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  1377  1378  1379  1380  1381  1382  1383  1384  1385  1386  1387  1388  1389  1390  1391  1392  Next

Comments 69201 to 69250:

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

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

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

  28. Changing the Direction of the Climate
    Pirate, there is no chance of CO2 dropping too low. RealClimate has the story..
  29. apiratelooksat50 at 07:33 AM on 1 December 2011
    Changing the Direction of the Climate
    If CO2 levels are successfully reduced to pre-industrial levels, what responses in global temperature should be expected and how soon? If we are successful in reversing a rising temperature trendline, at what point do we want it to level out? Furthermore, at what point do we begin to worry about it getting too low?
  30. Changing the Direction of the Climate
    I have to agree, while 450 ppm is technically feasible, we clearly don't have the political will to make it happen. But the IEA is just discussing how we could do it, if we had the will. Realistically I don't see how we'll avoid blowing past 2°C, which is a scary thought.
  31. Philippe Chantreau at 06:48 AM on 1 December 2011
    Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    What you say about the UK applies even more in the US Paul. The epidemic of obesity afflicting the country has turned into an epidemic of enormity, and beyond people and pets, it now also affects automobiles.
  32. It's the sun
    I agree - looks like more cycle-fitting. If this has any real scientific merit - publish it in peer-reviewed literature not a book.
  33. Changing the Direction of the Climate
    The IEA is pipe dreaming if they think Emissions will peak and began to decline in 2017. I see emissions peaking in 2035 or 2040- when C02 will have passed 450ppm. At this point a 3 degree rise C is certainty- we can only hope we do not go beyond that.
  34. The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
    lakshmanok @ 35 - Yes, we've had a few words about this, but haven't come to a solution yet. Thanks for pointing out the contradiction, it might spur action.
  35. IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
    dakiller6 - to convert from carbon figures to carbon dioxide, multiply by 3.67.
  36. The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
    Nice handbook, but if that thermometer on your home page (the one listing the most common climate myths) doesn't reinforce climate myths, I don't know what does! Please follow your own advice :) http://not-that-sane.blogspot.com/2011/11/how-to-debunk-myth.html
  37. Changing the Direction of the Climate
    According to his website, "Michael Den Tandt is a national political columnist for Postmedia News, publisher of the National Post, Ottawa Citizen, Montreal Gazette, Calgary Herald, Vancouver Sun and Halifax Chronicle-Herald." Not a reputable scientific source.
  38. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    dana1981 writes: "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." Thank you for removing that section, but what you say above is also false. I am a CCCma scientist and have extensive experience with the CCCma models, and well as with the UVic model and many other models. These models share some common features, as do all climate models -- but beyond that they have been developed and tested independently of one another. This is not a big deal in terms of what you're debating in your post, but I correct you all the same.
  39. Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    Ditto - what tmac57 said.
  40. It's the sun
    the end of comment 914 indicates Don Gaddes compiled these numbers in 1990. I am curious how accurately his calculations predicted the global average temperature for the years 1990-2011.
  41. The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
    Apologies, I meant Page 8 (eight). Second to last paragraph, just before the bibliography, reads, The gap created by this debunking is the question “how can there be a 97% consensus if 31,000 scientists dissent?” This gap if filled by explaining that almost all the scientists in the Petition Project are not climate scientists. Please replace "This gap if filled..." with "This gap is filled..."
  42. The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
    I would like an ebook format (epub) too. I would pay for it.
  43. It's the sun
    Don Gaddes - Well, that's a lot of numbers. But do they mean anything? The temperature of the Earth climate is determined by the amount of energy in it - which in turn is driven by the rate of energy in (sunlight, throttled mostly solar output and Earth albedo) and the rate of energy out (throttled by temperature, IR emissivity of Earth to space). You seem to be claiming that current temperature changes are driven by cyclic phenomena, not CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Unless these 'cycles' determine the rate of energy entering or leaving the Earth's climate, somehow modifying insolation (in ways that are not currently detected by TSI studies), albedo (again, in ways not currently detected), or IR emissivity to space, they are essentially "climastrology", "numerology". Tamino has discussed this exercise, and has most appropriately labeled it Mathturbation. Given sufficient data and imagination, it's possible to fit any natural phenomena to 'cycles', but unless there is a physical basis affecting energy rates you are looking at correlation without causation. How do these various cycles physically affect the energy balance of the climate - in some measurable fashion? Without that, these 'cycles' are simply a pointless intellectual exercise...
  44. Changing the Direction of the Climate
    Thanks
