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. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    I would be surprised if buying a 2nd more fuel efficient vehicle was a more efficient use of resources than running/building only one of lower efficiency.
  2. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    Daniel: I would guess the most significant thing people can do to reduce GHGs who travel a lot is to either move nearer to work, or telecommute and telework as much as possible, and simply avoid unnecessary journeys. Of course everyone has a good excuse why they are different or it can't be done for their job, and very occasionally it is believable! Perhaps in your case it really is true considering what you are prepared to endure! Sorry for sounding like a record, as you probably know I have been over this before with someone. I assume you drive something more fuel efficient than a 4x4 outside the winter season?
  3. It's the sun
    Don Gaddes@910 Bring on the proof! Solid evidence is always preferable to empty claims.
  4. It's the sun
    There is a direct relationship between the Solar Sunspot Cycle (11.028148 yrs)the Lunar Metonic Cycle (18.61 yrs) and the Earth/Solar Rotation Ratio (27:1)that affects the onset of 'Dry Cycles' on Earth. The scorning criticism By Tom Curtis of jpenhall46 is erroneous (and provable to be so.)
  5. SkS Weekly Digest #26
    Global temperatures in 2011 are currently the tenth highest on record and are higher than any previous year with a La Niña event, which has a relative cooling influence. The 13 warmest years have all occurred in the 15 years since 1997. The extent of Arctic sea ice in 2011 was the second lowest on record, and its volume was the lowest. These are some of the highlights of the provisional annual World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Statement on the Status of the Global Climate, which gives a global temperature assessment and a snapshot of weather and climate events around the world in 2011. It was released today at the international climate conference in Durban, South Africa. “Our role is to provide the scientific knowledge to inform action by decision makers,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “Our science is solid and it proves unequivocally that the world is warming and that this warming is due to human activities,” he said. “Concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have reached new highs. They are very rapidly approaching levels consistent with a 2-2.4 degree Centigrade rise in average global temperatures which scientists believe could trigger far reaching and irreversible changes in our Earth, biosphere and oceans,” he said. Source: “2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume” WMO news release, Nov 29, 2011 To access the entire news release, click here.
  6. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    perseus : "In fact worldwide GDP might surely increase if low emissions technology was more expensive and enforced. We might choose to work more to pay for the more expensive energy" Clearly, energy instensity is not the sole factor of growth : capital, labor and productivity are the three classical factors in economic theory. Productivity itself depends on technology, energy returns, learning by doing, etc. Unfortunately, the economic theory doesn't tell us exactly what is the relative weight of each factor or subfactor. 25% for capital and labor, 75% for productivity is a common gross estimate. Part of the energy intensity gains in total productivity is a subjet of debate (and some authors I favour suggest it could be high). Anyway, everybody agree that energy efficiency progress in current infrastructures is a good policy for economy and for climate. Beyond that, if you choose to implement a less efficient / more expensive source of energy, you will probably have to work more to achieve the same production of goods or services (your point). But that is precisely the reverse trend of what is observed since the industrial revolution. Malthusian doom predictions have been defeated because agricultural productivity have increased, less human work (and/or less land surface for capital input) producing more and more food at each generation. As we are 7 billion humans, including 20% undernourished, and will be 9 billion in 2050, any decision that affect total productivity is a serious and solemn decision, that must be carefully assessed before translating into action. At least, we must ensure that a worldwide redistribution of wealth is simultaneously guaranteed in this case, if not poor will very likely become poorer. The Green Climate Fund discussed at Durban is (smal) part of such a mechanism, as I understand it.
  7. Nathan M. Urban at 04:04 AM on 30 November 2011
    Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    dana1981, It's not generally possible to infer a model skill's based on the performance of a different model, even if they do share components. And I really doubt CGCM3's 20th century hindcast skill has much to do with the sea ice module it shares with UVic. UVic and CGCM3 do both use a MOM-type ocean core (I think UVic has MOM 2.2 and CGCM3 has MOM 1.1). But then, older GFDL models also use MOM cores (that's where it was developed, after all). This doesn't mean that the GFDL and UVic models have the same behavior, and likewise the CCCma and UVic models don't either. Anyway, trying to infer the performance of one model from another is oddly indirect. If you think 20th century skill is crucial to LGM skill, why not look at UVic's 20th century skill directly? See, for example, Figure 1 of Eby et al. (2009). I don't know what tuning exercises the UVic developers may have applied during its development, but UVic at the default settings does at least hindcast 20th century global temperature.
  8. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    Not sure whether or not other people have linked to this, but RealClimate also has a post up discussing Schmittner et al. (2011). Dr. Urban is engaging RC folks and posters there.
  9. What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
    victull -- Would they be given sovereignty over 'far North Queensland'? Not sure what you're getting at with respect to Maori being bad for big slow animals, but surely that's not relevant to how we treat Pacific Islanders today? I mean, we're all descendents of self-interested migrants, but displacing people still isn't okay.
