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  1378  1379  1380  1381  1382  1383  1384  1385  1386  1387  1388  1389  1390  1391  1392  1393  Next

Comments 69251 to 69300:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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?
  4. 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.
  5. 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?
  6. 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.
  7. 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... ;-)
  8. 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.
  9. 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?
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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...
  21. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    Do you think that only energy affects economical growth????
  22. The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
    Sorry, KR. Obviously I recognize that M&M 2004 had two authors, not just one. Despite my error, I still maintain that McIntyre is guilty of the same sort of dodgy dealing with facts as McKitrick is revealed to be in the quoted section.
  23. GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
    garythompson - and others - "Until you can prove that over a span of say 30 years that the OLR has decreased in the wavelengths that CO2 abosorbs (15um or 700 cm-1) then the AGW theory isn't proven." This is discussed (and shown to be the case - OLR changes just where expected for greenhouse gases) on the How do we know CO2 is causing warming thread. The "Search" function is your friend. Moderators - I also (searching on "OLR") found an unfinished SkS page discussing this skeptic argument.
    Response:

    [DB] KR, much of what Gary Thompson is putting up here is rebunkable material that was debunked over a year ago.  JC made an American Thinker article that Gary had written the object of this rebuttal.

  24. The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
    Tom Curtis - Sorry, but: you quote what McKitrick said, yet attribute it to McIntyre? They are separate people, although they have coauthored a number of poorly written papers. McIntyre has spent much of the last 8-9 years submitting papers and blogging against Mann et al and similar papers (without much justification or traction, and multiple debunkings, mind you) - that should be sufficient grounds regarding McIntyre to take what he writes with a large grain of salt.
  25. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    Wyrdways @4, the potential collectible solar energy on the Earth's surface is 11,000 times our current energy use. Clearly we cannot collect all of it without adverse repercussions, but we we were to collect a tenth of it, that 225 years economic growth at 3% per annum, even assuming no gain in energy efficiency. Beyond that we can easily garner more energy from the sun using orbital solar power. The potential energy harvest by this means is for practical purposes unlimited. It is true that we cannot sustain unlimited population growth. But economic growth? There may come a time when we have exploited most of the solar systems resources such that economic growth cannot be further sustained, but not on anytime scale at which it effects decision making now or in the next several centuries.
  26. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    WyrdWays @4, we had certainly not reached "... the point where we have material sufficiency, securely meeting the fundamental human needs ..." 100 years ago when there was no cure for Polio and it was just seven years before the outbreak of the Spanish Flu pandemic that killed 50 to 100 million people in 2 years. We are still well short of that level world wide with Malaria, Cholera, Aids and Typhus still being major killers. That is to leave aside the host of minor ailments that still plague us and for which we have no cure, such as cancer and dementia. The ability to pay for cures for these diseases, and the research that leads to them comes of the back of economic growth. So also will the ability to improve education standards, and as I certainly agree that "man does not live by bread alone", that is a fundamental good (not need, but good) in which we are capable of much improvement, but which improvement comes at a cost, and hence must in the end be paid for by economic growth. Furthermore, however much you are inclined to dismiss material goods as the "fluffing up human 'needs' ", the simple fact remains that even small improvements in material assets will, all else being equal, lead to a more enjoyable life. This is most easily seen with computing. You may think that there has been no material gain in benefits in the progress from commodore 64 to Intel Core i3-2100, but I disagree; and so ought everybody who enjoys or finds instructive discussion on this site. And that progress is driven by a combination of economic growth and technological research. For my part I hope that that growth and research continue for some time. In the meantime, it is important to recognize that though increase in happiness due to material well being declines rapidly after a point, it still increases after that point. And an increase in human happiness is good in itself. Hence, all else being equal, economic growth is a good thing.
