wind power, thereby allowing nature to store energy for us at the cost of some efficiency. We will also harvest some of the wind power as wave power with the same trade of. This will be supplemented by geothermal, hydro, and tidal power. We may also utilize nuclear power and it is still conceivable that fusion will finally become a practical power source (although I believe the practical application of fusion has been forecast for 50 years into the future for the entirety of my 50 some years). The point is not that a particular technology will be our energy supply salvation. Rather, it is that there is abundant energy to meet our future growth needs well into the future, and indeed, to do so sustainably. As for orbital solar power stations, assume that I am wrong by all means. That still leaves us with approx 225 years of growth before we genuinely need to switch to a near zero growth economy. (Assuming of course that practical fusion power is still 50 years of in 2235 AD.) But in that event the switch will be made without the need for significant political argument because there will be little basis to sustain the growth. All of these comments come with a very important caveat. I am not a futurologist, and I do not predict the successful implementation of any technology. What I do know, however, is that there are many apparently technologically feasible ways to accomplish everything we need to sustain growth into the future. And while I do not need to predict of any of them that they will pan out, those who think long term sustained growth is impossible need to assume that all of them will not pan out. IMO that is not a viable position. Given that, and given that economic growth, all else being equal is a good thing, and given the clear political suicide of a party actually advocating zero (let alone negative growth), I believe tying the response to global warming to a zero growth sustainability model places an unnecessary hurdle in the path to tackling global warming. (That leaves aside the issue that I would consider a zero growth model potentially ruinous in and of itself.)
  6. Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Continue Climbing
    @ Sphaerica You forget the fallback mantra underlying the "anything-but-fossil-fuel-derived-CO2" agenda:
    "It's turtles, all the way down..."
     And turtles produce... ...methane.
  7. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    NZ - 91 octane is bouncing around NZ$2.02 - $2.10 (say US$1.60 per litre. Looks like UK citizen paying something like US$2.08 per litre.
  8. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    Speaking of lighting. We're planning to replace the decrepit late 60s/early 70s kitchen here, and I'm going to imitate something I saw in a cafe. A mirror! They've placed a mirror about 4ft long, 18in wide on the ceiling - basically it's directly above the area where customers stand to order/pay. It means they need very little lighting apart from the windows. All I have to do is line it up with the not very large window and keep it away from steam etc. Means I won't have to worry about lighting for new positions for oven and other appliances. Nifty! (Thankfully this house has conventional ceiling heights, not the 11ft+ monsters in our old (very old) house. Wouldn't have been anoption there.)
  9. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    Re gas pricing - it was $1.49 per litre here in Australia when I filled up last night. That was diesel, but petrol(gas) and diesel are similarly priced at the moment. One suggestion - diesel vehicles are generally far more fuel-efficient than gasoline / petrol engined vehicles. I used to fill up my previous car every 10-12 days, but the diesel I bought to replace it a few years ago only gets filled about once per month! Combine that with the high price of petrol/gasoline, and you can see why diesel cars are so popular in Europe (and are becoming more so here in Australia - I was the third person in my 40-employee office to get one).
  10. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    DrTsk: yes, CFLs have mercury. It's a very, very small amount, though, and not a problem unless you're in the habit of breaking CFLs in sealed rooms. :-) (personally, I find all those mercury switch central heating thermostats used in some cold climates to be a far greater risk) LEDs are great - I replaced the halogen downlights in our kitchen with LEDs a few years back. Being early model LED downlights, they're not quite equivalent to a 50w halogen in light output, but they're more than bright enough (how bright does your house really need to be at night?) Cost-wise - they cost me, each, about 50 times the halogen bulbs I replaced. Based on the price I paid, I would have to run them for 4 hours a day for 7 years to make up the $$ cost difference. That's ignoring the fact that the halogens were burning out at the rate of 1 every 6-9 months, and I also had to replace one transformer that died (and another was clearly on it's last legs when I pulled it out to install the LED transformer). I will say, though, that costs have come down at least 50-60% since then, so the payback period is now only 3-4 years (or less!), for about 4 hrs per day of usage. We've had them for maybe 3 years so far, and I'm planning on replacing a few other light fittings with LEDs. One disadvantage - the halogens used to throw an enormous amount of light up in the ceiling space. Wasted energy, generally, but it was quite handy on the rare occasions that I was working up there... Now I have to carry an LED worklight up with me. :-)