  10. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    #27 perseus : "The US emerged from WW2 far better off in terms of GDP see here: Military production during World War II" Look at the growth rates of real GDP / person in the table 1.5 (p.14) of this IMF document , and you will see that the 1913-1950 period (WWI, Great Depression and WWII) was lower than previous and next periods for belligerent countries (including US, mainly Europe and Japan). Creative destruction was probably not so "creative" in wartime, at least it was less than during more peaceful epochs. In the same document, interesting discussion about the relationships between HDI and GDP.
  11. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    Dr. Schmittner, thanks again for your comments. The solid lines in Figure 4 above are not dependent upon a model, because they only show CO2-caused warming (using the formula dT = a*dF, where dF = 5.35 ln[C/Co], and a is based on the most likely sensitivities from your study and the IPCC). The placement of the dashed lines is the only question, and whether yours is at 2.6 or 3 or 3.5°C, it's still substantially lower than the ~5°C from most previous estimates of the LGM cooling. Thus the point made in Figure 4, that if your study is correct, we're closer to the glacial-interglacial temperature change, remains valid. That's the point skywatcher is focusing on. neal - it does appear that the models are related. For example, the UVic sea ice module was included in CCCMA, and the UVic model is extensively used in developing and testing the CCCma model. But it's not a critical point, and if it exaggerates the relationship between the two (which is unintentional, if so), I don't have a problem with removing that section.
  12. Models are unreliable
    peacetracker @415, models can be set up with forcings typical of the peak of the last "ice age" (the Last Glacial Maximum) and they will yield climate predictions featuring kilometer thick ice sheets over North America and Europe. They can be set up with forcings typical of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum and will yield tropical water temperatures in Arctic seas. So not only do I not know what they are talking about, evidently if they claim climate models produce the same results regardless of input, neither do they.
  13. What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
    Perhaps Northern Territory & western coast of far north Queensland where sea level is dropping would be good places to recreate their tropical paradise.
    Given all the other current & forecast impacts of global warming, this strikes me as unlikely.
  14. Models are unreliable
    I have recently heard an allegation from skeptics that you always get the sam results from models, regardless of the information you put in and that they must therefore be extremely unreliable. Anyone have an idea regards what they are talking about?
  15. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    perseus @27, we can agree that GDP is a poor measure of economic activity, and that consumerism is a bad thing. However, IMO bringing those issues into this discussion merely complicates the issue without shedding light. Might I suggest the the discussion should turn on whether growth in productive capacity is a good or bad thing of itself, and if it is good in itself, is the crisis of global warming sufficiently great a threat, and sufficiently unavoidable otherwise that we must resort to zero or negative growth to combat it. And for those who think it is, read up carefully on the Great Depression, for that is what you are wishing on the world for the next fifty years.
  16. Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Continue Climbing
    Arkadiusz Semczyszak - My apologies, an error in my previous post. You did present some references regarding amounts of permafrost. I will, however, point out that permafrost doesn't melt without cause - it instead responds to temperature changes, as a feedback. From Zimov 2006, one of your references: "Factors inducing high-latitude climate warming should be mitigated to minimize the risk of a potentially large carbon release that would further increase climate warming." Not a forcing, but a feedback; you seem to be claiming otherwise. And, I'll note again, current rates of change in CO2 (and temperature) are not found in the paleo record - indicating that natural causes are insufficient to drive the current changes.
  17. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    perseus @19, despite the many flaws with GDP as a measure of economic activity, it is the most commonly agreed measure, and the measure you used in your article. Using that measure, Nicholas Stern has estimated a cost of 1% GDP per annum to tackle climate change. That is a cost, and ergo a reduction of GDP available for other purposes. If GDP remains constant, but 1% per annum of that constant amount is allocated to other purposes, that is 1% less for things like food, education, police, roads, etc, ie, a 1% drop in national income. If the cost is greater than 1% per annum, then the reduction in income is greater. However, I am not an economist and have not and do not have the capability of making the estimate myself. Therefore I propose to accept what appears to be close to the consensus figure from a number of estimates.
  18. Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Continue Climbing
    Arkadiusz Semczyszak - Your previous two posts amount to a claim that "It's not anthropogenic emissions, it's melting permafrost - without which our emissions would have no consequences." This is a curious assertion, as we know what our emission levels are, and we know what the rate of rise in CO2 is. Given that the increase in atmospheric levels is less than our emissions, a simple mass balance analysis shows that we are indeed responsible for the rise in atmospheric concentrations. And your hypothesis is a fascinating call to abdicate responsibility for our actions. I'll also note that you have not provided any references supporting your theory, nor have you shown any estimates for CO2 contributions from melting permafrost. Even more importantly, I cannot think of a historic record indicating anything natural close to the rate of CO2 increase occurring now, including the PETM, which was at least an order of magnitude slower in onset. I strongly suggest that you read (and comment upon) either the How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions, or the Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural threads. I don't think there's a thread specific to your permafrost claims - perhaps because I don't recall anyone ever proposing it before... which should tell you something.