  27. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    wyrdways " Rather than making ... and landfill fodder that some call economic growth. ... incremental, socially-useful and non-destructive innovation. Then you remove the ludricous -'creative-destructive' tail-swallowing of the current system. " My view on this is that we've distorted our labour and innovation processes. There seems to be a dominant notion that you're only doing something worthwhile if you're digging, cutting, killing, taking or otherwise extracting material from the natural world and processing and converting it into something "useful". Garbage, sewage systems and landfill sites are an unfortunate and ugly by-product of this attitude. We'd rather not look at them or talk about them. What we should be doing is managing the resources we have. Management means viewing every single thing as an assemblage of nutrients, minerals or just plain molecules. When it comes to nutrients, a sensible system would not allow an iota of possible fertility to be sidetracked into a landfill. What this means is that our organisation of labour and technology should be first directed to retaining and using materials that have already been extracted from natural sources. A bit like the sensible investor who only ever spends the interest and dividends earned on capital invested. Capital should not be exhausted on living expenses - extravagant or profligate living depletes financial capital in the same way as our current exploitation and destruction, rather than appropriate management, of our natural capital does. "Garbage, sewage and landfill sites" are the obvious signs that our so-called advanced societies are not much different in attitude and skill from less 'advanced' societies that use up their local water and land - and then move on. And only come back when the land has had time to recover. We don't move on. But we don't do much better with resources. It'd be very easy for labour and capital alike to move towards a more sensible organisation of economic activity centred around retaining the maximum amount of useful materials available for re-use or further use (or forestalling the need to extract more natural materials). Here I should cite the approaching shortage of phosphorus as a prime example. My own pessimistic view is that far too many people are excited by the idea of explosives and big, bigger, biggest machines. The notion that working with average sized machines to extract the same materials from something we call 'waste' is probably a bit infra dig for such people.
  28. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    #35 DB, of course, but I suppose what I find hard to grasp is that 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. We may not know exactly how many degrees Celsius we'll get for each doubling of atmospheric CO2, but we do know that the world was a helluva lot different at the LGM compared to now. Schmittner's paper hints that a comparable change will not take too many degrees Celsius, and will come about quicker than previously suggested. In that case, it's not about interpreting the nuances of 'imminent' or 'extreme', but saying that we should be more worried, not less worried based on these results.
  29. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    The Oil Drum article referenced by Yvan Dutil is well worth a look, as it reveals widely divergent trends of energy intensity among large consuming nations. Why does world energy intensity remain flat, while energy intensity for many individual countries has been decreasing? We are dealing with a large number of countries with very different energy intensities. The big issue would seem to be outsourcing of heavy manufacturing. This makes the energy intensity of the country losing the manufacturing look better. As China (and presumably other developing Asian economies) take over manufacturing, their energy intensities grow in sync with their economies. Developed countries appear to have already flattened or reduced their energy intensity. The other important and sobering observation is the apparent end of a multi-year decline in the ratio of CO2 emissions to GDP: -- source [The figure] indicates what we would expect ... : A declining ratio of CO2 emissions to real GDP until about 2000, then fairly flat thereafter. In fact, there is a distinct upturn in 2010. Thus new CO2 emissions from energy sources have been rising about as fast as real GDP since about 2000, and a little faster than real GDP in 2010. This is no doubt discouraging news to those who adopted the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, thinking it would reduce CO2 emissions. This is no doubt linked to the rapid rise in emissions of developing nations (China and Malaysia come to mind). It would suggest that the biggest impact of future CO2 emissions reduction will be in those growing economies.
  30. The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
    Also relevant is this comment at Real Climate by Paul Briscoe:
    "Just to explain, I too am from the UK. I have a PhD, albeit in a very different field of science. I have a reasonable grounding in basic science, yet having followed this site and Skeptical Science for over 2 years and having read a lot of the relevant scientific literature, I am still painfully aware that I will NEVER know as much about climate science as the guys who research the field. It is extraordinarily complex science (this is not intended to be patronising, as I don’t pretend to understand it all myself!) and it is impossible to evaluate it correctly without taking into account ALL of the facts – this is the aspect that lets down most non-experts when trying to draw conclusions. Another thing I know as a scientist is that the only reliable way of evaluating science is to read the peer-reviewed literature – that is the way science works and for good reasons. Most bloggers shun the scientific literature, choosing instead to believe blogs which tell them what they want to hear. IMHO, if people are unwilling (or unable) to read what the scientific literature actually says, it is disingenuous of them to pretend that they have anything positive to contribute to the “debate”. I would imagine that this is why many of the regular posters here, who DO know their subject, show their irritation at the constant stream of myths and pseudo-science put about by fake skeptics. The bottom line for bloggers is this: if they can’t be bothered to read the scientific literature and base their arguments on that, it’s time to leave the debate to the people who do know what they’re talking about and TRUST THEIR EXPERT JUDGEMENT……… in just the same way as you would trust the surgeon who might one day save your life!"