  45. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    perseus : I remember the estimates of Jackson in the chapter on the ‘myth of decoupling’, but I cannot examine precisely this for now. I think he is globally right, but I’d like to check the rate of energy intensity gain really implemented in some models (there are probably an inverse function of substitution rate). To be sure, a 450 scenario is at least a ‘gamble’ but I agree with Tom’s answer above. Not a substantive but a pragmatic consideration: take the time necessary to reach a policy consensus on negative growth ou zero growth, and we will probably double the CO2 concentration! Bluntly put : if, in a democratic system, people were really to choose between the immediate consequences of an organized stagnation / recession and the distant consequences of a 2K or 3 K warming, I bet most of them would prefer the second option. At least in some countries and, as 15 years of climate negotiations have shown, a global consensus on solutions is requested, because local efforts (like Kyoto Protocol) didn’t produce significant effects on emissions rate. adelady : I agree, but this is probably a matter of pace and scale. Small changes will cause small debates and opposition. For bigger change, you must anticipate much more resistance IMO. And there is also the macro-economic effect of an ambitious energy transition plan. If you take for example all the direct and indirect jobs related to car use in transportation (not just the engineers and workers in production industry, but all services, products and value chain centered on car), it is uneasy to plan a revolution in one generation. At least, the hypothesis of zero social friction is a gamble !
  46. It's the sun
    My apologies if I misinterpreted DB's moderation comment @909, I did not ever see your original. I will use a more friendly tone from here on if you will do the same. The evidence you provide in @914 is not the least bit helpful without some context. It is just a Number Salad. Please provide an outline of your argument because at this point I have no idea what it is your numbers are supposed to show me.
  47. Changing the Direction of the Climate
    jimb - see our CERN rebuttal
  48. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    I'm not sure Tom, it may proove more expensive to deliver a near zero carbon energy system than to stop economic growth. As an Engineer I know how hard and expensive it will be to deliver this without a scientific breakthrough. It might be possible to deliver 20% at present though green energy without breaking the bank, but a 80-90% reduction for an increased economy and population is a totally different matter. The demands on materials, storage costs, design for worst case meteological conditions is staggering. If we are struggling now, you haven't seen nothing yet. Simply foregoing needless toil and rubbish is so much easier than 9 bllion people forever trying to catch up with the Jones' Neither can I see any reason why simply forgoing buying even more stuff should lead to a crisis. Reductions in economic growth have previously been driven by some underlying crisis such as war or famine, and we are talking about steady state economy not a reduction. Japan has been a steady economy and a reducing population for 20 years now yet I see no evidence of widespread suffering or lack of innovation. Sometimes it can be better to be honest and tell people straight what is necessary to do the job 'Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country' or fellow human or planet in this case, rather than weak promises of ever greater riches. They might actually believe that. I guess the route is to move away from GDP metric altogether and towards a quality of life index then at least you could show them real improvements, than through fantasy economic figures.
  49. It's the sun
    Yes, I was 'banned' and reinstated, with further (-snip-) warning. No, I did not try to sell anything, I offered a free pdf of the 'proofs'. (-snip-) Anyhow, here is a small taste. If you are still interested you can pursue the rest. Earth's Period (No. 1 Constant) Divided by 4 (Obliquity, No 2 Constant) = Quarter Year Multiplied by 27 (Ratio, No. 3 Constant) = 6.75 Years (Regional Drought Cycle) Multiplied by 11.028148 Yrs (Sunspot Wave Frequency, No. 4 Constant) = 74.44 Years ( Quarterly Sub-cycle of a full 297.76 year Sunspot Cycle) Divided by 4 (Obliquity, No. 2 Constant) = 18.61 years (Metonic Cycle of the Moon's Nodes.) Multiplied by 27 (Ratio, No.3 Constant) = 502.47 Years (Full Tree-ring Cycle, 3x167.49 Year Tree-ring Sub-cycles.The 167.49 Year Sub-cycle is in turn made up of 9x18.61 Year Metonic Cycles of the Moon.) Multiplied by 11.028148 Yrs (Sunspot Wave Frequency, No. 4 Constant) = 5,541.3135 Years (Which equals 2x2,770.6567 Year Glacial Cycles, See J Bray.) Multiplied by 11.028148 Yrs (Sunspot Wave Frequency, No. 4 Constant = 412,495.34 Years (=?) Divided by 4 (Obliquity, No 2 Constant) = 103,123.83 Years (Precession of 'Perehelion and Aphelion') "According to Strahler,(Ref. No.17.) the rotation rate of the Sun differentiates at a slower rate from lower to higher latitudes. It seems to me that we ought to be investigating the latitude of the Sun which is rotating at the 27 day rate." (A S Gaddes, 1990.)
    Response:

    [DB] Inflammatory tone snipped.

    "I offered a free pdf of the 'proofs'."

    If no peer-reviewed published citable sources exist your claims devolve to "climastrology".  QED.

  50. Changing the Direction of the Climate
    One reason we may end up 'wait to implement serious mitigation' may be found in op-ed pieces like the one in our local paper this morning, titled "Of course, Canada ditched Kyoto commitments". The author, Michael Den Tandt writes as follows: "The skeptical science, for years confined to the scruffy margins by the International Panel on Climate Change and its supporters, took a huge leap forward with the discovery by no less than the CERN laboratories based in Switzerland-arguably the most prestigious scientific group in the world-that fluctuations in the sun's magnetic field have a very large, perhaps dominant effect on the earth's climate." He continues "the CERN findings are steadily trickling through the blogosphere, quietly altering the political discussion everywhere..." The only thing I can think he is referring to is the CERN work relating cosmic rays to cloud formation, but I get most of my climate science from this site. Hopefully, someone more familiar with the science than I am can stop this trickling before it drowns the discussion.

Prev  1377  1378  1379  1380  1381  1382  1383  1384  1385  1386  1387  1388  1389  1390  1391  1392  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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