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. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    bit_pattern @12 For me the simplest answer to this is that it is about our responsibility at a personal level. If my personal life is good and my income is high and this all comes as a consequence of a high per capita emissions level then I have a more responsibility to act than someone on a much lower income. If I earn $1000/week and someone else earns $50/week, how can we argue that the other person should do more than I do? Then when we project this up to nations, why should a nation of people on $50/week have to do more per person than a nation of people on $1000/week?
  2. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    Regarding bullet 3: use tufts of leftover fiberglass insulation instead of spray foam to fill those exterior outlet boxes - you or your electrician will be glad you did when it comes time to replace the outlet. Regarding several posts about small improvements not making any difference: don't forget to include the multiplier from application of cheap fixes by large numbers of people. See the left end of this graph.
  3. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    @ Tom C: Apologies for any offence caused, certainly none intended! But... Mining space for resources, orbiting solar power stations, electrolysis of the oceans for water, hydroponics for food, 10% harnessing of incoming solar radiation. They do all sound a little on the wild side of techno-feasibility to me. But probably no more so, to you, than my insistence that the world can voluntarily enter into a planned reduction in material wants. It seems like the only hope to me, but I don't see a queue of politicians forming under the 'lets live with less banner' yet. I sincerely hope one of us is right. But I suspect both views will be proved wrong - Gaia will secure her future, and it'll be one without homo sapiens (as we know ourselves anyhow)
  4. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    Suggested reading: “Table Talk: Inside the 'pizza is a vegetable' controversy; climate change and food prices” OregonLive.com, Nov 29, 2011 To access this timely article, click here.
  5. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    First of all, DB, please don't think we are ungrateful to you for your efforts as moderator. My list of personal efforts is mainly similar to yours with a couple of exeptions. Living in a much warmer climate and having far less distance to travel for work purposes, I drive an energy efficient vehicle and am hunting for something even less thirsty to replace it with. Unfortunately, public transport is not an option for me as no services run from where I work to where I live. I find that any perceptions of me being some kind of do gooder who wants to save the world (a bad thing to many people)can be avoided by simply explaining that I'm a cheap skinflint. I don't use airconditioning because it is expensive. I use room heating only on the coldest of evennings. It seems cheapskates are more socially acceptable.
  6. Models are unreliable
    Thanks to all for the feedback pbjamm - Have checked out your references and am guessing that's probably it. Cheers.
  7. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    #12, indeed, but it is also good to see positive examples - this can show to some, and hopefully eventually to policymakers, that leading a more energy efficient lifestyle does not equal living in a cave. So kudos to Daniel, pirate and others who have made conscious positive decisions.
  8. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    On the other hand, I do agree though it is not enough for say Pirate and Daniel to do the right thing. There has to be a plan that gets everyone on board to make a real difference.
    Response:

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

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

    Snow

    Meh.  But more positive than this.

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

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

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

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

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

    [DB] Tire chains are problematic in Michigan:

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

    (Emphasis added)

    That last requirement effectively nullifies their usage except in extremis.

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

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

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

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

    'Nuff said.  ;)

  23. Models are unreliable
    This is probably a reference to McIntyre and McKitrick 2005. I remember this being touted by 'skeptics' during Cliamtegate 1.0 as proof that the models were doctored. See also the What evidence is there for the hockey stick? thread.
  24. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    Ok thanks. Yes for the record, CGCM3 and the UVic ESCM oceans are based on MOM 1.1 and 2.2 respectively, as Nathan correctly said, but CGCM4/CanESM2 oceans are based on NCOM (which is what I was referring to). The much bigger point is that the UVic ESCM is using the Fanning and Weaver Energy-Moisture-Balance-Model for the atmosphere, while CGCM3 uses the full 3-D dynamic atmosphere based on AGCM3. As a result of this, and other differences, the behaviour of the models is in fact quite different.
  25. Models are unreliable
    peacetracker - if you can tune models to produce what you want, then why cant skeptics take any one of the models (open source) and produce the current warming without needing anthropogenic factors?
  26. Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Continue Climbing
    32, Arkadiusz Semczyszak, Can you point to a single scientist or published study that endorses your rather bizarre theory that somehow, magically, against all odds, anthropogenic CO2 is having no effect on CO2 levels while melting permafrost (and when did this start melting, by the way, and why) is responsible for all of it? By the way, the following assertion of yours is utterly unsupported by anything except presumption:
    Without a natural source increase biosphere would certainly has removed the more (all?) of our C.
    Your hypothesis fails on several points: 1) Where is the anthropogenic CO2 going? 2) Why does this sink affect the anthro-CO2 but not the permafrost CO2 that you propose? 3) How has the permafrost CO2 suddenly been released into the atmosphere? 4) Your accounting of CO2 now must include everything released anthropologically, everything supposedly released from permafrost, everything remaining in the atmosphere, and everything absorbed by the ocean... and those numbers do not balance. 5) What are your hard numbers... where is your numerical evidence (an accounting) that any of this is happening, or even that another source of carbon can and should exist? Why are you solving a problem that does not exist? Is it that important for you, now that you have apparently accepted that CO2 causes dangerous global warming, that you instead prove that the source of CO2 is not our own human activity but instead some other, magical source, which is beyond our control?
  27. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    With regard to green 'growth' there have been some economic modelling studies on this if you are interested. Renewable energy: An efficient mechanism to improve GDP I am very much with WyrdWays on this, we are fighting against the tide with economic growth. However, I believe we could redirect the useless but substantial economic activity from wasteful practices, planned obsolescence and needless excess into more sustainable economic activity without affecting economic activity overall too much. We do need to shake of the growth bug. Reduce economic activity? perhaps, but lets walk before trying to run!
  28. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    Fair point Nate, thanks. I'll just cut that part out of the post.
  29. Klimafakten.de - Leveraging Skeptical Science content
    Just checked out the site. It shows a lot of promise!
  30. 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.
  31. 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?
  32. It's the sun
    Don Gaddes@910 Bring on the proof! Solid evidence is always preferable to empty claims.
  33. 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.)
  34. 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.
  35. 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.
  36. 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.
  37. 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.
  38. 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.
  39. 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.
  40. 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.
  41. 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.
  42. 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.
  43. 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?
  44. 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.
  45. 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.
  46. 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.
  47. 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.
  48. 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.
  49. 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!
  50. 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.

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