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  1375  1376  1377  1378  1379  1380  1381  1382  1383  1384  1385  1386  1387  1388  1389  1390  Next

Comments 69101 to 69150:

  1. It's the sun
    933, Don, 21,400 peer reviewed papers on volcanic activity and climate change since 2000
  2. It's the sun
    933, Don, Your material has now been peer reviewed. You have been given specific areas wherein it fails. The next step in the peer review process is to do the hard part, accept and address those errors, and resubmit it to review.
  3. It's the sun
    933, Don, While I admitted from the start that I skimmed much of it, I missed nothing. The Ratios Principle is irrelevant to the stated applicability. It does not matter if he used super computers or fairy dust, alien calculus or a child's arithmetic. The bottom line is that he must demonstrate some ability to both mirror past and to predict future global temperature trends, and I see no effort whatsoever to do so, when it should in fact be the centerpiece of everything (not some "Ratios Principle"). I did see frequent reference to the ice cores and tree rings to create his tables (i.e. to identify the "cycles"), but he does not test his cycles against any temperature record of any sort (and, to some extent, testing the output against the input would be cheating and of no value -- I could do the exact same thing with any history of stock exchange records, but with no chance of making a future killing from the results). I did not say that his method depended on Australian Rainfall, I said that his method was used to correlate to it. Either way, it is useless in the climate debate if it is not in some way tied to global climate change, and it is not. If it is, please identify the pages, lines, tables and words that do so. As far as volcanic activity ("ignored and considered irrelevant"), you are simply wrong and you need to do more research. As far as the "forecasts generated by the Ratios Principle"... exactly where are they? They aren't in the book that I could see. That's my major complaint. Where is the testable prediction? Appendices 1 and 2 contain some bizarre and utterly vague forecasts of "dry cycles" in Australia. By what measure? Where are the real world observations that match the truth of the predictions? Where is the math that shows that the predictions are anything more than fabricated data to match some (unrevealed, unclear) observations? And who cares? How does this in any way presume to predict climate change, or the steady rise in temperatures since 1979?
    It took me many readings to 'understand' this work, I expect it will take those more astute and qualified than myself more than one reading.
    I have no intention of reading it again. There is nothing there of value. Again, you are doing your father a grave disservice by using his work to thwart true climate science and forestall action, rather than vice versa.
  4. Climategate 2.0 in Context - Solar Warming
    dana : "Solar irradiance hasn't increased by more than 1 to 2 W/m2 over the past 150 years" I guess it is less than these values. In IPCC AR4 , I read : "In terms of plausible physical understanding, the most likely secular increase in total irradiance from the Maunder Minimum to current cycle minima is 0.04% (an irradiance increase of roughly 0.5 W m–2 in 1,365 W m–2), corresponding to an RF[11] of +0.1 W m–2. Krivova et al 2010 gave a higher estimate for 1610-present, 1,25 W/m2 in TSI. But remember the reference base is the great solar minimum of Maunder, so during the XXth century, TSI variance is far lower.
  5. Changing the Direction of the Climate
    If we're talking about the carbon 'cycle' and referring to photosynthesis and the like, we're overlooking what burning fossil materials actually does. It doesn't disrupt the biological carbon cycle, it violates the geological carbon cycle. If we want to suck out CO2 released by internal combustion motors alone, then one year's worth equates to about 93 million years' worth of fossil deposition. Growing trees won't do it. What we need is a way to speed up geological weathering processes. So far, I've only come up with a process as crude and clumsy as our fossil fuel extraction processes. Blow things up. It's sort of equivalent in that we've been knocking off mountains and quarrying huge holes in the ground to get at fossils. We'll just need to do much the same thing with mountains and holes in different rock formations. The only saving grace is that the necessary rocks are abundant and easily accessible. The mental image I have is that instead of using small planes as crop dusters, those same small planes will become one of the prime targets for developing a carbon neutral fuel. Because we'll be needing to fly round the clock dusting operations over selected reef systems and their associated coasts to ward off the very worst ravages of acidification and species loss in just a few areas. We won't be able to save them all.
  6. 2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
    The multi-year ice decline is very evident in this graphic from Distribution and trends in Arctic sea ice age through spring 2011, Maslanik et al 2011:
    "Extents of multiyear ice and 5+ ice for the third week of March and at the September minimum. Also shown are piecewise linear‐fit trend lines estimated following Tome and Miranda [2004] and a least‐squares regression line fit to data for March 2002–2006."
    [Source]
  7. It's the sun
    I thank Sphaerica for his indulgence (though he has missed quite a bit. I wont say 'cherry-picked' because I think he has made a genuine effort.)There is no mention of the development of the basic tenet of the book (ie. The Ratios Principle)or its subsequent and future application. The assertion that A S Gaddes only depended on Australian Rainfall records is erroneous.He very much used Deep Ice Core And Tree-ring data to generate his tables. His discussion of the importance of volcanic activity has not been 'nailed down' by current Climate Science, it is in fact ignored or considered irrelevant. What caused the so called 'La Nina' events in Southern Australia at the time of the eruption of Mt Pucon in Mexico 2011? Or the bitterly cold Northern Hemisphere winter at the time of the eruption of Eyjatjallajokull in Iceland? Finally,(for the moment,) are the forecasts generated by the Ratios Principle correct? If they are then the 'method' must have had something to do with it. It took me many readings to 'understand' this work, I expect it will take those more astute and qualified than myself more than one reading.
    Response:

    [DB] Again you continue to prosecute your agenda of curve-fitting without plausible, physical mechanisms for support nor do you provide testable references.  As such you are a practitioner of climastrology.

    As noted earlier, pick the element you feel strongest about & post on it on the most appropriate thread.  Further comments of this nature constitute Gish Gallop and will perforce be deleted.  Failure to follow this guidance is cause for a rescinding of posting privileges. 

    No further warnings shall be given.

  8. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    If the denialists weren't constantly contradicting themselves, then it would be encouraging. But tomorrow they'll be back to touting 1°C sensitivity. However, it does seem there has been some movement from "it's not happening" to "it's not CO2" and "it's not bad", probably mostly as a result of the BEST study (which is ironic, since BEST's results were nothing new). There's still plenty of "it's not CO2" denial out there though.
  9. Changing the Direction of the Climate
    26, PhilMorris, I was probably a little too quick, flip and shooting from the hip in my post, although I would note that (a) your linked paper appears to be old, or at best references 1999 material and (b) most efforts are concerned with breaking even from some point forward (i.e. capture as much as you release), not scrubbing back what we've already let lose. Still, yes, maybe with enough, efficient renewable energy sources we could solve the problem. The sun should burn for long enough. The question is probably more of "can we draw it down quickly enough to keep civilization thriving long enough to develop and implement the technology on a large enough scale to have the necessary impact... or are we all just buzzard meat."
  10. funglestrumpet at 08:19 AM on 2 December 2011
    CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming
    Try as hard as I might, I cannot see why proving that climate change is human in origin should have any bearing on the need to take action. We know that atmospheric CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas and we know how to reduce the amount of it we humans release into the atmosphere. So let's just get on with reducing it. Every time we argue about whether the change in the climate that we are experiencing is human in origin or not gives the politicians, who have an urgent need to protect their job in elections that come by every four or five years, an excuse to procrastinate. And heaven knows they have been excellent procrastinators when one looks at what has actually been achieved since Kyoto. It sickens me to think that Monckton and his ilk are winning hands down as things are. Though I doubt they will enjoy the prize they earn. I have given the example elsewhere on this site that you would not refuse to change direction or speed because the iceberg dead ahead is not human in origin.
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] You're wildly off-topic for this thread (which should have links to all of the existing it's not cosmic rays threads).
  11. Changing the Direction of the Climate
    PhilMorris @ 26: I'm going to guess that there is a huge difference between scrubbing CO2 from from a highly-concentrated source of emission ad storing it as CO2, and removing it as a trace element from the atmosphere-at-large. If removing it as a trace element involves splitting CO2 back into C and O2, then the thermodynamics is as Sphaerica states.
  12. Changing the Direction of the Climate
    24, william, I'm afraid forests won't make a dent in the problem. We've burned 337 Gt of carbon since 1751. I did some rough estimates, and it seems that planting giant sequoia redwoods would require using 75% of the arable land on the planet to allow those trees to grow large enough that in 100 years they absorbed all of the carbon released to date, and that assumes that we stop now, and that humanity abandons all of that land for use for living space and food production. At the same time, climate change is going to cause deserts to expand and so to shrink the amount of arable land available. I wouldn't count on natural sinks -- corals or trees -- to make any sort of dent in the problem.
  13. actually thoughtful at 08:10 AM on 2 December 2011
    Changing the Direction of the Climate
    PhilMorris - thank you. I like to think of myself as technologically literate, but occasionally reality intrudes....