  11. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    'lets live with less banner' Being a fair bit older than most of you young whipper-snappers, I grew up in the era when bottles and jars were made with a now defunct impression. "This bottle always remains the property of Bickfords/Lion/whoever." Recycling bottles wasn't a matter of putting glass into a certain receptacle. It was returning property to its rightful owner. We'd be a lot better off rethinking our approach to material things than saying we have to make do with less. The reason this process is no longer used is that businesses decided they'd rather let their bottles go into the waste stream than pay wages to people to collect, clean and reuse them. We don't have to reinstate that process. But we should at least work out the costs and benefits of handling such things better than we do now. Of course, I speak from the lofty moral height of a state which has had container deposit/ return legislation for decades and recently outlawed lightweight plastic shopping bags. Remarkably, neither the economy nor the society has collapsed. We certainly have 'less' stuff in the case of the bags, and we're so used to the container rules that we're horrified by the ghastly piles of cans and bottles on roadsides and other public places when we go interstate. Cans and bottles vanish from our streets and public bins within minutes or hours. Keeps the place tidy, and lots of people with little opportunity get themselves some regular pocket money at the recycling depots. (The deposit recently increased to 10c per item. Yay!) Making do with less? Just go for this kind of low-hanging fruit, just like the first energy targets should be the low-hanging stuff - cost little, benefit lots. When we are more used to paying attention to certain kinds of material purchases, it's easier to move on to others.
  12. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    re. #9 My 'back of the envelope calculation' shows that $3.00/gallon gas translates to about 80c per litre, a price most of the developed world has not seen in a long time. Here in Alberta for example, the average price per litre for regular gas is $1.09. A simple, but politically impossible task that might encourage the use of more fuel efficient cars would be to bring the price of U.S. gas more in line with the rest of the developed world.
  13. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    CFL's have mercury, why not LED's ???
  14. Memo to Climategate Hacker: Poor Nations Don't Want Your Kind of Help
    UEA's climate scientists have been hounded and falsely vilified because of the hacker's lack of understanding of basic scientific methods. Millions of decent people struggling to come to terms with climate change have been misled by his half-baked information. Most grievously of all, the billions of families who scrape by on less than $2 a day have had their lives put further at risk. What would most help these impoverished families is for the UN climate talks in Durban to result in a strong climate deal. This hacker attack, timed to derail the process once more by falsely undermining the science, is the last thing they need. If the hacker's moral purpose is to help the poor, then he has scored a spectacular own goal “Climategate Hacker Scores Own Goal” Huffington Post, Nov 29, 2011 Click here to access this article.
  15. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    Re-the skinflint approach,I think that this will ultimately be the thing that will turn the tide.I have heard many stories of companies that changed their business practices for what they considered to be the greater social good,only to find that they unexpectedly reaped finincial savings beyond what they expected. This kind of win-win is the message that needs to reach the ears of CFO's and shareholders of companies worldwide.
  16. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    The skinflint approach is now being used as an advertising tool for solar PV in Australia. "I'm not trying to save the world. I'm saving up for ....." In fact anyone living in a region with reasonable solar incentives / FIT could justify installation as simply an investment option rather than a save-the-world choice. The cash return for capital outlaid can be much better than normal investment. With a very nice backup that the returns are stable, increasing and near permanent even when the bonus FIT reduces, a reassuring alternative for those worried about their savings, shares or superannuation. And for those concerned about 'over-capitalising' their house, solar PV is a much, much better option than a granite benchtop in the kitchen.
  17. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    Suggested reading: Oxfam, WWF and the International Chamber of Shipping (which represents over 80% of the world merchant fleet) call on delegates to COP 17 to give the International Maritime Organization (IMO) clear guidance on continuing its work on reducing shipping emissions through the development of Market Based Measures (MBMs). “COP 17 Climate Change Conference: Oxfam and WWF join with shipowners to urge agreement on way forward for tackling greenhouse gas emissions from ships” Oxfam International news release, Nov 29, 2011 To access the entire news release, click here.