  19. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    WyrdWays @18, frankly you can take your comments about "techno-evangelist bug" and shove it where the sun don't shine. If it has any relevance, I have spent my entire adult life at an income well below western (or Australian average). I am a medievalist (an amateur scholar of medieval history), and I grew up (partly) in Africa where my friends included many people from townships (where whole families slept in a single room) and holidays in remote villages with no electric power. I know from poverty, and I know the difference between necessary and merely beneficial technologies. Further, I have no personal desire for affluence except in the terms that the lowest incomes in the West are affluent compared to the rest of the world. In short, I am not disagreeing with you because I am a starry eyed idealist. Were I to follow my prejudices I would be entirely on your side, but I refuse to check my brains and accept comforting dogma's, no matter who propagates them. To your "substantive" points: 1) Medical research is a cost because it takes resources to conduct it. At a minimum it takes the food resources which the scientists and staff do not grow for themselves. Ergo medical research is a cost to farmers, and can only be conducted where farmers are very productive. It is also a cost to glass blowers, labourers and builders, administrators etc who must all contribute their labour to make the research possible, and who in turn must have their food grown for them. All of this cost in resources means you need substantive investments in transport and logistics and financing, which in turn places more of a load on farmers, and so you go. That leaves aside the greater costs in research in chemistry, biology and physics which make fundamental breakthroughs in research possible. 2) Like them or loathe them, merchant bankers and brokers and all the rest contribute to the growth of the economy, which makes possible the allocation of resources to such expensive things as research. Had the people 100 years ago looked around and said, "We have never had it so good,and all our basic needs are met. Therefore we will have no more economic growth", the result would be that research in the 20th century would have proceeded at about a tenth of its actual rate (at most) because of the very limited number scientists that could be employed at the then rate of economic activity. Look back a hundred years from now and the same will be said of us, if we manage to negotiate a few crisis on the way.
  20. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    @22 skept.fr I'm not convinced of that because green products might have a higher marketable value, also that assumes Developing economies don't invest in renewable technology as well, China is for example. I suspect that is why many economies are relatively enthusiastic about producing more green energy rather than other means of reducing carbon since it doesn't reduce GDP. In itself, converting to (even expensive) low emissions technology doesn't involve a reduction in GDP. In fact worldwide GDP might surely increase if low emissions technology was more expensive and enforced. We might choose to work more to pay for the more expensive energy, and GDP is simply a measure of the monetary value not usefulness. Even a war might increase GDP despite the fact that you are trying to destroy one another with disposable items! Perhaps that disposablility provides a clue to the reason it did increase so much,and why GDP shouldt be taken too seriously! The US emerged from WW2 far better off in terms of GDP see here: Military production during World War II Of course the idea is that we transfer GDP from unnecessary GDP such as military products, fashion or waste to renewable energy. GDP is not necessarily good. For example, if we can reduce food intake by growing less, buying less, wasting less and working less, GDP goes down but there is no hit on real living standards, yet we have the free bonus of less toil! The same argument could be made for many things, we often needlessly waste or replace things and work needlessly to do so. It is crazy!
  21. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    My views on the de-carbonising of our economy are usually more optimistic that others. Saying that, I note the projected 'business as usual' growth of CO2 emissions given above is some 1.2% pa. That's real optimism. Of the 4 approaches towards de-carbonising suggested above, I don't think we have yet seen real results from 3 yet. I reckon that when we do, we will be pleasantly surprised how much progress is possible with energy intensity which, if sufficient, will also impact carbon intensity. One example of silliness I often mention is the amazing eco-green achievement of the first sub-200g whisky bottle. Now that's sure gonna save the planet, especially if it is recycled, don't you think? I don't believe industry has yet asked itself the question "How do we use 60% less energy? 80% less energy?" And in the case of the glass bottle industry the answer is "By making bottles out of something else." I see few signs yet of industry reacting to the challenge of AGW. They may have it in hand, but the deliverables have yet to show themselves. Nor has society got on board with reducing energy use. You can discuss 'why not?' Or 'when will they get on board?' But at the moment they are not. There are, for instance, still factories churning out cars with a gargantuan thirst for fuel which some folk will buy and then get all indignant when the price of fuel goes up again. A car that runs on one third, one quarter the fuel of a 'normal' car is not infeasible today but there is not the consumer demand for it. One day there will be. And when folk do start taking AGW seriously I wouldn't recommend driving around in the likes of a Range Rover, unless you have an armed escort. Supplies of clean energy are going to be scarce for some decades to come. I see energy intensity as the key 'solution' to de-carbonising. Once developed societies become de-carbonised, developing societies can then develop towards the same standard.
  22. Klimafakten.de - Leveraging Skeptical Science content
    This website started as a one-man effort, that evolved to a team-effort, and now is further taking advantage of the internet interactivity. It's great to see it growing like this. Cangratulations to you all.