  14. Changing the Direction of the Climate
    PhilMorris-"What's needed is a Manhattan style project to develop fusion reactors. " Been done...just look up ;)
  15. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    perseus : so, I read again Jackson's estimates and your summary was correct. For more details, in 2007, world produces 768 gCO2/$. In 2050, with 9 billion persons and 1,4% annual income growth, the objective of 36 gCO2/$ would imply a 7%/yr decrease in carbon intensity, whereas carbon intensity have decreased of only 0,7%/y since 1990. If we choose a higher population growth, or a higher income growth for the poorest nations, the rate of carbon intensity gain is even more irrealist. So, it seems to Jackson extremely unlikely that the decoupling of economic growth and fossil energy becomes a reality at a rate compatible with a 450 ppm CO2eq objective. Here on SkS , we can see how the IEA WEO scenario 450 plans this kind of reduction (figure 3) Jackson considers as very unlikely. IEA uses the Gt CO2 total emissions rather than gCO2/$, but prior assumption are nearly the same (except a more important income growth as I recall), and IEA stops in 2035 rather then 2050. Energy-economy models diverge in the detail of their choices. This Edenhorfer et al paper , for example, examines 5 models in their mitigation strategies and costs. Contrary to IEA WEO, gain in carbon intensity have a higher part in CO2 mitigation than gain in energy efficiency (see figure 5 and comment pp 28-29). But the problem is the same if we choose the Jackson description : a never seen rate of decarbonization either by specific carbon intensity gain or by general energy intensity gain. So clearly, as I've said when debating about these scenarios with Tom in an other thread, there are many gambles in the 450 scenarios: on nuclear progress, on CCS viability, on biofuel extension on energy efficiency, on decreasing ENR costs... and of course on political will. But have we another choice? According to IEA, ‘Non-OECD countries account for 90% of population growth, 70% of the increase in economic output and 90% of energy demand growth over the period from 2010 to 2035’. Even with an OECD stagnation, emissions would continue to increase in a business as usual scenario for non-OECD. How could we defend a policy agenda whose main message to the poorer countries would inevitably be : ‘hey, please, do not develop now, or just use for that low-carbon technologies and nothing else ?’
  16. It's the sun
    Well-said, Sphaerica.
  17. Changing the Direction of the Climate
    actually thoughtful #25 Corrected the link: and it uses solar power to do it!
  18. Changing the Direction of the Climate
    Sphaerica #22. From what I've read, it doesn't take as much energy to capture CO2 as the energy produced releasing that CO2. For example, see here And if it was the case, CO2 scrubbers on power plant stacks wouldn't have been developed. But unless we have significantly greater non-carbon based energy production, we're not going to make a dent on CO2 in the atmosphere. Nor do I see the political will to make any significant changes to business as usual. China, for example, may have the largest capacity of electrical generation by wind turbines, but it is also the largest user of coal - and therefore the largest producer of CO2. But at least they're looking at alternatives such as the Liquid Fluoride Thorium reactors (as well as a few other nations). What's needed is a Manhattan style project to develop fusion reactors. Long term the planet will survive - the planet will warm, the human infestation will suffer massive dieback, and subsequently, maybe millions of years time, some other intelligent life form may evolve. But that's not a very anthropologic friendly perspective is it?
  19. actually thoughtful at 07:21 AM on 2 December 2011
    Changing the Direction of the Climate
    By the time the people who are willingly ignorant on the subject of Climate Change are forced, by reality, to change their tune, we will in the 3C+ committed range. That seems inevitable at this point, even though there is still time on the clock, and responsible people MUST push for change against all odds (in my humble opinion...). So we are left with mitigation the effects, and technological fixes. In the fixes area, this article caught my attention: and it uses solar power to do it!
    Response:

    [DB] Fixed link.

  20. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    Utahn when I see the skeptics tout this paper I wonder what the hell had we talked about for years. But you know, they don't miss any chance of saying that the IPCC is wrong, even if it is irrelevant.
  21. It's the sun
    Wow! There's one I've not seen before. "There are no peers in the field of research that I have invented therefore no one is qualified to review it." [paraphrased] Think Spencer will pick up on this line any time soon?
  22. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    Does anyone else find it encouraging (in some slight way), that this paper is being touted by skeptics and folks like Pat Michaels for "only" showing 2.3 C best estimated climate sensitivity? It seems to me a sign that we're moving from "it's not happening" and "it's not C02" to "it's not that bad". I guess I'll take any hope I can get...
  23. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    Daniel good job, we all should do the best we can. Only a narrow mind may think it isn't worth doing our own part. I recently heard a meteorologist tell a story when asked what we could personally do about climate change, the story of the great fire in the forest. While all the animals were running away the lion saw a tiny humming bird flying toward the fire. The lion stopped and shouted "what the hell are you doing!?" and the hummingbird bird, with a littly drop of water in his mounth, "I'm doing my part". I heard different versions of this story and unfortunately I can't trace it back to the original. Daniel, no matter what other peolple do, do the rigth thing.
  24. It's the sun
    Don Gaddes, On the veracity of your father's work, I have a few points to make. First, despite the great length of the book, the vast majority (more than 99%) is mere discussion. He talks of the repercussions of droughts and climate change. He quotes extensively from the passages of other works, all of which predate 1978, which means they lack a lot of modern tools, theories and observations that simply were not available then. But, in his body of work, he does little more than do as he said he would in his introduction, which is to explain how he arrived at his cycles, without going the important next step and proving how those intricate, interwoven cycles in fact tie to any climatic events, either past or present. [I would suggest at this point that if you want to promote this work you must take that next step, to compute and graph his cycles and show them in parallel with the temperature record, past, present and future. Make a prediction, so that the work can be evaluated on its actual merit rather than its presumed value.] The first problem I see in his work is that he tied his cycles, as far as I can tell, only to records of rainfall in Australia and nothing else (and of course, he lived in Australia). His cycles are not tied to global records (rainfall, drought, or temperatures) of any sort. They are also not tied to global temperatures, but only to rainfall records. His entire theory hinges on tying drought -- Australian drought -- to his cycles, but not temperature changes, and certainly not global temperature changes. He never, ever introduces temperature records at any point. As such, his work very simply does not apply. The connection of cycles to drought to temperature is quite simply too vague to be given any weight whatsoever, especially when no such connection has even been presented by him. There is no evidence -- no effort yet -- to show that his cycles translate into a prediction that mirrors either past or future temperatures. There is no reason whatsoever (lack of physical mechanisms aside) to apply any of his work to the climate changes that we clearly see today. Beyond this, there were also clear gaps in his knowledge. I imagine that he would have been a whirlwind today, with access to the Internet to help him close those gaps. But he did not understand the Hadley cells and their effects on the arid regions of the globe and transport of moisture. This is clearly evidenced in his Appendix 4. That section also begins with this backwards understanding of the relationship between temperature and moisture
    Raising of climatic temperature to a mean, specific, critical point, somehow dissociates moisture from lower atmosphere. The more moisture used up, the drier and hotter the climate, the more dry air -­‐cooled air delivered at the Poles.