  18. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    "can be avoided by simply explaining that I'm a cheap skinflint." LOL Stevo. This is a point I often make myself. Yes I'm a "do-gooder" who wants to cut his CO2 emissions, but I'm also trying to cut my costs & save money, & what better way to do it than to cut my energy & fuel consumption?
  19. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    Switching from electric hot water storage to continuous flow gas hot water has probably been the single biggest impact on my personal CO2 emissions. My electricity use went immediately from almost 13kw-h per day to less than 6kw-h per day, with only a very small increase in my gas use. I also have nothing but CF globes in my house, am on a 100% Green Energy Scheme & use nothing but public transport to make my daily commute.
  20. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    PPS the correct link to the large version of the figure is http://i1225.photobucket.com/albums/ee395/Jim264/mckinsey-ghg-abatement-curve.png. Don't know why the link in the original post contains an extraneous 'current='
  21. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    PS That graph is from https://solutions.mckinsey.com/ClimateDesk/default.aspx
  22. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    bit_pattern @12 For me the simplest answer to this is that it is about our responsibility at a personal level. If my personal life is good and my income is high and this all comes as a consequence of a high per capita emissions level then I have a more responsibility to act than someone on a much lower income. If I earn $1000/week and someone else earns $50/week, how can we argue that the other person should do more than I do? Then when we project this up to nations, why should a nation of people on $50/week have to do more per person than a nation of people on $1000/week?
  23. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    Regarding bullet 3: use tufts of leftover fiberglass insulation instead of spray foam to fill those exterior outlet boxes - you or your electrician will be glad you did when it comes time to replace the outlet. Regarding several posts about small improvements not making any difference: don't forget to include the multiplier from application of cheap fixes by large numbers of people. See the left end of this graph.
  24. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    @ Tom C: Apologies for any offence caused, certainly none intended! But... Mining space for resources, orbiting solar power stations, electrolysis of the oceans for water, hydroponics for food, 10% harnessing of incoming solar radiation. They do all sound a little on the wild side of techno-feasibility to me. But probably no more so, to you, than my insistence that the world can voluntarily enter into a planned reduction in material wants. It seems like the only hope to me, but I don't see a queue of politicians forming under the 'lets live with less banner' yet. I sincerely hope one of us is right. But I suspect both views will be proved wrong - Gaia will secure her future, and it'll be one without homo sapiens (as we know ourselves anyhow)
  25. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    Suggested reading: “Table Talk: Inside the 'pizza is a vegetable' controversy; climate change and food prices” OregonLive.com, Nov 29, 2011 To access this timely article, click here.
  26. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    First of all, DB, please don't think we are ungrateful to you for your efforts as moderator. My list of personal efforts is mainly similar to yours with a couple of exeptions. Living in a much warmer climate and having far less distance to travel for work purposes, I drive an energy efficient vehicle and am hunting for something even less thirsty to replace it with. Unfortunately, public transport is not an option for me as no services run from where I work to where I live. I find that any perceptions of me being some kind of do gooder who wants to save the world (a bad thing to many people)can be avoided by simply explaining that I'm a cheap skinflint. I don't use airconditioning because it is expensive. I use room heating only on the coldest of evennings. It seems cheapskates are more socially acceptable.
  27. Models are unreliable
    Thanks to all for the feedback pbjamm - Have checked out your references and am guessing that's probably it. Cheers.
  28. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    #12, indeed, but it is also good to see positive examples - this can show to some, and hopefully eventually to policymakers, that leading a more energy efficient lifestyle does not equal living in a cave. So kudos to Daniel, pirate and others who have made conscious positive decisions.
  29. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    On the other hand, I do agree though it is not enough for say Pirate and Daniel to do the right thing. There has to be a plan that gets everyone on board to make a real difference.
    Response:

    [DB] "There has to be a plan that gets everyone on board to make a real difference."

    To train up a legion to effect change:  part of the long-term strategy I have.

    Snow

    Meh.  But more positive than this.

  30. Bert from Eltham at 08:46 AM on 30 November 2011
    Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Continue Climbing
    The real issue is that our CO2 emissions are raising the temperature of the Earth towards tipping points, so called because once they are underway they are irreversible. Is the next retreat of the deniers to blame global warming on these tipping points once they are underway and thus label them as 'natural'? My current fears for the future habitability of our Space Ship Earth were already dire. With embarrassingly stupid thinking and shouting by deniers in general the very real warnings are falling on the now deaf ears of the uninterested public. As a lowly Physicist I think that when all of this equilibrates the conditions on Space Ship Earth will not be recognisable by some of our current generations alive today. It will be the youngest that will see the worst changes. The science has given us a measure of the situation we are all in. Only real action will avert us damaging our planet beyond repair. The time for squabbling is long past. We all need to take remedial action before it is too late. Bert
  31. The Debunking Handbook Part 5: Filling the gap with an alternative explanation
    I added a bit more here http://www.skepticalscience.com/Debunking-Handbook-Part-2-Familiarity-Backfire-Effect.html#68823 . Eg, "When they think of the myth, you want them to then think of the failure of the myth or the right answer... Working off contradictions is great because many theories can be internally consistent... Contradictions are a great way to eliminate the wrong paths efficiently.. what remains will be the path taken."
  32. The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
    A related pair of replies starts here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Debunking-Handbook-Part-5-Filling-gap-with-alternative-explanation.html#68820 I don't recommend people hide any of the myth on purpose except if you have short-term goals. There is no short-cut. If you care about lasting change, the person will have to visit and revisit the myths. It takes time. You should not expect results quickly (much like any human doesn't overcome issues overnight or from one surefire solution).. much like you don't gain deep understanding overnight. If they don't hear the facts and myths juxtaposed from you, they will likely hear it later over and over and not in the context of the facts. To over-ride an actual myth they have adopted, it may take a lot of time and the journey likely will come from within the person. I agree easy explanations are great, so mentioning the myth alongside a rhyme or easy catchy rebuttal, etc, is valuable. When they think of the myth, you want them to then think of the failure of the myth or the right answer. Working off contradictions is great because many theories can be internally consistent. To undo the effects of a myth, you want the myth not to float around in its own consistent if limited universe. You want to attach that mythology to contradictions the thinker easily believes. Also, when you want to convince yourself of something, you aren't going to perform every experiment. Contradictions are a great way to eliminate the wrong paths efficiently.. what remains will be the path taken. In summary, help the thinker both (a) build up a web of interconnected facts and also, via contradictions, (b) help them derail every facet of a mythology (ie, defeat every little related myth). So it's OK to headline a myth if there are catchy and easy arguments that derail that myth. [Ultimately, they have to address the myths in their minds to defeat them.]
  33. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    "Contrary to Daniel, I tend to think that small acts produce small effects". It is not clear to me that Daniel thinks that. Some things he suggested were small, but using the numbers in MacKay's book, house heat/cooling and transportation are big items. The effect is only small if only a few people make those changes. I crunched MacKay's numbers for NZers ( see here though this version has cost of insulation out by order of magnitude) and found you make big difference with flying and transportation.
  34. The Debunking Handbook Part 5: Filling the gap with an alternative explanation
    ..specifically in response to this article: "Debunking" may not debunk all the things that need debunking. "Debunking" might be weak. Using simple sentences and the like makes it easy to add deep interdependence to the new facts. If the thinker doesn't understand, the "fact" will be wisked away and not grow to dominate areas where myths are entrenched. If you don't understand, you can't use that fact. You can't recall that fact easily. That fact will disappear and never have real power in the first place. A person with an elaborate theory will need many of those parts undone. The myths have a strong hold and facts will not be strong enough to uproot every related and reinforcing myth. You never just fight one myth but a set of related myths. Part of the battle (besides creating depth and solid foundation for facts) is to weaken the rival mythology.
  35. The Debunking Handbook Part 5: Filling the gap with an alternative explanation
    Here is a view I hold of the brain. Think of the brain as a vast web (yes, neurons). To properly replace something, the thinker has to (a) access the precise part of the vast web and (b) integrate the replacement. The speaker is not the thinker. This is why it's best to let the thinker talk out his (her) problem. It must come from within. Hopefully the speaker can provide useful stimulation to help the thinker find the problem area(s), but ultimately it is the thinker that must discover and fix. There may be many interrelated problem areas (with problems/myths of various sorts). So a fix in the wrong spot will tend to have little value. Also, a fix in a few spots may not solve the full problem and further thinking may end up upending the new fixes if they were few in number and not deeply intertwined with what the thinker holds strongly and fundamentally (eg, related to things easy to see for yourself). Lesson to be learned: Let the thinker guide the exploration. Try to find conflicts in their analysis (ie, weaken the foothold the myth may have). Provide many versions of the truth (eg, at different levels and under different contexts), as this adds interdependence and increases the odds it will hit the right spot for that thinker.
  36. apiratelooksat50 at 08:06 AM on 30 November 2011
    Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    DB, Kudos to you! This "skeptic" can tick off the same accomplishments as pertains to my house. We even close off a large room that is rarely used and have shunted heating/cooling duct output from areas that don't them as much to areas that do. I also have shade trees that are maturing and help keep the house cooler in the summer. My wife just traded cars and is getting 50% better gas mileage for her commute. Like you, I am forced to drive a 4WD SUV for job purposes, but I drive a smaller one with better gas mileage, and I ride a bike or run to the gym when time and weather permit. Regardless of my view on the AGW theory, I do these things because they are right. Along with recycling all glass, paper, and aluminum/metal products, composting, and using a mulching mower.
  37. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    My back-of-envelope math shows that driving a 30MPG car 2/3 of the year would save roughly $1500/year in gas. That is an immediate fuel/CO2 savings (25% reduction) and a payoff on a used commuter car in only a few years. Someone who drives as much as Daniel could actually benefit from a 2nd car. Surprising. This is why math is superior to guessing. This assumes you drive 100 miles/day (250 days/year), the 4x4 gets 17MPG and that gas is $3/gallon. Taxes and insurance are not factored in.
    Response:

    [DB] "Daniel could actually benefit from a 2nd car."

    Actually, we do have 2 vehicles (my wife also works fulltime).  Unfortunately both are classified as SUVs.  As soon as we can afford it we plan on getting a "riceburner" or hybrid for non-winter usage and park the larger of the two.

    I had neglected to hilite it in the OP (didn't survive my final edits), but we just had moved back into town last winter.  Thus we are able to park both vehicles after work so we can walk & ride bicycles (um, in the NON-winter months), especially on the weekends.  And we do have a moped for just running errands around town when the weather permits (67 mpg).

  38. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    Daniel, Thanks for all your effort moderating the scene here at Skeptical Science. The tone of the discussion is what sets this site apart.
  39. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    Tire chains on a two wheel drive are a viable alternative in most situations. They are just inconvenient to take on and off. 4wd doesn't help you stop in icy conditions. I'm not without sin myself in this category.
    Response:

    [DB] Tire chains are problematic in Michigan:

    MCL 257.710 of the Michigan Vehicle Code covers the use of tire chains, and states that a person may "use a tire chain of reasonable proportion upon a vehicle when required for safety because of snow, ice, or other condition tending to cause a vehicle to skid." If used, the chain must not come in contact with the surface of the roadway.

    (Emphasis added)

    That last requirement effectively nullifies their usage except in extremis.

  40. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    pbjamm @2 - at least in terms of energy, 80 to 90% of a vehicle's lifetime energy use comes during operation, so at least from that perspective, getting a second, more efficient vehicle can result in lower overall energy consumption.
  41. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    The three best things to do with a house: insulate, insulate, insulate. I wish there were a magic wand for transportation. Use mass transit as much as possible.
  42. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    This is probably redundant on Daniel, but may apply to others. Bring about change with your wallet. Do not buy those products with high negative environmental (or societal) impacts and/or carbon footprints. Also vote for representatives at all levels of government who are concerned about AGW and plan to actually do something about it. Consider "offsetting" natural gas and electricity consumption with wind power, for example. Phantom power draw is also quite a biggy. Daniel is quite far north, but a solar water heater might be an option. And rain barrels to collect water in the warm season. The car is tricky, there are 4x4 hybrids out there but they are expensive.
  43. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    My personal solutions : wood-fuel boiler, thermal solar, teleworking, electronic rather that print reading, gardening, very few travel for leisure, locally-produced consumption when possible. But I live in a very rural area, some of these choices are uneasy in urban context. Contrary to Daniel, I tend to think that small acts produce small effects… Of course, it’s better than nothing but often, I observe my friends imagine that we can ‘save the climate’ with just such small gestures. It’ll be much more complicated, orders of magnitude are welcome! Interesting considerations about that in David MacKay ‘without the hot air’
    Response:

    [DB] "Contrary to Daniel, I tend to think that small acts produce small effects"

    In isolation, perhaps.  But one point of this post is to model for others so they can later emulate. 

    The other, much larger, point of this post is that if everyone does nothing, nothing gets done.  And that if enough do enough of the little things often enough, then attitudes can change on a large enough scale so that larger, more significant and meaningful change can be implemented.  Hence the Lao Tsu quote. 

    'Nuff said.  ;)

  44. Models are unreliable
    This is probably a reference to McIntyre and McKitrick 2005. I remember this being touted by 'skeptics' during Cliamtegate 1.0 as proof that the models were doctored. See also the What evidence is there for the hockey stick? thread.
  45. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    Ok thanks. Yes for the record, CGCM3 and the UVic ESCM oceans are based on MOM 1.1 and 2.2 respectively, as Nathan correctly said, but CGCM4/CanESM2 oceans are based on NCOM (which is what I was referring to). The much bigger point is that the UVic ESCM is using the Fanning and Weaver Energy-Moisture-Balance-Model for the atmosphere, while CGCM3 uses the full 3-D dynamic atmosphere based on AGCM3. As a result of this, and other differences, the behaviour of the models is in fact quite different.
  46. Models are unreliable
    peacetracker - if you can tune models to produce what you want, then why cant skeptics take any one of the models (open source) and produce the current warming without needing anthropogenic factors?
  47. Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Continue Climbing
    32, Arkadiusz Semczyszak, Can you point to a single scientist or published study that endorses your rather bizarre theory that somehow, magically, against all odds, anthropogenic CO2 is having no effect on CO2 levels while melting permafrost (and when did this start melting, by the way, and why) is responsible for all of it? By the way, the following assertion of yours is utterly unsupported by anything except presumption:
    Without a natural source increase biosphere would certainly has removed the more (all?) of our C.
    Your hypothesis fails on several points: 1) Where is the anthropogenic CO2 going? 2) Why does this sink affect the anthro-CO2 but not the permafrost CO2 that you propose? 3) How has the permafrost CO2 suddenly been released into the atmosphere? 4) Your accounting of CO2 now must include everything released anthropologically, everything supposedly released from permafrost, everything remaining in the atmosphere, and everything absorbed by the ocean... and those numbers do not balance. 5) What are your hard numbers... where is your numerical evidence (an accounting) that any of this is happening, or even that another source of carbon can and should exist? Why are you solving a problem that does not exist? Is it that important for you, now that you have apparently accepted that CO2 causes dangerous global warming, that you instead prove that the source of CO2 is not our own human activity but instead some other, magical source, which is beyond our control?
  48. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    With regard to green 'growth' there have been some economic modelling studies on this if you are interested. Renewable energy: An efficient mechanism to improve GDP I am very much with WyrdWays on this, we are fighting against the tide with economic growth. However, I believe we could redirect the useless but substantial economic activity from wasteful practices, planned obsolescence and needless excess into more sustainable economic activity without affecting economic activity overall too much. We do need to shake of the growth bug. Reduce economic activity? perhaps, but lets walk before trying to run!
  49. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    Fair point Nate, thanks. I'll just cut that part out of the post.
  50. Klimafakten.de - Leveraging Skeptical Science content
    Just checked out the site. It shows a lot of promise!

Prev  1374  1375  1376  1377  1378  1379  1380  1381  1382  1383  1384  1385  1386  1387  1388  1389  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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