  23. What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
    "That you care little for the suffering of others is simply an indictment of skewed moral values" Rob, that is a pretty big leap up to the moral high ground which can be dangerously exposed. I have worked in the Pacific as well - Fiji, Tonga and Samoa so I have some familiarity with their culture and history. History might speak to you of many fairly recent migrations in the Pacific - one of the most significant being the Maori to your island home - New Zealand less than 1000 years ago. Why the Maori left their island homes to make the huge journey to New Zealand I could research for you - but I recall that overpopulation and depletion of resources (and perhaps even a bit of sea level rise in the medieval period) were likely drivers. Whatever - the Maori invasion of New Zealand was not good for the slow moving fauna, some of which rapidly became extinct. "Many of my friends and former work colleagues are Pacific Islanders. They are important, and what happens to them matters." And to me too. I am sure Australia and New Zealand will contribute mightily to resettling the Tuvuluans should they have to abandon their Islands. Perhaps Northern Territory & western coast of far north Queensland where sea level is dropping would be good places to recreate their tropical paradise. And by the way I have been paying attention: "That could be said of any ""averaged"" point on planet Earth's oceans, and is an essential piece of evidence for global warming." ""Averaged"" means that some points are up and some are down but on average the trend is up.
  24. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:37 AM on 30 November 2011
    Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Continue Climbing
    What quantities of carbon were - and are currently - in the soil especially permafrost? Zimov (2006): “... a total carbon content of ~720 Gt.” Schuur (2008): “We show that accounting for C stored deep in the permafrost more than doubles previous high-latitude inventory estimates, with this new estimate equivalent to twice the atmospheric C pool.” The 1000 PgC estimate for the permafrost storage change of Zimov (2009), Tarnocai (2009): ”Our estimate for the first meter [32.2–69.6 kg m −2] of soil alone is about double that reported for this region [northern circumpolar permafrost] in previous analyses.” Kuhry (2010): “ A new estimate of 1672 Pg C of belowground organic carbon in the northern circumpolar permafrost region more than doubles the previous value and highlights the potential role of permafrost carbon in the Earth System.” Zech (2011) : “Recent findings show that the amount of organic carbon stored in high-latitude permafrost regions has been greatly underestimated.” - comment on the paper Koven (2011) : “At stake is an estimated 2,167 petagrams of carbon in all layers of high-latitude soil.” There is thus a possibility that this natural source of increase throughout the twentieth century (and today) is much larger than the simple use (by me) estimates Zimov team in 2006. It is possible that the increase was not similar to the volume of the source of our emissions (at the same time) but probably (several times?) larger.
  25. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:35 AM on 30 November 2011
    Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Continue Climbing
    Continue Climbing It is worth set a background for discussion - change the size of natural sources of C in the period when it was being precise measurements of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere - run without interruption in time - since 1958. In the figure above we can see significant fluctuations in the amount of added CO2 to the atmosphere - from circa 0.5 ppmv CO2 - to 3 ppmv of CO2 - for a year. Erbrecht & Lucht (2006): “The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere steadily increases as a consequence of anthropogenic emissions but with large interannual variability caused by the terrestrial biosphere.” “The response of soil respiration to changes in temperature and precipitation explains most of the modelled anomalous CO 2 flux.” “We therefore conclude that during the last 25 years the two largest disturbances of the global carbon cycle were strongly controlled by soil processes rather then the response of vegetation to these large-scale climatic events.” Of course there are other natural sources "quick response" - the ocean: degassing of C - mainly CO2 (ENSO) in the equatorial zone, upwelling, and Coastal Ocean. However: “... were strongly controlled by soil processes.” Soil organic matter - humus and the "remainder" of NH „... and increased emissions from tropical wetlands.”. Where to follow the fastest and largest changes in this source? “... potential role of the thawing of the methane-rich Northern permafrost.” Zimov (2006): “Frozen yedoma deposits across Siberia and Alaska typically have average carbon contents from 2% to 5%—roughly 10 to 30 times the amount of carbon generally found in deep, nonpermafrost mineral soils.” “The 13C/12C isotope ratio of the permafrost reservoir is similar to that of soil, vegetation, and marine biota. Unlike these reservoirs, however, permafrost carbon is depleted in radiocarbon (14C).” In terms of of isotopes - so it is the same as the source of "our" - fossil fuels. “Permafrost is a globally significant carbon reservoir that responds to climate change in a unique and very simple way: With warming, its spatial extent declines, causing rapid carbon loss; with cooling, the permafrost reservoir refills slowly ...” - frozen "remainder "(without the humification process) after the thawing, shall be rapid mineralization. “About 4 m of yedoma-like soils accumulated across 3 million km2 in the steppe-tundra ecosystems of Europe and south of West Siberia toward the end of the glacial age and thawed ...” “... it would have released about 500 Gt of permafrost carbon at the beginning of the Holocene. “ Of course at that time also we had strong degassing of CO2 from the deep ocean area polar. Up to now “... the total terrestrial carbon reservoir did not decrease in glacial times but instead may have even absorbed several hundred gigatons of carbon from the atmosphere and ocean.” - We have now, and mostly we had - during the Holocene - the excess of net terrestrial carbon sinks over sources. Therefore, terrestrial - as a whole - having advantage of carbon sinks to sources - are currently participating in the removal of part of our GHGs emissions. It is worth noting how much permafrost has thawing in the twentieth century before the year 1958 and beyond. Between c. 1910 and 195? - circa "3 million km2", between c. 1960 and 200? - about the 2 million km2. Total c. 4.5 million km2. (in the 50s we had growth area of Permafrost). At the beginning of the Holocene the source (identical - C isotopes - of ours) has grown by melting the "3 million km2" about 500 Gt C (Pg C) ... Our CO2 added is the atmosphere during the 150 years from the combustion of fossil fuel + cement - is circa 350 Pg C. With the change in land use 500 Pg C. In the 50s we had in many regions - high latitudes of NH - rapid cooling, then-Keeling began his precise study of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and ... a constant trend increase temperature. Similarly, in areas of permafrost. From 195? years we note the much larger increase in temperature on the permafrost (4-4.5 degree C) than the global average. High Latitudes NH - generally: I propose this paper: Esper (2010) ... and for zone 64N-90N: “... the recent warming in this zone is over 5 °C per century!” Rising temperatures in the period: between c. the 1910 and 195? probably influenced the fact that: Khatiwala (2009): “... terrestrial biosphere was a source of CO2 until the 1940s, subsequently turning into a sink.” As we can see two important (the largest source of natural and anthropogenic) analyzed - identical in isotopic composition - the source of Carbon increased. Without a natural source increase biosphere would certainly has removed the more (all?) of our C.