    Indeed, I would go further than that. McIntyre and Watts also read the scientific literature, but that does not make their comments worthwhile. The simple fact is that their reading is not comprehensive and their understanding is limited for a variety of reasons. Therefore, (like me) they are not expert. An expert has been defined as a person who knows all the basic mistakes in a field, and how to avoid them. In a field as complex as climate science, that means to be an expert you require a genuine comprehensive knowledge of the whole field. A detailed and accurate knowledge of a particular area does not prevent you from making basic mistakes in others, as example after example of well educated non-climatologist deniers have demonstrated. Therefore, a blog comment is trustworthy only to the extent that: 1) The author reads the primary literature; 2) The author focuses on that area of the primary literature which intersects with their particular area of expertise (in Tamino's case statistics); 3) To the extent the author ventures outside their expertise, they primarily summarize and report on the primary literature - and are clear on the rare occasions when they venture beyond that their comments are speculative; 4) The author does not disagree with the scientific consensus in their blog posts. The last is simply a measure of appropriate humility - a recognition that they also can make mistakes, and as they are not expert, may make fundamental errors. That does not mean such people should not criticize the consensus. On the contrary, it means only that they should have the courage of their convictions and criticize the consensus in the peer reviewed literature, and only after that criticism stands the test of time should they present it in their blogs. There are a number of excellent blogs that meet all these criteria, and there is nothing wrong with drawing on the particular expertise of those authors when it exceeds that of a particular SkS author in writing an article.
  31. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    Hear anything from Hugo? The link is still dead.
    Moderator Response: [DB] I have not yet received a reply to my email. I will send another. Thanks for the reminder!
  32. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    What is wrong with sustainable living without growth once a certain standard of living has been achieved?
  33. The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
    skept.fr @14, the following from DeepClimate (also quoted at Real Climate) is exactly why do not consider a comparison between Tamino and McIntyre is appropriate:
    "... it is very clear that a new round of out-of-context quote mining and error-filled “analysis” is already unfolding. And the leader out of the gate, so to speak, appears to be Ross McKitrick, whose recent National Post piece on the IPCC and the latest batch of stolen emails is now being spread far and wide. In one particularly outrageous and error-filled passage, McKitrick accuses IPCC AR4 co-ordinating lead authors Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth of selecting their team of contributing authors solely on the basis of whether they agree with the pair’s scientific views. He even goes so far as to accuse Jones of “dismissing” (i.e. rejecting as a contributing author) one qualified expert who, supposedly in Jones’s own words, “has done a lot, but I don’t trust him.” But the record clearly shows that it was Trenberth who made that last comment, and that he was expressing misgivings about the quality of the researcher’s work, not whether he was on the “right side” of scientific issues. And the expert in question, climatologist Joel Norris, was in fact selected by Trenberth as a contributing author. Even worse, McKitrick has reversed the order of the Jones quotes, taken them out of context, and then juxtaposed them to make it appear as if they were part of the same exchange. Meanwhile, an examination of the two separate email discussions show chapter co-ordinators trying to fill out their team with authors who will be able to contribute effectively, in complete contradiction to McKitrick’s central thesis."
    So, McIntyre has misattributed quotes, taken them out of context, and stitched them together out of chronological order to aid misinterpretation. Further, he ignores the fact that the person discussed was in fact accepted as a contributing author, thus invalidating his thesis. It has long been my firm belief that out of context quotations are simply a form of lying. So while Tamino gives us clear analysis of statistical issues relating to climate science, McIntyre gives use data (in this case quotations) deliberately out presented out of context with intent to deceive. That is why it is inappropriate to use McIntyre as a source, but appropriate to use Tamino.
  34. The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
    skept.fr#18: "I've a limited trust in any argument based on a blog article, whatever the blog," So by your logic, we need to have limited trust in your arguments as well? The differences should be abundantly clear. On this blog (or tamino, neven, science of doom, etc), anything technical is solidly supported. If you show up with a pet theory that makes no sense (and there are plenty of those characters), you will be rebutted with the science that shows you make no sense. On the McIntyres, Goddards, Currys, Watts, etc, there is plenty of opinion, distraction, disinformation and hot air and very little in the way of solid scientific support. But I suppose you are free to buy your soap from the store of your choice. My observation is that someone like tamino knows a heck of a lot more about what he does than I do -- and I can learn from that.