    He was, I suspect, confused by the fact that hot deserts are dry, and so presuming that one was the cause of the other, when in fact the two are intertwined and, in fact, the daytime heat of the desert is a result of the lack of humidity rather than its cause. He also suffered from the limitations of the science of the day, such as this tidbit (which we know to be not entirely correct, as evidenced by the mounting build up of CO2 in both the oceans and the atmosphere):
    According to Rankama and Sahama (Ref. No. 14) the oceans act as a sink for any build-up in carbon dioxide above a partial pressure (PP) in the atmosphere; that once the critical PP in the atmosphere is reached, the excess carbon dioxide is taken into solution by the oceans.
    He also includes a fair of discussion of volcanoes in his theory. Modern climate science has this pretty well nailed down, to a much greater extent than your father achieved and now at a level from which he might have benefited. But his volcanic theories go out the window as "the" driver of climate. We know this to be a fact, and there is no way to argue it, even if he had included any hard numbers to substantiate his position, which he failed to do. I'll close with this quote from your father's book:
    Should it so happen that the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere were to become greater or lesser, then it would follow that the ”Greenhouse Effect” must vary in direct proportion. The former is just what has been found to have taken place. Man is the culprit, for during the past 50 years, due to our ever increasing use of fossil fuel. The mean carbon dioxide content in our atmosphere has increased by about 13.5 percent, which some scientists believe, will, by the turn of the century, produce a dangerous rise in world temperatures with severe consequences, such as melting of the ice caps and subsequent flooding of the world’s lowlands. Such a scenario doesn’t bear thinking about, when one takes into account the elevation of the countless low-lying cities and towns of the world!
    Your father cared very, very much not about being right, but about avoiding the distress that climate change will cause. Above all else, I think that legacy needs to be taken forward.
  25. 2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
    Oneiota: Thanks so much for that! Fantastically informative, clear, and accessible, not to mention funny. Invoking the seasons is a great response when someone dredges up the "they can't predict the weather next week, so how can they predict the climate?" trope.
  26. Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
    I am amazed how you could read the SoD such. At the heart of this your perceived belief that what is observed is different from what the theory predicts for such measurements. SoD and others here instead point out that your understanding of what the theory predicts is flawed and shows how you are misinterpreting Ramanathan.
  27. It's the sun
    Don Gaddes, I will confess that I have not read all of your father's work, but I perused all of it and read much of it in what little time I had to spare. Forgive me if this is offensive, but I believe you are doing your father a great, great disservice both in the way that you present his material and what you yourself have taken from it. Your father wrote, at the very beginning of his book:
    In this work the author has not attempted to persuade, merely to explain how he went about his study, and what those studies revealed. It will be for the reader to make his or her own judgment as to the correctness of the findings. Greenhouse or ice age, the answer may well be with us before we realise that our planet is a fragile, living form, constantly changing, and demanding respect, study and understanding, if we want our species to survive.
    He was humble enough to recognize his own limitations, but more importantly, he demonstrated a tremendous investment in getting people to recognize the importance of climate and climate change. He did explicitly (in his book) understand and accept the realities behind CO2 and greenhouse gas theory. His only disadvantage was that events had not begun to truly play out when his book was written and before he passed away. In fact, he said:
    Weighing the pros and cons of dust and other cooling factors, against the “Greenhouse Effect,” I believe, at this stage, that the former is holding sway.
    And that may well have been the case, to the casual observer, in 1990, and was indeed a factor in holding temperatures down until 1979. We know that since then this has become much clearer, and aerosols no longer dominate greenhouse gases in changing the climate. He goes on to say:
    I wholeheartedly agree with Professor R. Bryson, that if we are indeed facing an imminent climate/weather change (and the weight of evidence seems to indicate very strongly that such is highly likely,) then we ought to be earnestly and diligently marshalling our options now.
    Of course, your father's concern was with an imminent glacial period, not warming, but the sentiment rings true, regardless. And I am sure that, faced with the weight of evidence against his theory and for the impact of greenhouse gases, he would at least admit that whatever influence his natural cycles had had until this point in time, mankind's burning of fossil fuels was overwhelming those forces and making his theories inconsequential in the scheme of things. From his book:
    Arthur Koestler (The Ghost in the Machine) put it down to “.....the streak of insanity running throughout mankind.” Omah said: “.....only a fool benefits from his own mistakes, the wise man benefits from the mistakes of others.” Bryson said: “.....mankind should benefit from the lessons of the past.” I, and I daresay by far the majority of thinking people, would agree wholeheartedly with the above conclusions. Why, then, do we not embrace Socrates’ philosophy of equating thinking with doing? Man’s tardiness in this regard is reminiscent of an ordinary land-slide (which has no brain at all!) They are both firmly enshackled to the principle of the line of least resistance (Newton’ First Law) and only Nature’s law of conservation is powerful enough (in man’s case) to exert enough’ force’ to cause us to ‘pull up our socks.’ So the nature of man must also be considered by the future writers of an equation for survival.
    I will post a separate comment with what I consider to be the failings in his efforts, but I don't want to diminish them. He was an intelligent and yet uneducated (formally) man who took wholeheartedly to his hobby, pursued it with intelligence and diligence, and whether correct in his conclusions or not he demonstrated both a humility and an investment in the importance of the subject which now deserves respect, not derision. But I would ask you to read his book a little more closely, and to read between the lines, imagining what he might say today, faced with the mounting evidence, rather than what you perceive that he had said back then. He is at a disadvantage in having you as his only advocate. I believe you owe it to him to consider all of his words, and what he himself seemed more than ready to accept, which is the idea that he might be wrong, that it is frighteningly important to be right about this, and that doing so -- being right -- means being willing to always keep an open mind, and to always adjust your reasoning to the facts as they become available.
  28. It's the sun
    "I now present the work for 'peer review.' " Good luck on that - however a question. The problem with this kind of forecasting, is that it doesnt forecast. If the fitted cycles have no physical meaning, then the real world will drift away from forecast in accordance with real physics. So when this happens, will you be writing an apologize to climate change victims for helping to mislead - or just redoing the fitting and publishing another prediction? Ie is there some point when you would realise the folly and stop fitting? Of course, should you be right, I would stand behind a nobel prize nomination.
  29. Wakening the Kraken
    The Kraken in the news (Cape Cod Online), and with a nice picture to drive home the point. Those who doubt and do not have the time, energy, means, and/or training to understand often are swayed when the unseen becomes visible, as when someone lights a plume of methane escaping from beneath pond ice.
  30. 2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
    Extrapolating the PIOMAS graph, the artic will likely be ice free in summer within the next 10 years or less. And according to Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University, the Artic could be ice free by the summer of 2015! Yet I understand that none of the current models assume Artic ice melting this quickly - I've been told that models have been assuming 2040 to 2060 before the Artic is ice free. I suppose models will get updated to reflect what is really happening - and it won't be good news! Also the models assume what is now known to be very conservative estimates of methane release from the permafrost layer. 2100 still seems to be the timeframe for showing what will happen to the planet - maybe 2050 or even earlier should be the goalpost. 2100 is too far out for ordinary people, let alone governments, to feel that consequences may affect them. A 'goalpost' just 40 years out may have a better impact on getting governments to take notice - maybe.
    Response:

    [DB] "Yet I understand that none of the current models assume Artic ice melting this quickly"

    See here: Maslowski (slide 12)

    Maslowski has access to a US Navy supercomputer; he specializes in high-resolution eddy processes in the Arctic.  His model, the only one successfully tracking the Arctic sea ice demise, is expected to be supplanted by a much-higher-resolution model.

    Maslowski notes the limitations of the existing 18 and 9 km gridded models here.  Also note the existance of a 2.3 km gridded output here.

  31. Changing the Direction of the Climate
    Nice comment Sphaerica. Beautiful rendition of the laws of thermodynamics. Fortunately we have a source of energy that could reverse the trend - namely the sun. If we allowed the forests to regenerate, and the biomass of the seas to recover we would store up a lot of Carbon dioxide. Sea level rise may also help as corals grow up to the new low tide level. Calcium carbonate is a tad over 60% carbon dioxide. We won't do the first two so the only thing to do is to sit down, assume the prenatal position and kiss you know what goodby. http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2011/09/by-by-coral-atolls.html
  32. actually thoughtful at 05:33 AM on 2 December 2011
    Climategate 2.0 in Context - Solar Warming
    I personally doubt that the deniers can re-inflate the HOAX balloon - the 20% that believes anything that appears to "prove" that climate scientists are in on a big conspiracy have enough to go on from the first batch, and the rest of us will never fall for this blatant set of lies. I do wonder if giving these trumped up issues airtime helps or hurts - (ie will the myth or the facts survive a casual reading of this post). But I suppose any chance to point out the truth is worth taking.
  33. actually thoughtful at 05:26 AM on 2 December 2011
    Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    Oh - and on the foam/fiberglass debate - I am partial to drilling a hole in the back of the outlet box (easy when they are plastic) and spraying foam there - which insulates more of the gap created by the box (with batt insulation there is typically a void there).
  34. Changing the Direction of the Climate
    What I find hard to understand is why no political party (here in New Zealand and elsewhere) is prepared to advocate Jim Hansen's Tax and Dividend. Besides being likely to be very effective in reducing the output of Carbon dioxide, it seems like a real vote winner. Who could resist 'cocking a snook' at 'the man' and receiving a nice addition to one's credit card each month. Anybody out there understand what is happening.
  35. actually thoughtful at 05:16 AM on 2 December 2011
    Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    Daniel - nice post. If you don't mind sharing what your heating/cooling system is (40-60% of typical American home energy consumption) and how you heat your hot water (20% of typical consumption) - I would be glad to share a *very* green plumber/heating professional's opinion for improvements.
  36. Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    I think Sphaerica's joke @9 highlights the difference between a true sceptic and a pathological sceptic aka denialist. A true sceptic would just enquire whether you had checked that power was getting to the bulb then would accept the necessity for the bulb changing.
  37. Changing the Direction of the Climate
    tmac, Sadly, it would be lucky if it only takes as much energy to scrub the atmosphere as we got from burning fossil fuels. The laws of thermodynamics rather almost require that it will take more energy (rather than merely the same amount) to reverse the process. Remember, in a nutshell the laws of thermodynamics say:
    • You can't win
    • You can't break even unless it is very, very cold
    • It never gets that cold
    • You can't quit the game.
    Getting the atmosphere back to where it was but at no net expense is trying to break even. You can only do that if you return to a snowball earth, and you can't do that.
  38. Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    tmac, I have no problem at all with the "Skeptic movement" as represented by the links you and Tom supplied. In fact I pretty much adamantly agree with whatever I read there... it looks more to me like level-headed common-sense than any special attribute like "skepticism." [Which perhaps doesn't speak well for the gullibility and education of the common man. :) ] That said, I don't really spend much time worrying about the debunking of 9/11 conspiracy theories or how the world might end in 2012 and such. I didn't find much meat there to sink my teeth into, just because most of the subjects covered struck me as "what, someone actually has to spend energy on this?" With that said... if there is a body of true skeptics who label and view themselves as such, they need to go on the offensive against deniers, and be rather timidly accepting if those involved in discussing climate science fail to recognize the distinction, because in my interactions in the past two years, the deniers are the prominent (and until today sole) owners of the skeptic label.
  39. It's the sun
    Muoncounter - Agreed. A 30°/month shift of the Earth magnetic field would not be a "drift", but more of a "spin". And as someone who quite frequently uses magnetic compasses in navigation, I'll point out that this would be more than noticeable. It would render compasses useless...
  40. 2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
    14, DB, Looks more like a "Death Undertow" than a death spiral, in this case.
  41. Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    Sphaerica-I understand your frustration,but keep in mind that these Skeptics are not solely dealing with climate change.They have a very wide range of topics of all kinds of pseudo-science that they are tackling.Also,I think that there aren't too many that are actual climate scientists,so they do more reporting on current issues like so called Climategate,the BEST report,and such,but leave the analysis to those who do the science.I actually found my way to this site from a link that a commenter on Neurologica gave,while arguing against a denier. Keep an open mind about the real Skeptic movement,we are your ally,not an enemy.We cannot help it if the 'skeptic' name has been hijacked by the deniers,and we do very much resent it,and reject their claim.They are pseudo-skeptics,and science deniers.
  42. Changing the Direction of the Climate
    Thanks to all DB and others for the resources.That's why I really enjoy SkS,everyone is so willing to help with answers and link to good educational material.
  43. Climategate 2.0 in Context - Solar Warming
    I don't think David Appell can be regarded as a 'denialist'.
    Response:

    [dana1981] Thanks, I shouldn't have assumed.  Text revised.

  44. 2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
    Another graph from PIOMAS:
    "Total Arctic sea ice volume from PIOMAS showing the volume of the mean annual cycle, the current year, 2010 (the year of previous September volume minimum), and 2007 (the year of minimum sea ice extent in September). Shaded areas indicate one and two standard deviations from the mean."
    [Source] Yup, the Death Spiral? Still happenin'...
  45. 2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
    Sphaerica - I think we'll do our own similar analysis at year's end, so you can nitpick us at that point :-)
  46. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    Dr. Schmittner - I chose 67% simply as a very rough estimate (equilibrium sensitivity is ~3°C for 2xCO2 and transient is ~2°C for 2xCO2, according to the IPCC), but I don't think the ratio is constant with time (among other things I believe it depends on the magnitude of the net forcing). Figure 4 is merely meant as a rough approximation, but it should be reasonably close to reality.
  47. 2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
    I'd like to see the first graph with the El Nino years in red. Being a bit of a nitpicker, I'd probably actually prefer that the bars be divided in half for color representation (often only one half of one year is La Nina/El Nino). To keep deniers happy one might also change the base color from pink to gray (pink is too warm a color, so you are subliminally saying "warm, warm, warm" to their tiny, unconscious little brains).
  48. IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
    CBDunkerson and Rob Painting - Thank you!
  49. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    adelady Well yes it's possible to technically do it with enough subsidies. I presume it is Iowa you live in? It's analogous to Denmark because they can rely on larger surrounding states/countries to buffer the variability in supplies with conventional sources. I also recall the mid West is one of the best areas in the world for consistency in wind speeds, this is more important than average power. Unfortunately we in the UK have been driven offshore!
    Response:

    [DB] Please restrict image widths to 500 pixels or less.

  50. It's the sun
    KR: Or one could use actual physics, which gives the earth's magnetic field's westward drift at 0.2 deg/yr. Mr. Gaddes' "migrating longitudinally around the planet,(30 degrees/month with the westward drift of the Earth's Magnetic Field,)" would be quite noticeable - and could hardly be called 'drift'.

Prev  1375  1376  1377  1378  1379  1380  1381  1382  1383  1384  1385  1386  1387  1388  1389  1390  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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