  26. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    No doubt. Then US for example, if gas finds do not increase will go all out towards shale oil&gas and coal
  27. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    #23 DrTsk : well, the problem is of course economic, and not just geologic. The true cost of carbon increases if you include health, climatic and environmental externalities (and even military ones in the case of oil). But it also increases as the EROEI diminishes over time, and that is determined by geological constraints : crude light oil from Arabian deserts is not presalt oil from Brazilian deep off-shore — unconventional resources are more expensive than conventional ones, which sustained the hight rate of growth of XXth century. Anyway, from an economic point of view, market price is the correct reference rather than extraction cost. We currently produce 87 Mbpd of oil, with a peak in conventional oil since 2005-2006; if in the near future supply cannot increase as fast as the demand (notably from emerging countries), price will reach higher and higher levels, putting a strong pressure on oil-importer countries.
  28. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    Skept.fr . There is enough oil and gas...just too expensive to get out and too damaging to the environment.
  29. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    perseus : "Why does maintaining zero growth for OECD nations while spending 1% of GDP per annum on conversion to low emissions technology represent a declining income over time?" If the production of goods and services is stable (no growth of GDP), but the cost for producing them increases (1% a year for public or private investment), it means your purchasing power declines (goods and services are relatively more costly over time). An artificial increase of income (monetary expansion) would just produce inflation. You can avoid this outcome only if the energy intensity effect of your investment on cost is higher that the cost of investment itself. If wind power permits to produce the same good with 2% less cost than coal or nuclear, your 1% investment translate in a 1% gain in purchasing power (goods are just cheaper with the new energy). But then, you must still avoid the Jevons effect (people tend to consume more as energy intensity lessen).
  30. The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
    @ Brigitte
    "What to do if someone gives you several myths in one go ?"
    This is actually a pretty common defense people put up to protect their inner worldview. What I find most effective is something along the lines of:
    "That's very interesting. You raise a number of interesting points and I would be interested in discussing them all. Of those points you raise, which one do you feel most strongly about?"
     And then go from there. Never let them reframe the discussion back to their initial Gish Gallop, a-mass-of-spaghetti-thrown-against-the-wall-in-the-hopes-that-some-of-it-may-stick defense. (Your results may vary)
  31. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    I agree with Tom concerning economic growth as a good thing. Western countries have globally the better HDI of the planet because they sustained a century long economic growth, and developed state-redistribution of wealth toward collective goods. Conversely, the poorest countries have low level of education, health, nutrition, etc. Economic growth is not the sole factor of welfare, of course, democracy and human rights matter for the Human Development Index. We must not have a western-centric vision of the present situation : OECD is no more the locomotive for world growth (nor carbon emissions for climate debate). Even if you convince your fellow citizens that lifetime growth of their personal incomes and assets is a bad thing (good luck for that), you’ve not adressed the main concern : 5 billion humans live in much more poor conditions than Western countries and want to escape their poverty. Globalization is not just a creation of voracious traders, it is the basic reality of a world whose representations have been brought closer by information and communication technologies. No country at Durban negociations meeting defends a policy agenda founded on ‘negative growth’ for itself or for others. Nobody consider the life conditions of 2 billion very poor rural people as sustainable nor desirable. The basic consensus is that we need to increase wealth of the world, not wealth per se, but wealth as condition of human welfare. But I’m more pessimistic than Tom concerning the possibility to achieve such an economic growth without a large part of fossil fuels in the energy mix, at least in curent technologies conditions. We can certainly slow carbon emissions by energy efficiency and non-fossil substitution, but a large amount of energy is still a basic need for achieving human welfare. As I quoted it in another discussion (from Vaclac Smill’s works), in global mean from empirical observations, HDI is lowest under 40 GJ (per capita per year), increase from 40 GJ to 110 GJ, stabilize beyond 110 GJ (with still marginal gains, very low). So even if you take HDI (which is not the sole driver of human behavior, we also valorize other pleasures in life) and even if you imagine a perfectly egalitarian redistribution, we should produce now 770 EJ per year (rather than current 500 EJ) for an optimal and global HDI. And more in the future. PS : as a regular reader of The Oil Drum, I'm not sure there is enough oil, gas and coal to sustain such an economy and energy growth beyond 2030 or 2050. This geologic uncertainty add to climatic uncertainty as an argument for an accelerated energy transition toward a non-fossil future, if we want to avoid major risks.