  35. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    @Tom C: 3)I would dispute that economic growth is a 'good thing' in and of itself. It may have been good up to a point -- ie to raise the productivity of human endeavour to the point where we have material sufficiency, securely meeting the fundamental human needs with reasonably low labour inputs. That did require 'economic growth'. But industrialized countries passed that point decades, maybe even a century ago. Everything since then has been about capital fluffing up human 'needs' to provide the profit-making opportunities demanded by the capital-owners. We could just as easily have directed the surplus human labour freed up by those early productivity gains into any number of life-enhancing activities. Rather than making flat-screen TVs and Humvees and landfill fodder that some call economic growth. 4) We certainly could remove the fuel of relentless technological innovation, just for its own sake -- and direct it instead into incremental, socially-useful and non-destructive innovation. Then you remove the ludricous -'creative-destructive' tail-swallowing of the current system. Why do we need 100% employment? Why not be happy with 50% of our time working to meet our basic needs? And why keep the binary have-job/ don't-have-job labels that produce such misery. There's no need to hoard work as we do -- except in a system that needs fear of 'no job' to whip people into work. A large proportion of all current labour is simply to benefit abstract holders of land entitlement - through mortgages and rent. Remove that protection racket, and another tranche of labour enforced on us, falls away. I agree, zero-growth isn't desirable. Negative 'growth' is ultimately what is needed -- a managed and gradual descent away from the material excess and pumped-up hyperactivity we have been cursed with. And no, the destination isn't the Stone Age; instead a new age of technical simplicity and sufficiency. 5) A high standard of living is not measured by the shininess of a household's consumer toys. It is a fallacy which we have pulled nonOECD countries into believing. Those nations needed help to bring themselves up to a level of comfortable material sufficiency, absolutely. But we dodged that, and relied on our relative strength to direct their vast resources and labour to our own bloated material satisfaction. That has left nonOECD countries structured as distorted mirrors of our own ills. 6) Agreed, simply freezing OECD growth and letting nonOECD play catchup is unlikely to stop multiple ecological boundaries being surpassed -- including on the climate front. A reduce-and-converge growth strategy stands a better chance. Of course this is all pie-in-the-sky. I know that. few give up ill-gotten gains readily. The present system won't be upended without a severe fright. Until then we will likely continue on a ragged march towards growth -- ragged because those ecological and resource constraints will be pulling at the foundations of the 'economic consensus': Growth cannot be infinite on a finite planet. I just hope we can learn that lesson before the reverse becomes a messy and shambolic retreat forced upon us by our excess.
  36. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    RealClimate has not posted an article on Schmittner et al. As always, it is well worth reading. I found particularly interesting the perspective given on Schmittner et al's result taken at face value in the last paragraph:
    "It bears noting that even if the SEA mean estimate were correct, it still lies well above the ever-more implausible estimates of those that wish the climate sensitivity were negligible. And that means that the implications for policy remain the same as they always were. Indeed, if one accepts a very liberal risk level of 50% for mean global warming of 2°C (the guiderail widely adopted) since the start of the industrial age, then under midrange IPCC climate sensitivity estimates, then we have around 30 years before the risk level is exceeded. Specifically, to reach that probability level, we can burn a total of about one trillion metric tonnes of carbon. That gives us about 24 years at current growth rates (about 3%/year). Since warming is proportional to cumulative carbon, if the climate sensitivity were really as low as Schmittner et al. estimate, then another 500 GT would take us to the same risk level, some 11 years later."
    Of course that extra 11 years would be extended if we started reducing CO2 emissions, and if the response to temperature change was not proportionate to the climate sensitivity (see The Ugly News above), would give as a welcome buffer in which to overcome the current political paralysis on global warming. Overall, the RC article makes a useful complement to Dana's article above, discussing as it does some issues not raised by Dana.
  37. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    @ skywatcher I find the key words in that phrase to be "imminent" and "extreme". The skeptic community is fond of "soft" words of varying definitions, depending upon the Humpty-Dumpty-like usage they favor (not to imply the authors of the paper in question do that). Thus "imminent" and "extreme" can be defined by the viewpoint of the reader.
  38. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    A few comments: 1) The economic growth indicated by the chart is a factor of 2.4257 by 2035, or approximately equal to an annual growth rate of 3.2% (1.032^28 ~= 2.42). The total annual average growth rate for OECD nations from 1990 to 2006 was 2.7%. There is no reason to think that will significantly decline in the future, although the ongoing effects of the global financial crisis will reduce that growth in the short term. In the meantime, China (10%) and India (11%), between them representing 36% of the worlds population will probably have double digit, or close to double digit growth rates for some time. This suggests the growth represented on the chart is more likely to be conservative rather than optimistic. 2) Maintaining zero growth for OECD nations while spending 1% of GDP per annum on conversion to low emissions technology represents a declining income over time. That is a political impossibility to sell, and of dubious merit in any event. 3) Economic growth, all else being equal, is a good thing. Of course, all else is not equal, but you would need very substantive reasons to not pursue economic growth. 4) In a world with rapid technological innovation, and hence frequent adjustments to employment patterns, significant economic growth is needed to provide an underlying demand for labour to employ those people who are made redundant by new technologies. Therefore zero economic growth is neither desirable, nor achievable while we pursue and achieve rapid technological innovation. 5) Large scale global trade is a prerequisite for maintaining a high standard of living in OECD nations, and for increasing the standard of living to OECD levels in nonOECD nations. However, much of that trade is driven by (and drives) economic growth. The ripple effect of OECD nations pursuing zero economic growth will be to significantly slow the rate at which non-OECD nations grow their economies. With average luck, it would trigger a major recession. 6) Clearly I disagree with perseus' main conclusion. That is in large part (as indicated above) I believe the cure could be as bad in human terms as the disease. Global warming is not going to drive humans to extinction. It is going to significantly decrease our standard of living and (in the worst cases, population). However, freezing global growth carries exactly the same risks. Perseus is not actually advocating freezing global growth per se, but freezing OECD growth with other nations allowed to play cachup will be almost as bad as freezing global growth (if effective), and barely limit economic growth if ineffective. Rather than advocating the freezing of economic growth, we should welcome economic growth that helps better fund the conversion to low emissions technology. A 0.5% economic growth that helps fund a 1% reduction in emissions intensity is a net gain in terms of reducing emissions, and should be welcomed. On the other hand, economic gains which are not coupled with reductions in emissions intensity are counter-productive. The obvious answer is to use government levers to direct growth into channels that reduce emissions intensity, rather than to set zero growth as a policy.
  39. The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
    If McIntyre has valuable points to make, then why doesnt he publish them?
  40. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    Dr Schmittner, very nice to see you commenting here. I don't suppose this will turn into a question-answer session, but if you have the time I would be very interested in your take on the last line of your abstract, and your grounds for it. Many in the mainstream media took it as cause for optimism, and I would be interested to know why:
    "[with caveat] ... these results imply lower probability of imminent extreme climatic change than previously thought."
    In relation to the "ugly" part of the post above, I'm not sure how this conclusion follows from your results? Your model uses a smaller temperature change from glacial-interglacial than other models that have generated higher climate sensitivities. This means that each degree of warming we experience now has a correspondingly larger impact and will, in your model, take us much closer to a massive climate change on the scale of a deglaciation, as Dana shows above. Regardless of whether ECS is 2C or 3C, if our warming of ~0.2C/decade gets us to the scale of a glacial-interglacial climate change sooner, then surely that will qualify as "imminent extreme climate change"? Essentially, on reading your paper, I feel I have less cause for optimism than I had before, as I would have put "higher" where you put "lower" in your abstract. Maybe I am missing something, and I'd love to be shown to be wrong!
  41. Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Continue Climbing
    It took me a while to get my head around as a non-climatologist, but the NOAA page linked to in the release helped me to understand what's going on. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ Yes, the answer is down to using pre-industrial levels as a reference. 350 to 390 ppm (about 10%) at first seemed too small to give a 39% increase (for CO2 alone), but it's from a pre-industrial 280 ppm, so it's more like a 57% increase. This is also sufficient to show that it is the radiative forcing that primarily contributes to the non-linearity as you were saying, OPatrick. Plug the numbers into the equations on the page and everything makes sense.
  42. The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
    skept.fr: "... why not consider the McIntyre's obscure and technical considerations on proxy series as a legitimate argument in a discusion of paleoclimate?" Many have considered McIntyre's arguments, and found then to be wrong in nearly (granted, not quite all) every way. McIntyre's results were deliberately inflated by himself and even more by others, yet when you dig and understand exactly what he did, you don't see an accurate argument. That he still goes on about the hockey stick nearly a decade on, after it's been independently verified many times speaks strongly of his approach to science, and does not argue for his points being either relevant or accurate, or worthy of interest.