  32. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    @3 Tom Tim Jackson suggests that the 1% figure which Stern quotes is unlikely to be sufficient to maintain 2 deg C increase, since 550 ppm is too high, we need 450ppm or even lower. In fact the cost would be more likely to be equivalent to growth itself.
  33. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    @3 Tom Why does maintaining zero growth for OECD nations while spending 1% of GDP per annum on conversion to low emissions technology represent a declining income over time? Doesn't the emissions technology contribute to and replace lost GDP? Is this not better than the type of GDP generated through excessive and unnecessary use of carbon intensive products? It seems to me that if we reduce the useful lifetime of a product, or make the old version appear unfashionable we increase GDP but achieve nothing but pointless toil. Surely we have a vast potential to reallocate skills and labour away from this pointless consumerism and towards research and development without increasing growth? The UK government recently announced plans to increase the speed limit which would produce 'economic benefits of hundreds of millions of pounds through shorter journey times'. However, would this not have been better achieved through teleconferencing? Perhaps teleconferencing reduces the need for cars, road-space and fuel, thereby reducing GDP. Not quite what is on the agenda at the moment?
  34. The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
    Hi, Thanks for the excellent and informative paper. I will certainly take the recommendations into account from now on. If I may add one thought: I think it is very important to realize that things that are obvious to yourself are not necessarily obvious to others. Assessing the amount of knowledge your discussion partner possesses is very important. I can remember only a couple of years ago, when I didn’t know much about climate change, I had the vague notion: “Yes the earth is probably warming, but it’s not absolutely sure yet and it may not be all bad”. If at that time some maniac foaming at the mouth had shouted at me: “Beware! The end of the world is near!” I would not be inclined to believe him either. I am absolutely convinced that professional climate deniers – people who deliberately defend a viewpoint they don’t believe themselves - are the biggest criminals on the planet, even worse than terrorists since they do more damage than any terrorist could ever achieve. Their lies will cost millions of lives. They are deliberately squandering the future of our planet in exchange for some money. But when dealing with normal people who don’t believe in climate change, you are just talking to people who have formed a judgement based on what they know/what they read. It is not useful to insult people – I just think back of how I thought just a couple of years ago (although I never was a climate skeptic). Some questions that weren’t answered by the paper, that I am sometimes struggling with: - What to do if someone gives you several myths in one go ? An example: -START OF MYTH-"The IPCC is untrustworthy since they have falsified studies. Yes, the climate changes but it has always changed. The influence of mankind on the amount of CO2 is really minimal. Besides, CO2 is not even the strongest greenhouse gas. If humans are responsible for the earth’s warming, are they also responsible for the warming of the other planets in the solar system ? The sun has a much larger influence on the climate than we thought.”-END OF MYTH- If I try to answer these myths separately, people lose patience. If I don’t answer certain myths people continue believing that some of it is true. - How strong should my message be ? The paper recommends not to use dramatic language, otherwise people will feel offended and will reject the statement right away. If however I try to convey the message in a nuanced and non-frightening way, I am also giving the wrong impression, since people might get the impression that the problem is not that urgent or the consequences are not going to be that bad. - The paper also mentions that people who are less fixed in their minds can be convinced more easily using information. If you argue with someone on a public forum, is it your first aim to convince your discussion partner, or do you have a better chance trying to convince the people who are reading along ? Your discussion partner may be stuck so much in his convictions that he will never change his mind.
  35. Philippe Chantreau at 19:57 PM on 29 November 2011
    GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    In addition to the pointers given in moderation on the previous page, the question of OLR has been examined in the SkS post treating of empirical evidence for AGW. On this particular point, it referred Harries (2001), wich has seen a published update since, but also Philipona et al (2004), Evans et al (2006), Griggs (2004) and Chen (2007). I'd embed the links but I'm pressed for time. All the links are in the post by Dana from Sep 2010 "Empirically observed fingerprints of anthropogenic global warming." This took me only a fwe minutes to find, it may have taken slightly longer on Google but still would have been very easy. Why can't Gary Thomson find this on his own?
  36. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    dana1981 As noted by JFyre11 above, I suggest you remove "which is closely related to the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (CCCMA)", because this is in fact not true at all. The CCCMA models (e.g. CanESM2, the CMIP5 contribution) are very different from the UVic model: 1) The CCCMA model has a full 3-d atmosphere, and uses a totally different ocean model code, amongst other differences. The models do not behave similarly in their carbon dynamics, and they have different climate sensitivities.
  37. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    @Tom C : Ok, I can see you've been bitten quite hard by the techno-evangelist bug. Endless optimism can be a great quality. But not when it veers into blind faith. It was faith in the unlimited good of technical progress that bought to global warming in the first place. On the points raised in @8: I see absolutely no connection between the medical cases you mention and need for a relentless pursuit of 'economic growth'. If the fabulous intellectual capital of man wasn't being hived off into the various useless parasites of the modern economy (eg investment bankers, marketing gurus, pepper-spray manufacturers..) and was instead thrown into medical science.. perhaps we would have already crossed Malaria, Cholera, Aids and Typhus off that list. Medical research and health care only count as 'costs' because our system frames it that way. Surely these are good ends in themselves that could be pursued more vigorously if we stopped pandering to smalltime iPhone envy. PS this was typed out on a C64... ;-)
  38. What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
    Not too many countries have been wiped off the map before. I mean, there are a bunch that have been absorbed into others, but the land still exists and in many cases descendants of the original inhabitants are still there. Tuvalu will not persist, and the people/culture of Tuvalu will be extirpated. Countries that disrupt progress on treaties to limit carbon emissions are, in my naive opinion, waging undeclared war on Tuvalu and other low lying countries. Not only is it alarming -- it's disgusting.
  39. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    @5 Dr TSk: "What is wrong with sustainable living without growth once a certain standard of living has been achieved?" Absolutely nothing. I just think that the West's current consumption of Earth's resources (material and ecological) is already way above that sustainable level of living. We need to descend to that level, and ditch the idea of infinite growth. Some may see that as a lowering of the standard of living. I see it as stepping off the treadmill consumptive capitalism has coralled us onto to. Time to stretch our legs, enjoy the view and think about how to be happy human beings again. A higher standard of living, surely?
  40. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    Hi Dr Schmittner, many thanks for your response. I'd be very happy if we can exclude high sensitivity values, but I'd still be very unhappy if it takes us a matter of decades to effect a change as large as LGM-Holocene. That, to me, is much more serious whatever the climate sensitivity. I think Dana's graph you disagree with illuminates the same point.
  41. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    @bit_pattern I'm not sure if this will satisfy you, and I too encounter the same concerns. I have found a few of ways at looking at this. 1) If you consider historical emissions rather than future emissions then we in the West (including Australia) are responsible for a whole lot more than just the 1.3-1.5% that is frequently quoted - so where does the burden for action lie? 2) Per capita emissions are a pretty good proxy for "CO2 profligacy" - Australia fares pretty poorly on that front - indeed despite China now being the number one absolute emitter their emissions per person are still way under ours or America - so where does the burden for action lie? 3) Imagine you are in a room with 350 people. These people are divided into groups - the biggest of which is about 50 people - let's call them the "China" group and the smallest is 1 person (you) - we'll call you "Oz" for short. The room is filling with water and, if left unchecked, everyone in the room will drown. Alas there is no way out of the room and also no way for the water to run out except through a very small plug hole that simply cannot cope. The only way to save everyone in the room is to reduce the amount of water entering so that the plug hole can cope (alas enlarging it is not an option without putting at risk the structure of the room). The group has learned that the amount of water entering into the room is a function of each person's individual activity and that at least some of this activity is regarded by each individual as necessary to maintain their way of life and enjoy the comforts of the room. You happen to be one of those people whose activity contributes the most per individual (and also happen to be in a very comfortable part of the room) although your overall contribution is dwarfed by the large group of 50 who are in a far less comfortable part of the room and who are increasing their individual activity to try and get more comfortable. Is it fair or ethical for you do nothing but demand that the group of 50 act first to reduce their activity (thus reducing the water flow far more than your individual efforts ever could) but also see that this would mean they remain far less comfortable than you while you sit there and do nothing but remain in comfort? Or do you take action and communicate with everyone you can that if we don't act in unison we may all be dead? (By the way there is another group of 15 or so who seem to be both one of the largest producers of water, the most comfortable and with one of the highest individual outputs of water anywhere - but they are apparently deaf blind and stupid and at least half of them deny the water is even there). Perhaps you might also accept that in this life or death situation you would be unwise to let the perfect be the enemy of the good and that even if not everyone takes action your chances of survival (and everyone else's) are improved if you DO take action.
  42. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    Gary, I would reinforce what KR said - and also I notice that you do not appear to have responded to the extended answer to you at Science of Doom. As to answering the challenge here - well the point really is that if you cant respond to the hypothetical question, then it would appear that your lack of acceptance of climate theory is bound so deeply into your politics, that you would deny explanation even from Ramanathan. If are really open to scientific truth, then should be able to comtemplate what your choice of action should be.