  43. The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
    Well I would agree that Tamino's blog is by means in the same class as peer-reviewed paper. However, Tamino does do a good job of explaining the technicalities in the data analysis in debunking a lot disinformation. If you can follow the technical detail, then it makes Tamino a valuable resource.
  44. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    As a matter of luck, The oil covert that issue recently. http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8615#more In short, there is no gain in the world energy intensity since 2000.
  45. The Debunking Handbook Part 5: Filling the gap with an alternative explanation
    This series is very good. It lays out explanations about discussing that make explicit things I have sensed in discussions on various global warming threads. This site is very useful for the caulk that fills in those gaps. Often I can read a paragraph with a "mini" gish gallop, refute and fill in the gaps with a quick confirmation of my response back here. Many thanks to all involved...
  46. The Debunking Handbook Part 4: The Worldview Backfire Effect
    Steve L, on humiliation: I've never seen that work well, but I have seen "gentle teasing" work to some extent. Especially some folks who are way over the top conspiracy theorists - good hearted teasing may get you into an interesting conversation that would not occur with humiliation...
  47. What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
    victull - "That could be said of any averaged point on planet Earth's oceans, and is an essential piece of evidence for global warming." No, again you haven't been paying attention. See figure 2 - note the west coast of Madagascar and the Northern Territory & western coast of far north Queensland in Australia - sea level has fallen there. "Forgive me if I am a bit obtuse, but I don't see the point in focussing on Tuvalu as an example." No worries, let me explain. Tuvalu is a low-lying coral atoll that will be one of the first nations in the world to be submerged by rising sea level. It therefore is a poster-child of sea level rise, and consequently is attacked by "skeptics" who claim Tuvalu is not being affected. See this nasty little article from Pat Michaels for instance. "Local variations on tiny dots in the Pacific would be irrelevant I would think" How very Pat Michaels of you. That you care little for the suffering of others is simply an indictment of skewed moral values. When do we start caring? When Florida starts to be submerged? Just to be clear, I live in New Zealand, the Pacific Island capital of the world. Many of my friends and former work colleagues are Pacific Islanders. They are important, and what happens to them matters. "There is a danger that skeptics will take such emphasis on places like Tuvalu as alarmism by the global warming fraternity" It is alarming. That is simply a fact. The fantasists and wishful thinkers will no doubt resort to blimp-pointing in an attempt to distract readers. It will be a futile exercise on their part.
  48. The Debunking Handbook Part 4: The Worldview Backfire Effect
    How do we get and maintain a world view.... New report exposes massive opinion industry in China. http://elgan.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=38b5dc26a4d87952a5ca1675f&id=515275ef09&e=3836c8cfe5
  49. Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
    Standout Republican Jon Huntsman -- who ranks lowest in the polls -- may have summed up the differences best when he tweeted earlier this year: "To be clear, I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy." Indeed, many have. Seeking to drum up conservative support, the other Republican candidates have championed their doubts about human-caused climate change in recent debates just as vigorously as they have called for the return of waterboarding for terror suspects. The entire nation is divided on the issue, according to the latest Gallup poll which shows 53 percent of Americans see global warming as a very or somewhat serious threat, down 10 percent from two years earlier. "We have got a big problem, domestically, in terms of climate reality," said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. When lawmakers cannot agree that climate change is a problem for which solutions must be sought, gridlock ensues, according to Democratic lawmaker Henry Waxman. "During this Congress, the Republican-controlled House has voted 21 times to block actions to address climate change," he said at a hearing this month. "History will look back on this science denial with profound regret." Source: “Climate change denial still runs strong in US” AFP, Nov 28, 2011 Click here to access the entire article.
  50. The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
    skept.fr in any case the Global Warming with the Schmittner preliminary outcome is still unacceptably too high. And really we still have to start addressing emissions reduction even it that were the sensitivity. And we also still have to address the risk factor of higher sensitivities. The this is an interesting perspective ... if the temp sensitivity is low then we are seeing a high climate change sensitivity to that small change. So it would mean things would be worse than expected. That is the risk aspect that we have to take in to account which deniers and avoiders ignore. A human trait and short coming. Media Misleads On Flawed Climate Sensitivity Study: Avoiding “Drastic Changes Over Land” Requires Emissions Cuts ASAP http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/27/376197/media-flawed-study-climate-sensitivity/

Prev  1378  1379  1380  1381  1382  1383  1384  1385  1386  1387  1388  1389  1390  1391  1392  1393  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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