  43. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    Addendum, I do agree that the human population does need to stabilize, and the sooner the better. But that is best achieved by economic growth and education in poor nations. It will certainly not be turned around in time to be as significant factor in the battle against global warming.
  44. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    DrTsk @13, mineral resources are almost endlessly reusable through recycling. If that were not enough, almost half of the non-gaseous matter in the solar system is iron. So even leaving aside the potential substitution of advanced ceramics and glasses for many structural uses, mineral resources are not a limiting factor on economic growth per se. At most there is a risk that the energy intensity of metal production will increase as the more accessible ore bodies are mined out.
  45. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    The only problem with China is the attribution of the emissions. Especially since they have become the manufacturing proxy of the world. Most of their emissions should be attributed to western nations. @Tom Limit pollution, and recycle to avoid materials bottlenecks. With infinite energy still we cannot break through the finality of mineral resources, unless the human population stabilizes.
  46. AndreasSchmittner at 17:05 PM on 29 November 2011
    Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    dana: seems like a detail, but these distinctions are important. Shakun & Carlson (2011) report a "temperature" change of -4.9 K, which, I think, is a mix of sea surface temperatures and surface air temperatures, depending on if their data is from the ocean or from land. (most are from the ocean) Hansen and Sato don't pay much attention to this subtlety and simply use -5 K as the surface air temperature difference dSAT from which they calculate climate sensitivity, back on the envelop style. Note also that they don't bother to justify their error estimates of plus minus 1 K. I don't know what model you were using to calculated your Fig. 4, but right now I don't believe it. (Although the idea is interesting and could perhaps illuminate the dichotomy between a low climate sensitivity and a large spatial variability.) skywatcher: Imagine the climate sensitivity of the real Earth was 10 K. This would mean that, no matter what we do, we'd already be locked in for drastic climate changes in the coming decades. The fact that we show that we can exclude these high values is good news, I think, and the sentence you quote relates to that. On the other hand the paleoclimate data tell us how unequal temperature changes on Earth are and this is indeed a reason for concern. (Again the dichotomy between low climate sensitivity and large spatial variability, i.e. large impacts in certain regions) Tom Curtis: In equilibrium the ocean surface warms (or cools) less because any energy input will lead to higher evaporation, which leads to cooling. On land this effect is limited by the availability of water. This is the reason land temperatures change more than ocean temperatures.
  47. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    DB - I had not been aware of that exchange, thank you. It appears that was an active discussion, with many valid points raised, and a number of which that garythompson had not answered. garythompson - I strongly suggest you post on the relevant thread discussing your position: most readers on this site check the "Comments" link for recent posts, meaning many threads become active (again) when someone has an item to discuss.
  48. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    This is an interesting and informative piece but do you think you guys could put together a concise, beginners guide to why per capita is used when comparing economies emissions output? It's a point I often come up against, that per capita comparisons are meaningless because the only thing that matters to AGW is the overall output, ergo we shouldn't do anything until China does. I always try to counter it by pointing out the emissions scenarios allow for continued emissions growth by China etc. for the next decade or two and that but that to remain within the 500 GT cap that will keep us under 450 ppm then the developed world needs to be bringing down their emissions now because it is impossible for China to act now and if we wait until they do then it will be far too late. But the actual economic argument for why per capita is so important is sometimes a bit beyond me so if you were able to do something along those lines it would be helpful I think.
  49. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    DrTsk @10, no! That is why I qualified my comments @9 by saying "even assuming no gain in energy efficiency". However, given sufficient energy, electrolysis can provide all the water we could possible need from the ocean. Given energy plus water, we can gain all the food we could possibly need via hydroponics. It follows that, provided we limit pollution, energy consumption and efficiency are the fundamental limits on economic growth.
  50. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    @ skywatcher
    "the paper seems to support a climate in which you get more bang for your buck, or more "change" (however you quantify it) for every degree Celsius warming"
     Aye, there's the rub, isn't it? The world of the LGM is as starkly different from our world today as our world is from that of a world with no WAIS and a greatly diminished GIS. 13 meters SLR, give or take, results in the ocean doing a lot of take: Of course, more than just those Floridians will be impacted. The Big Easy? Gone. Sacramento? Swimming with the fishes (sorry, Dana). The golf mecca of Myrtle Beach is the world's biggest water hazard. Just up the East Coast a bit, Virginia won't be for water lovers. A favorite getaway, the Bahamas will form a larger iteration of the Bimini Road. Across the pond, The Low Countries get lower, Venice goes into the gondola-export business to those needing to learn to swim like the Egyptians. Crossing over a bit, OPEC reaps some of its ironic rewards while the sea does its own march to Bagdad. Being equal-opportunist, over in the Orient the world's biggest economies feel their own impacts. SE Asia will not be spared as the sea lengthens its arms. Leaving one of the poster children for SLR front and center. And below the wave. (before anyone asks/cries foul, all screenshots were made at the same scale/resolution) Me, I'm not worried. I'm a thousand miles and 800 feet (at least right now) of elevation removed from the ocean. Not my problem...

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